II. Detailed Findings – Survey of Candidates Following the 44th General Election

A. Overall Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with EC's Administration of the GE

Three-quarters of candidates (76%) expressed some level of satisfaction overall with Elections Canada's administration of the 44th general election, with just under four in 10 (38%) being very satisfied. These proportions are statistically lower than in 2019 among those candidates who were asked this using a four-point scale. A minority of one-quarter are dissatisfied to some extent.

Chart 1: Satisfaction with EC's administration of election

Text version of "Chart 1: Satisfaction with EC's administration of election"

Chart 1: Satisfaction with EC's administration of election

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	38%	38%	15%	8%
2019 (N=611)	48%	37%	9%	5%

Q1: Overall, how satisfied were you with the way the federal election was administered by Elections Canada in your riding? Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

The following subgroups were more likely to be satisfied with Elections Canada's administration of the election:

• men (79%) versus women (73%)
• candidates without a disability (77%) versus candidates with a disability (68%)
• unelected candidates (78%) versus elected candidates (70%)
• non-incumbents (78%) versus incumbents (69%)

2. Satisfaction with the Way the Returning Officer Ran the Election

Close to nine in 10 (87%) candidates were satisfied to some extent with how the returning officer ran the election in their riding; almost two-thirds were very satisfied. These results are statistically similar to the 43rd GE.

Chart 2: Satisfaction with the way the RO ran the election

Text version of "Chart 2: Satisfaction with the way the RO ran the election"

Chart 2: Satisfaction with the way the RO ran the election

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	63%	24%	8%	4%
2019 (N=611)	65%	25%	6%	2%

Q2: How satisfied were you with the way the returning officer ran it in your riding? Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

Overall satisfaction with the way the RO ran the election is similar among subgroups of candidates, although the following groups were more likely to be very satisfied:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (68%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (60%)
• unelected candidates (65%) versus elected candidates (49%)
• non-incumbents (65%) versus incumbents (50%)
• first-time candidates (67%) versus candidates who ran in a previous election (58%)
• candidates in Alberta (81%) and B.C. (71%) versus candidates in Ontario (59%) and Quebec (55%)
• men (67%) versus women (56%)
• candidates under age 35 (74%) versus older candidates (56% to 65%)
• Canadian-born candidates (64%) versus candidates born outside Canada (55%)

3. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Way the Returning Officer Ran the Election

The one in 10 (12%) who expressed dissatisfaction with the way the RO ran the election in their riding (n=130) were asked, in an open-ended manner, to indicate why they felt that way. Responses were not shown online and were unprompted on the telephone.

The most common reason, given by almost half of dissatisfied candidates, was that they did not feel supported by Elections Canada or the returning officer. One-quarter (23%) said they felt the polling stations were not accessible, and around one in six (17%) said they experienced difficulties getting election materials or information from the returning officer. Just over one in 10 each mentioned an unfair voting process or that the processing of the nomination paper was delayed. Fewer made other individual mentions.

Subgroups of this population are generally too small to support deeper analysis.

Chart 3: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way the returning officer ran the election

Text version of "Chart 3: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way the returning officer ran the election"

Chart 3: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way the returning officer ran the election

Reason	2021
Didn't feel supported by EC or the RO	46%
Polling stations/locations weren't accessible	23%
Difficulties getting election materials/info from the RO	17%
Voting process was not fair	13%
Nomination paper took too long to process	11%
RO/election staff was partisan	9%
Difficulties getting answers to questions	7%
Difficulties getting in touch with RO	6%
Difficulties getting in touch with ECHQ	4%
Nomination process was not fair	3%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small/new party	2%
Other	11%

Q3: Why were you dissatisfied with the way the returning officer ran the election in your riding? Base: n=130: Candidates dissatisfied with the way the returning officer ran the election. Includes those respondents (3%) who said "not sure."

B. Nomination Process

1. Ease of Complying with the Nomination Requirements

Three-quarters of candidates said it was very (32%) or somewhat (45%) easy to comply with the nomination requirements, virtually the same as in 2019. Two in 10 expressed some level of difficulty.

Chart 4: Ease of complying with nomination requirements

Text version of "Chart 4: Ease of complying with nomination requirements"

Chart 4: Ease of complying with nomination requirements

Year	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Somewhat difficult	Very difficult
2021 (N=1075)	32%	45%	17%	5%
2019 (N=1172)	31%	47%	15%	4%

Q4: How easy was it to comply with the nomination requirements Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

The following groups were more likely to have found the nomination process to be very easy:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (36%) versus those from a non-represented party (23%)
• elected candidates (50%) versus unelected candidates (28%)
• incumbents (49%) versus non-incumbents (28%)
• candidates who ran in a previous federal election (36%) versus first-time candidates (28%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (37%) versus those with lower- or middle-range household incomes (27%)^{footnote 1}

2. Why nomination process was not easy

Those who said the nomination process was somewhat or very difficult (22% of respondents, n=239) mainly cited difficulties in obtaining signatures (67%), significantly higher than was the case in the 43rd GE (39%). Just under one in five (18%) mentioned difficulties meeting the deadline, similar to 2019, and one in 10 cited unclear or inconsistent information. Candidates in 2021 were somewhat less likely than in 2019 to mention challenges related to being new or an independent/small party candidate, having too much paperwork/bureaucracy, or unexplained requirements.

Table 1: Reasons why it was not easy to comply with nomination requirements

Reasons	2021 (N=239)	2019 (N=223)
Difficult to obtain required number of signatures	67%	39%
Difficult to meet deadline	18%	15%
Unclear/inconsistent information process	9%	9%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small/new party	8%	14%
Too much paperwork/bureaucracy/complexity	7%	24%
Procedures/requirements not explained	5%	20%
Difficult to deal with RO	5%	-
Difficult to provide proof of identity	4%	-
Signatures an unnecessary/unreasonable requirement	n/a	10%
Other	6%	3%
Don't know/no response	3%	4%

Q5: Why was it not easy to comply with the nomination requirements? Base: Candidates who felt it was difficult to comply.

Responses are quite similar across subgroups. Saying it was difficult to obtain the required number of signatures is the top response for all, but is higher among those who ran previously (76%, versus 61% among first-time candidates).

3. Satisfaction with RO's timeliness processing nomination

Almost all (94%) candidates were satisfied to some extent with the timeliness of the returning officer's processing of their nomination, and three-quarters (77%) were very satisfied. This is statistically unchanged from 2019.

Chart 5: Satisfaction with timeliness of processing nomination papers

Text version of "Chart 5: Satisfaction with timeliness of processing nomination papers"

Chart 5: Satisfaction with timeliness of processing nomination papers

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	77%	16%	4%	2%
2019 (N=611)	80%	12%	3%	4%

Q6: How satisfied were you with the returning officer's timeliness in processing your nomination? Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

Satisfaction is similar across candidate population subgroups, although the following groups were more likely to be very satisfied:

• candidates from the Atlantic region (86%) and B.C. (85%) versus candidates from Quebec at 70%

4. Finding an Official Agent or Auditor

Candidates were asked if they had any difficulties finding either an official agent or an auditor. Small minorities indicated they had difficulties finding an official agent (20% of those asked) or an auditor (13% of those who said they needed an auditor); both of these proportions are similar to responses given following the 43rd GE.

Chart 6: Had difficulties finding an official agent

Text version of "Chart 6: Had difficulties finding an official agent"

Chart 6: Had difficulties finding an official agent

Year	% Yes
2021 (n=537)	20%
2019 (n=561)	19%

Q7A: Did you encounter any difficulties in finding an official agent? Base: Half sample. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

Chart 7: Had Difficulties finding an auditor

Text version of "Chart 7: Had Difficulties finding an auditor"

Chart 7: Had Difficulties finding an auditor

Year	% Yes
2021 (n=348)	13%
2019 (n=370)	14%

Q7B: Did you encounter any difficulties in finding an auditor? Base: Those who said they needed an auditor in a half sample.

While a minority of candidates said they encountered some difficulties finding an official agent, those with less political experience or from smaller parties were more likely to experience some difficulties:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (27%) versus those from a represented party (16%)
• unelected candidates (22%) versus elected candidates (9%)
• non-incumbents (21%) versus incumbents (10%)
• first-time candidates (23%) versus candidates who previously ran (15%)

Having difficulties finding an auditor is a low proportion across the board, but higher among first-time candidates (11%) compared to candidates who ran in a previous election (5%).

5. Difficulties Encountered in Finding Official Agent or Auditor

Among those reporting difficulties in finding an official agent (20% of respondents, n=107), a slim majority (55%) simply said it was hard to find someone willing or available to take on the role, which was also the top response in 2019 (67%). Over two in 10 (24%) mention it being hard to find someone with the right qualifications or that it is a hard job with too many responsibilities (22%). One in 10 or fewer provide other top-of-mind responses, including that the time frame was too short (9%) or there is too much paperwork/bureaucracy (8%).

Responses are similar across subgroups; that it was hard to find someone willing or available to take on the official agent role is the top response for all groups.

Chart 8: Difficulties finding an official agent

Text version of "Chart 8: Difficulties finding an official agent"

Chart 8: Difficulties finding an official agent

Difficulties	2021 (N=107)
Hard to find someone willing/available	55%
Difficult to find someone qualified	24%
Hard job/too many responsibilities	22%
Time frame too short	9%
Too much paperwork/bureaucracy	8%
Unsure about agent's role	3%
Fees too high/could not afford it	2%
Difficulties as independent/small/new party	2%
Other	8%
Not sure/refused	11%

Q8: What difficulties did you encounter in finding an [If asked 7A: official agent/If asked 7B: auditor]? Base: n=107: Candidates reporting difficulty finding an official agent.

Reasons for having difficulty finding an auditor are similar to those given for finding official agents. Among those of who reported difficulties finding an auditor (13% of those who needed one, n=45), over four in 10 say it was hard to find someone willing or available (44%), and just under four in 10 say it was difficult to find someone qualified (38%). Two in 10 say auditors' fees were prohibitively high/unaffordable. Fewer mention other difficulties.

Subgroup sizes for this population are too small to report differences at that level.

Chart 9: Difficulties finding an auditor

Text version of "Chart 9: Difficulties finding an auditor"

Chart 9: Difficulties finding an auditor

Difficulties	2021 (N=45)
Hard to find someone willing/available	44%
Difficult to find someone qualified	38%
Fees too high/could not afford it	20%
Time frame too short	14%
Too much paperwork/bureaucracy	9%
Difficulties as independent/small/new party	8%
Hard job/too many responsibilities	7%
Unsure about agent's role	6%
Other	6%
Not sure/refused	5%

Q8: What difficulties did you encounter in finding an [If asked 7A: official agent/If asked 7B: auditor]? Base: n=45: Candidates reporting difficulty finding an auditor.

