canada--2013 fda global electoral fairness audit report

2013 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of the Canadian Federal Electoral System

Electoral Fairness Audit Completed May 27, 2013 Revised Recommendations on May 28, 2013

Executive Summary

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) concludes that the Canadian federal electoral system is mediocre as determined by the overall unsatisfactory passing audit score of 64.49 percent (out of 100 percent). FDA auditors measured

1) Failing score for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (47.35 percent). 2) Unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties

(58.93 percent). 3) Satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (73.52 percent).4) Very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance

(78.15 percent).

In its analysis, the FDA factored in 32 independent variables, matrix examination, and financial analysis to inform calculations and conclusions. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that Canadian federal election outcomes are not truly reflective of the voice of Canadians from electoral constituencies. Although there is sound legislation relating to voters and electoral finance, various provisions concerning candidates, parties, and media function to favour certain large and established parties over new and small parties and even other large and established parties. The FDA identified several elements in the Canadian electoral system that, when combined, undermine significantly electoral competition and thereby election outcomes. The FDA believes that the degree of electoral competition is an indication of the health of a democracy, and competition whether in the marketplace or elections produces the better societal outcome. Therefore, the FDA recommends a number of reforms to the Canadian electoral system that would eliminate biased electoral legislation and uncompetitive electoral processes.

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” - Aristotle

Prepared By

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director Foundation for Democratic Advancement, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Peer Review By

Mr. Nick Brown, Diploma Public Relations, University of London, Diploma Internet & Multimedia Information Systems, South Bank University, Bachelor of Science, University of London, and Masters of Science, Geography, Kingston University;

Mr. Steve Finley, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, Master of Business Administration, Indiana University, and Juris Doctor, Valparaiso University;

Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary.

Purpose of the Canadian Electoral Fairness Audit

The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral fairness audit (the “Audit”) is to determine a comprehensive grade for Canadian federal electoral fairness. In addition, the FDA seeks to further establish benchmarks for electoral fairness, identify areas of democratic advancement and progression, and encourage democracy reform where needed.

The goal of the FDA's Canadian electoral fairness report is to give the people of Canada and other stakeholders an informed, objective, non-partisan perspective of the Canadian federal electoral system and provide recommendations for reform.

The views in this electoral fairness audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA’s members and volunteers are in no way affiliated with Elections Canada or any of the Canadian registered/non-registered political parties. The Audit is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency, and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit results or inaccuracies in its research of relevant Canadian legislation.

About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is

to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | 2013 Electoral Fairness Audit of Canada May 27, 2013 of 82

Overall, the FDA works

1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;

2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)

To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research. However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly help raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at [email protected] for more information.

An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.orgFor further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey at [email protected]


Table of Contents

Introduction 4

How to Read the Report 5

Chapter 1: Electoral Finance Audit Results 8Analysis 19

Chapter 2: Media Election Coverage Audit Results 21Analysis 27

Chapter 3: Candidates and Parties Audit Results 28Analysis 49

Chapter 4: Voters Audit Results 51Analysis 62

Chapter 5: Overall Audit Results 63

Chapter 6: Analysis 64

Chapter 7: Conclusion & Recommendations 69

References 73

Appendix: Research & Audit Methodologies 78

FDA Research and Audit Teams 84


Introduction

The FDA based its audit of Canadian’s federal electoral legislation on non-partisanship and objectivity.

The FDA audit process entails three major components :

1) Research of Canadian's federal electoral legislation and any related legislation and documents.2) Audit of the legislation based on audit team consensus, the FDA’s matrices, financial

spreadsheets, and scoring scales. 3) Analysis of findings.

The FDA bases its matrix scoring scales on the fundamental democratic principles of legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance transparency it will affect other variables such as legislative process. Without financial transparency, it is near impossible to enforce reasonably electoral finance laws, which prevent and uncover electoral finance wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA’s matrices, a zero score for financial transparency will result in a zero score for legislative process as well.

The FDA’s research component is purely objective, based on a compilation of legislative information and financial data for the Canadian system and any related findings based in fact and sound empirical research.

The FDA’s audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining yes and no facts, such as does country “A” have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores determined for each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system or determination of scores.

The FDA minimizes subjectivity through its non-partisanship position and by basing scoring on legislative research, financial calculations, and team audit consensus. The FDA scoring scales for each section of the audit derive from consensus of the FDA auditors and survey results of relevant academic and professional persons, and core democratic concepts such as electoral legislative neutrality and political freedom and fairness. Finally, the FDA requires a minimum quorum of five experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology, please see the Appendix on page 74.

The FDA is a registered non-profit corporation, and therefore it cannot issue tax-deductible receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As a policy to maintain its independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating its content to the stakeholders, and to continue its work in Alberta, Canada, and abroad.


How to Read the Report

Chapters 1 to 4 focus on the four sections of the FDA’s audit of the Canadian federal electoral system. These chapters are formatted in the following manner

1) Chapter summary and table of audit results for the section.2) Audit questions, legislative research and audit findings on each audit subsection.3) Analysis of audit measurements and findings for the section.

Chapter 6, ‘Overall Analysis’, pertains to the measurements and findings from all four audit sections.

Definition of Key Terms

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement characterized the following definitions

Candidates and parties (audit section three)

The opportunity and ability of candidates and parties to campaign in the public domain for elected positions. This opportunity and ability occur before, during, and after an election period. Candidates and parties may involve election content of media, electoral finance, and voters (as defined below). In the terms of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, candidates and parties include:

1) Registrations requirements for candidates and parties.2) Laws on candidates’ and parties’ access to media and reasonable opportunity to take

advantage of the access.3) Regulations on access to major debates.4) Electoral complaints process for candidates and parties

In the FDA electoral fairness audit, candidates and parties only encompasses laws, regulations, procedures etc. that affect the influence of candidates and parties. For example, candidates and parties does not encompass laws on electoral complaints by voters nor does it encompass laws on voter assistance at polling booths.

Electoral fairness

The impartiality and equality of election law before, during, and after an election period. In the context of the audit, electoral fairness involves concepts relating to election content in the media, candidates and parties, electoral finance, and voters. In particular, this includes evaluating impartiality and balance of political content in the media, equitable opportunity and ability for registered candidates and parties to influence voters and government, equitable electoral finance laws, and equitable opportunity and ability for voters to voice political views and/or influence the outcome of an election.


Electoral fairness does not allow bias through, for example, legislation that gives a distinct electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or laws that allow equitable access to media without facilitating equal opportunity to take advantage of this access. In contrast, electoral fairness would include a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (beyond equal expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or unreasonable popular support).

Electoral fairness in any democratic process must include an equal playing field for registered parties and candidates, distinguishable by voters according to a clear political platform, and a broad and balanced political discourse in where information about electoral choices are clear and available to the voting public.

Electoral finance (audit section one)

Electoral finance laws applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an election period. Electoral finance also encompasses campaign finance which is restricted to the campaign period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:

1) Caps on electoral contributions (or the lack of).2) Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).3) Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finances.4) Procedures for the handling of electoral contributions by registered candidates

and parties. Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as those relating to candidate and party access to media, civil rights laws such as freedom of speech and assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the election content of media, and laws on voter assistance.

Special interest-based democracy

A system in where either individual or corporate interests dictate government action and factions with the most economic and political power in society influence policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up to allow special and minority interests to impact election outcomes primarily through electoral finance and media access and exposure.

People-based democracy

A system where power is invested in the people and the population as a whole influence government policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up in a fair and equitable manner so that all citizens, within reason, have an opportunity to influence the election outcome to the same degree.


Media election coverage (audit section two)

The political content of radio and television broadcasters, the printed press, and their online components during election periods. This content may include news stories, editorials, articles, programs, and group analysis and discussion. It does not include electoral advertisements by candidates, parties, and third parties. Electoral advertisements by candidates and parties are included in candidates and parties, and electoral advertisements by third parties are included in voters and electoral finance.

In the context of FDA electoral fairness audit, election coverage of media includes:

1) Registration requirements for television and radio broadcast companies and press companies.2) Laws on the ownership concentration of media (or the lack of).3) Laws on the election content of media before, during, and after a campaign period. 4) Laws on freedom of the press and broadcasters.

The FDA defines “balance” in the media as having equal political content of all registered political parties presented during the election period. Voters should receive balanced information on all registered candidates and parties in order for election outcomes to reflect the will of the majority. The FDA does not support the idea that incumbent or previously successful parties should be favoured in media coverage in a current election as this could create bias based merely on past results, and potentially weaken the process of capturing the will of the people in the present. In addition, the FDA does not support unlimited freedom of broadcast and press media and believes there is a misleading connection between this and democracy. The purpose of democratic elections is to capture as accurately as possible the will of the people from districts. Broad and balanced electoral discourse creates an informed electorate and supports the will of the people. The FDA concedes that media ownership concentration laws aimed to produce pluralistic ownership could cancel out any imbalance in political content and provide equitable coverage of all registered political parties.

Voters (audit section four)

The citizens who are eligible to vote and their opportunity to express that vote and a political voice through articles, letters to editors, blogs, advertisements, spoken word etc. in the public domain. Voter influence applies to the period before, during, and after an election.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, voters include:

1) Laws and regulations on freedom of speech and assembly.2) Laws on the registration requirements for voters. 3) Laws on voter assistance at the polling booth. 4) Laws on the inclusion of minorities in the electoral process.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voters may be impacted by the election content of media, and candidates and parties and electoral finance law. For example, no cap on contributions to candidates and parties will affect voters because no cap favors voters with more financial wealth, and thereby the lack of cap creates electoral inequity and imbalance among voters.


Chapter One: Electoral Finance

This chapter focuses on Canadian electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms of electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered candidates, parties, and voters (see Definition of Key Terms and Research Methodology for further explanation). The FDA team audits from the standpoint of a people's representative democracy. Table 1 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 1 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages

Electoral Finance Section Variables

% Subsection Audit Weight

Numerical Subsection Audit

Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Electoral Finance Transparency

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Contributions to Candidates & Parties

15% 1.5 1.25 83.3%

Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties

20% 2.0 1.61 80.5%

Campaign Expenditure Limits

22.5% 2.25 1.5 66.6%

Caps on Third-party Expenditures

12.5% 1.25 0.005 0.4%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 7.815 78.15%

The FDA chose these subsections because they represent core areas of electoral finance. The audit of electoral finance includes examination of Canadian electoral finance legislation and the application of legislative research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.

What follows are the audit questions, legislative research, and audit findings:

Electoral Finance Transparency Audit Questions

1) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?2) Are candidate and party finances transparent to candidates and parties only?3) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the government only?


Legislative Research

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish the original election expenses return of registered parties and electoral campaign returns of candidates with one year of writ of election, and publish any updated versions of the returns as soon as practicably after he or she receives them (Elections Act, Article 412(1)).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish the returns on financial transactions of registered parties and associations, and any updated versions (Elections Act, Article 412(2)(a)).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish the leadership returns and contribution returns for leadership contestants, and any updated versions (Elections Act, Article 412(2)(b)).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish the returns of nomination contestants, and any updated versions (Elections Act, Article 412(2)(c)).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish a summary report or updated reports of candidates’ election expenses (Elections Act, Article 412(3)).

Within six months of becoming registered, a party will provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a statement of their current assets and liabilities, as of the day prior to their effective registration. The party must also provide a declaration by the chief agent of the party concerning the statement, and a report from the party's auditor containing the auditor's opinion of whether the information is based on standard accounting principles (Elections Act, Article 372).

Registered political parties must submit to the Chief Electoral Officer an audited return of election expenses within six months after the Election Day (Elections Act, 429(3)).

Registered political parties have to submit annual fiscal returns within six months of the end of the fiscal period (June 30) (Elections Act, 424(4)). The fiscal returns must contain all financial transactions for the registered party; the auditor’s report on the financial transactions; and the chief agent’s declaration of the financial transactions (Elections Act, 424(1)).

Both of the above reports contain a variety of information; including, the total contributions received by the registered party and the number of contributors; the name and address of each contributor who contributed more than $200 and the date the registered party received the funds; and a statement of assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses (Elections Act, 424(2)(a)-(k)).

The returning officers for electoral districts shall make available the financial disclosures of candidates to public upon request for six months during reasonable times for public inspection. Copies can be obtained for fee of 0.25 cents per page (Elections Act, 413(1), (2)). A returning officer shall retain financial disclosures for three years after the six month time period for public inspection (Elections Act, Article 413(3)).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish a list of claims that are deemed to be contributions (Elections Act, Article 423(4)).


An unpaid claim mentioned in the financial transactions return referred to in subsection 424(1) or in an election expenses return referred to in subsection 429(1) that remains unpaid in whole or in part on the day that is 18 months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates or in which the polling day fell, as the case may be, is deemed to be a contribution to the registered party of the unpaid amount on the day on which the expense was incurred (Elections Act, Article 423.1 (1)).

