In broad terms, this same general process unfolds for everything from parking infractions to shoplifting to murder. But not for the enforcement of Ontario’s municipal elections law.
That law, the Municipal Elections Act, sets the rules that everyone running for mayor or councillor of every city in Ontario has to follow. By setting limits on the contributions candidates can receive and the expenses they can incur, the Municipal Elections Act ensures that elections are fair. It also sets financial reporting obligations so candidates’ compliance with the act can be verified. The importance of this law is manifested in the penalties available for breaches: fines, jail time and even removal from office.
Unfortunately, the existing process for enforcing the Municipal Elections Act is a significant barrier to ensuring that candidates comply with their obligations.
To begin an investigation of a candidate’s election campaign finances, an elector has to apply to a specialized tribunal called a “compliance audit committee” for a “compliance audit.”
If the committee determines there are reasonable grounds to believe the candidate has contravened the Municipal Elections Act, then an audit is conducted. An auditor prepares a report, which goes back to the committee. If the auditor finds that there are one or more “apparent contraventions,” the committee can then decide to hire a prosecutor to consider charges against the candidate (as it did earlier this week with respect to Giorgio Mammoliti). If that prosecutor decides to proceed with charges, only then do legal proceedings actually begin.
The contrast between this process and the one for criminal offences is staggering.
Unlike virtually all other areas of law enforcement, no government body investigates potential breaches of the Municipal Elections Act. Rather, the process depends entirely on electors to unearth potential violations and press forward with an application for a compliance audit. While a city like Toronto has a small army of police and bylaw enforcement officers patrolling the streets for traffic and parking infractions, no government official spends any time going through candidates’ filings to make sure they’ve complied with the law.
The disincentive for citizens to make an audit application is huge. They have to spend the time digging through the candidate’s records at city hall and preparing a detailed application. They may be publicly vilified by the candidate and others for bringing the application. Moreover, if the compliance audit proceeds but does not find any apparent contraventions, the elector can be on the hook for the costs of the audit. It takes a brave person to proceed in the face of these hurdles.
Second, the process for enforcing the Municipal Elections Act is so convoluted that cases can easily collapse under their own weight. To convict someone of, say, shoplifting, can take a trial and a few appeals. By contrast, to convict someone for breaching the Municipal Elections Act takes two hearings before the compliance audit committee, each of which can be appealed at least twice, just to start a prosecution. Candidates for municipal office who really want to fight the allegations have six or seven chances to do so, before charges are even laid.
It’s no surprise that there have been almost no successful prosecutions of candidates for breaching the Municipal Elections Act, despite anecdotal evidence it is routinely violated.
Ontarians should be able to have confidence that their representatives were elected in fair and open elections. And most candidates do indeed try to play by the rules. But if it’s easy to break the rules without a serious risk of facing significant consequences, rule-breakers can gain an unfair advantage. Those are not the people Ontarians deserve to have as their elected representatives. It’s time for a better process for enforcing the Municipal Elections Act.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Paul-Erik Veel
No comments:
Post a Comment