6. Collection of Electors' Signatures

Just over half (54%) of candidates said it was at least somewhat easy to collect nomination signatures despite COVID-19 restrictions; just under half (45%) said it was difficult to some extent.

Chart 10: Ease of collecting signatures for nomination considering COVID-19 restrictions

Text version of "Chart 10: Ease of collecting signatures for nomination considering COVID-19 restrictions"

Chart 10: Ease of collecting signatures for nomination considering COVID-19 restrictions

Status	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Somewhat difficult	Very difficult
2021 (N=1075)	22%	32%	33%	12%

Q9: Considering COVID-19 restrictions in your area, how easy or difficult was it to collect electors' signatures for your nomination? Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

Candidates with a disability (64%) were more likely to find it difficult to collect electors' signatures for nomination considering the COVID restrictions than those without any disability (43%).

On the other hand, the following groups were more likely to say it was at least somewhat easy to collect electors' signatures for nomination despite COVID-19 restrictions:

• candidates in the Atlantic (62%), Quebec (62%) and the Prairies (63%) versus candidates in Ontario (46%) and British Columbia (47%)
• elected candidates (78%) versus unelected candidates (49%)
• incumbents (78%) versus non-incumbents (50%)
• candidates aged 60+ (63%) versus those under age 60 (52%)
• Canadian-born candidates (56%) versus candidates born outside Canada (47%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (60%) versus those with lower-/middle-range household incomes (49%)

7. Level of Feeling Informed About the Nomination Process

Close to nine in 10 (89%) candidates said they felt either very or somewhat well-informed about Election Canada's nomination process, unchanged from the 2019 election. One in 10 felt not very or not at all informed.

Chart 11: How informed candidates felt about EC nomination process

Text version of "Chart 11: How informed candidates felt about EC nomination process"

Chart 11: How informed candidates felt about EC nomination process

Year	Very well informed	Somewhat well informed	Not very well informed	Not well informed at all
2021 (N=1075)	41%	48%	9%	2%
2019 (N=1172)	38%	49%	9%	3%

Q10: Overall, how well-informed did you feel about Elections Canada's nomination process? Base: all respondents. Includes those respondents (1%) who said "not sure."

Majorities of all candidates subgroups felt at least somewhat well-informed. Having felt very informed increases as age of candidate increases (from 31% for those under age 35 up to 49% for those aged 60+), and is higher among the following:

• elected candidates (61%) versus unelected candidates (36%)
• incumbents (62%) versus non-incumbents (37%)
• candidates who ran previously (57%) versus first-time candidates (31%)
• men (45%) versus women (35%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (46%) versus those with lower-/middle-range household incomes (36%)

C. Political Entity Service Centre (Online Portal)

1. Use of Political Entities Service Centre

Two-thirds of campaigns (65%) reported using the Political Entities Service Centre, including four in 10 candidates (41%) who personally used it. Two in 10 (19%) say no one associated with the campaign used it, under one in 10 (7%) were unaware of it, and one in 10 are not sure. This is significantly higher reported use than in the 43rd GE in 2019 (when 47% said someone in the campaign used it and 33% said they did not).

Chart 12: If candidate's campaign used the portal

Text version of "Chart 12: If candidate's campaign used the portal"

Chart 12: If candidate's campaign used the portal

Net: any used	65%
Yes, I personally used it	41%
Yes, my official agent used it	33%
Yes, my candidate delegate used it	15%
No-one used it	19%
Not aware of it	7%
Not sure	10%

Q11: Elections Canada offers a secure web portal called the Political Entities Service Centre that candidates can use to access electoral products and services. Did you, or any of your representatives, use the portal? Base: n=1,075: all respondents.

Across most subgroups, a majority of around six in 10 or more reported campaign use of the portal. Candidates' personal use of the portal was higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (50%) versus candidates from a represented party (37%)
• unelected candidates (45%) versus elected candidates (24%)
• non-incumbents (44%) versus incumbents (23%)
• first-time candidates (46%) versus candidates who previously ran (34%)
• visible minority (44%) and white candidates (41%) versus Indigenous candidates (26%)

2. Nature of Use of Political Entities Services Centre

Those who reported their campaign used the portal (65% of respondents, n=698) were asked how it was used. Five possible options were shown or read, and candidates could also specify other actions. As in 2019, the primary purpose was to download election materials (60%, comparable to 56%). This is followed by using it to submit financial returns (37%) and to access post-election results or resources (35%, versus 28% in 2019). Around three in 10 used it to maintain their account and contact profile (31%, comparable to 27% in 2019) or to submit their nomination electronically (30%, identical to 2019). Very few used it to look for information or training in general.

Chart 13: Uses of the portal

Text version of "Chart 13: Uses of the portal"

Chart 13: Uses of the portal

Download election materials	60%
Submit financial returns	37%
Access post-election results or materials	35%
Maintain account and contact profile	31%
Submit nomination electronically	29%
Look for information or training	5%
Not sure / Refused	10%

Q12: What did you, or your representative, use the portal for? Base: n=698: Candidates whose campaign used the portal.

Responses are generally similar across the population of candidates whose campaigns used the portal. Downloading election materials was the top mentioned use across almost all subgroups.

3. Characteristics of the Political Entities Service Centre

Candidates who personally used the portal (41% of respondents, n=450) were asked their level of agreement with several statements about it. Seven in 10 or more agreed to some extent with most statements, with one exception. Overall agreement is similar to 2019 in most cases (base n=292).

The largest proportion (90%) of candidates who used the portal agreed that it contained useful information; eight in 10 agreed it was easy to create an account (81%) and that it provided easy access to documents (79%). Around three-quarters (73%) said it ensured the protection of candidate and elector personal information and seven in 10 (69%) agreed it was easy to navigate.

Among those who used the portal to submit their nomination, 75% agreed that it made that process convenient (somewhat lower than 82% in 2019). Seventy percent of those who submitted their financial returns using the portal said it made that process convenient, although strong agreement with the latter is notably lower compared to the previous statements.

Only one-third (35%) of respondents agreed that the portal was compatible with mobile devices, but this is because there is a substantial proportion, over half, who said they are not sure, presumably because they did not attempt to access the portal using a mobile device. The proportion who agreed is statistically higher than in 2019 (14%).

Chart 14: Experience with the portal

Text version of "Chart 14: Experience with the portal"

Chart 14: Experience with the portal

Statement	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Net disagree	Not sure	2021 Net Agree	2019 Net Agree
Contained useful information	42%	48%	7%	3%	90%	87%
Was easy to create an account	39%	42%	14%	5%	81%	82%
Provided an easy access to documents	33%	46%	17%	4%	79%	77%
Made submitting my nomination convenient (n=166*)	40%	35%	22%	3%	75%	82%
Ensures the protection of personal information	42%	31%	3%	25%	73%	61%
It made submitting my financial returns convenient (n=167**)	33%	37%	8%	22%	70%	s.o.
Easy to navigate	17%	53%	27%	3%	69%	69%
Was compatible with my mobile devices	14%	21%	11%	54%	35%	24%

Q13: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the portal? Base: n=450: Candidates who personally used the portal.

* Base: Candidates who used the portal who submitted nomination electronically.

** Base: Candidates who used the portal who submitted financial returns electronically.

Overall agreement is essentially similar across the candidates' user population, with few notable patterns (many subgroup sizes are too small to report).

4. Satisfaction with Overall User Experience of the Political Entity Service Centre

Three-quarters (76%) of candidates whose campaign used the portal were satisfied with their overall user experience to some extent, with just under one-quarter being very satisfied; just over one in 10 expressed some level of dissatisfaction, and one in 10 were unable to say. Overall satisfaction is higher than for the 43rd GE (65%).

Satisfaction is quite consistent across subgroups of this population; overall satisfaction is higher in Alberta (87%) than in other jurisdictions (70% to 77%).

Chart 15: Satisfaction with the portal

Text version of "Chart 15: Satisfaction with the portal"

Chart 15: Satisfaction with the portal

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure
2021 (N=698)	23%	53%	11%	3%	11%
2019 (N=480)	21%	44%	13%	4%	18%

Q14: How satisfied were you/was your representative with the overall user experience of the portal? Base: n=698: Candidates whose campaign used the portal

5. Reasons for Not Using the Political Entities Service Centre

The small proportion of respondents whose campaign did not use the portal (19% of respondents, n=202) were asked why. The main reason, given by one-third, was that they did not need to use it. A quarter of respondents said they did not have time to use it, while one in six said it was not easy to use or too complex. Fewer gave other individual reasons for not using the portal, with just under one in five (17%) not providing a reason.

Chart 16: Reasons for not using the portal

Text version of "Chart 16: Reasons for not using the portal"

Chart 16: Reasons for not using the portal

Reasons for not using the portal	2021
Did not need to use it (general)	34%
Did not have time to use it/too busy with the campaign	25%
Not easy to use/complex	16%
Difficulties in opening an account	6%
Prefer dealing face to face with EC	5%
Uncomfortable using computers/mobile devices	3%
Prefer working with paper	3%
Other	3%
Not sure	17%

Q15: Why did you not use the portal? Base: n=202: Candidates whose campaign didn't use the portal.

Responses are generally similar across this limited population (many subgroup sizes are too small to permit analysis at this level). Not having needed to use the portal and not having time/being too busy are the top responses for all.

D. Elections Canada's Products and Services

1. Use of EC's Products

Candidates were asked to indicate which EC products they used, from a list. The top items used in 2021 were the lists of polling stations, the maps of polling place service areas, and the lists of electors. Use of all individual products was at least somewhat lower than reported in 2019, and this is especially notable for the maps of polling place service areas (down 15 percentage points), the bingo sheets (down 17 points) and the political financing handbook (down 16 points).

Table 2: EC products used (multiple responses permitted)

Reasons	2021	2019
n= (all candidates)	1,075	1,172
Lists of polling stations	60%	68%
Maps of polling place service areas	55%	70%
Lists of electors, including preliminary lists, revised lists and official lists	50%	57%
Political financing handbook for candidates and official agents	48%	64%
Bingo sheets	24%	41%
Political financing training videos	20%	n/a
EC's tools to communicate with electors	12%	18%
I did not use any of EC's products/not sure/refused	18%	13%

Q16: Which of the following Elections Canada products did you use?