Candidates must submit to the Chief Electoral Officer an audited election expense report within four months of the polling day, or after a published notice of withdrawal or deemed withdrawal from the election (Elections Act, 451(4)).

Electoral campaign returns need to include: a statement of election and campaign expenses; statements regarding disputed or unpaid claims; statement of contributions; the number of contributors; and the name and address if the contribution was more than $200 (Elections Act, 451(2)(a)-(k)).

Candidates must also report all gifts or other advantages that exceed $500 individually or as a total from the same contributor to the Chief Electoral Officer except if given by a relative (Elections Act, 92.2(3)). This statement of gifts is due within four months of the polling day, or after a published notice of withdrawal or deemed withdrawal from the election (Elections Act, 92.2(5)).

Audit Findings

The financial transactions, records, and reports of candidates and parties are transparent to the public.

Contributions to Candidates and Parties Audit Questions

1) Are contributions restricted to citizens?2) Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? 3) Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level? Legislative Research Only Canadian citizens or permanent residents may make contributions to registered candidates, parties, associations, and leadership and nomination contestants (Elections Act, Article 404(1)).

Electoral campaign returns need to include: a statement of election and campaign expenses; statements regarding disputed or unpaid claims; statement of contributions; the number of contributors; and the name and address if the contribution was more than $200 (Elections Act, 451(2)(a)-(k)).

Both of the above reports contain a variety of information; including, the total contributions received by the registered party and the number of contributors; the name and address of each contributor


who contributed more than $200 and the date the registered party received the funds; and a statement of assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses (Elections Act, 424(2)(a)-(k)).

Canadian citizens and permanent residents cannot make cash contributions that exceed $20.00 (Elections Act, Article 405.31).

Any person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is disallowed from inducing electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate (Elections Act, Article 331).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors awarded near full marks for the above three subsections because contributions are restricted to citizens whereas foreigners, public institutions and corporations are not allowed to contribute. They subtracted points, however, because the maximum anonymous contribution limit is $200.00, which is more than double the FDA standard of maximum anonymous contribution of $100.00 (determined by mean national income and benchmarks of Canadian provinces and foreign countries). The FDA assumes that a relatively low amount for anonymous contributions helps to prevent electoral finance wrongdoing.

Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties Audit Questions

1) Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of per capita net income level?2) Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of per capita net income level? Legislative Research

The 2010 Canadian disposable per capita income is $26,572 (Economic Statistics Report, 2012).

Individuals are disallowed from making contributions in excess of $1,000 in total for any calendar year to a registered party (Elections Act, Article 405 (1)(a)).

Individuals are disallowed from making contributions in excess of $1,000 in total for any calendar year to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party (Elections Act, Article 405 (1)(a.1)).

Individuals are disallowed from making contributions in excess of $1,000 in total for a particular election to candidates who are not member of a registered party (Elections Act, Article 405 (1)(b)).

Individuals are disallowed from making contributions in excess of $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants of a particular leadership contest (Elections Act, Article 405 (1)(c)).


Contributions to candidates seeking the endorsement of a particular registered party or contributions to candidates not endorsed by a particular party shall be deemed contributions (Elections Act, 405 (3)).

Contributions to own campaign that do not exceed $1,000 in total by a nomination candidate or candidate of registered party shall not deemed a contribution (Elections Act, 405 (4)).

Contributions to own campaign that do not exceed $1,000 in total by an independent candidate shall not deemed a contribution (Elections Act, 405 (4)).

Contributions to own campaign that do not exceed $1,000 in total by a candidate of registered party for leadership contest shall not deemed a contribution (Elections Act, 405 (4)).

The total individual contributions allowed in an election year are around $4,000 and total candidate contributions are around $5,000 to $6,000 (Elections Act, Article 405).

Contribution caps are subject to adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index, calculated on the basis of 1992 being equal to 100 and denominator of 119, which is the average annual Consumer Price Index. Adjustments are rounded off to the nearest one hundred dollars (Elections Act, 405.1 (1)).

Audit Findings

The FDA awarded points for caps on candidate and party contributions during the campaign period. Through consensus and Desjardins’ household budget calculator, the FDA determined that 10 percent of per capita net income is a reasonable maximum contribution amount (Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense, 2013). The 10 percent contribution amount takes into consideration other expenditures such as housing, food, services like hydro and heat, clothing, and health. The caps for candidate and party contributions ($4,000 over four years) are set significantly lower than the 10 percent of the Canadian per capita net income threshold ($10,608 over four years). The limit on contributions by candidates to their own campaigns in an election year ($5,500) is in excess of the FDA’s maximum cap of $2,652 (in a year). The score of 1.25 and 0.36 reflect this assessment.


Audit Questions

1) If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they set high enough and still reasonably attainable by all registered candidates and parties?

2) If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?


The 2010 Canadian disposable per capita income is $26,572 (Economic Statistics Report, 2012).


Candidate electoral expense limits are based on the amount calculated for an electoral district and subject to inflation adjustment (Elections Act, Article 440).

Elections Canada determines electoral expenditure limits for electoral districts based on:

1) the preliminary lists of electors in a district:a) $2.07 for each of the first 15,000 electors,b) $1.04 for each of the next 10,000 electors; andc) $0.52 for each of the remaining electors (Elections Act, Articles 441(1)(a), 441(3)).

If the number of electors on the preliminary list of electors is less than the average number of electors on all preliminary lists of electors in a general election, then in making the calculation above, the number of electors is deemed to be half-way between the number on the preliminary list and the average number (Elections Act, 441(4)).

If a candidate whose nomination is endorsed by a registered party dies at the period beginning 2:00 p.m. on the 5th day of the closing day for nominations and ending on polling day, then the base electoral expenditure amount for the district is increased by 50 percent (Elections Act, 441(2)).

If the number of electors per square kilometer is less than 10 electors, then the amount calculated above is increased by the lesser of $0.31 per square kilometer and 25 percent of that amount (Elections Act, Article 441(6)).

1) the revised lists of electors in a district:a) $2.07 for each of the first 15,000 electors;b) $1.04 for each of the next 10,000 electors; andc) $0.52 for each of the remaining electors (Elections Act, Article 441(7)).

If the number of electors on the revised list of electors is less than the average number of electors on all revised lists of electors in a general election, then in making the calculation above, the number of electors is deemed to be half-way between the number on the revised list and the average number (Elections Act, 441(8)).

If the number of electors per square kilometer is less than 10 electors on the revised list of electors, then the amount calculated above is increased by the lesser of $0.31 per square kilometer and 25 percent of that amount (Elections Act, Article 441(10)).

Candidates cannot exceed the electoral expenditure limits for their electoral district, and candidates or official agents of candidates or other authorized persons cannot collude in order to circumvent electoral expenditure limits (Elections Act, Articles 443(1), 443(2)).

The Chief Electoral Officer determines for each quarter an allowance payable to a registered party whose candidates received either 2 percent of the popular vote or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts of the candidates endorsed by the party in for the most recent general election (Elections Act, 435.01(1)(a)-(b)).


The quarterly allowance is the multiplication of the valid votes cast in the most recent general election by $0.3825 for 2012; $0.255 for 2013; and $0.1275 for 2014. All quarters begin on April 1st

(Elections Act, 435.01(2)(a)-(c)).

The Conservative government revised the federal budget to phase out the public subsidies for federal political parties beginning April 1st 2012 (Smith, J, July 4, 2012).

The annual subsidy was lowered from $2.04 in 2011 to $1.53 per vote in 2012 and will be further reduced each year on April 1st until it is eliminated in 2015 (Smith, J, July 4 2012).

If a registered party receives 2 percent of the votes cast in the election or 5 percent of the number votes cast in the electoral district in which the part endorsed a candidate, then 50 percent of the parties’ electoral expenses are refunded (Elections Canada, Article 435 (1)).

Audit Findings

In each Canadian electoral district, there is an average of 78,758 voters with income. Candidates need 0.881 cents from each elector to attain the maximum legal expenditure limit. The average maximum expenditure limit amounts to $69,385.80. According to FDA consensus and Desjardins’ household budget calculator, $2,652 is the maximum available from each elector making the total available at $208,866,216. On average there are approximately eight candidates per riding, ergo, there is $555,232 funds needed. According to these calculations, there are potential excess funds of $208,310,984, and therefore the expenditure limit is reasonably attainable in terms of funds by all registered candidates and parties. Whether or not voters want to contribute to all registered candidates and parties is a separate issue.

Using their professional judgment and considering for example campaign advertising expenses and venue expenses, FDA auditors determine that $69,385.80 is a reasonable amount of electoral funds to campaign in a district of 78,758 voters, and with no candidate above $69,385.80 expenditure limit.

Public subsidies are only available for parties with at least one seat in parliament, and therefore create more financial inequality rather than equality between all registered parties.

Caps on Third-party Spending

Audit Questions

1) If there is third-party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?2) If there are caps on third-party spending, are they high enough and reasonably attainable by all

adult citizens? 3) Are there public subsidies, or other financial instruments, that create an equitable level of third-

party spending?


Legislative Research The total expenses limit for election advertising for third parties is $197,100 and the expenses limit per electoral district is $3,942 for the period from April 1 2012 to March 31 2013 (Limit on Election Advertising Incurred by Third Parties, 2012). Such limits include advertising to either “promote or oppose the election” (Election Advertising Expenses, 2012; Elections Act, Articles 350, 414).

In order for a third party to determine to which limit it is subject ($3,942 or $197,100) it needs to consider its particular situation. For instance, if an average person remarks that certain advertising refers “one or more specific candidates in a given riding,” the limit would be $3,942 (Questions and Answers about Third Party Advertising, 2010). On the other hand, if a third party is involved in an advertising campaign relevant to a registered political party, and if an average person recognizes such “advertising is aimed at a national, regional or provincial audience,” the limit is $197,100 (Questions and Answers about Third Party Advertising, 2010).

Assuming that the advertising campaign aims at promoting or opposing several candidates in multiple ridings, the limit of $3,942 is multiplied by the amount of ridings until it reaches the limit of $197,100 (Elections Act, Articles 319, 350, 414). Also noteworthy is that for third party spending of $5,000 or over, an external auditor must be appointed (Questions and Answers about Third Party Advertising, 2010).

Foreign donations are not satisfactory, including from individuals who are not citizens or permanent residents, foreign organizations not conducting business activities in Canada, trade unions without bargaining rights in Canada, or foreign political parties and governments (Elections Act, Article 358).

The FDA researchers found no public subsidies or other financial instruments for third-party expenditures.

Audit Findings

Corporations, labor unions, and citizens can contribute to campaign election campaigns, parties, and candidates. The limit is set at $197,100, which, according to FDA consensus, is about 74 times more than the 10 percent of per capita net income ($2,652 over one year) available for citizen personal expenditure. The FDA acknowledges that $197,100 is a reasonable and likely cost for a national advertising campaign; however, third-party spending for this can affect public opinion in a non-democratic way. The FDA believes that contributions to candidates, parties, and party associations should fund these advertising campaigns, which would then create the basis to eliminate third-party expenditures. Finally, electoral law does not mandate public subsidies for third-party expenditures.

Legislative Process

Audit Question

1) Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?



The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), appointed by the House of Commons, is responsible for the supervision, direction, and conduct of the federal election. The CEO must enforce the provisions of and ensure compliance with the Elections Act and other legislation pertaining to the election (Elections Act, Article 13(1) (2); Article 16).

During the election period and for thirty days following polling day, the CEO may adapt these provisions in order to manage electoral emergencies (Elections Act, Article 17).

The CEO can educate the public about federal elections, the democratic process, and electoral rights and regulations using any media forum or communication s/he considers appropriate (Elections Act, Article 18(1) (2)).

The Elections Act outlines various prohibitions that are subject to penalty. For example, one cannot disclose information about an electors vote, interfere with an elector while voting, make false statements while applying for registration as a candidate, party, or voter, or prevent or persuade an elector from voting through intimidation or duress (Elections Act, Article 281-282).

The Commissioner of Canada Elections, appointed by the CEO, ensures compliance and enforcement of the Act. If the CEO believes an offense has occurred, s/he directs the Commissioner to proceed with an inquiry. If after this inquiry the Commissioner believes that an offense has occurred, s/he refers the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then decides to initiate a prosecution. The CEO informs both the Commissioner and the Director throughout the process. The offense can be prosecuted no later than 5 years after the Commissioner was made aware of the matter and no longer than 10 years of when it occurred (Elections Act, Articles 509-511, 512, 514).

