HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Monday 31
March 2014 7-8pm Ottowa
OPENING STATEMENT
BY PIPPA NORRIS
I am honored to contribute towards the deliberations of the
Canadian Parliament and I thank the committee for the invitation.
In particular, I direct the electoral integrity project based at
Harvard University and the University of Sydney. We monitor the causes and consequences of flawed
and failed elections in all countries around the world.
We study major problems, such as flaws in voter registration and
election management in mature democracies such as the United States, Britain
and Canada as well as major problems of electoral violence, bloodshed, and
instability in fragile states such as Afghanistan, Thailand and Kenya.
STANDARDS OF
ELECTORAL INTEGRITY endorsed by
the international community suggest that contests should meet certain agreed principles, in
particular that:
·
Electoral
management bodies should be independent and impartial, with the capacity to
manage contests fairly, transparently, and effectively.
·
Voting
processes should be secure, honest, fair, and inclusive of all eligible electors.
·
The role of
money in politics should provide a reasonably level playing field which is
equitable for all parties. And,
·
Electoral laws
and regulations should be subject to public consultation and careful parliamentary
deliberation to foster a broad consensus among all political parties.
I think that we can all agree on these broad standards. The Fair
Elections Act proposes a set of wide-ranging changes. Unfortunately, the current
draft of the proposed legislation would fail to meet these international
standards in four ways. In particular, it would:
1.
Diminish the
effectiveness, impartiality, and independence of electoral administration;
2.
Restrict voting
rights and thereby reduce electoral turnout;
3.
Expand the
role of money in politics; and
4.
Produce
polarization rather than a broad consensus among all political parties.
As a result, the legislation damage Canada’s international
reputation as one of the world’s guardians of human rights and provide a poor
example for countries elsewhere in the world. Let me explain these concerns.
DETAILED
COMMENTS
The bill seeks to rewrite many major laws and regulations
governing elections in Canada. These major
changes would reduce electoral integrity in four ways, as follows:
1. DIMINISH
THE EFFECTIVENESS, IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION
The proposed Act significantly diminishes the effectiveness of
Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, in the fair administration of
elections and the independent investigation of electoral infractions by:
·
Severely
limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to communicate with
the public, thereby preventing the CEO
from encouraging voting and civic participation, and publishing research
reports
·
Removing the
enforcement arm of the agency, the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections
Canada, and placing it in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP), a government department. This weakens the Commissioner’s accountability
to report to all political parties in parliament and to the general public.
·
Enabling the
winning political party to recommend names for poll supervisors, thereby
politicizing the electoral process and introducing the possibility or
perception of partisan bias. The risk is
that politicization will reduce public trust in the electoral process and
confidence in elected officials
·
Failing to
provide the Commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony (a
significant obstacle in a recent investigation of electoral fraud)
Any electoral management body needs to be seen to be independent
of the party in government, impartial towards all political parties, and
effective in connecting with the public, including mobilizing turnout. The Act
would weaken Elections Canada in all these regards, violating international
norms.
2. RESTRICT
VOTING RIGHTS AND TURNOUT: The
proposed Act diminishes the ability of citizens to vote in elections by:
·
Prohibiting
the use of vouching to establish a citizen’s eligibility to vote
·
Prohibiting
the use of Voter Information Cards to establish a citizen’s identity or residency
The prohibition against vouching is ostensibly to reduce voter
fraud yet there is no evidence, as affirmed by the Neufeld Report on Compliance
Review, that vouching results in voter fraud. These changes to the voter
eligibility rules will disproportionately impact seniors, the younger
population and students, the economically disadvantaged, and First Nations
citizens, leading to an estimated disenfranchisement of over 120,000 citizens.
There are more appropriate and effective ways which many countries
use to prevent voter impersonation, including the provision of no cost official
photo voter identification cards by the EMB, the use of provisional ballots
(put into a special provisional ballot box to double check against registration
records after close of polling), and stricter punishments for any
transgressions, such as higher fines or imprisonment.
3. EXPAND
THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLITICS: The
proposed Act does this by:
·
Exempting
“fundraising expenses” from the spending limits for political parties, thereby
creating a potential loophole and weakening enforcement
·
Failing to
require political parties to provide supporting documentation for their
expenses, even though the parties are reimbursed over $30 million after every
election
·
Increasing
the caps on individual donations from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year
·
Increasing
the caps on candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns from $1200 to
$5000 per election for candidates and $25,000 per election for leadership
contestants
The danger
is thereby increasing the influence of personal wealth in elections. Campaigns
cost money. Alternative strategies include raising public subsidies and direct
services available for all registered candidates and parties on an equitable and
fair basis.
4. FAIL TO
ACHIEVE A BROAD BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
The substance of the Fair Elections Act raises significant
concerns with respect to the future of electoral integrity in Canada. The
process by which the proposed Act is being rushed into law in Parliament has
also sparked considerable concern. The governing political party has used its
majority power to enact the bill as soon as possible. By contrast, the
conventional approach to reforming the electoral apparatus in many democracies
has always involved widespread consultation with electoral authorities, the opposition
parties and the citizens, as well as with the international community.
Electoral rules and procedures which are seen as partisan or
serving the interests of any one party are likely to reduce public trust in the
electoral process AND confidence in members of parliament, as well as being
vulnerable to amendment following a change of the parties in government.
IN
CONCLUSION, the proposed legislation should
be revised so that contests in Canada continue to meet the highest international
standards of electoral integrity. I share the concerns expressed in writing by
many distinguished national and international experts that the proposed Fair
Elections Act threatens to:
·
undermine
the integrity of the Canadian electoral process,
·
damage Canada’s
international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of human rights, and
·
provide an
example which would also undermine prospects for democracy to flourish in the rest
of the world.
Pippa Norris
Director, the Electoral Integrity Project
Professor of Government and International
Relations, University of Sydney
McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics,
Harvard University
Sydney
2 April 2014