In general, the groups most likely to report using the top three products or services are those who are more established; that is, candidates for parties represented in the House of Commons, those who were elected or incumbents, those who have run previously, and those who have the highest household incomes. Specific proportions are indicated below:

Lists of polling stations

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (67%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (47%)
• elected candidates (84%) versus unelected candidates (56%)
• incumbents (84%) versus non-incumbents (56%)
• candidates who ran previously (66%) versus first-time candidates (57%)

Maps of polling place service areas

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (63%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (39%)
• elected candidates (72%) versus unelected candidates (51%)
• incumbents (70%) versus non-incumbents (52%)
• candidates who ran previously (60%) versus first-time candidates (53%)

Lists of electors

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (58%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (33%)
• elected candidates (78%) versus unelected candidates (44%)
• incumbents (78%) versus non-incumbents (45%)
• candidates who ran previously (57%) versus first-time candidates (45%)

2. Most Useful Format of Lists of Polling Stations

As in 2019, just under half (48%) of those reporting use of lists of polling stations think paper and electronic lists were equally useful. In 2021, one-third expressed a preference for electronic lists, while one in seven (17%) preferred paper, a lower proportion than in past federal elections.

Chart 17: Most useful format of polling station lists

Text version of "Chart 17: Most useful format of polling station lists"

Chart 17: Most useful format of polling station lists

Format	2021 (N=647)	2019 (N=790)
Paper	14%	17%
Electronic	33%	26%
Both paper and electronic	48%	48%

Q17: In your opinion, which format of the updated lists of polling stations was most useful? Base: Candidates who used lists of polling stations. Includes 6% of respondents who said "not sure."

This pattern is echoed across subgroups of this population. A minority of candidates expressed a preference for paper versions of the polling station lists. This preference is slightly higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (22%) versus candidates from a represented party (11%)
• unelected candidates (16%) versus elected candidates (6%)
• non-incumbents (16%) versus incumbents (5%)
• candidates in Quebec (18%), the Atlantic (17%) and Alberta (16%) versus candidates from other jurisdictions (5% to 14%)
• candidates with no disability (14%) versus candidates with a disability (6%)

3. Satisfaction with the Quality of the Lists of Electors

Among those who used the lists of electors (50% of respondents, n=531), eight in 10 (82%) were satisfied to some extent with the list quality; three in 10 were very satisfied. One in 10 were dissatisfied to some extent. These proportions are statistically comparable to those in 2019 who were asked about their satisfaction using the same four-point scale.

Chart 18: Satisfaction with overall quality of list of electors

Text version of "Chart 18: Satisfaction with overall quality of list of electors"

Chart 18: Satisfaction with overall quality of list of electors

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure
2021 (N=531)	30%	52%	8%	3%	6%
2019 (N=355)	27%	52%	8%	3%	10%

Q18: How satisfied were you with the overall quality of the lists of electors? Base: Those who used list of electors.

4. Most Useful Tools to Communicate with Electors

Those who indicated they used EC communications tools (n=133) were asked to indicate which of four tools was the most useful for their campaign (multiple mentions were permitted). The most useful tools were the Guide to the Federal Election booklet (37%) and the infographics (36%, statistically higher than in 2019). As before, just under four in 10 do not indicate a communication tool they found to be most helpful.

Opinions are quite similar across subgroups of this population; many subgroup sizes are too small for deeper analysis.

Chart 19: Useful communication tools

Text version of "Chart 19: Useful communication tools"

Chart 19: Useful communication tools

Format	2021 (N=133)	2019 (N=206)
Guide to the federal election / booklet	37%	43%
Infographics	36%	21%
Videos	22%	18%
Banners for your website	16%	15%
None/do not know/refused	38%	39%

Q19: Which of the following EC tools to communicate with electors were the most useful for your campaign? Base: Candidates who used EC's tools to communicate with electors.

5. Format of Maps of Polling Place Service Areas

Candidates who used maps of polling places (55% of respondents, n=592) were asked which of three formats they used; multiple responses were permitted. As in previous years, the top response is paper, used by seven in 10 in this past election. Four in 10 (42%) used PDFs and one in six (16%) used the online event map viewer on the portal. Statistically fewer used the paper format and more used a PDF than in the 43rd GE.

Chart 20: Format of polling place maps

Text version of "Chart 20: Format of polling place maps"

Chart 20: Format of polling place maps

Format	2021 (N=592)	2019 (N=808)
Paper	69%	82%
PDF	42%	35%
Event Map Viewer (online version on the portal)	16%	17%
None/Did not use any maps of the polling divisions	2%	2%

Q20: Which format of the maps of polling place service areas did you use? Base: Candidates who used maps of polling place service areas. Includes those respondents (8%) who said "not sure."

The following are notable differences in format of use:

• Use of paper maps is similar across candidate subgroups, but is higher in the Atlantic region (86%) than elsewhere (69% to 74%).
• Use of PDF maps is higher among candidates of parties represented in the HoC (45% versus 31% of those from non-represented parties), those whose preferred language is English (45% versus 31% of those who preferred French), and candidates under age 35 (51% compared to 35% of those aged over 60).
• The event map viewer was used more by candidates of parties represented in the HoC (18% versus 10% of those from non-represented parties), those who were elected (29% versus 12% of unelected candidates), incumbents (31% versus 12% of non-incumbents), those who previously ran (21% versus 13% of first-time candidates), and candidates over age 35 (18%, versus 7% of candidates under age 35).

6. Usefulness of EC's Products

Those who used at least one EC product (n=888) were asked how useful these were when considering what was needed to run their campaign. A strong majority of close to nine in 10 said these were at least somewhat useful, the same result as in 2019. Just over one in 10 feel they were not very or at all useful.

Chart 21: Usefulness of Elections Canada products in the campaign

Text version of "Chart 21: Usefulness of Elections Canada products in the campaign"

Chart 21: Usefulness of Elections Canada products in the campaign

Year	Very useful	Somewhat useful	Not very useful	Not useful at all
2021 (N=888)	30%	55%	9%	3%
2019 (N=1015)	30%	55%	8%	2%

Q21: Thinking about what you needed to run your campaign, how useful were Elections Canada's products? Base: Candidates who used Elections Canada products. Includes those respondents (3%) who said "not sure."

The following groups were more likely to find EC's products to be very useful:

• candidates from a party represented in the HoC (34%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (22%)
• elected candidates (40%) versus unelected candidates (28%)

7. EC Products That Were Not Useful

The small number of EC's products users who did not think these were useful (n=109) were most likely to indicate that the bingo sheets (32%) and polling place service area maps (30%) were not useful, followed by elector communication tools (26%) and lists of electors (24%). Results are quite similar to 2019, with a larger proportion mentioning the polling place service maps than previously (16% in 2019).

Opinions are quite similar across subgroups of this population; most subgroup sizes are too small for deeper analysis.

Chart 22: Elections Canada Products that were not useful

Text version of "Chart 22: Elections Canada Products that were not useful"

Chart 22: Elections Canada Products that were not useful

Products not useful	2021
Bingo sheets	32%
Polling place service area maps	30%
Tools to communicate with electors	26%
List of electors	24%
Political financing handbook	20%
List of polling stations	20%
Other	9%
Not sure/refused	30%

Q22: Which Elections Canada products did you think were not useful? Base: n=109: Those indicating EC products were not useful.

8. All-Candidates Briefing

Three-quarters of candidates (74%) reported they or someone else from their campaign attended an all-candidates briefing for the 44th GE. Just under half of candidates attended the briefing themselves, either in person or via videoconference, comparable to 2019.

Table 3: Attendance at all-candidates briefing

Attendance	2021	2019
n= (all candidates)	1,075	1,172
Net: Campaign attended	74%	n/a
Candidate attended personally (net)	47%	47%
Candidate attended in person	31%	n/a
Candidate attended via videoconference	17%	n/a
Other in campaign attended (net)	47%	n/a
Campaign delegate/manager attended, in-person or remotely	27%	37%
Official agent attended, in-person or remotely	16%	19%
Other	1%	n/a
No one attended	26%	21%
Don't know/no response	n/a	4%

Q23: The returning officer in your riding organized an all-candidates briefing for the general election. Please indicate which of the following applies.

Attending the briefing personally (either in person or virtually) is higher among the following candidates:

• candidates from a party not represented in House of Commons (56%) versus candidates from a party represented in HoC (43%)
• unelected candidates (51%) versus elected candidates (30%)
• non-incumbent (50%) versus incumbents (33%)
• first-time candidates (53%) versus candidates who previously ran (38%)
• men (51%) versus women (42%)

Having another campaign official (manager or official agent) attend is higher among:

• candidates from a party represented in House of Commons (47%) versus candidates from a party not represented in HoC (13%)
• elected candidates (78%) versus unelected candidates (28%)
• incumbents (76%) versus non-incumbents (29%)
• candidates who previously ran (47%) versus first-time candidates (28%)
• candidates in Ontario (45% and B.C. (43%) versus candidates from other jurisdictions (25% to 38%)

Not having had anyone in the campaign attend the briefing is higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in House of Commons (36%) versus candidates from a party represented in HoC (20%)
• unelected candidates (30%) versus elected candidates (4%)
• non-incumbent (29%) versus incumbents (4%)
• candidates with high school or less education (40%) versus those who completed university (24%)

9. Usefulness of All-Candidates Briefing

Those whose campaign was represented at the all-candidates briefing (n=788) were asked how useful it was. Eight in 10 (79%) said it was useful, with one-third saying it was very useful. Just over one in 10 said it was not very or not at all useful.

Chart 23: Usefulness of all-candidates briefing

Text version of "Chart 23: Usefulness of all-candidates briefing"

Chart 23: Usefulness of all-candidates briefing

Year	Very useful	Somewhat useful	Not very useful	Not useful at all	Not sure
2021 (N=788)	32%	46%	11%	2%	8%
2019 (N=882)	35%	45%	9%	3%	8%

Q24: How useful was the all-candidates briefing? Base: Candidates who attended or were represented at the briefing.

Majorities across all subgroups said the all-candidate briefing was useful to some extent. The following groups were more likely to say it was very useful:

• unelected candidates (35%) versus elected candidates (24%)
• non-incumbents (34%) versus incumbents (24%)
• first-time candidates (36%) versus candidates who ran previously (27%)
• Alberta candidates (44%) versus Quebec (77%) and Ontario (80%) candidates

10. Satisfaction with Format of All-Candidates' Briefings

Candidates who attended the all-candidates briefing, either in person or remotely (n=515), were asked how satisfied they were with the format. Both formats have extremely high overall levels of satisfaction (91% for in person, and 89% for online), but the in-person format has the higher level of strong satisfaction.