Other obstructions of the election process that demand penalty include: disrupting or inciting disorder at public meetings intended for election purposes, offering or accepting a bribe in order to influence a vote, unauthorized use of personal information in the elector register, an employer not allowing reasonable time for employees to vote, and unauthorized ballot printing (Elections Act, Article 480-482; Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

Contraventions of the Act are subject to strict liability offences. Summary convictions range from a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for no longer than three months or both, $2,000 or six months imprisonment or both, to $5,000 and a year imprisonment or both, depending on intent. For registered parties and third parties, fines can reach $25,000 and imprisonment of five years or both (Elections Act, Article 500).

Upon conviction, and depending on the nature and intent of the offense, additional penalties might include community service, financial compensation to those who suffered damages because of a financial contravention, party deregistration and asset liquidation, or whatever reasonable measure the court finds appropriate (Elections Act, Article 501(1) (2)).

The Act differentiates illegal or corrupt practices from general contraventions of electoral law. These apply in particular to candidates and agents of candidates who breach provisions including, but not limited to, publishing false statements regarding the inclusion or withdrawal of another candidate;


foreign broadcasting; exceeding limits on election expenses; and purposefully obstructing the democratic process (Elections Act, Article 502; Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

Some offenses, including but not limited to, offering or accepting a bribe to influence an elector; intentionally preventing public meetings related to election; intimidation or duress of an elector; knowingly voting more than once or without being qualified; obstruction of election officer; or if an election officer does not return election documents and materials, are subject to a $5,000 fine, a five year imprisonment, or both (Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

Third parties that contravene the Act are liable on conviction of fines ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 (Elections Act, Article 505).

If a candidate or party agent knowingly makes or publishes false statements about a candidate; accepts unauthorized contributions; fails to provide complete and accurate financial statements to the CEO within the required period; exceeds contribution limits; or forges a ballot in any way with the intention of influencing the elector, the penalty is a $5,000 fine, five year imprisonment, or both. In addition, the CEO can de-register a party and liquidate its assets (Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

The penalty for exceeding election advertising expense limits is $1,000, three months imprisonment or both; however, the penalty for liable third parties is a fine of up to five times the amount spent over the limit. The penalty for the chief agent that fails to identify the party and candidate in advertisements, uses foreign contributions, willfully exceeds the election expense limit, submits incomplete, false, or late documents, or does not claim all contributions etc. is a $1,000 fine, three month imprisonment, or both. The registered party conducting these infractions is liable for a $25,000 fine (Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding reasonable legislative processes to enforce electoral finance laws. The FDA auditors identified a comprehensive and effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, including fines reflective of the severity of the offense, prison terms of up to five years, and detailed investigation, trial, and appeal processes.

Total score for the electoral fairness on electoral finance: 78.15 percent out of 100 percent.


Electoral Finance Analysis

The FDA measured a very satisfactory score of 78.15 percent for Canadian federal electoral finance legislation. Auditors identified a strong process for financial transparency, enforcement, and limitations on contributions to candidates and parties by citizens. However, the inequality of public subsidies to registered parties, caps on third-party expenditure that are grossly inconsistent with per capita net income, and the inclusion of corporations and trade unions in third-party expenditure partly offset these positive aspects.

The following is a summary of the FDA’s key findings regarding the Canadian federal electoral finance laws and their corresponding impact on a free and democratic society:

1) Public subsidies are only available to registered political parties whose candidates received either 2 percent of the popular vote or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts of the candidates endorsed by the parties.

Impact

In Canada, public subsidies are available to parties that garnered a certain percentage of the popular vote in the current election. Due to the level of popular vote required, this practice generates financial inequality with new and smaller registered parties. It also produces inequality between parties in the Parliament because the amount of the subsidy is linked to the amount of popular vote received. In other words, subsidies favour certain large and established parties, reducing electoral competition and weakening Canadian democracy. The subsidy is scheduled to be phased out in 2015. In addition, a public subsidy in form of a 50 percent refund of a party’s campaign expenditures is available if the party attains either 2 percent of the popular vote or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts of the candidates endorsed by the party. Again, this public subsidy favours certain large and established parties over other large, established parties (which have lower expenditures) and new and small parties.

2) The cap on third-party expenditure is set at $197,100, about 18.6 percent more than Canada’s per capita net income of $26,572. Through consensus and based on Desjardins’ household budget calculator, the FDA determine that 10 percent of per capita net income or $10,608 (over four years) is a reasonable maximum contribution amount (Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense, 2013). Therefore, most Canadians could not afford spending more than 5.38 percent of the cap.

Impact

The excessively high cap placed on third-party spending favours wealthy, minority interests. The majority of Canadians cannot afford this spending limit, which allows the minority to have a disproportionate and undue influence on an election and democratic discourse.

The FDA acknowledges that $197,100 is a reasonable and likely cost for national advertising campaigns; however, third-party spending for this can affect public opinion in a non-democratic way. Therefore, the FDA believes that electoral law should not allow third-party expenditures,


and instead contributions to candidates, parties, and party associations should fund national and district advertising campaigns.

3) Corporations and trade unions can participate in third-party expenditures.

Impact

Corporations and trade unions can contribute to campaign election campaigns, parties, and candidates. However, the excessive cap on third-party expenditures allows these organizations greater opportunity to influence an election than the majority of the electorate is able to do. This influence interferes with the voice of the people as manifest in election discourse, and thereby weakens Canadian democracy.


Chapter Two: Media Election Coverage This chapter focuses on Canada’s media laws and the FDA's audit of them. Based on the concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examined media laws according to the standard of impartial and balanced political coverage before, during and after a campaign period (see Definition of Key Terms and Research Methodology for further explanation). Table 2 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 2 Media Election Coverage Audit Scores and Percentages

Media Election Coverage Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Broad and Balanced Media Election Coverage

30% 3.0 0.0 0.0%

Media Ownership 15% 1.5 0.235 15.6%Survey/Polls 5% 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Media 40% 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct

10% 1.0 0.0 0.0%

Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 4.735 47.35%

Broad and Balanced Media Election Coverage

Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

2) Outside of the campaign period, is the media legally required to publish/broadcast pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?

3) If the media is legally required to publish/disseminate broad and balanced political coverage, are there reasonable monitoring and penalty mechanisms in place?


During an election period, electoral law mandates that licensed broadcasters must allocate time for “the broadcasting of programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan political character on an equitable basis to all accredited political parties and rival candidates represented in the election or referendum” (Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987).

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Act presents the regulations regarding political advertising and broadcasting during an election period. Broadcasters are required to cover Canadian elections and must give all candidates, parties and issues “equitable”


coverage during the campaign period. Equitable does not imply equal, broadcasters must simply take “reasonable” steps to present the views and positions of all parties (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).

During the election period, broadcasters are responsible for informing the public about the central issues regarding the election, and should present the positions and platforms of candidates and parties relating to those issues (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).

These guidelines pertain to television broadcasters, radio stations, and specialty television services licensed by the CRTC. They do not apply to pay television services or internet communications; therefore, they are not obliged to provide time to political parties, but may do so (Broadcasting Guidelines, 2011).

Broadcasters are not required to include all parties or candidates in debate programs during the election campaign (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).

Licensed broadcasters cannot broadcast from outside of Canada during an election period in any matter regarding the election or in an effort to influence the vote (Elections Act, Article 330(1) (2)).

The penalty for broadcasters and network operators that breach the Act during an election period is a $25,000 fine. Offences include but are not limited to: failure to provide the information, results or sponsor of a survey; willfully transmitting election results during the blackout period or prematurely; purposefully failing to make broadcasting time available to authorized parties and candidates; willfully charging more than the lowest rate for broadcasting time or advertising space; willfully failing to comply with the allocation of minutes; making additional time available to one party but not equivalent time to other eligible parties (Elections Act, Table of Offences, 2000).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation requiring the media to provide broad and balanced election coverage during the 36-day campaign period or outside of this period. Candidate and party advertisement is a separate issue examined in the Candidate and Party section.

Media Ownership Concentration Laws Audit Questions

1) If there are media concentration laws, are they effective in causing a plurality of political discourse?

2) If there is no legal requirement of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or media ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws that are effective in causing a plurality of political discourse before and during an election period?


Canada has a federal competition bureau which is part of Industry Canada. The Competition Bureau maintains and encourages fair competition in the Canadian marketplace (Competition Bureau, 2013).


The Canadian Competition Act provides general regulation on uncompetitive practices in the Canadian marketplace such as price fixing, product collusion with competitors, and market collusion with competitors. The Competition Act does not disallow oligopolies or monopolies (Competition Act, 2010).


The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Act presents the regulations regarding political advertising and broadcasting during an election period. Broadcasters are required to cover Canadian elections and must give all candidates, parties and issues “equitable” coverage during the campaign period. Equitable does not imply equal, broadcasters must simply take “reasonable” steps to present the views and positions of all parties (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).



Broadcasters are not required to include all parties or candidates in debate programs during the election campaign (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation limiting media ownership concentration in Canada. Canadian Antitrust Laws, which aim to provide a remedy against uncompetitive marketplace practices, have no impact on media ownership concentration unless it derives from anti-competitive conduct. Auditors found that four out of the seventeen registered parties were favoured in media coverage during the 2011 Canadian Federal General Election. Although there are "equitable" requirements for media coverage, networks offer parties the option to purchase up to 6.5 hours of broadcast time at regular market price, which not all parties can afford. There are minor penalties (up to $25,000 fine) for offences that explicitly work to restrict media time to specific parties. In addition, media invited the leaders of only four of the national parties to participate in the two national debates. The score of 0.235 reflects the media bias of the four parties (4 out 17 equals 23.5 percent).


Surveys/Polls Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their methodology, data, and funder?


The first individual to broadcast a survey, as well as any publishing within 24 hours after the initial publication, must provide the survey's sponsor, conductor, date conducted, sample population and number of participants. A margin of error and indication of the use of non-recognized statistical methods must also be indicated when applicable. If the survey is transmitted by a means other than broadcasting, survey wording and information about obtaining a more detailed report regarding the survey must also be provided. A maximum fee of $0.25 may be charged for this report (Elections Act, Articles 326, 327).

No person may publish a non-previously released survey prior to the closing of polls on polling day in a given district (Elections Act, Article 328).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found comprehensive legislation on public disclosure of the survey and poll information including funding sources and methodology.

Freedom of the Media

Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of the media (including journalists)?


The media can only shoot general footage from the door of polling stations, and must not hinder voters or compromise the secrecy of the vote. This limited access is only allowed if the location is suitable for media set-up (Elections Canada, July 19, 2012).

1) Constitutional

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; including, freedom of the press and other media of communication (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)).

2) Legislative

Broadcast Act


The Broadcast Act, although Legislative, should be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the fundamental freedom of expression. Any broadcasting undertakings will enjoy journalistic, creative, and programming independence (Broadcast Act, Article 2(3)).

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the Commission) may regulate the proportion of time devoted to the broadcasting of programs; including, advertisements or announcements, of a partisan political character. The Commission will assign the time on an equitable basis to the political parties and candidates (Broadcast Act, Article 10(1)(e)).

Elections Act

The Commission, at most four days after the announcement of a general election, will prepare and send guidelines describing the applicability of the Broadcast Act to the conduct of all licensed broadcasters and network operators (Elections Act, Article 347).

The Elections Act provides a blackout period for election advertising to the public. The blackout begins on polling day and lasts until the close of all the polling stations in the electoral district (Elections Act, Article 323(1)).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found nothing in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other election legislation that would unreasonably limit the freedom of the press.

Press Code of Practice/Conduct

Audit Questions

1) Does a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guide the press?

2) If a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guides the press, is the Code of Practice/Conduct enforceable?


CEP Media has a code of ethics but does not provide electoral coverage guidelines (Code of Ethics, 2011).

The Canadian Journalism Project has ethics for photojournalism but does not provide electoral coverage guidelines (Burkholder, 2010).

The Canadian Association of Journalists does not have specific, electoral coverage guidelines but their principles for ethical journalism include reporting on a wide variety of viewpoints and values, reporters do not endorse political candidates or causes, they report the truth to serve democracy,


inform the public of institutions and people who are elected, freely comment on the activities of publicly elected bodies, are careful about getting politically involved in activities, their journalists must declare any real or potential conflicts of interest if they choose to become engaged in outside political activities, and they avoid biases that would affect their reporting (Principles of Ethical Journalism, 2010).

The Globe and Mail has a Privacy Policy but it does not include a code of conduct during an election period (Globe Privacy Code, 2012).

The Globe and Mail has an Accessibility Policy but it does not include a code of practice during an election period (Accessibility Policy, 2012).

Postmedia Network Canada Corp. has a Code of Business Practice for its subsidiaries (which includes the National Post) but the code does not include guidelines for election coverage. Although Postmedia personal are permitted to participate in political activities as private citizens, they may not do so during their working hours, use Postmedia facilities, or use company funds (Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, 2011).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors did not find legislation to mandate broad and balanced election coverage via a Code of Practice/Conduct for the media. Although many private press organizations and newspapers follow a Code of Practice and/or guidelines for conduct, none of these guidelines includes requirements for broad and balanced election coverage.

