Thank you, Mr. Preston.
I'm honoured to contribute toward the deliberations of the Canadian Parliament on this important issue, and I thank the committee for inviting me.
I want to make four sets of remarks: a bit of background, something about the standards that we're going to talk about, the problems, and then a little detail.
Firstly, on the background, I'm engaged in this because I direct the electoral integrity project. This project looks worldwide at issues of elections. It's based in Harvard University and the University of Sydney. We monitor the problems of elections around the world, from issues facing the United States, Britain, and Canada, through to cases of fragile states, such as Afghanistan, Kenya, and Thailand.
What are the standards you can use to judge whether or not any new legislation is going to be effective? I think we can agree on certain principles, which are recognized in international law and which have been endorsed by the international community. I'd like to suggest four principles.
Firstly, electoral management bodies should be impartial, fair, effective, and independent—this is important in every country—and they have to have the capacity to manage contests. I think we can all agree that's an important criteria for trust. Secondly, voting procedures should be secure, honest and fair, and they should include all eligible voters. Thirdly, the role of money in politics, particularly private money, should be transparent and should provide a level playing field for all parties. Fourthly, electoral laws and registration regulations should be subject to widespread consultation and consensus amongst all parties.
The next point I want to make is that if we can agree on these standards—and I think they are universal; they're accepted in many countries around the world and by most international bodies—the fair elections act in Canada, which is proposed, has a problem in meeting these four goals in four ways.
Firstly, I think that some of the provisions would diminish the authority, the effectiveness, the impartiality, and the independence of electoral administration. This can affect trust in the process and can be a problem. Secondly, some of the provisions, I think, would restrict basic voting rights, and therefore reduce electoral turnout. That is clearly also a problem because turnout has gone down in Canada, as in many other countries. Thirdly, it would expand the role of money, particularly private money, in politics. Lastly, I think the process is going to lead to greater polarization rather than consensus. Once you open polarization and party polarization over the electoral law, it's very difficult to prevent that from happening in successive governments.
Overall when I look at the legislation, and I've read it very carefully, I think there might be some problems for Canada's international reputation. Canada has a worldwide role as a leading ideal type of democracy, and it could damage that. Also, other governments—and this, again, is really my concern—who are less willing to respect human rights, who are less established in their democratic institutions, could use this example, and it would therefore damage some of the world's progress in democracy.
Now in my written comments, I've also provided some detailed justifications for these claims. I don't want to go into them in great detail—I put them on the table—but I want to highlight under each of those four arguments one simple key point.
Firstly, on electoral management, I think some of the provisions would limit the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with the public and also to provide education in civics. This is basic. Voter education is a fundamental duty of electoral bodies. Again, this is accepted by organizations like the OSCE, the African Union, the Organization of American States, as one of the key functions. The role of the institution will also be weakened by not being able to report directly to Parliament but to government.
Secondly, on voting rights and turnout, I think the committee has heard much discussion about vouching and the use of voter information cards. Quite simply, I don't believe that voter fraud is a major problem. If the Canadian Parliament believes that it is a problem, there are far more effective ways it can use to reduce problems of voter impersonation. This includes, for example, having publicly available cost-free cards hat Elections Canada provides to all voters. The Indian election going on in the next few weeks provides free cards to over 800 million people in the country. Those photo cards are with photos, which were available at the polling station.
Voter fraud can be dealt with effectively, but it needs an investment. You don't exclude voters. You include voters. You might introduce greater fines or other punishments for transgression.
Thirdly, on money and politics, clearly every campaign costs money, and you want to be able to provide that, but I think that some of the provisions are going to reduce transparency and therefore that could be a problem. In addition, there are other ways to provide resources on a fair and equitable basis to every party, including through public funding. If it's a question of not having sufficient resources, that might be the best route to go: to expand resources for every candidate and every party on a fair basis.
The last point, and I think in some ways the most important, is that you must have a consensus when you're dealing with constitutional matters and when you're dealing with election matters. It can't be seen to be partisan. If you do that, the dangers are twofold. Firstly, you can lack trust. The public might be much more suspicious about election processes, and that would be a real shame. At present, Canadian elections are held in very wide regard. Most Canadians believe that they're very honest. You don't want to damage trust in any way, because once it's damaged, it's difficult to recover. The second damage is that this can also reduce trust in electoral officials, and it can produce partisanship in subsequent governments. If you pass this law and other parties and groups don't agree with it, it can get repealed, and that again can be very damaging.
In conclusion, I think the deliberations of the Parliament are very much welcomed. We need to make sure that Canadian democracy is not damaged. We need to make sure that Canadian elections are not damaged. We need to make sure this is not an example that countries that don't respect human rights, of which there are many around the world, can use to say that if Canada can in any way restrict voters' rights, for example, then so can, for example, Zimbabwe, Belarus, or Kenya, or many other countries that are not strong democracies but that are moving towards the leading example that Canada provides.
Thank you again very much for your remarks. I very much welcome your questions about any matters of detail.