Chart 24: Level of satisfaction with format of all-candidates briefing

Text version of "Chart 24: Level of satisfaction with format of all-candidates briefing"

Chart 24: Level of satisfaction with format of all-candidates briefing

Format	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
Attended in person (N=335)	55%	36%	6%	1%
Attended remotely (N=180)	43%	46%	8%	1%

Q25A: How satisfied were you with the format of the in-person all-candidates briefing? Q25B: How satisfied were you with the format of the all-candidates briefing you attended remotely? Base: Candidates who personally attended the briefing. Includes 2% "not sure" responses for both in-person and videoconference.

Overall satisfaction is quite uniformly high across subgroups. The following groups were more likely to be very satisfied with each format:

In-person

• Alberta (69%) and B.C. candidates (66%) versus Prairies (38%) and Quebec (49%) candidates

Online

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (49%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (33%)
• women (55%) versus men (38%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (55%) versus lower- (39%) and middle-range (30%) household incomes

The very small number of candidates who expressed some level of dissatisfaction with either format (n=42) mainly said it was because of a lack of useful information (39%) or that it was not engaging (23%). Smaller proportions give other individual reasons. This population is too small for subgroup analysis.

Chart 25: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the format of the all-candidates briefing

Text version of "Chart 25: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the format of the all-candidates briefing"

Chart 25: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the format of the all-candidates briefing

Reasons	2021
Lack of useful or new information	39%
Briefing was not engaging/felt long	23%
Issues with virtual format/technology	17%
Issues with safety measures	15%
Briefing felt disorganized	11%
Issues with other attendees/candidates	10%
Issues with the RO or other staff	10%
Don't know/refused	7%

Q26: Why were you dissatisfied with the format of the (If only A: in person all-candidates briefing? / If only B: remote all-candidates briefing? / If both A and B: the formats of the all-candidates' briefings?) Base: n=42: Candidates who were dissatisfied with briefing format.

11. Usefulness of COVID-19-Related Procedures/Guidelines

All candidates were asked how useful they felt EC's COVID-19 procedures and guidelines were. Two-thirds (65%) found them useful to some extent, while just under one-quarter said they were not very or at all useful. One in 10 are unable to say. Three in 10 say these were very useful.

Chart 26: Usefulness of COVID-19 procedures and guidelines

Text version of "Chart 26: Usefulness of COVID-19 procedures and guidelines"

Chart 26: Usefulness of COVID-19 procedures and guidelines

Year	Very useful	Somewhat useful	Not very useful	Not useful at all	Not sure
2021 (N=1075)	31%	34%	11%	12%	12%

Q27: How useful were Elections Canada's procedures and guidelines to avoid the spread of COVID-19? Base: n=1,075: All respondents.

Majorities across most subgroups say the guidelines and procedures were useful to some extent, with one exception: Those who ran for parties not represented in the House of Commons, who were about equally likely to say they were useful (43%) or not useful (40%).

The following groups were more likely to say that EC's guidelines were very useful:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (36%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (21%)
• elected candidates (43%) versus unelected candidates (28%)
• incumbents (40%) versus non-incumbents (29%)
• candidates born outside Canada (39%) versus Canadian-born candidates (29%)
• visible minority candidates (42%) versus white (28%) and Indigenous candidates (29%)

While men and women were equally likely to say the guidance was very useful (31%), women were more likely than men to think it was at least somewhat useful (70% versus 61%).

12. Contact with Elections Canada

Candidates were asked if their campaign contacted EC during the election by any of three modes. All candidates completing the survey online and one-third of telephone respondents were asked about contacting EC by the toll-free support line, through the local office, or by email.

A strong majority of candidates (86%) reported their campaign had contacted the local EC office, an identical proportion to 2019. Close to half contacted EC via email (47%), and one-third (32%) used the toll-free support line, statistically less than the proportion who did so in 2019.

Table 4: Contact with Elections Canada during election

Year	Yes	No	Not sure
Local EC office
2021 (n=787)	86%	10%	3%
2019 (n=611)	86%	12%	2%
EC by email
2021 (n=787)	47%	37%	16%
1-800 support line
2021 (n=787)	32%	50%	18%
2019 (n=561)	39%	43%	18%

Q28: During the election, did you, or any of your representatives, contact…:

• the local Elections Canada office?
• Elections Canada with the 1-800 support line for candidates?
• Elections Canada via email?

Base: Online respondents and 1/3 of telephone respondents for each mode.

Proportions for the email and toll-free contact methods are quite similar across subgroups. The following groups were more likely to have contacted the local EC office:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (88%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (83%)
• elected candidates (98%) versus unelected candidates (84%)
• incumbents (99%) versus non-incumbents (84%)
• candidates who previously ran (93%) versus first-time candidates (82%)
• candidates aged 35 and over (89%) versus candidates under age 35 (76%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (91%) versus those with lower- or middle-range household incomes (79%)

13. Satisfaction with Services Received

Those who used each of the contact methods were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the services provided. Over six in 10 of those who dealt with their local EC office said they were very satisfied, and nine in 10 (90%) were satisfied overall; this is comparable to 2019. Just under nine in 10 (85%) were satisfied to some extent with contacting EC by email, and eight in 10 (79%) were satisfied with their experience using the toll-free support line (compatible to 2019); strong satisfaction with the latter two methods is lower than for the local EC office.

Table 5: Satisfaction with EC Contact options

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Not very satisfied	Not at all satisfied
Local EC office
2021 (n=681)	63%	27%	7%	3%
2019 (n=522)	64%	24%	5%	4%
EC by email
2021 (n=373)	53%	32%	8%	3%
1-800 support line
2021 (n=253)	44%	35%	10%	5%
2019 (n=185)	42%	32%	11%	11%

Q29: How satisfied were you, or your representative, with the services you received from…:

• the local Elections Canada office
• the 1-800 support line for candidates
• your email correspondence with Elections Canada

Base: Those who used each contact option. Includes those (1% for Local EC office, 4% for EC by email and 6% for 1-800 support line) who said "not sure."

Being satisfied with the services via each of these methods is very consistent across subgroups, with few exceptions.

E. Candidates' Electoral Campaign

1. Campaigning During the Pandemic

Candidates faced special challenges in the 44th GE due to the pandemic. They were asked how they interacted with electors during the campaign, given public health guidelines; possible responses were shown online but not read out on the telephone.

Despite the pandemic, majorities of candidates interacted with electors in person: seven in 10 (69%) went door-to-door, and just under six in 10 (56%) were involved in other in-person events and outreach. Half (51%) made phone calls, and just under half (45%) reached out by email. One-third each reported having virtual gatherings (35%) or sending communications by mail (32%). Relatively few (12%) reported reaching electors via social media.

Chart 27: Interaction with electors during COVID-19

Text version of "Chart 27: Interaction with electors during COVID-19"

Chart 27: Interaction with electors during COVID-19

Method	2021
Door-to-door	69%
Other in-person events and outreach	56%
Did some phone calls	51%
Reached out by email	45%
Virtual gatherings	35%
Reached out by mail / post	32%
Social media/Facebook	12%
Advertising in the media (general)	5%
Other	2%

Q30: Considering the public health guidelines about COVID-19, how did you interact with electors during your campaign? Base: n= 1,075: All respondents. Includes those (2%) who said "not sure."

Door-to-door

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (73%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (61%)
• elected candidates (90%) versus unelected candidates (65%)
• incumbents (90%) versus non-incumbents (65%)
• candidates from the Prairies (82%) and Ontario (78%) versus candidates from Quebec (57%) and British Columbia (61%)
• candidates without a disability (70%) versus candidates with a disability (57%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (75%) versus those with lower- (57%) and middle-range (64%) household incomes

Other in-person events/outreach

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (62%) versus candidates from a represented party (54%)
• candidates from British Columbia (63%) versus candidates from Ontario (52%)

Phone calls

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (64%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (24%)
• elected candidates (81%) versus unelected candidates (44%)
• incumbents (82%) versus non-incumbents (45%)
• candidates who ran previously (60%) versus first-time candidates (44%)
• women (56%) versus men (47%)
• candidates from the Atlantic (60%) Ontario (58%), British Columbia (56%) and the Prairies (51%) versus candidates from Quebec (38%)
• candidates aged 50 and over (55%) versus candidates under age 50 (47%)
• university graduates (54%) versus candidates with high school education or less (36%) and those with some post-secondary education (43%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (61%) versus those with lower- (29%) and middle-range (42%) household incomes

Email

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (51%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (32%)
• elected candidates (53%) versus unelected candidates (43%)
• incumbents (58%) versus non-incumbents (43%)
• women (50%) versus men (42%)
• candidates from British Columbia (52%), Ontario (51%) and Alberta (49%) versus candidates from Quebec (35%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (52%) versus those with lower- (32%) and middle-range (39%) household incomes

Virtual gatherings

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (41%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (23%)
• candidates from British Columbia (52%) versus candidates from Alberta (38%), Ontario (37%), the Atlantic (33%), the Prairies (31%) and Quebec (26%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (40%) versus those with lower- (23%) and middle-range (32%) household incomes

2. List of Names of Election Staff

One-quarter of candidates (24%) provided a list of election staff names to the RO to work at the polling station, statistically comparable to 2019. Over half did not, and one in 10 did not know they could do this.

Chart 28: If campaign provided a list of names of election staff

Text version of "Chart 28: If campaign provided a list of names of election staff"

Chart 28: If campaign provided a list of names of election staff

Year	Yes	No	Did not know I could provide one	Not sure/refused
2021 (N=1075)	24%	55%	10%	11%
2019 (N=1172)	21%	60%	9%	10%

Q31: Did you provide the returning officer with a list of names of election staff to work at the polling station? Base: All respondents.

Across many subgroups, only a minority of candidates provided the RO with a list of election staff who would work at the polling station. The proportion is higher among the following groups, several of which indicate candidates with more experience:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (27%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (18%)
• elected candidates (54%) versus unelected candidates (18%)
• incumbents (56%) versus non-incumbents (19%)
• candidates who ran previously (32%) versus first-time candidates (19%)

3. Reasons for Not Providing List of Names

Those who did not provide the RO with a list of staff names (n=598) were asked why they did not do so. The main reasons, related to not having anyone interested or available, were also the top reason in 2019. Close to two in 10 said there was no need to do this (higher than in 2019), and one in seven said this was difficult to do as a smaller entity (independent candidate or with a small or new party). One in 10 or fewer gave other individual reasons for not providing a list of staff to work the election.