Total score for the electoral fairness on media election coverage: 47.35 percent out of 100 percent.


Media Election Coverage Analysis

FDA auditors measured a failing score of 47.35 percent for Canadian federal legislation relating to media election coverage in the media during and in between the 36-day campaign period. Media election coverage received the lowest score of the four audit sections and is the only section to receive a failing score.

There are minimal limitations or checks on freedom of expression in the Canadian media sector. As a result, this sector operates in a Darwinian-like fashion in where the most powerful media corporations have the most influence over public discourse in general and in particular to the FDA examination, over electoral discourse and outcomes. This practice may generate narrow and imbalanced election coverage and can allow certain minority interests to influence the democratic process.

The following is a summary of the FDA’s key findings regarding the Canadian federal media laws and their corresponding impact on a free and democratic society:

1) There is no legislated media requirement for broad and balanced political coverage both during and outside of the campaign period.

Impact

Political coverage of candidates and parties both during and outside of an election can be narrow and imbalanced. This system favours certain established, large, or incumbent parties over smaller or new candidates and parties, and as a result, the public lacks information regarding their complete electoral choices.

2) There are no media ownership concentration laws.

Impact

With no media ownership concentration laws and no requirement for broad and balanced election coverage, there is the potential for oligopolistic and monopolistic media ownership, and thereby narrow and imbalanced election coverage.

3) The Canadian press has no legislated or private code of conduct/practice for broad and balanced

coverage during elections.

Impact

Political coverage of candidates and parties both during and outside of an election can be narrow and imbalanced. This system favours certain established, large, or incumbent parties over smaller or new candidates and parties, and as a result, the public lacks information regarding their complete electoral choices.


Chapter Three: Candidates and Parties This chapter focuses on Canadian laws pertaining to candidates and parties. The FDA audit team examines election laws according to their equity for registered candidates and parties (see Definition of Key Terms and Research Methodology for further explanation). Table 3 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results: Table 3 Candidates and Parties Audit Scores and Percentages

Candidates & Parties Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results % Results

Campaign Period 2% 0.2 0.12 60%Methodology for Election Winners

2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%

Electoral Boundaries 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Process of Government 10% 1.0 0.0 0.0%Registration of Candidates

2% 0.2 0.2 100%

Freedom of Expression and Assembly

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Registration of Parties 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Electoral Complaints 3% 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Scrutineers 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement

6% 0.6 0.0 0.0%

Variables from Other Sections

49% 4.9 2.67 54.48%

Total 100% 10 5.89 58.93%

Campaign Period Audit Question

1) Does the length of the campaign period reasonably and fairly allow all registered candidates and parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?


An election must be held a minimum of 36 days after a proclamation by the Governor in Council for a general election to be held. Parliament must sit at least once every 12 months (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Article 5; Elections Act, Article 57).


Audit Findings

Using professional judgment and through consensus, FDA auditors determine that 60 days is adequate time for candidates and parties, including new candidates and parties, to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public. The FDA believes that the length of a campaign period should take into account public interest and attention span, the financial resources of candidates and parties, and allow sufficient time for new and small parties to inform the public of their political platforms. Therefore, the FDA auditors deducted 43.33 percent (or 0.08) from the maximum score of 0.2.

Methodology for Determining Winners of Districts Audit Questions

1) Is the determination of election winners based on first-past-the-post?2) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation closed list?3) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation open list?


According to the Canada’s Elections Act, the electoral system in Canada is referred as “single member plurality” also known as “first-past-the-post” framework. The aforementioned means that the candidate with the most votes in a given electoral district (geographically the Canadian territory is divided in electoral districts, also known as ridings) will be elected as a member of the Parliament (MP). There is no need to have a 50 percent of the vote to access to the House of Commons, namely, a candidate that has one more vote than his main opponent wins (The Electoral System of Canada, 2012).

Noteworthy, that in accordance to the principle “first-past-the post” there is not a proportional system in Canada. The fact that a proportional system does not exist in the Canadian electoral system implies that representation either by close or open list does not apply in this electoral system.

According to Lijphart´s Patterns of Democracy, proportional systems exist in political systems that have a wide variety of ethnic/religion/race/language differentiations (Lijphart, 1999). This could apply to Canada, however, due to the numerous political parties that contend in the electoral system in Canada (In the 2006 General Election, there were 15 parties participating, and in 2011 General Election, there were 17 parties (The Electoral System of Canada, 2012). Proportional representation causes diffusion. The rationale goes, if you want that minorities get represented in the chamber, a shorter amount of parties would be a prerequisite in order to suffice the necessities of those groups, since, with that wide variety the proportional representation would imply that each party may have one or two representatives in the House of Commons which in the end is useless for purposes of representation. However, under proportional systems, most of the federal Canadian parties due to low total votes received would not factor in these systems. Presently, there are only 5 federal parties that would be impacted by proportional systems (Canadian Federal Election, 2011).


Audit Findings

In Canada, a first-past-the-post voting system decides election winners. The first-the-past-post system does not give other parties an opportunity at the next seat nor does it base seats on proportion of votes cast.

Table 4 First-Past-The-Post Examples

Candidates for Riding A Total Votes Seat WinnerCandidate A 65,000 Candidate ACandidate B 64,500Candidate C 15,000

Candidates for Riding B Total Votes Seat WinnerCandidate D 45,000 Candidate DCandidate E 44,780Candidate F 40,456

The FDA believes that proportional representation is a more effective system to capture the will of the majority. In proportional representation, candidates win seats based on the proportion to the number of votes cast for them and a formula of vote reduction for each time a party wins a seat, which then allows other parties increased opportunity at winning the next seat. For example, the Sainte-Laguë method, which is used on New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, adheres to this calculation: the first round of seat allocation for all parties no reduction; all other seat allocations have the following deduction (Sainte-Laguë method, 2013):

Total number of votes received . 2 x (number of seats allocated) + 1

Table 5 Proportional Representation (Sainte-Laguë Method) Example

Parties Total Votes Seat 1 Seat 2 Seat 3 Seat 4Party A 50,000 Party A (wins)

(50,000)Party B (wins)

(30,000)Party C (wins)

(20,000)Party A (wins)

(16,666)Party B 30,000 Party B

(30,000)Party C (20,000)

Party A (16,666)

Party B (10,000)

Party C 20,000 Party C (20,000)

Party A (16,666)

Party B (10,000)

Party C (6,666)

Party D 5,0000 Party D (5,000)

Party D (5,000)

Party D (5,0000)

Party D (5,000)

Consequently, first-past-the-post is only reflective of the candidate with the most votes in each district; whereas, proportional representation is reflective of the most of the votes cast in each district. Therefore, the political representatives under proportional representation are more reflective of the voice of the electorate than under first-past-the-post.


Electoral Boundaries Audit Question

1) Is the process for determining electoral boundaries reasonable and fair for all registered candidates and parties?


1) Constitution of Canada

The Constitution of Canada requires that the number of seats in the House of Commons be recalculated and the boundaries of federal electoral districts be reviewed after each 10 year census (Constitution Act, Section 51(1), 1867).

The population of each province is divided by the electoral quotient (111,166) to obtain the number of members for each province (Constitution Act, Section 51(1), Rules 1, 6(a), 1867).NOTE: The electoral quotient is adjustable to reflect average provincial population growth since the previous redistribution.

The senatorial clause guarantees that no province has fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate (Constitution Act, Section 51A, 1867).

The grandfather clause guarantees each province no fewer seats than it had in 1985 (Constitution Act, Section 51(1), Rule 2, 1867).

The representation rule only applies to a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons during the last redistribution process. If the province would now be under-represented, it will be given extra seats so that its share of House of Commons seats is proportional to its share of the population (Constitution Act, Section 51(1), Rules 3-4, 1867).

Three seats are allocated to the territories – one for each of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Constitution Act, Section 51(2), 1867).

SUMMARY:Provincial population ÷ Electoral quotient (111,166) = Initial provincial seat allocationApplication of the "senatorial clause" and "grandfather clause"Application of the "representation rule"Total provincial seats + One seat per territory = Total number of seats

2) The redistribution of federal electoral districts:

The Chief Statistician prepares an estimate of each province’s population using census data and sends the information to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 12.1, 1985).


The CEO uses the population estimates to calculate the number of House of Commons members assigned to each province. The calculation is based on the formula found in the Constitution. The findings are published in the Canada Gazette (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 14(1)).

After publication of the findings, each province prepares a report recommending reasons and concerns for its division into electoral districts; the description of the boundaries; the representation; and the name of the district (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 14(2)).

The Chief Statistician prepares and sends to the CEO after each 10 year census a return showing the population of: Canada, each province, each electoral district, and by enumeration areas (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 13(1)).

The CEO sends the population information to each province’s Commission a long with a map showing the population distribution (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 13(2)(a)-(b)).

The Governor in Council establishes a three-member commission for each province within 60 days after the publication of each 10 year census. The Commissions are published in the Canada Gazette (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 3(1)(a)).

NOTE: Commissions are not required for Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon because each is a single electoral district.

Each three-member Commission consists of a chairperson and two other appointed members (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 4).

The chairperson is appointed by the Chief Justice of the province from among the judges the Chief Justice presides over (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 5(1)).

The Speaker of the House of Commons appoints the remaining two members of the Commission. The appointees must reside in the province (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 6(1)).

The members of the Commission cannot be members of the Senate, the House of Commons, a legislative assembly, or legislative council (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 10).

Each Commission prepares a map or drawing showing the suggested division of the province into electoral districts; the population of the district; and the name. The Commission must provide at least one opportunity for the public’s involvement in the drawing of the map. Notice to the public is published in the Canada Gazette and one newspaper of general circulation at least 30 days before the hearing indicating the time and place (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 19(1)-(3)).

Each Commission considers the following before creating an electoral district: the community of interest; community identity; historical pattern of electoral districts; and a manageable


geographic size in rural or sparsely populated regions (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 15(1)(b)).

The Commissions can depart from the average population electoral districts, but each district should stay within 25 percent of the average district population except in extraordinary circumstances (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 15(2)).

Each Commission has 10 months to finalize its report of the new electoral districts. The report is then presented to the House of Commons, and two copies are sent the CEO (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 20(1)).

The CEO can extend the 10 month period to a maximum of 12 months if the Commission requests (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 20(2)).

The report is tabled by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the report is sent to a designated parliamentary committee for review (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 21(1)).

Members of Parliament (MPs) have 30 days to provide written objections to the designated parliamentary committee. The objections must be signed by at least 10 MPs (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 22(1)-(2)).

The MPs objections are reviewed by the parliamentary committee within 30 days of receipt, and then the CEO sends the report back to the Commission for reconsideration (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 22(1)).

The Commission has 30 days to reconsider and modify any boundaries or district names. After the 30 days the final report is submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons via the CEO (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 23(1)). Although, the Commissions consult with the public and MPs - the Commissions are independent bodies and their final decision stands.

The CEO prepares and transmits a draft representation order to the Minister (a designated member of the Privy Council) that contains: the number of House of Common members for each province; the division into electoral districts; description of the districts’ boundaries; the population; and districts’ names (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 24(1)-(2)(a)-(b)).

The Governor in Council declares the representation order to be in force within 5 days after the Minister receives the order from the CEO (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 25(1)).

The new boundaries are applied at the next general election if called at least 7 months after the Governor in Council’s declaration (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 25(1)).NOTE: The 7 months allows Elections Canada to prepare for the next general election.


The representation order must be published in the Canada Gazette within 5 days after the Governor in Council’s declaration (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Article 26).

Audit Findings

The FDA determined that the process to determine electoral boundaries is comprehensive, transparent, and relatively sound. Although the process does not include new and small parties, and thereby is susceptible to multi-partisan politics via the parties with seats in the Canadian parliament, it includes public disclosure of new boundaries within around seven months prior to an election.

Process of Government

Audit Question

1) Within the structure of government do political representatives, individually and as government bodies, have reasonable say in the formation of government policy, legislation etc.?


The Canadian government consists of the executive branch, legislative branch, and Judicial branch (but the judicial is not actually the government) (Constitution Act, Section 17, 1867).

The Executive contains the Prime Minister and Cabinet members, and the Governor General. This branch implements the laws created by the Legislative branch (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

The Legislative branch is both the Senate and the House of Commons. This branch makes laws coming under the purview of the Federal government (Constitution Act, Section 91, 1867).

To become law a bill must be approved by both the Senate and the House of Commons, and then receive Royal Assent from the Governor General (Legislative Process, 2010).

The Judicial branch is the court system led by the Supreme Court. The Judicial branch interprets the laws (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

The Members of Parliament tow the party line (Weakening of Responsible Government, 2007).

Minority governments can exist (The Electoral System of Canada, 2012).

