As the public inquiry into foreign interference grinds on, questions continue to be raised about political parties’ nomination processes.
Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue’s inquiry has devoted significant attention to the nomination of MP Han Dong, who represents the Don Valley North riding. The former Liberal Party member now sits as an Independent, after resigning from the party due to allegations his nomination was influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.
In particular, intelligence sources allege the Chinese government coerced Chinese international high school students attending a nearby boarding school to register for the Liberal Party and vote for Dong.
While much of Hogue’s inquiry has focused on the Liberal Party’s processes, every major federal party permits non-citizens to vote in some form.
“I think it’s just absolutely absurd,” said Sam Cooper, an investigative journalist who has published extensively on the foreign interference inquiry on his Substack platform The Bureau.
“The situations where you’ve got teenagers from Chinese international schools … or recent immigrants that unfortunately can be under the influence of people that may have helped them get into the country… . those are huge concerns,” he said.
Non-citizens
Nomination races are the internal elections political parties conduct to select candidates for federal elections or their party’s leadership. When a seat opens up in a riding, parties will run contests that allow registered party members to vote for their preferred candidate.
The Conservatives, NDP and Green parties’ constitutions all permit permanent residents to register as members, enabling them to vote in internal party races.
“This policy ensures inclusivity while adhering to Canadian laws and recognizes the valuable contributions that permanent residents make to Canada’s political and social landscape,” Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement.
“Most permanent residents are on the path to citizenship, and their interest in civic engagement is a positive indicator of their commitment to Canada.”
The Liberal Party’s rules are even more permissive, enabling anyone who “ordinarily lives in Canada” to vote in party contests. This means non-permanent residents — such as international students or individuals here on work visas — are eligible to vote.
All four parties also allow individuals as young as 14 to become registered party members.
“Our open and inclusive process ensures Liberal candidates can hear from more people in the communities they’re running to represent and helps foster civic engagement,” Parker Lund, the Liberal Party’s director of communications told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement.
Experts on foreign interference say it is problematic to frame these rules as good for democracy.
“They’re not Canadians,” says Duff Conacher, director and co-founder of Democracy Watch, a Canadian non-profit that advocates for governmental accountability. “They shouldn’t be choosing election candidates for Canadian elections.”
Cooper agrees. “I mean, it’s just very fundamental that you should be a citizen of a country if you want to have a say in its party politics.”
In Cooper’s view, not even permanent residents should be eligible to vote.
“The Liberals are egregious with their lack of rules, but [it’s] clear that the other parties don’t want to give up their control of that scenario either,” Cooper said, referring to the other parties’ rules permitting permanent residents to vote.
Public fears
The parties’ permissive voting rules also raise national security concerns, Conacher and Cooper say.
“[The rules] obviously allow foreign governments, entities and individuals to use people here in Canada who aren’t [Canadian] citizens … as proxies to try and influence who gets selected as election candidates,” said Conacher.
Cooper’s investigative work has focused on operations of the United Front Work Department, a branch of the Chinese Communist Party that oversees domestic and international influence operations to further China’s political goals.
“As an international student, you’re under the thumb of the United Front,” said Cooper. “[T]hey can be tasked by feared community leaders and thugs to be a campaign volunteer or to go nominate [a political candidate].”
In May, Hogue released an initial report that says it is possible some ridings in both the 2019 and 2021 elections were compromised by foreign interference.
“[I]n these ridings, foreign interference could have impacted both the nomination contests and the electoral campaign, affecting who was elected to Parliament or which party won the seat,” the report’s summary says.
Changes needed
Conacher hopes Hogue’s final report — which is expected to be released in January — will recommend parliament amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit non-citizens from voting in nomination races or party leadership races. He also expects her to recommend the act be changed to prohibit minors from voting.
“I’m hoping she’s going to recommend closing every loophole that allows for secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference,” he said.
Cooper says he would like to see Elections Canada assume responsibility for setting parties’ nomination rules. And he thinks the public would share this view if they were aware of the extent of foreign infiltration in domestic politics.
“If people actually knew how bad it was, and we had a referendum on this … a strong majority would say, Elections Canada is going to set those rules. You can have some say over your party for various things, but you don’t get a say over non-citizens [selecting] party nominees.”
Elections are not synonymous with democracy, and elections do not produce democracy.
Democracy in Ancient Greece (you know, where the word democracy comes from) utilized random selection to appoint government officials.
The idea is also regaining acceptance today. It’s called “sortition” now. There’s a lengthy Wikipedia article on it, backed up by books on its history and recent examples of its use (Belgium, Oregon, Iceland). You owe it to yourselves and your country to look it up.
As long as rhetoric is a significant part of politics, demagoguery and its consequences will be a risk. Hasn’t it become obvious how ill-suited the people who actually want to be elected are for the job?
And rhetoric will always be a part of the electoral process.
That’s the major reason for choosing random selection over elections.
Does anybody really think politicians are smarter or more capable than the average voter? Or that the majority of politicians elected have any influence on the back room decision-making anyway? My view is that they’re mostly capable in people skills. Random selection will still produce a sample of very capable people. Besides, the random selection pool could be filtered for age, education or accomplishments.
By appointing representatives by random lottery, we get real people who don’t consider how their decisions will affect their chances of getting re-elected, yet still statistically represent the Canadian population better than any election; people who make decisions that fit the problem at hand, rather than some ideological straight jacket. Ordinary people would become more empowered, and isn’t that the point and real meaning of democracy?
Ordinary people in juries act seriously. It can work in parliament too.
(PS. And in a supreme irony, it’s been used for citizen assemblies to debate, wait for it … electoral reform!!)