Table 6: Reasons for not providing list of polling station workers

Reason	2021 (n=598)	2019 (n=724)
Did not have anyone (net)	28%	46%
Did not have anyone/unable to find people interested/available	26%	n/a
Did not have anyone/unable to find competent people	2%	n/a
No need to provide a list	18%	3%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small party/new party	14%	8%
Not enough time to find people	10%	10%
Procedures not explained	8%	4%
I did not want to provide a list	7%	5%
Returning officers did not request such a list	3%	4%
Elections Canada/RO should do this	3%	4%
Other (mentions)	6%	2%
Not sure/refused	17%	22%

Q32: Why did you not provide a list of names? Base: Those who did not provide a list of staff names.

Responses are quite similar across subgroups of this population. Not having anyone or being unable to find someone is similar whether or not the party is represented in the House of Commons, but is higher among the following groups:

• unelected candidates (27%) versus elected candidates (11%)
• non-incumbents (27%) versus incumbents (9%)

4. Candidates' Protection of Personal Information Contained in the Voters' Lists

Two-thirds of candidates (66%) said they took measures to protect the personal information contained in the voters' lists they received; one-third said they did not use these lists or were unsure. When recalculated to exclude those not using the lists or unsure about their use, almost all (96%) took some measures to protect private information, comparable to 2019.

Nine in 10 or more of subgroups of this population say they took privacy protection measures.

Chart 29: If measures taken to ensure protection of personal information

Text version of "Chart 29: If measures taken to ensure protection of personal information"

Chart 29: If measures taken to ensure protection of personal information

Year	Yes	No
2021 (N=730)	96%	4%
2019 (N=848)	94%	6%

Q33: Did you take any measures to ensure the protection of personal information contained in the voters' lists that you received? Base: Those using the lists.

5. Measures Taken to Protect Personal Information

Those who took measures to ensure the protection of personal information contained in the voters' lists they received (n=704) were most likely to indicate they limited access to the lists, stored the lists securely, or ensured the destruction of the lists once the election was over. These were also the top responses in 2019. Candidates were somewhat less likely than previously to indicate they safeguarded or destroyed the lists.

Table 7: Measures taken to ensure personal information was protected

Measure	2021 (n=704)	2019 (n=789)
Ensured limited access to lists	51%	52%
Kept lists in secure place/kept locked away	24%	36%
Ensured the destruction of voters' lists at end of the election	19%	24%
Issued instructions regarding use of voters' lists	9%	8%
Encrypted the lists	9%	4%
Kept at home/office	4%	2%
Issued procedures to re-collect copies of voters' lists after event	2%	2%
Brought voters' lists back to returning officer	2%	3%
Other	2%	-
Not sure/refused	13%	15%

Q34: What measures did you take to ensure the protection of personal information? Base: Those who took protection measures.

Responses are generally quite similar across the candidate population.

• Ensuring limited access is highest among candidates in Alberta (71%) compared to all other jurisdictions (54% in Prairies to 40% in Atlantic).
• Keeping lists locked away is higher among those from parties not represented in the House of Commons (31% versus 21% of represented candidates), unelected candidates (25% versus 17% of elected candidates), non-incumbents (26% versus 16% of incumbents), first-time candidates (28% versus 19% of repeat candidates), and those with lower- (31%) and middle-range (30%) household incomes (versus 18% upper-range household incomes).
• Ensuring the destruction of lists after the election is higher among those in parties represented in the House of Commons (22% versus 12% of those from non-represented parties), and women (24% versus 16% of men).

6. Accessibility of Candidates' Campaign

Over four in 10 candidates said they took measures to ensure their campaign's materials, events or website were accessible to electors with a disability (slightly higher than in 2019). One-quarter said they did not ensure this, and three in 10 are not sure.

Chart 30: If took measures to ensure campaign's accessibility

Text version of "Chart 30: If took measures to ensure campaign's accessibility"

Chart 30: If took measures to ensure campaign's accessibility

Year	Yes	No	Not sure
2021 (N=1075)	44%	26%	29%
2019 (N=1172)	39%	27%	33%

Q35: Did you take any measures to ensure that your campaign's materials, events or website were accessible to electors with a disability? Base: All respondents.

The following groups were more likely to have taken accessibility measures in their campaign:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (48%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (37%)
• elected candidates (53%) versus unelected candidates (42%)
• candidates in the Atlantic (55%) and Ontario (50%) versus candidates in Alberta (35%) and Quebec (34%)
• candidates aged 35–49 (50%) versus candidates aged 50–59 (41%) and 60+ (39%)
• candidates with a disability (62%) versus candidates without a disability (42%)
• visible minority candidates (51%) versus white candidates (43%)

7. Accessibility Measures Taken in Candidate's Campaign

Those indicating they took measures to make campaign elements accessible (n=474) were asked to indicate what they did, unprompted. They were most likely to indicate they used wheelchair-accessible venues (26%, comparable to 27% in 2019), used various communication channels (17%), had an accessible website (15%) or asked electors how to accommodate their needs (15%).

Chart 31: Accessibility measures

Text version of "Chart 31: Accessibility measures"

Chart 31: Accessibility measures

Measures	2021
Venues were wheelchair-accessible	26%
Use of various communication channels	17%
Website was accessible	15%
Asking electors with disability about needs	15%
Social media accessible with screen reader	14%
General mention of accommodation	13%
Website accessible with a screen reader	12%
Videos/Audio with closed captioning	6%
Large print materials were available	5%
Offered transport to the polling station	4%
Other	7%
Not sure/refused	14%

Q36: Which measures did you take to make your campaign accessible? Base: n=474: Those who took measures to make their campaign accessible.

Responses are generally similar across this population. Candidates self-identifying as having a disability cite similar accommodations to others; they are somewhat less likely to mention wheelchair-accessible venues (14% versus 28% of others) and more likely to mention social media content being accessible to electors with a screen reader (23% versus 12%) or having large-print materials available (13% versus 4%).

8. Awareness of Funding for Candidate's Election and Personal Expenses

Just over one-third of candidates said they were aware of reimbursement incentives when they were deciding to run as a candidate, the same proportion as in 2019. Six in 10 were not aware of this.

Chart 32: Awareness of financial incentives

Text version of "Chart 32: Awareness of financial incentives"

Chart 32: Awareness of financial incentives

Year	Yes	No	Not sure
2021 (N=1075)	37%	60%	3%
2019 (N=1172)	36%	61%	2%

Q37: The Canada Elections Act provides for partial reimbursement of elections expenses as well as some personal expenses like childcare costs and expenses related to a disability. When deciding to run as a candidate, were you aware of these financial incentives? Base: All respondents. Includes those (3%) who said "not sure."

Awareness of financial incentives is higher among candidates with more resources and experience: Those running for parties represented in the House of Commons (42%, versus 29% from a non-represented party), elected candidates (61% versus 33% of unelected candidates), incumbents (66% versus 32% of non-incumbents), and those who had run in previous elections (59% versus 24% of first-time candidates).

Awareness is also higher among the following:

• men (40%) versus women (33%)
• candidates aged 50 and over (42%) versus those under age 50 (33%)
• white candidates (42%) versus visible minority (25%) and Indigenous candidates (21%)
• candidates born in Canada (40%) versus candidates born outside Canada (26%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (45%) versus those with lower- (25%) and middle-range (32%) household incomes

9. Impact of Knowing About Financial Incentives

Three-quarters (77%) of those who were aware of financial incentives for candidates (n=395) said these made no impact on their decision to run, a similar proportion to 2019. The incentives at least moderately impacted the decision for around one in 12.

Strong majorities of all subgroups indicate this information did not impact their decision to run.

Chart 33: Impact of financial incentives on decision to run

Text version of "Chart 33: Impact of financial incentives on decision to run"

Chart 33: Impact of financial incentives on decision to run

Year	Major impact	Moderate impact	Minor impact	No impact at all
2021 (N=395)	3%	5%	15%	77%
2019 (N=411)	6%	7%	12%	74%

Q38: What impact, if any, did these financial incentives have on your decision to run in the last general election? Base: Those aware of financial incentives. Includes those (1%) who said "not sure."

F. Voting and Reporting Process

1. Satisfaction with Chosen Polling Sites

Seven in 10 candidates (69%) were at least somewhat satisfied with the locations chosen as polling sites for advance polls and on election day, and one-third were very satisfied. Both of these proportions are lower than was the case in 2019 (84% satisfied overall, 44% very). One-quarter were dissatisfied to some extent.

Chart 34: Satisfaction with location of polling sites

Text version of "Chart 34: Satisfaction with location of polling sites"

Chart 34: Satisfaction with location of polling sites

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure
2021 (N=1075)	33%	36%	14%	11%	6%
2019 (N=611)	44%	40%	6%	3%	7%

Q39: How satisfied were you with the locations chosen as polling sites for advance polls and on election day? Base: All respondents.

All subgroups of candidates were satisfied with the polling site locations, but satisfaction is higher among the following, including some groups associated with having less experience being a candidate (e.g. non-elected, first time candidates, party not represented in the House of Commons):

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (77%) versus candidates from a represented party (65%)
• unelected candidates (71%) versus elected candidates (59%)
• non-incumbents (71%) versus incumbents (59%)
• first-time candidates (74%) versus candidates who ran previously (63%)
• men (72%) versus women (65%)
• candidates with no disability (70%) versus those with a disability (60%)
• candidates with middle-range household incomes (78%) versus those with lower- (66%) and upper-range (69%) household incomes

2. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Chosen Polling Sites

Those dissatisfied with polling station locations (n=269) were asked why, without prompting; multiple responses were permitted. They indicated a number of problems, including not enough polling stations (29% for advance polls and 26% for election day polls) and polling stations being too far away (27% advance, 20% election day). One in seven mentioned either a lack of polling stations on post-secondary campuses or problems with accessibility of advance polls. Around one in 10 or fewer mentioned other specific issues.

There are no important subgroup differences or response patterns to note.