1) Executive Power

a) Powers of the Prime Minister

To appoint the Governor General of Canada (through whom the PM technically exercises most of his/her powers, some of which are listed below) (History, 2013).


To appoint Senators to the Canadian Senate (The Senate Today, 2013).

To appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal justices (Supreme Court Act, Section 4(2)).

To appoint all members of the Cabinet [to remove any member of the Cabinet] (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

To appoint the entire board of the Bank of Canada (Bank of Canada Act, Section 6(1), 1985).

To appoint the heads of the military, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other government agencies (Governor in Council Appointments, 2012).

To appoint CEO's and Chairs of crown corporations such as the CBC (Broadcast Act, Section 36(2)).

To dissolve Parliament and choose the time of the next federal election (within a 5 year limit) (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 4(1)).

To run for re-election indefinitely (no term limits) (Constitution Act, Section 14, 1867).

To ratify treaties (The Royal Prerogative, 2013).

To declare war (Constitution Act, section 12, 1867; The Royal Prerogative, 2013).

To determine Canadian federal laws including election law within the constraints of the Canadian Constitution and Charter and contingent on passage in the Parliament (Constitution Act, Section 41, 1867).

i) Checks on the Prime Minister

First-past-the-post, the current way to determine federal election winners, allows parties to form a majority of the Canadian Parliament without representing at least an absolute majority of the voting public (The Electoral System of Canada, 2012).

The Canadian Supreme Court (Supreme Court Act, Section 4(2)).

The Parliament through a vote of no confidence can remove the Prime Minister (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000).

The Senate can delay or impede legislation (A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, 2001).

The Governor General’s powers to hold the Prime Minister accountable to the Queen and people have evolved into a ceremonial role (Constitutional Role, 2013).


The Prime Minister appoints the unelected Governor General, and therefore it follows that the Prime Minister can remove the Governor General (History, 2013).

Freedom of Expression (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2).

Civil suits within the Federal Court System (Federal Courts Act, Section 17(1)-(2)(a)-(d), 1985).

The Canadian electorate votes every four to five years (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 4(1)).

b) Powers of the Governor General

Executive power remains in the Queen who is represented by the Governor General (Constitution Act, Section 9-10, 1867).

Governor General is the Commander in Chief over Canada (Constitution Act, Section 15, 1867).

Exercises all powers and authorities given the Role in the Constitution on advice of the Privy Council of Canada (Constitution Act, Section 13, 1867).

Appoints the Privy Council members (who are career public servants) on the advice of the Prime Minister (Constitution Act, Section 11, 1867).

With cause may remove an individual from office who was appointed by the Governor General (Letters Patent, Section V, 1947).

Summons, prorogues or dissolves Parliament (Letters Patent, Section VI, 1947).

Pardons crimes and prisoners under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy with the recommendation of the Governor in Council – Prime Minister and Cabinet (Criminal Code, Sections 748(1)-(4), 748.1(1), 1985).

i) Checks on the Governor General

Appointed by the Prime Minister (History, 2013).

Requires the Prime Minister’s permission to leave the country for work related matters (Letters of Patent, Section XIV, 1947).

Governor General is apolitical and non-partisan; in practice is purely a ceremonial role (Constitutional Role, 2013).

Acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the government, but has the right to advise, warn, and encourage the Head of Government (Constitutional Role, 2013).


Needs the advice of the Prime Minister to appoint the Clerk and Members of the Privy Council (Clerk of the Privy Council, 2011).

2) Legislative Power

a) Powers of the Senate

Studies, amends, accepts or rejects bills passed by the House of Commons (The Senate Today, 2013).

Performs committee works that study major economic, legal, and social issues in Canada (The Senate Today, 2013).

Introduces its own bills except if related to spending public money and taxes (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

i) Checks on the Senate

The Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister can appoint extra senators at certain times to extend the Senate from 105 to 113 (Constitution Act, Sections 21, 26, 28, 1867).

The Governor General appoints Senators on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (The Senate Today, 2013).

3) Powers of the House of Commons

To create and pass bills (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000).

To hold the Executive branch accountable (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

To represent their Constituents with private members bills and other assistance (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

a) Checks on the House of Commons

Members of Parliament are elected by the people, and accountable to the voters (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 3).

Vote is held every 5 years or less (Constitution Act, section 50, 1867; Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 4).

Bills must also pass the Senate (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).

The public can view the House of Commons online, in person, and through the media during question period (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2011).


Judicial Power

4) Powers of the Judiciary

Has appellate review power in criminal and civil matters (Supreme Court Act, Section 35, 1985).

Hears controversies between provinces and the federal government (Supreme Court Act, Section 35.1).

Answer questions of law or fact provided to it by the Governor in Council related to the Constitution of 1867; constitutionality of federal or provincial legislation; and the exercise of powers by Parliament (Supreme Court Act, Section 53(1)(a)-(d)).

a) Checks on the Judiciary

Superior, District, and County court judges are removable by the Governor General on the advice of the Senate and House of Commons (Constitution Act, Section 99, 1867).

Supreme Court Justices appointed by the Governor in Council – Prime Minister and Cabinet (Supreme Court Act, Section 4(2)).

Audit Findings

There are three branches of government, bicameral parliament, governor general, and judiciary. The Senate, comprised of those with mostly non-elected positions, has limited say over legislation, and the judiciary is restricted to constitutional issues. Due to the tradition of strict party discipline, a party with majority of the Parliament has control over legislation. A Prime Minister and his Cabinet, with a majority of the Parliament, has excessive powers. The checks on the Prime Minister are limited to constitutional issues via the Supreme Court, a vote of no confidence, which is highly unlikely when the Prime Minister has a majority, the Senate, which can merely delay the passage of legislation, the Governor General, which has taken on a ceremonial role, and federal elections. The first-past-the-post system exacerbates the powers of the Prime Minister.

Registration of Candidates

Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of federal candidates reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?


A candidate must be an eligible elector. Candidates may not be members of provincial or territorial legislature, a sheriff, clerk of the peace, county Crown Attorney, prison inmate, or election officer. Individuals who have been convicted of contravening the Elections Act and previous candidates who


have not provided necessary returns and reports by their due date in a previous election are also barred from candidacy (Elections Act, Articles 65, 502).

Candidates must submit the witnessed names, signatures and addresses of at least 100 electors in the electoral district, or 50 if the district is listed in Schedule 3 of the Elections Act. On submitting nomination papers, the candidate must also provide $1000 (Elections Act, Articles 66, 67).

Audit Findings

In order to qualify, candidates are required to have support from at least 100 electors in their electoral districts (or 50 electors if the district is listed in Schedule 3 of the Elections Act), and pay a $1,000 fee to Elections Canada. Although the popular support requisite for candidates is minimal, the FDA auditors deemed the $1,000 cost as minimal as well, and a necessary barrier to entry to filter non-serious candidates. Ideally, the barrier of entry for all candidates should be based on exclusively on popular support such as 0.5 percent support of the relevant district.

Registration of Parties Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of parties reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?


On registering as a party, the party leader must provide the names and addresses of 250 party members as well as their declaration that they are members and support the registration application. The party leader must also provide a declaration that one of the party's main purposes is to support and elect a candidate and participate in public affairs (Elections Act, Article 366).

A party is eligible for registration as long as it provides its name, abbreviation or logo is not seen as similar enough to an existing eligible or registered party name to cause confusion, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer. The name must also not include “independent” or be confused with the word “independent”, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Act, Article 368).

If a party cannot show a commissioner that they are committed to electing a candidate and participating in public affairs, they may be taken to court. If a court determines that the party lacks this purpose, they may have their assets liquidated (Elections Act, Article 521.1).

Audit Findings

In order to register as a party the party must have 250 party members, a nominal barrier of entry. There is no financial requirement beyond the $1,000 per candidate. There are 308 seats in the Canadian parliament, and therefore, if a party wants to field candidates in every district, it would have to spend $308,000.


Electoral Complaints

Audit Questions

1) Do candidates and parties have mechanisms in which to file complaints for electoral wrongdoing/fraud?

2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce candidate and party electoral complaints?


If the difference in between the number of votes for the winning candidate and those with the next highest number of votes is less than 1/1000 of votes cast, the returning officer must request for a recount by a judge, who must perform this within four days of the request (Elections Act, Article 300).

Within four days of a returning officer releases a certificate describing the number of votes for each candidate, an elector may apply to a judge for a recount, who shall schedule a recount if an affidavit is provided indicating an incorrect count or written results. A $250 deposit must be made by the elector as a security for the winning candidate. The recount must occur within four days of the request, in the order in which they are received. If the recount does not alter the results, the winning candidate will have their costs paid by the elector who made the application, from the security deposit as necessary, with right of action if further funds are necessary. Candidates may also apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to be reimbursed for their costs, to a maximum of $500 per day of recount (Elections Act, Articles 297, 301, 302, 309, 310).

If a judge fails to act appropriately in seeking a recount, recourse may be made to the respective provincial or territorial court under whose jurisdiction the recount request has been made (Elections Act, Article 311).

Elections Canada accepts complaints about a possible violation of the Elections Act from anyone through an online complaint form, e-mail, fax, or posted mail (Elections Canada, Question and Answer, 2013).

The Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for investigation and enforcement of election offences (Elections Canada, Question and Answer, 2013, and Elections Act, Articles 509, 510).

Complaints against possible violations of the Canada Elections Act must include complainant’s name, address, telephone number, and factual description of events, circumstances, or actions, and if possible dates, places, and/or relevant documents, which led to the alleged offence (Elections Canada, Question and Answer, 2013).

Complaints must be received by the Commissioner within 10 years of the alleged offence occurring (Contact Us, 2013).


Commissioner determines on reasonable grounds whether or not offence under the Elections Act has been committed, and this determination will be the basis as to whether or not to initiate prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Elections Act, 511(1)).

In a case of prosecution, the Director of Public Prosecutions will cause an information of writing and under oath or solemn declaration before a justice by the Commissioner (Elections Act, Article 511(2)).

The Commissioner has the power to intervene in the prosecution if the Commissioner believes it is in the public interest (Elections Act, Article 513).

Prosecution for an offence under the Elections Act may be commenced as soon as the Commissioner became aware of it and not later than 5 years, and in any case, not later than 10 years from when the offense was committed (Elections Act, Article 514(1)).

If offender has left the jurisdiction of the court, the prosecution may be instituted within one of the offender’s return to the jurisdiction (Elections Act, Article 514(2)).

Audit Findings

The FDA identified a comprehensive election complaints process, which is open to all Canadian citizens.

Presentation of Ballots Audit Question

1) Are electoral lists presented on ballots in a fair, equitable way for all registered candidates and parties?


Candidate names are taken from their nomination papers and are presented on the ballot alphabetically, along with their political party, or “independent” status, or no affiliation. In the case of two candidates with the same name and “independent” or no affiliation status, their occupation or address may also be listed, if they have made a request for this by 5:00 P.M on polling day (Elections Act, Article 117).

Audit Finding

The FDA auditors found no evidence that the presentation of the ballots favour one candidate or party over another.


Scrutineers

Audit Question

1) Are candidates and parties allowed scrutineers at polling stations?


Candidates may act as representatives or may have up to two representatives present at any given time at a polling station, and may inspect elector lists, as long as this does not delay electors from voting, as well as ballots up to 15 minutes prior to polls opening. In the presence of all candidates and representatives present, the deputy returning officer must initial the ballots, show the ballot boxes are empty, seal them properly and keep them on a table in full view until polling closes (Elections Act, Articles 135-140).

Audit Findings

Scrutineers from all registered parties are allowed at the polling stations, and are permitted among other things to inspect the electoral lists, watch the deputy returning officer initial the ballots, and view that the ballot boxes are empty.

Candidate and Party Advertisement

Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal access to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?

2) During the campaign period, do candidates' and parties' political advertisements in media include a public subsidy component to ensure an equality of political advertisement in the media?

3) Outside of the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?



The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Act presents the regulations regarding political advertising and broadcasting during an election period. Broadcasters are required to cover Canadian elections and must give all candidates, parties and issues “equitable” coverage during the campaign period. Equitable does not imply equal, broadcasters must simply take “reasonable” steps to present the views and positions of all parties (Public Notice CRTC, 1988).




After the election is called until midnight the night before election day, broadcasters must allow every registered party the option to purchase 6.5 hours of prime-time programming in order to communicate the position of the party though political announcements and other programming to the public (Elections Act, Article 335).

It is the prerogative of individual networks and broadcasters to exceed the allocation of minutes designated for political programming and sell time to a party outside of the guidelines for purchase. For example, they can sell minutes above what a party is entitled or outside of prime time. However, a broadcaster cannot discriminate in favour of one particular party. They cannot sell extra minutes to one party and refuse to sell to another at the same rate (Broadcasting Guidelines, 2011).

During the election period, the CEO appoints a Broadcasting Arbitrator, whose term expires six months after polling day (Elections Act, Article 332 (1) (2)).

