Same old story, unaccountability edition

The Hill Times focuses on the chief electoral officer's recommendation to make sure that at least one party responsible for reviewing parties' election expenses is actually able to check whether they're valid:

Canada's chief electoral officer says a gap in Canada's elections law means his office reimbursed the five main federal political parties $29.2-million after the last election without being able to check the accuracy of the expenses on which those reimbursements were based.

Marc Mayrand wants to close a loophole in the Canada Elections Act that means he receives documentary evidence support the financial returns of candidates, leadership and nomination contestants, but not political parties.

Registered parties are eligible to get public subsidies, partly through a 50 per cent reimbursement of their election expenses. But before the receiver general cuts a cheque, the chief electoral officer has to certify that he's satisfied the party has met Canada Elections Act reporting requirements. Taxpayers shelled out $29,182,448.51 to parties after the 2008 election.

"Despite the considerable funding given to registered parties, the chief electoral officer does not receive any documentary evidence of the expenses reported in the election expenses return. Nor does the Act provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the authority to request that a party provide such evidence," Mr. Mayrand wrote in a post-mortem report on the 2006 and 2008 elections. "[The chief electoral officer] has no means to verify the accuracy of the reported expenses on which the reimbursement is based."
...
Currently, independent auditors review parties' returns to ensure accuracy and transparency, but they don't make sure the parties have followed political financing rules set out under the Canada Elections Act. For instance, they don't have to check whether an amount claimed as an election expense eligible for reimbursement is, actually, an election expense as defined by law.

But the more important detail seems to be that the Cons and Libs have no interest in backing up their spending, and are apparently working together to make sure that oversight doesn't happen:

The Conservatives and Liberals disagreed with its newest incarnation.

The status quo, an independent auditor's report, should be good enough evidence of the expenses listed in the return, John Arnold, Liberal Party senior director of regulatory compliance and administration, told the committee.
...
In their written report, the Conservatives argued: "By taking the audit function 'in house,' Elections Canada is removing its own objectivity and ability to act as the overseer and second check on the auditor."

Though in fairness, I'm sure both are too busy trying to figure out how they'll defy the public again on Afghanistan to offer up full information around electoral financing.