Chart 35: Reasons for dissatisfaction with location of polling sites

Text version of "Chart 35: Reasons for dissatisfaction with location of polling sites"

Chart 35: Reasons for dissatisfaction with location of polling sites

Reasons	2021
Not enough advance polling stations	29%
Advance polling stations located too far	27%
Not enough polling station on polling day	26%
Polling stations on Election Day located too far	20%
Lack of polling stations on post-sec. campuses	14%
Problems re: accessibility: advance polling	14%
Electors unsure which polling station to go to	12%
Problems re: accessibility on Election Day	11%
Inappropriate polling stations	10%
Polling stations hard to find/unfamiliar building	4%
Advance polling hard to find/unfamiliar building	4%
Problems re: space in advance polling stations	4%
Lack of parking advance polling stations	3%
Other (3% or less each)	22%
Not sure/refused	5%

Q40: Why were you dissatisfied with the location of the polling sites? Base: n=269: Those dissatisfied with polling site locations.

3. Satisfaction with Voting Process

Overall satisfaction with the way the voting process went on advance polls and election day was close to eight in 10 (78%, comparable to 81% in 2019); just under four in 10 (38%) were very satisfied, which is statistically lower than the 2019 election (45%). One in six were dissatisfied to some degree.

Chart 36: Satisfaction with voting process

Text version of "Chart 36: Satisfaction with voting process"

Chart 36: Satisfaction with voting process

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure
2021 (N=1075)	38%	40%	9%	8%	5%
2019 (N=611)	45%	36%	8%	3%	7%

Q41: How satisfied were you with the way the voting process went on advance polls and election day? Base: All respondents.

Satisfaction is fairly consistent across candidate subgroups, with the following groups having higher overall satisfaction than others:

• candidates from Alberta (86%) versus candidates from the Prairies (72%), British Columbia (75%), Quebec (77%) and Ontario (77%)
• men (80%) versus women (74%)
• candidates without a disability (79%) versus candidates with a disability (68%)

4. Reason for Dissatisfaction with Voting Process

The small proportion of candidates who were dissatisfied to some extent with the voting process (n=186) were asked, without prompting, to explain why they were dissatisfied. Multiple responses were permitted. The top reasons were long lineups at both advance polls and on election day (three in 10 each); one-quarter had an issue with EC staff. Around one in seven each mentioned there having been too few locations, on either polling day or for the advance polls. One in 10 or fewer mentioned other issues, including one in 10 expressing dissatisfaction with COVID-19 protocols.

Chart 37: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the voting process

Text version of "Chart 37: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the voting process"

Chart 37: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the voting process

Reasons	2021
Long line ups at advance polls	31%
Long line ups on polling day	29%
Dissatisfied with EC staff	25%
Too few polling locations on polling day	15%
Too few advance polling locations	14%
Dissatisfied with advanced polling	11%
Dissatisfied with COVID-19 impact/protocols	11%
Electors did not know where to vote	10%
Dissatisfied with mail-in ballots	5%
Problems re: use of VIC as identification	4%
No online/email voting methods used	3%
Electors not aware of voter ID requirements	3%
Other (2% or less each)	17%
Not sure/refused	5%

Q42: Why were you dissatisfied with the voting process? Base: n=186: Those dissatisfied with the voting process.

While mentions are similar by subgroups, in general, mentions of almost all issues are at least somewhat higher among those groups with more experience: those with a party represented in the House of Commons, elected candidates and incumbents, and those who ran before:

Long line-ups at advance polls:

• candidates from parties represented in the House of Commons (39%) versus those from a non-represented party (16%)
• elected candidates (62%) versus unelected candidates (26%)
• incumbents (56%) vs non-incumbents (26%)

Long line-ups on polling day:

• candidates from parties represented in the House of Commons (37%) versus those from a non-represented party(13%)
• elected candidates (58%) versus unelected candidates (24%)
• incumbents (53%) versus non-incumbents (24%)
• candidates who ran in a previous election (38%) versus first-time candidates (21%)

Dissatisfaction with EC staff:

• candidates from parties represented in the House of Commons (31%) versus those from a non-represented party (14%)
• incumbents (45%) vs non-incumbents (22%)

5. Voter Identification Requirements

As in 2019, candidates were asked one of two questions about problems experienced with voter identification. The resulting analysis focuses on the responses of those who said they were present at or represented at the polling location.

Relatively few candidates — about one in six (16%) — reported they or their representatives witnessed problems related to the voter identification requirements in general. This is a comparable proportion to 2019, and consistent across subgroups.

Chart 38: If there were problems related to voter identification requirements

Text version of "Chart 38: If there were problems related to voter identification requirements"

Chart 38: If there were problems related to voter identification requirements

Year	Yes	No
2021 (N=405)	16%	84%
2019 (N=415)	20%	80%

Q43: Did you, or your representative, witness any problems related to…

• the voter identification requirements?

Base: Those present at the polling location.

When it comes to use of the Voter Information Card (VIC) as a form of ID, just over one in 10 saw some type of problem, statistically similar to 2019 and also similar across subgroups.

Chart 39: If there were problems related to use of VIC as piece of ID

Text version of "Chart 39: If there were problems related to use of VIC as piece of ID"

Chart 39: If there were problems related to use of VIC as piece of ID

Year	Yes	No
2021 (N=379)	12%	88%
2019 (N=457)	16%	84%

Q43: Did you, or your representative, witness any problems related to…

• the use of the Voter Information Card (VIC) as a piece of identification?

Base: Those present at the polling location.

6. Voter Identification Problems Witnessed

The small number of candidates who reported having seen a general voter identification problem (n=64) were most likely to report there being uneven interpretation of the rules by officers, or suspicion of fraud. One in 10 or fewer mentioned each of a range of other individual issues, including people having problems proving their identity or address, or their address not matching the listed address.

Most subgroups of this population are too small for analysis on that level.

Chart 40: Problems witnessed with voter ID process

Text version of "Chart 40: Problems witnessed with voter ID process"

Chart 40: Problems witnessed with voter ID process

Problems	2021
Uneven interpretation of rules by officers	25%
Suspicion of fraud (electors told already voted)	17%
Electors having problems proving their identity	9%
Electors having problems proving their address	7%
Address did not match address on list of electors	7%
Long lineups due to identification requirements	4%
Electors uncertain about ID needed	3%
Electors not having proper id: unable to vote	3%
Electors not having proper id: unable to register	2%
Scrutineers not allowed to examine identification	1%
Other	26%
Not sure/refused	8%

Q44A: What problems were witnessed? Base: n=64: Candidates who witnessed problems with voter identification process.

The small number of candidates who reported having seen a problem with electors using the VIC for identification (n=43) were most likely to mention that it did not arrive before election day, or that they saw people generally having difficulty proving their identity. One in 10 or fewer mentioned a range of other individual issues, including electors having no ID other than the VIC, the VIC address not matching the list, and an uneven interpretation of identification rules.

Subgroups of this population are too small for analysis on that level.

Chart 41: Problems witnessed with use of the VIC as ID

Text version of "Chart 41: Problems witnessed with use of the VIC as ID"

Chart 41: Problems witnessed with use of the VIC as ID

Problems	2021
VIC did not arrive/did not arrive before polling day	23%
VIC did not arrive/did not arrive before polling day	23%
Electors having problems proving their identity	15%
Electors only showed the VIC (no other ID)	11%
VIC address did not match address on electors list	9%
Uneven interpretation of rules by officers	9%
Long lineups due to identification requirements	2%
VIC was not in name of elector	2%
Electors having problems proving their address	2%
Other	27%
Not sure	12%

Q44B: What problems did you witness regarding the use of the VIC (voter information card) as a piece of identification? Base: n=43: Candidates who witnessed problems with use of VIC as ID.

7. Frequency of Voter Identification Requirements Problems

Half of those who witnessed voter identification issues said these occurred either very or somewhat often, four in 10 (39%) said these were not that often or often at all, and one in 10 were unable to say. Having witnessed it very often was lower than was the case in 2019.

Among those who witnessed VIC-related problems, six in 10 (62%) witnessed this very or somewhat often, and one-third saw it less frequently. Due to small sample sizes, having witnessed it very often is statistically comparable to 2019.

Chart 42: Frequency of problems with voter identification

Text version of "Chart 42: Frequency of problems with voter identification"

Chart 42: Frequency of problems with voter identification

Year	Very often	Somewhat often	Not that often	Not at all often	Not sure
Problems related to voter identification requirements
2021 (n=681)	17%	33%	26%	12%	11%
2019 (n=522)	37%	19%	35%	15%	14%
Problems related to use of VIC as identification
2021 (n=373)	27%	35%	21%	11%	5%
2021 (n=373)	17%	27%	30%	16%	10%

Q45: How often did you observe those problems? Base: Those who observed problems related to voter identification.

8. Difficulties with Observational Duties Because of COVID-Related Safety Measures

Just under half of candidates (48%) agreed to some extent that it was harder to observe the election because of COVID-19-related safety measures at the polls. One-quarter disagreed either somewhat or strongly, and one-quarter are unable to say.

Chart 43: Level of agreement that pandemic safety measures made election observation harder

Text version of "Chart 43: Level of agreement that pandemic safety measures made election observation harder"

Chart 43: Level of agreement that pandemic safety measures made election observation harder

Year	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree	Not sure / refused
2021	22%	26%	16%	10%	24%

Q46: Candidates and their representatives have the right to observe certain steps of the voting and counting process. How strongly do you agree or disagree that it was harder to observe the election because of COVID-19-related safety measures at the polls? Base: n=1,075: All respondents.

Overall agreement that the COVID-19 safety measures made election observation harder is higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in House of Commons (57%) versus those from a represented party (44%)
• candidates from British Columbia (58%) versus candidates from the Prairies (38%), Alberta (43%), and the Atlantic (44%)
• candidates aged 50+ (54%) versus those aged 18-49 (44%)

G. Attitude Toward Elections Canada

1. Fairness of EC's Administration of the GE

Three-quarters (76%) of candidates feel EC ran the election either very or somewhat fairly, which is statistically lower than in 2019 (81%). Two in 10 think it was unfair to some extent.

Chart 44: Perceived fairness of EC's administration of the general election

Text version of "Chart 44: Perceived fairness of EC's administration of the general election"

Chart 44: Perceived fairness of EC's administration of the general election

Year	Very fairly	Somewhat fairly	Somewhat unfairly	Very unfairly
2021 (N=1075)	42%	34%	12%	8%
2019 (N=1172)	52%	29%	7%	6%

Q47: Thinking about the September 20 federal election, would you say that Elections Canada ran the election…? Base: All respondents. Includes those (4%) who said "not sure."