The Broadcasting Arbitrator calls a meeting for the representatives of all registered parties to consult on the allocation of broadcast minutes. After receiving notice of this meeting, a registered party will not receive broadcast time if it indicates it does not want the time, fails to communicate its intentions regarding designated broadcast time, or does not present a representative at the meeting (Elections Act, Articles 336 – 337).

In the case where not all parties agree on the portion of time given, the Broadcasting Arbitrator allocates the minutes. S/he considers the number of candidates endorsed by each of the registered parties at the previous election, the percentage of seats the House of Commons held by each of the parties at the previous election, and the percentage of popular vote attained at the previous election to determine the allocation (Elections Act, Article 337(2), 338).

No single party is allocated more than 50 percent of the total broadcasting time (Elections Act, Article 338 (3)).

If the Arbitrator determines that minutes are unfair to a particular party or contrary to public interest, s/he can modify allocation in whatever way they deem appropriate (Elections Act, Article 338(5)).

New registered parties are entitled to purchase broadcast time during the election period not exceeding 39 minutes (Elections Act, Article 339).

Broadcasters cannot charge a registered party an amount that is higher than the rate charged to other parties for equivalent time for broadcasts or publications during the election period (Elections Act, Article 348).


Only certain networks are required to provide free broadcasting time to registered parties, it is not an obligation to all broadcasters (Elections Act, Article 345(1)). The following networks and radio stations are obliged to provide free broadcasting: CBC Radio One, SRC Première Chaîne, CBC TV (English), SRC-TV (French), TVA, and V Télé (Broadcasting Guidelines, 2011).

The amount of free broadcasting made available cannot be less than the amount of free minutes allocated at the last federal election. Networks must allow every registered and eligible party at least 2 minutes free broadcasting and additional time in proportion to their allocated purchasable broadcasting time (Elections Act, Article 345(2)).

The guidelines for broadcasting minutes apply only to registered parties and not to individual candidates (Broadcasting Guidelines, 2011).

The FDA researchers found no regulation of candidate and party advertisement in the Internet and newspaper media sectors.

Audit Findings

The FDA found no indication of equal access to media and equal cost of advertisements for all registered parties either during or outside of the election period. There was no evidence of public subsidies to supplement the cost of broadcasting minutes, a practice that could ensure equality of coverage for all registered parties. Instead, FDA auditors identified several procedures that allowed a substantial bias to major parties over new and small parties, including the option to purchase 6.5 hours broadcast time at standard network rates and the option for a single party to receive up to 49.9 percent of the total delegated broadcast time for all registered parties.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research

1) Constitutional

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; including, freedom of the press and other media of communication (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)).The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(c), (d)).


Every citizen has a right to vote in elections of members to the House of Commons or otherlegislative assemblies and to be qualified for membership in them (Charter of Rights andFreedoms, Section 3).

2) Election Law

Every elector who qualifies is entitled to one vote (Elections Act, Article 6).

The Elections Act provides a blackout period for election advertising to the public. The blackout begins on polling day and lasts until the close of all the polling stations in the electoral district (Elections Act, 323(1)).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found nothing in or the Elections Act that which would unreasonably limit the freedom of speech for Canadian citizens.

Legislative Process Audit Question

1) Is there a reasonable legislative process to enforce electoral laws?


The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), appointed by the House of Commons, is responsible for the supervision, direction, and conduct of the federal election. The CEO must enforce the provisions of and ensure compliance with the Elections Act and other legislation pertaining to the election (Elections Act, Article 13(1) (2); Article 16).

During the election period and for thirty days following polling day, the CEO may adapt these provisions in order to manage electoral emergencies (Elections Act, Article 17).

The CEO can educate the public about federal elections, the democratic process, and electoral rights and regulations using any media forum or communication s/he considers appropriate (Elections Act, Article 18(1) (2)).

The Elections Act outlines various prohibitions that are subject to penalty. For example, one cannot disclose information about an electors vote, interfere with an elector while voting, make false statements while applying for registration as a candidate, party, or voter, or prevent or persuade an elector from voting through intimidation or duress (Elections Act, Article 281-282).

The Commissioner of Canada Elections, appointed by the CEO, ensures compliance and enforcement of the Act. If the CEO believes an offense has occurred, s/he directs the Commissioner to proceed with an inquiry. If after this inquiry the Commissioner believes that an offense has occurred, s/he refers the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then decides to initiate a


prosecution. The CEO informs both the Commissioner and the Director throughout the process. The offense can be prosecuted no later than 5 years after the Commissioner was made aware of the matter and no longer than 10 years of when it occurred (Elections Act, Articles 509-511, 512, 514) .

Other obstructions of the election process that demand penalty include: disrupting or inciting disorder at public meetings intended for election purposes, offering or accepting a bribe in order to influence a vote, unauthorized use of personal information in the elector register, an employer not allowing reasonable time for employees to vote, and unauthorized ballot printing (Elections Act, Article 480-482; Elections Act, Table of Offences).

Contraventions of the Act are subject to strict liability offences. Summary convictions range from a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for no longer than three months or both, $2,000 or six months imprisonment or both, to $5,000 and a year imprisonment or both, depending on intent. For registered parties and third parties, fines can reach $25,000 and imprisonment of five years or both (Elections Act, Article 500).

Upon conviction, and depending on the nature and intent of the offense, additional penalties might include community service, financial compensation to those who suffered damages because of a financial contravention, party deregistration and asset liquidation, or whatever reasonable measure the court finds appropriate (Elections Act, Article 501(1) (2)).

The Act differentiates illegal or corrupt practices from general contraventions of electoral law. These apply in particular to candidates and agents of candidates who breach provisions including, but not limited to, publishing false statements regarding the inclusion or withdrawal of another candidate; foreign broadcasting; exceeding limits on election expenses; and purposefully obstructing the democratic process (Elections Act, Article 502; Elections Act, Table of Offences).

Some offenses, including but not limited to, offering or accepting a bribe to influence an elector; intentionally preventing public meetings related to election; intimidation or duress of an elector; knowingly voting more than once or without being qualified; obstruction of election officer; or if an election officer does not return election documents and materials, are subject to a $5,000 fine, a five year imprisonment, or both (Elections Act, Table of Offences).

Third parties that contravene the Act are liable on conviction of fines ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 (Elections Act, Article 505).

If a candidate or party agent knowingly makes or publishes false statements about a candidate; accepts unauthorized contributions; fails to provide complete and accurate financial statements to the CEO within the required period; exceeds contribution limits; or forges a ballot in any way with the intention of influencing the elector, the penalty is a $5,000 fine, five year imprisonment, or both. In addition, the CEO can de-register a party and liquidate its assets (Elections Act, Table of Offences).

The penalty for exceeding election advertising expense limits is $1,000, three months imprisonment or both; however, the penalty for liable third parties is a fine of up to five times the amount spent over the limit. The penalty for the chief agent that fails to identify the party and candidate in advertisements, uses foreign contributions, willfully exceeds the election expense limit, submits incomplete, false, or late documents, or does not claim all contributions etc. is a $1,000 fine, three


month imprisonment, or both. The registered party conducting these infractions is liable for a $25,000 fine (Elections Act, Table of Offences).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding reasonable legislative processes to enforce electoral finance laws. They identified a comprehensive and effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, including fines reflective of the severity of the offense, prison terms of up to five years, and detailed investigation, trial, and appeal processes. The FDA believes such consequences are sufficient to deter and penalize individuals and groups who violate election law. The maximum fine is $25,000 and the maximum imprisonment is five years. Based on lost wages due to imprisonment plus the $25,000 maximum, the average lost wages is $106, 321. This lost wage is 283 percent more than the per capita income of $37,506. Although the maximum is fine is low, the FDA auditors believe it is compensated by the lengthy maximum prison time.

Total score for the electoral fairness on candidates and parties: 58.93 percent out of 100 percent.


Overall Candidates and Parties Analysis The FDA auditors measured an unsatisfactory passing score of 58.93 percent for Canadian federal legislation relating to candidates and parties. The FDA audit methodology allows for relevant overlap of variables between sections. In the case of candidates and parties, there is considerable overlap with the electoral finance and media sections and the reduced score reflects this overlap. The FDA auditors identified important deficiencies relating to candidates and parties that are evidence of systemic bias to major parties over new and small parties. The main deficiencies are a first-past-the-post election system, minimal checks on majority governments and parties in the Canadian Parliament, unequal candidate and party advertisement practices, and an absence of measures to support minority political representation.

The following is a summary of the FDA’s key findings regarding the Canadian federal laws pertaining to candidates and parties, and their corresponding impact on a free and democratic society:

1) A first-past-the-post system of voting determines the election of federal candidates.

Impact

In Canada, a first-past-the-post voting system decides election winners. In this system, only the votes received by the election winners have a direct impact on the election outcome, which may not accurately reflect the will of the majority. The FDA believes that proportional representation is a more effective system to capture the will of the majority. It allows more votes, and therefore more people, to determine election outcomes.

In first-past-the-post, a minority political party can attain a majority of the Canadian Parliament and the political power that comes with it. (For further discussion see the Audit Findings for the Methodology for Determining Election Winners subsection on p. 29 and Garvey & Rapchuk, 2013).

2) There are minimal checks and balances of legislative power on a political party with a majority of Parliament.

Impact

Unchecked authority can lead to abuse of political and legislative power, or to policy creation that is not in the interest of the majority of Canadians. The first-past-the-post system has the potential to exacerbate this corruption since it allows a minority political party to attain a majority share of Parliament and impose its agenda on the nation and the greater part of Canadians who do not support the party.


3) Political parties do not have equal access to advertisement time or cost. Although there are measures in the Canadian Broadcast Act that refer to equal opportunity, they are subject to the ability to pay, and there are no provisions to prohibit media companies from charging higher costs to prevent certain smaller and less established parties from advertising.

Impact

The greater the electoral funds, the greater the opportunity for a party to afford standard and large-scale political advertisement. This influence might generate an imbalance in public electoral discourse during the campaign period.

4) Registered political parties do not have access to equal broadcast time. Only certain national networks are obliged to provide free broadcast time to every registered party, and this is allocated time in relation to the available purchasable time. The percentage of seats in Parliament, number of candidates endorsed by each party and percentage of popular vote in the previous election determine purchasable time and minute allocation. This process favours incumbent, large, and established parties over new and smaller parties.

Impact

Large, established political parties have a significant advantage over small or new parties in acquiring both free and purchasable broadcast time. This slants political dialogue in the media and produces an imbalance in platform, policy, and campaign information dissemination to the public. This generates narrow electoral discourse, which is not in the interest of a democratic society.


Chapter Four: Voters This chapter focuses on the Canadian electoral laws relating to voters. The FDA audit team gauges these laws according to their equity for voters. This implies an equal value for each vote cast, equitable opportunity for voters prior to and during the campaign period and reasonable means to take advantage of these opportunities. The FDA acknowledges that absolute equal opportunity is not likely attainable. For example, it is implausible that either government or society can ensure that every citizen have the same education, income, intelligence, leisure time etc. However, the FDA is interested in the overall equity of Canadian legislation relating to voters. Does the legislation promote equity within reasonable bounds? Are there areas of the legislation that clearly favour certain voters? Table 6 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 6 Voters Audit Results and Percentages

Voters Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Blackout Period 1% 0.1 0.05 50%Value of a Vote 5% 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Speech and Assembly

15% 1.5 1.5 100%

Voter Registration Requirements

2% 0.2 0.2 100%

Voter Electoral Complaints Process

3% 0.3 0.3 100%

Voter Protection 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 2% 0.2 0.15 75%Inclusion of Minorities 2% 0.2 0.1 50%Secrecy of Vote 7% 0.7 0.7 100%Variables from Other Sections

67% 6.7 3.63 54.17%

Total 100% 10 7.53 73.52%


Blackout Period Audit Question

1) Is the length of the campaign blackout period reasonable? Legislative Research No person (or registered party or group) shall transmit election advertising to the public in electoral districts on the polling day until the close of all polling stations (Elections Act, Articles 323 (1), 323 (3)).

Notices about events involving leaders of registered parties about events a leader will attend or invitations to attend an event of a leader are not considered election advertising (Elections Act, Article 323 (2)).

Internet messages sent prior to the polling day, distribution of pamphlets or posting messages on signs, posters, or banners, transmission of public notification that election survey is not based on recognized statistical methods within 24 hours after it was first transmitted do not apply to blackout period (Elections Act, Article 324 (a) and (b), Article 327).

No person (or registered party or group) shall knowingly cause the transmittance an election survey to the public on the polling day that had not been previously transmitted (Elections Act, Article 328 (1)).

No person (or registered party or group) shall transmit to the public an election survey on the polling day that had not been previously transmitted (Elections Act, Article 328 (1)).