Thinking the election was administered very or somewhat fairly by EC is higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (81%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (65%)
• elected candidates (87%) versus unelected candidates (73%)
• incumbents (85%) versus non-incumbents (74%)
• men (79%) versus women (72%)
• candidates without a disability (77%) versus candidates with a disability (65%)
• candidates born in Canada (78%) versus those born outside Canada (68%)
• white candidates (78%) versus visible minority candidates (70%)

2. Trust in Election Results' Accuracy

A strong majority (83%) of candidates in the federal election have at least somewhat high trust in the accuracy of the results, and over half (55%) have very high trust, the same proportion as in 2019 (54%). Just over one in 10 distrust the results to some extent.

Chart 45: Perceived trust in the accuracy of election results in the riding

Text version of "Chart 45: Perceived trust in the accuracy of election results in the riding"

Chart 45: Perceived trust in the accuracy of election results in the riding

Year	Very high	Somewhat high	Somewhat low	Very low
2021 (N=1075)	55%	28%	8%	5%
2019 (N=1172)	54%	32%	7%	3%

Q48: What level of trust do you have in the accuracy of the election results in your riding? Base: All respondents. Includes those (3%) who said "not sure."

Majorities in all candidate subgroups have at least some trust in the accuracy of results. Having very high trust is higher among the following:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (63%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (39%)
• elected candidates (73%) versus unelected candidates (52%)
• incumbents (68%) versus non-incumbents (53%)
• candidates who ran previously (61%) versus first-time candidates (53%)
• candidates outside of Quebec (63% to 58%) versus candidates from Quebec (44%)
• candidates aged under 35 (63%) versus those aged 35–49 (53%) and those aged 50–59 (51%)
• candidates born in Canada (58%) versus those born outside Canada (47%)
• white candidates (60%) versus visible minority (48%) and Indigenous candidates (46%)
• candidates with upper-range household incomes (63%) versus those with lower- (53%) and middle-range (54%) household incomes

3. Satisfaction with Interactions with Returning Officer

Nine in 10 (90%) candidates expressed some level of satisfaction with their interactions with the RO, and about three-quarters (73%) were very satisfied; these proportions are statistically the same as for the 43rd GE. One in 10 expressed some level of dissatisfaction with their interactions.

Chart 46: Satisfaction with interactions with the returning officer

Text version of "Chart 46: Satisfaction with interactions with the returning officer"

Chart 46: Satisfaction with interactions with the returning officer

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	73%	17%	6%	3%
2019 (N=611)	70%	19%	3%	3%

Q49: Overall, how satisfied were you with your interactions with the returning officer? Base: All respondents. Includes those (2%) who said "not sure" or had no interactions with the RO.

There were no significant differences in overall satisfaction among subgroups.

Quebec candidates were somewhat less likely to be very satisfied (66%) than candidates from other regions of Canada (74-79%).

4. Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service

Close to nine in 10 (86%) candidates were satisfied to some degree with the overall quality of service they received from Elections Canada in the most recent federal election, and just under half were very satisfied. These results are statistically similar to the proportions of 2019.

Chart 47: Satisfaction with quality of EC services

Text version of "Chart 47: Satisfaction with quality of EC services"

Chart 47: Satisfaction with quality of EC services

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	47%	39%	8%	4%
2019 (N=611)	51%	38%	6%	2%

Q50: How satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from Elections Canada in the most recent federal election? Base: All respondents. Includes those (2%) who said "not sure."

As with satisfaction with RO interactions, responses are quite consistent across subgroups, with 81% to 91% being at least somewhat satisfied. Strong satisfaction is somewhat lower in Quebec (37%) than elsewhere (47%-56%) and is higher among men (50%, versus 43% of women).

5. Suggestions to Improve Services Received from Elections Canada

All candidates were asked, without prompting, for suggestions about how EC can improve their services to candidates. Close to six in 10 (58%) made at least one suggestion. The top response was to provide more timely or accessible information. Fewer than one in 10 make any other individual mention; these include improving the website or portal, improving communications, simplifying paperwork and additional staff training.

Chart 48: Suggestions for improving EC services

Text version of "Chart 48: Suggestions for improving EC services"

Chart 48: Suggestions for improving EC services

Suggestions	2021
More timely/accessible information	12%
Improve level of service	7%
More polling stations/locations	6%
Improve website/online portal	6%
Improve contact/communication	5%
More fair process for all candidates	5%
Better prepared for elections/mobilize offices	5%
Simplify paperwork	5%
Better access/timely/accurate info for voters	5%
More training for the staff	4%
Simplify/more accessible voting methods	4%
Enforce rules/regulations	4%
Other mentions (3% or less each)	25%
None/not sure/refused	42%

Q51: Thinking about the services you received from Elections Canada during the election, what is your main suggestion, if anything, to improve those services? Base: n=1,075: All respondents. Includes those (3%) who said "not sure."

Results are generally consistent across candidate subgroups. Mentions of needing more polling stations (e.g. on post-secondary campuses) were somewhat higher in the Atlantic region (13%) and Ontario (10%) than elsewhere (5% to 2%).

H. Elections and technology

1. Foreign Influence, Interference and False Information

A majority of 56% of candidates thought the spread of false information online was a problem in this election, somewhat down from the two-thirds who felt that way in 2019. As well, candidates were slightly less likely than in 2019 (38%, down 6 percentage points) to think foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians was a problem. Unchanged statistically is the one-in-10 proportion thinking hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election was a problem.

Chart 49: Agreement that the spread of false information, foreign influence and interference were a problem in the election

Text version of "Chart 49: Agreement that the spread of false information, foreign influence and interference were a problem in the election"

Chart 49: Agreement that the spread of false information, foreign influence and interference were a problem in the election

% Agreeing		Yes	No	Not sure
The spread of false information online	2021 (N=787)	56%	30%	14%
	2019 (N=892)	64%	22%	14%
Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians	2021 (N=787)	38%	40%	23%
	2019 (N=923)	44%	32%	23%
Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election	2021 (N=787)	10%	64%	26%
	2019 (N=909)	8%	54%	39%

Q52: Based on what you have seen or heard recently, do you think any of the following were a problem in this election?

• Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election.
• Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians.
• The spread of false information online.

Base: Online respondents plus 1/3 of telephone respondents.

While the proportions agreeing these were problems are relatively similar across subgroups, the following are the more likely to agree regarding each:

The spread of false information online

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (60%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (49%)
• elected candidates (67%) versus unelected candidates (54%)
• incumbents (71%) versus non-incumbents (54%)
• candidates from British Columbia (73%), the Prairies (65%), the Atlantic (64%), Ontario (63%) and Alberta (60%) versus candidates from Quebec (35%)
• candidates with a disability (77%) versus candidates without a disability (54%)

Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians

• elected candidates (50%) versus unelected candidates (35%)
• incumbents (52%) versus non-incumbents (35%)
• Alberta (50%) and B.C. (47%) candidates versus candidates from the Atlantic and Quebec (29%)

Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election

• candidates from party not represented in the House of Commons (14%) versus those from a represented party (8%)
• Prairies candidates (18%) versus candidates from British Columbia (7%)

2. Impact of Perceived Interference in Election

Candidates were asked what actual impact, if any, they thought problems of electoral interference had on the outcome of the election.^{footnote 2}

Overall, two in 10 candidates (21%) thought the spread of false information online had a major impact on the election outcome. The same proportion (22%) thought it had a moderate impact of the election outcome. These proportions are comparable to the proportions of candidates reporting in 2019 that the spread of false information online had a major (19%) or a moderate (22%) impact on the election outcome.

An equally low proportion of candidates (14%) thought foreign countries or groups using social media or other means to influence political opinions of Canadians had a major or a moderate impact on this election's outcome. While the proportion of those thinking it had a major impact is slightly on the rise compared to 2019 (9%), the proportion of those thinking it has a moderate impact remained stable (15% in 2019).

A lower proportion of candidates thought foreign countries or groups hacking into the computer systems that support the election had an impact in this election. Only 4% of candidates thought it had a major impact on the outcome of the election and 3% thought it had a moderate impact.

Chart 50: Impact of perceived interference in election

Text version of "Chart 50: Impact of perceived interference in election"

Chart 50: Impact of perceived interference in election

Problems		Major impact	Moderate impact	Minor / No impact
The spread of false information online	2021 (N=787)	21%	22%	10%
	2019 (N=892)	19%	22%	20%
Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians	2021 (N=787)	14%	14%	7%
	2019 (N=923)	9%	15%	15%
Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election	2021 (N=787)	4%	3%	2%

Q53: [Telephone] What impact, if any, do you think this had on the outcome of the election? [Online] What impact, if any, do you think the following had on the outcome of the election?

• Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election.
• Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians.
• The spread of false information online.

Base: Online respondents plus 1/3 of telephone respondents.

Thinking each of these had a major impact on the election outcome is generally similar across subgroups; thinking that each was a major problem was higher among those whose party is not represented in the House of Commons.

3. Technology at the Polls

Candidates were each asked one of two questions about technology use in elections, either about the lists of electors used at the polls or about the ballot-counting method.

Of those who were asked about their preference between paper or electronic voter lists, over four in 10 (44%) still preferred paper lists; just under three in 10 preferred computerized lists (28%), and two in 10 (22%) didn't have a preference between the two. These results are comparable to 2019.

Chart 51: Preference for paper or electronic lists of electors used at the polls

Text version of "Chart 51: Preference for paper or electronic lists of electors used at the polls"

Chart 51: Preference for paper or electronic lists of electors used at the polls

Preference	2021 (N=536)	2019 (N=561)
Paper lists	44%	41%
Computer lists	28%	33%
No preference	22%	21%
Not sure/refused	7%	5%

Q54A: In a Canadian federal election, workers at the polls use paper lists to find a voter's name and keep track of who voted. In some provincial elections, poll workers use computers or tablets to do this electronically. Which method do you prefer? Base: Half of sample.

Paper lists are preferred by higher proportions of the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (67%) versus candidates from a represented party (33%)
• men (50%) versus women (35%)
• Alberta (55%), Prairies (54%) and Ontario (45%) candidates versus candidates from Quebec (33%)

Computerized lists are preferred by higher proportions of the following groups:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (35%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (14%)
• incumbents (40%) versus non-incumbents (26%)
• Quebec candidates (37%) versus Alberta (19%), Prairies (20%) and British Columbia candidates (20%)
• women (33%) versus men (24%)
• candidates under age 50 (31%) versus candidates aged 50+ (24%)

Among those who were asked about ballot-counting methods, over six in 10 (62%) expressed a preference for hand-counted ballots, notably higher than the just under half who preferred this in 2019. One in six (17%) preferred machine counting, down 14 percentage points from 2019. One in six expressed no preference (unchanged).

Chart 52: Preference for machine or hand counting of paper ballots

Text version of "Chart 52: Preference for machine or hand counting of paper ballots"

Chart 52: Preference for machine or hand counting of paper ballots

Preference	2021 (N=539)	2019 (N=611)
Hand counting	62%	46%
Machine counting	17%	31%
No preference	16%	16%
Not sure/refused	5%	7%

Q54B: In Canadian federal elections, each paper ballot is counted by hand. In some provincial elections, paper ballots are scanned into a machine that counts the votes. Which vote counting method do you prefer? Base: Half of sample.

Hand-counting is preferred by higher proportions of the following groups:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (75%) versus those from a represented party (55%)
• incumbents (74%) versus non-incumbents (60%)
• men (67%) versus women (54%)

Machine-counting is preferred by those in a party represented in the House of Commons (21% versus 9% in a non-represented party) and those born outside of Canada (25%, versus 16% born in Canada), but is otherwise similar by subgroup.

4. Voting on the Internet

Candidates were asked one of two questions about online voting.

Among those who were asked if they think electors should be able to vote by using the Internet, just under four in 10 said they should, which is comparable to the proportion in 2019, but both are lower than the 54% in favour in 2015.

Chart 53: If electors should be able to vote by using the internet

Text version of "Chart 53: If electors should be able to vote by using the internet"

Chart 53: If electors should be able to vote by using the internet

Year	Yes	No	Not sure
2021 (N=537)	38%	51%	11%
2019 (N=561)	35%	59%	6%

Q55A: Do you think that electors should be able to vote by using the Internet? Base: Half of sample.

A minority of candidates across all subgroups think electors should be able to vote online but the proportion is higher among the following:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (47%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (18%)
• unelected candidates (41%) versus elected candidates (24%)
• non-incumbents (41%) versus incumbents (18%)
• women (43%) versus men (34%)

Among those who were asked if online voting is risky or safe, close to six in 10 (56%) feel it is risky, three in 10 (31%) think it is safe, and one in 10 are unsure. The proportion who think it is risky is lower than in 2019, with a corresponding increase in those who think it is safe.

Chart 54: If online voting is risky or safe

Text version of "Chart 54: If online voting is risky or safe"

Chart 54: If online voting is risky or safe

Year	Voting online is risky	Voting online is safe	Not sure
2021 (N=538)	56%	31%	13%
2019 (N=661)	67%	22%	11%

Q55B: Which statement comes closest to your own view? Base: Half of sample.

A minority of candidates across all subgroups think online voting is safe, but the proportion is higher among the following groups:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (39%) versus those from a non-represented party (16%)
• Atlantic region candidates (44%) compared to Quebec (27%) and Alberta (25%) candidates
• women (37%) versus men (28%)

I. Attitudes Toward Democracy in Canada

1. Satisfaction with Democracy in Canada

Over half of candidates in the 44th GE (55%) are satisfied to some extent with the way democracy works in Canada, and one-quarter (24%) are very satisfied. Both of these proportions are statistically higher than in 2019. Two in 10 are very dissatisfied.

Chart 55: Level of satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada

Text version of "Chart 55: Level of satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada"

Chart 55: Level of satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada

Year	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
2021 (N=1075)	24%	31%	24%	20%
2019 (N=1172)	16%	34%	25%	23%

Q56: Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada? Base: All respondents. Includes those (<1%) who said "not sure."

A slim majority of most candidate subgroups were at least somewhat satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada, with some exceptions. The following groups were less often satisfied:

• candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (27%) versus those from a represented party (69%)
• unelected candidates (48%) versus elected candidates (93%)
• non-incumbents (49%) versus incumbents (91%)
• candidates with a disability (39%) versus candidates without a disability (58%)
• high school or less education (42%) or some post-secondary (46%) versus 60% with a university degree
• candidates with lower-range household incomes (38%) versus those with middle- (50%) and upper-range (69%) household incomes

2. Reason dissatisfied with democracy in Canada

Those dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Canada (n=475) were most likely to cite the lack of proportional representation, or that first-past-the-post does not reflect voter preferences; these were also top responses in 2019. One in six made a general comment about the system being unfair or undemocratic, and a similar proportion said there was too much media bias or censorship. One in 10 or fewer gave other individual reasons for being dissatisfied with the way democracy works.

Chart 56: Reasons for dissatisfaction with democracy in Canada

Text version of "Chart 56: Reasons for dissatisfaction with democracy in Canada"

Chart 56: Reasons for dissatisfaction with democracy in Canada

Suggestions	2021
Lack of proportional representation	29%
First-past-the-post does not reflect voters' preferences	21%
System is unfair/not democratic (general)	17%
Too much media bias/censorship	16%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small/new party	9%
Electors' disengagement / Low turnout	9%
System needs electoral reform (unspecified)	9%
The role of money in politics is increasing	9%
Too much corruption involved in the system	6%
Unfair timing of the election/don't have time to prepare	4%
System impacted by COVID-19 pandemic/restrictions	3%
Lack of political elites' accountability	3%
Polarization of Canadians re division between parties	3%
Other (2% or less each)	15%
Not sure/refused	7%

Q57: Is there a specific reason why you are dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Canada? Base: n=475: Those dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Canada.

3. Attitude Toward Lowering the Voting Age

On the question of whether the federal voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16, strong disagreement (42%) outweighs strong agreement (30%) by 12 percentage points, no change since 2019.

Chart 57: Level of agreement with lowering the voting age

Text version of "Chart 57: Level of agreement with lowering the voting age"

Chart 57: Level of agreement with lowering the voting age

Year	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree
2021 (N=1075)	30%	15%	11%	42%
2019 (N=1172)	31%	16%	11%	41%

Q58: How strongly do you agree or disagree that the voting age in a federal election should be lowered from 18 to 16 years old? Base: All respondents. Includes those (2%) who said "not sure."

Candidates from the following groups were more likely to agree to some extent that the voting age should be lowered to 16:

• candidates from a party represented in the HoC (55%) versus those from a non-represented party (26%)
• unelected candidates (48%) versus elected candidates (34%)
• non-incumbents (48%) versus incumbents (34%)
• women (53%) versus men (40%)
• candidates under age 35 (65%) versus candidates aged 35-49 (52%) and 50+ (33%)
• candidates with a disability (58%) versus candidates without a disability (45%)
• candidates with lower-range household incomes (61%) versus those with upper-range household incomes (45%)

4. Attitudes Toward Representation Rules or Incentives

Candidates were each asked one of two questions regarding increasing the proportion of women candidates.

On whether political parties should be required to have more women candidates, just over half (54%) agreed to some extent with this premise, and one-third agreed strongly; both of these measures have increased from 2019.

Chart 58: Level of agreement that political parties should be required to have more women candidates

Text version of "Chart 58: Level of agreement that political parties should be required to have more women candidates"

Chart 58: Level of agreement that political parties should be required to have more women candidates

Year	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree
2021 (N=537)	34%	20%	12%	25%
2019 (N=561)	27%	20%	14%	30%

Q59: How strongly do you agree or disagree that…

• political parties should be required to have more women candidates?

Base: Half of sample. Includes those (9%) who said "not sure."

Overall agreement is higher among the following:

• candidates from a party represented in the HoC (66%) versus those from a non-represented party (26%)
• women (73%) versus men (42%)
• candidates born outside Canada (65%) versus candidates born in Canada (52%)
• visible minority candidates (69%) versus white candidates (52%)

When asked if political parties should receive financial incentives to have more candidates who are women, as in 2019 there is slim majority disagreement (53%, statistically similar to 55%), and close to four in 10 strongly disagree.

Chart 59: Level of agreement that political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates

Text version of "Chart 59: Level of agreement that political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates"

Chart 59: Level of agreement that political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates

Year	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree
2021 (N=538)	22%	17%	15%	38%
2019 (N=611)	18%	18%	15%	40%

Q59: How strongly do you agree or disagree that…

• political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates?

Base: Half of sample. Includes those (8%) who said "not sure."

Overall agreement that financial incentives should be provided to encourage political parties to include more women is the minority view across most subgroups, but higher among the following:

• candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (50%) versus candidates from a non-represented party (19%)
• women (51%) versus men (31%)
• candidates with some post-secondary or more education (41%) versus candidates with high school education or less (17%)

J. Socio-demographics

The following tables describe the weighted socio-demographic characteristics of respondents to the survey.

Region

British Columbia	11%
Alberta	10%
Prairies/Territories	9%
Ontario	34%
Quebec	28%
Atlantic	8%

# times run

1	58%
2+	39%

Age

18-34	19%
35-49	33%
50-59	26%
60+	21%

Gender

Male	62%
Female	38%

Place of birth

Born in Canada	81%
Born outside Canada	17%

Ethnicity

White	72%
South Asian	6%
Black	3%
Latin American	2%
Chinese	2%
Other ethnicity	11%

Indigenous identity

Indigenous	5%
Non-Indigenous	88%
Prefer not to say	7%

Language at home

English	71%
French	24%
Other	4%

Disability

Yes	10%
No	88%
Not sure/not stated	2%

Education

Less than high school	2%
High school	4%
Some or full college/vocational/trade school	14%
Some university	8%
Completed university	36%
Post grad	33%

Household income

Lower	<$20K	4%
	$20K-$39K	8%
Middle	$40K-$59K	8%
	$60K-$79K	9%
	$80K-$99K	10%
Higher	$100K+	44%

Footnotes

Return to source of Footnote ¹ Household income ranges are defined in the socio-demographics section.

Return to source of Footnote ² Only respondents who said that they thought there had been a problem with electoral interference were asked what impact they thought that problem had on the outcome of the election. To allow for comparison of the results across the different forms of electoral interference, the results were rebased to include all respondents, including those who did not think there had been a problem. For example, among the 56% candidates who felt that the spread of false information online was a problem in this election, 38% thought it had a major impact on the election outcome. Of the 38% who believed foreign countries or groups using social media or other means to influence political opinions of Canadians was a problem, 38% thought it had a major impact on the election outcome. Among those (10%) who thought foreign countries or groups hacking into the computer systems that support the election was a problem, just under half (46%) said it had a major impact on the election.

• Previous
• Table of Contents
• Next