Audit Findings

The purpose of a blackout period is to give electors time to process campaign information independently and without additional broadcast, survey, or media input. Using professional judgment and through consensus, FDA auditors determine that 48 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the public to process campaign information and make independent voting choices. As such, the FDA deducted 50 percent from the score because of the existing 24-hour blackout period for federal elections. However, through peer review, it is noted that the blackout period has no impact on the electorate who vote in the advanced poll on the first day of it. The advanced poll is three days prior to Election Day (Elections Act, Article 171.2). The FDA auditors believe that a balance needs to be obtained between electioneering and non-electioneering, and that a 120 hour blackout period (5 days) and 72 hour blackout period (3 days) are too long. In the 2011 Canadian Federal General Election as an example, 14.17 percent of the Canadian electorate participated in advanced polls (FDA calculation based on Long Description of Advance Poll Turnout (2006-2011), 2013; Voter Turnout at Federal Elections and Referendums, 2013).


Value of a Vote Audit Question

1) Is the electoral (numerical) value of votes the same for all eligible voters? Legislative Research

An elector who has voted in an election may not request a second ballot (Elections Act, Article 7). Audit Finding

Canadian electors are entitled to one vote per person.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research

1) Constitutional

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; including, freedom of the press and other media of communication (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)).

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(c), (d)).

Every citizen has a right to vote in elections of members to the House of Commons or other legislative assemblies, and to be qualified for membership in them (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 3).

2) Election Law

Every elector who qualifies is entitled to one vote (Elections Act, Article 6).

The Elections Act provides a blackout period for election advertising to the public. The blackoutbegins on polling day and lasts until the close of all the polling stations in the electoral district(Elections Act, 323(1)).


Audit Finding

The FDA auditors found nothing in or the Elections Act that which would unreasonably limit the freedom of speech for Canadian citizens.

Voter Registration Requirements Audit Question

1) Are the voter registration requirements reasonable? Legislative Research

All Canadian citizens who are at least 18 years of age on election date are eligible to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer, Assistant Chief Electoral Officer and prisoners serving a sentence of two years of greater are ineligible for voting (Elections Act, Articles 3, 4).

The Chief Electoral Officer maintains a registry of all electors, and must contact them once they become electors to confirm their information and place in the registry. Electors must provide their full name, sex, date of birth place of residence and confirmation of eligibility as an elector (Elections Act, Articles 48, 49, 51).

Electors may register on polling day, or at advance polls as long as they provide a piece of government issued photo identification and two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, containing name and address. Electors may also register on polling day or at an advance poll with a fellow elector from the same district who provides identification, with both electors taking oaths (Elections Act, Articles 161, 169).

If an electoral officer has reasonable doubts about the identity of an elector, the elector's name and address very closely resembles that of another on the elector list, or another votes under their name, the elector may not vote without taking the prescribed oath. If an elector claims their name has been crossed off an elector list in error, they may only vote if they take the prescribed oath or the Chief Electoral Officer confirms this was in error (Elections Act, Articles 144, 146-148).

Audit Finding

The FDA auditors deem the requisite conditions for voter registration, including being a Canadian citizen and at least 18 years of age, reasonable terms.

Voter Electoral Complaints Audit Questions

1) Is there a reasonable electoral complaints process for voters?


2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce voter electoral complaints? Legislative Research

If the difference in between the number of votes for the winning candidate and those with the next highest number of votes is less than 1/1000 of votes cast, the returning officer must request for a recount by a judge, who must perform this within four days of the request (Elections Act, Article 300).

Within four days of a returning officer releases a certificate describing the number of votes for each candidate, an elector may apply to a judge for a recount, who shall schedule a recount if an affidavit is provided indicating an incorrect count or written results. A $250 deposit must be made by the elector as a security for the winning candidate. The recount must occur within four days of the request, in the order in which they are received. If the recount does not alter the results, the winning candidate will have their costs paid by the elector who made the application, from the security deposit as necessary, with right of action if further funds are necessary. Candidates may also apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to be reimbursed for their costs, to a maximum of $500 per day of recount (Elections Act, Articles 297, 301, 302, 309, 310).

If a judge fails to act appropriately in seeking a recount, recourse may be made to the respective provincial or territorial court under whose jurisdiction the recount request has been made (Elections Act, Article 311).

Elections Canada accepts complaints about a possible violation of the Elections Act from anyone through an online complaint form, e-mail, fax, or posted mail (Elections Canada, Question and Answer, 2013).

The Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for investigation and enforcement of election offences (Contact Us, 2013; Elections Act, Articles 509, 510).

Complaints against possible violations of the Canada Elections Act must include complainant’s name, address, telephone number, and factual description of events, circumstances, or actions, and if possible dates, places, and/or relevant documents, which led to the alleged offence (Contact Us, 2013).

Complaints must be received by the Commissioner within 10 years of the alleged offence occurring (Contact Us, 2013).

Commissioner determines on reasonable grounds whether or not offence under the Elections Act has been committed, and this determination will be the basis as to whether or not to initiate prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Elections Act, Article 511(1)).

In a case of prosecution, the Director of Public Prosecutions will produce relevant written information under oath or solemn declaration before a justice (Elections Act, Article 511(2)).

The Commissioner has the power to intervene in the prosecution if the Commissioner believes it is in the public interest (Elections Act, Article 513).


Prosecution for an offence under the Elections Act may be commenced as soon as the Commissioner became aware of it and not later than 5 years, and in any case, not later than 10 years from when the offense was committed (Elections Act, Article 514(1)).

If offender has left the jurisdiction of the court, the prosecution may be instituted within one of the offender’s return to the jurisdiction (Elections Act, Article 514(2)).

Audit Finding

The FDA identified a comprehensive election complaints process that is open to all Canadian citizens.

Voter Protection Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes that protect voters in carrying the act of voting? Legislative Research

Once an elector has been given a ballot, they may not be asked to prove their identity or place of residence (Elections Act, Article 144.1).

Voters are protected inside and outside of Canada from others revealing how they marked their ballot, interfering when they are marking a ballot, obtaining information on whom they have voted for and from preventing them from voting (Elections Act, Article 281).

Outside of Canada, voters are protected from others intimidating them or persuading them from not voting, or coercing them from voting for their selected candidate (Elections Act, Article 282).

The returning officer and other election officer are responsible for maintaining peace and order during voting procedures. Should the maintenance of order be threatened through an offence listed in the Elections Act or any other Act of Parliament, an officer may order the offender to leave or arrest the person without a warrant. A person who has been ordered to leave must obey immediately. If the order is not obeyed immediately, the officer may use force to eject the person (Elections Act, Article 479 (1-5)).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to protect voters from intimidation and coercion. To do so is a criminal offence, and election officers are present at polling stations and have the power to maintain law and order there.


Voter Assistance Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes to assist voters with the act of voting? Legislative Research

The notice of registration sent to electors must include the polling station's address, voting hours, telephone number and whether it has level access. The notice must also include the dates and locations of advance polls, and inform voters that they must provide proof of residence and identification in order to vote. Finally, within the notice the returning officer must invite the elector to contact them if the elector has a disability preventing them from attending the poll, or requires a language or sign language interpreter, or level access; advance polls must be in a location with level access (Elections Act, Articles 95, 168).

A deputy returning officer must provide assistance to an elector who has a physical disability or cannot read, in the presence of a poll clerk, and may swear in a language or sign language interpreter to assist in providing necessary information to voters. On request, an assistive template must be provided to visually impaired electors to help they vote (Elections Act, Articles 154, 156).

Electors may be assisted in voting by a friend, spouse or common-law partner, or relative of themselves, their spouse or their common-law partner. The assisting individual must not coerce the elector in regards to their vote, must vote as the elector wishes, and may not compromise the secrecy of their vote. Friends may only assist one individual per election (Elections Act, Article 155).

A polling station must be established in a chronic care and elderly home to allow residents to vote. For those who are bed ridden, voting will be temporarily suspended at the station as the deputy returning officer and poll clerk, with the approval of the centre, carry the necessary materials to those confined in bed; the deputy returning officer will provide voter assistance as necessary (Elections Act, Article 157).

Those in a wheelchair or with a physical disability preventing them from voting at their polling station, due to a lack of level access, may apply for a transfer certificate to vote at another station (Elections Act, Article 159).

Employees are entitled to three consecutive hours to vote on polling day, which must be provided by the employer during the workday if necessary, at the convenience of the employer. No deduction may be made from an employee's pay, and the employee may not be intimidated or interfered with to prevent them from voting. For transportation employees working outside their polling division, voting time need not be provided if it will interfere with their work (Elections Act, Articles 132-134).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to assist disabled and impaired voters in voting. In addition, there are measures to assist voters who are unable to travel in person to polling stations including establishing polling stations at chronic care facilities and elderly homes.


Citizens Living Abroad Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes which allow citizens living abroad to vote?


Electors living abroad must submit an application for registration and a ballot, which must be received in Ottawa by 6:00 P.M., at least six days before polling. To be eligible for voting, they must have lived in Canada previously, intend to return in the future and have been gone less than five years (excluding Canadian Forces members and employees, and those employed internationally by Canadian federal or provincial governments or international organizations to which Canada is a member. The Chief Electoral Officer must keep a register of such electors, including their date of birth, sex, civic and mailing address, electoral district, date of departure and expected return as well as anticipated place of residence (Elections Act, Articles 191, 221, 222).

Once an application is approved, the elector will be sent a ballot, internal and external envelope. Once their ballot is marked, it will be placed in the internal envelope, which will then be placed in the external envelope and sent to Ottawa, either by mail or through a Canadian embassy, High Commission Office, Consular Office, Armed Forces base or any other place indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer. The ballot must arrive in Ottawa by 6:00 P.M. on polling day (Elections Act, Articles 227-229).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to ensure that citizens living abroad have the opportunity to vote, for example, the option to cast a vote through mail-in ballots. However, Canadians citizens who are abroad for more than five years subject to exceptions are disallowed from voting in national elections. The FDA auditors with direction from peer reviewers determined that this five year provision unreasonably violated Canadians citizens’ legal right to vote.

Inclusion of Minorities Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable measures that support the political representation of minorities and disadvantaged groups of people?


Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has provisions for laws, programs, activity for amelioration of the conditions of disadvantaged individuals and groups, the FDA researchers found no specific provisions for disadvantaged individuals and groups in terms of federal political representation. In fact, the Charter says that everyone has the same democratic rights which are counter to idea that everyone should not have the same democratic rights (Charter of Rights and


Freedoms, Section 3).

The Canadian Constitution Act 1982 recognizes aboriginal and treaty rights, and the pledge by the federal government to include aboriginals in constitutional conference (Constitution Act, Section 35.1, 1982).

The Indian Act establishes a process to register Indians and their bands, and define the system of Indian reserves. The federal government gives registered Indians authority over the Indian reserves subject to the terms of treaties and any other Act of Parliament (Indian Act, Section 88).

The Canadian Constitution Act 1867 establishes the legislative authority of the Canadian Parliament over Indians and lands reserved for Indians (Constitution Act, Section 91(24), 1867).

Women have minority representation in the Canadian Parliament. In 2008 women comprised 22.1 percent of the seats in the Parliament (Women in Parliament, 2010). In 2010, women comprised a majority of the Canadian population at 50.4 percent (Female Population, 2010).

In 2004 according to the Statistics Canada, visible minorities comprised 7.1 percent of all MPs elected, while visible minorities account for an estimated 14.9 percent of all Canadians (Black & Hicks, 2006).

Audit Findings

Although The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes that all Canadian citizens have equal democratic rights, FDA auditors did not find legislation to support the political representation of minorities and disadvantageous groups in Parliament. In fact, evidence to the contrary demonstrates that minorities are under-represented in Parliament and in government. The FDA auditors believe that Charter is offset by this actuality, and therefore determined a 50 percent score.

Secrecy of Vote

Audit Question

1) Are individual election ballots secret in terms of the identities of those who voted?


The vote is described as secret (Elections Act, Article 163).

Election officers, candidates or representatives of candidates at polling stations must maintain the secrecy of the vote (Elections Act, Article 164 (1)).

Electors at polling stations are disallowed from openly declaring whom he or she intends to vote for (Elections Act, Article 164(2)(a)).

Electors are disallowed from showing his or her marked ballot to anyone else (Elections Act, Article


164(2)(b)).

Upon leaving polling stations, electors are disallowed from openly declaring who they voted for (Elections Act, Article 164(2)(c)).

The deputy returning officers at polling stations have the authority to inform electors who violate Article 164(2) and the punishment which they are liable of. In such circumstances, the electors will be allowed to vote in usual way (Elections Act, Article 164(3)).

Electors vote in voting compartments and after marking their ballot return it folded to the deputy returning officers (Elections Act, Article 151(1)).

The deputy returning officers upon receiving folded ballots shall verify the ballot through serial number and initials, and then destroy the counterfoil and return the ballot to the electors who then deposit them in the ballot boxes or upon permission of the electors, the deputy returning officers deposit the ballots in the boxes (151(2)).

The media can only shoot general footage from the door of polling stations, and must not hinder voters or compromise the secrecy of the vote. This limited access is only allowed if the location is suitable for media set-up (Elections Canada, 2012).

Electors may be assisted in voting by a friend, spouse or common-law partner, or relative of themselves, their spouse or their common-law partner. The assisting individual must not coerce the elector in regards to their vote, must vote as the elector wishes, and may not compromise the secrecy of their vote. Friends may only assist one individual per election (Elections Act, Article 155).

Audit Finding

FDA audits did not identify any process issues which would compromise the secrecy of vote.

Total score for electoral fairness on voters: 73.52 percent out of 100 percent.


Overall Voters Analysis

FDA auditors measured a satisfactory passing score of 73.52 percent for Canadian legislation relating to voters. 70 percent is the minimum threshold for a satisfactory passing score. Canadian voters have a strong electoral structure that allows for freedom of speech, enforcement of election law, and a sound process for election complaints. Several measures provide support for voters, including opportunities for voter assistance and absentee balloting. Without considering variables from the other three sections, the FDA auditors identified two deficiencies in this section: short length of the campaign and blackout periods.

The following is a summary of the FDA’s key findings regarding the Canadian federal laws pertaining to voters, and their corresponding impact on a free and democratic society:

1) There is a 24-hour blackout period regarding electioneering communications and new surveys/polls information disclosure.

Impact

The purpose of a blackout period is to give electors time to process campaign information independently and without additional broadcast, survey, or media input. Using professional judgment and through consensus, FDA auditors determine that 48 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the public to process campaign information and make voting decisions without losing interest in the election. The FDA does not believe that the current 24-hour blackout period for federal elections provides the Canadian electorate with the appropriate time to make independent election choices on polling day.

2) There is 36-day campaign period.

Impact

The purpose of the campaign period is to give candidates and parties opportunity to share their political platforms with the electorate. Using professional judgment and through consensus, FDA auditors determine that 60 days is adequate time for candidates and parties, including new candidates and parties, to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public. The FDA believes that the length of a campaign period should take into account public interest and attention span, the financial resources of candidates and parties, and allow sufficient time for new and small parties to inform the public of their political platforms. An extended campaign period longer than 60 days would be expensive and favour larger and more established parties with greater financial resources and funding.


Chapter Five: Overall Audit Results

1) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Canadian laws on electoral finance:

78.15 percent

2) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Canadian laws on media election coverage:

47.35 percent

3) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Canadian laws relating to candidates and parties:

58.93 percent

4) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Canadian laws relating to voters:

73.52 percent

Total score: 64.49 percent

The bar chart illustrates the level of electoral fairness for the Canadian federal electoral system based on the 2013 FDA audit result for each section and overall. Each section has an equal weight of 25

percent.


Chapter Six: Analysis

FDA auditors calculated an overall unsatisfactory passing score of 64.49 percent for the electoral fairness of the Canadian federal electoral system. The FDA identified a strong Canadian electoral system but significant deficiencies that favour established political parties over new and small political parties.

In order to understand any electoral system, it is important to examine the different aspects of the system both individually and as a whole. Sound processes in one area do not imply an explicit relation in others. Deficiencies in additional areas can undermine the democratic integrity of the entire system.

Table 8 Audit Results and Percentages for All Variables

Audit Main Variables Audit Weights Audit Results % ResultElectoral Finance Transparency 2.0 2.0 100%Contributions to Candidates & Parties 1.5 1.25 83.3%Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties 2.0 1.61 80.5%Campaign Expenditure Limits 2.25 1.5 66.6%Caps on Third-party Expenditures 1.25 0.005 0.4%Legislative Process 1.0 1.0 100%Broad & Balanced Election Coverage 3.0 0.0 0.0%Media Ownership 1.5 0.235 15.6%Survey/Polls 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Media 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct 1.0 0.0 0.0%Campaign Period 0.2 0.12 60%Methodology for Election Winners 0.2 0.0 0.0%Electoral Boundaries 0.2 0.2 100%Process of Government 1.0 0.0 0.0%Registration of Candidates 0.2 0.2 100%Freedom of Expression and Assembly 2.0 2.0 100%Registration of Parties 0.2 0.2 100%Electoral Complaints 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 0.1 0.1 100%Scrutineers 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement 0.6 0.0 0.0%Blackout Period 0.1 0.05 50%Value of a Vote 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Speech and Assembly 1.5 1.5 100%Voter Registration Requirements 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Electoral Complaints Process 0.3 0.3 100%Voter Protection 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 0.2 0.15 75%Inclusion of Minorities 0.2 0.1 50%


Secrecy of Vote 0.7 0.7 100%Totals 40 25.82 64.49%*

*Percentage total score includes measurement of some variables in more than one audit section.

Table 9 Main Deficiencies in the Canadians Federal Electoral System in Order of Their Impact on a Free and Democratic Society

Main Deficiencies in Order of Significance

Overall Total Audit Weight

Total Score

Numerical Impact

Impact on a Free and Democratic Society

Broad & Balanced Election Coverage

12% 0.0% -12% Favours large, established parties and parties connected to media

Media Ownership 7.25% 0.58% -6.66% Favours parties connected to media

Caps on Third-party Expenditures

5.62% 0.02% -5.6% Favours parties connected to wealthy citizens and corporations & trade unions


9.37% 5.5% -3.87 Subsidies favour incumbent, large, established parties

Press Code of Practice/Conduct

3.25% 0.0% -3.25% Favours parties connected to media

Process of Government 2.5% 0.0% -2.5% Minimal checks and balances allow for extreme politics and laws

Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement

1.5% 0.0% -1.5% Favours large, established political parties

Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties

7% 5.76% -1.24% Favours parties connected to wealthy citizens

Methodology for Election Winners

1% 0.0% -1% Allows party with minority electoral support to control of Parliament

Inclusion of Minorities 0.75% 0.375% -0.375% Favours parties less representative of minorities.

Campaign Period 0.75% 0.45% -0.3% Favours large, established parties

Blackout Period 0.25% 0.125% -0.125% Favours large, established parties


Table 10 Electoral Legislation that Favours or Creates an Even Playing Field New and Small Political Parties

Main Equities in Order of Significance for Small

and New Parties

Overall Total Audit Weight

Total Score Numerical Impact

Impact on a Free and

Democratic Society

Party Registration 1% 100% 1% Minimal requirements to register a party, barring $1,000 per candidate; allows minimal entry into electoral system for parties

Candidate & Party Campaign Advertisement

1.5% 0.0% -1.5% Two minutes free broadcast time for all registered parties; new parties allowed a minimum 39 minutes paid broadcast time

The FDA researchers found the following legislation that supports the largest and/or most established parties over other large, established parties:

1) Public subsidies for registered parties that either 2 percent of the popular vote or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts of the candidates endorsed by the parties in the most recent election. The subsidy is set to be phased out in 2015. (Larger parties with more popular support will receive greater public subsidies.)

2) 50 percent refund of election expenses for registered parties that received either 2 percent of the popular vote or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts of the candidates endorsed by the parties. (Larger parties with higher expenses will receive a higher refund for the expenses.)

3) Parties with the highest electoral funds tend to be the largest and most established, putting them at an advantage over other parties both large and small.

4) Large, established parties tend to have a history and a relationship with corporate media outlets, giving them the advantage in terms of media exposure.


5) Large, established parties tend to have a history and a relationship with corporations and/or unions, giving them a financial advantage and the advantage of an existing voter base.

6) The first-past-the-post voting system favours well-known, established parties with strong minority public support.

7) Minimal checks and balances on a majority party allow them significant latitude to pass laws and implement its policies, while disregard the recommendations, suggestions, and amendments of other large, established parties.

Comparative Analysis

In comparison to other democracies, the Canadian system is similar to the Spanish system in terms of legislative bias to large, established political parties. In the 2011 FDA report on the Spanish electoral system, (a more limited audit than the 2013 Canadian audit), the FDA measured a 42.5 percent electoral fairness score for Spain. The FDA identified legislative bias to two large, established parties through legislation based on results in the previous election, a lack of electoral financial transparency, and partisan private media outside of the election period. The election period is only two weeks in duration, leaving 1446 days (4 times 365 days minus 14 days) in which media outlets, which have no ownership concentration regulations, can influence and/or manipulate the Spanish voting public. Biased practices to parties that were successful in the previous election extend to media access, public electoral subsidies, and the proportional determination with 3 percent of national votes as the barrier of entry. The FDA believes that a party that was successful in a previous election should not have an advantage over new and small parties during current elections. The Spanish system, despite claiming to be a multi-party system, encourages the status quo and a two party system, at the expense of electoral discourse and electoral choice. It is unclear why large and established parties in Spain cannot compete on an equal playing field with other parties, rather than relying on a significant unfair legislative advantage. Similar to Canada, the problem with the Spanish system is that the majority of parliamentarians construct the election and media laws to their advantage. This conflict of interest results in a democratic dictatorship of two parties, as demonstrated by the fact that in the eight elections since the fall of Franco, the same two parties have governed Spain (FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Spain, 2011).

In Canada, the majority of parliamentarians determine federal election laws within the parameters of the Canadian Constitution and Charter. Strict party discipline, a first-past-the-post system, and minimal checks and balances on the majority party mean that federal election laws are susceptible to a self-serving agenda by the party with the majority. This process reveals a conflict of interest by the party who both writes the election rules and participates in elections. Instead, an independent committee comprised of a cross-section of Canadian citizens should determine election laws for registered parties. In addition, the Canadian Charter should include provisions to guarantee the neutrality of electoral legislation and an equal playing field for all eligible political candidates and parties.

In comparison to the American federal electoral system, the FDA calculated a slightly higher score for Canada, but still measured unsatisfactory scores for both countries. The difference between the two electoral systems rests primarily with more deficiencies in the U.S. electoral finance legislation as compared to Canadian electoral finance legislation.


Comparison Canada electoral fairness audit results to the United States:

1) Electoral Finance: Canada +29.542) Media Election Coverage: Canada +4.853) Candidates and Parties: Canada +1.934) Voters: Canada +3.15

The bar chart illustrates the level of electoral fairness for the U.S. federal electoral system based on the 2012 FDA audit result for each section and overall. Each section has an equal weight of 25

percent (FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on the United States, 2012).


Chapter Seven: Conclusion & Recommendations

Based on the FDA’s research and calculations, the Canadian federal electoral system is overall unsatisfactory. FDA auditors found considerable evidence of a largely sound structure and process, especially for voters and electoral finance laws. However, the system still presents significant evidence of legislative bias towards large, established political parties over small and new parties. Therefore, the FDA believes that the democratic validity of the Canadian federal election outcomes is questionable, and that the overall electoral structure and processes do not effectively capture the voice of the Canadian electorate as a whole. The key deficiency of the system is that certain legislative biases generate uncompetitive campaigns and election practices, resulting in less than optimal democratic outcomes. The FDA believes that competition in any sector, including economic, presents options and opinions that benefit society.

The FDA concludes that in order to better the election outcome, the Canadian federal electoral system requires specific reform to create competitive conditions for all registered political parties. Reforms should focus on all areas of legislation related to federal election provisions that favor particular candidates and parties. Election laws and related Acts, including the Broadcast Act, should operate within a neutral framework to ensure equity between all registered candidates and parties. To argue that certain registered parties are fringe or radical parties and therefore should not receive the same electoral opportunities is a biased, self-serving, and autocratic position. It contradicts the notion of competitive practice and denies the people the ultimate say in what party policies are satisfactory and preferable for their country. Limiting Canadians’ electoral choice through biased legislation and filtered information via imbalanced campaign coverage undermines their democratic rights and ultimately, democracy.

In a functioning and effective democracy, the backgrounds, policies, and political platforms of candidates and parties should create electoral competition. Legislation that demonstrates bias decreases electoral competition and narrows the viewpoints and choices available to the electorate. Such legislation runs counter to democracy and a democratic society, and policy makers should consider it unlawful and illegitimate.


Table 11 FDA Audit Scoring Scale

FDA Scoring Scale Score Range 2013 Canada Score

A +

Exceptional electoral process

85% to 100%

100% maximum score

n/a

A

Outstanding electoral process

80% to 84.99% n/a

B+

Very satisfactory electoral process

75% to 79.99% n/a

B

Satisfactory electoral process

70% to 74.99% n/a

D to C+

Unsatisfactory electoral process (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in

the electoral legislation)

50% to 69.99% 64.49%

F

Failed electoral process

0% to 49.99%

0% minimum score

n/a

(Foundation for Democratic Advancement, 2013)


Recommendations

1) Presently, the barrier for party registration in Canada is minimal. The law requires political parties to have at least 250 party members and $1,000 per registered candidate in order to register.

The FDA recommends a barrier to entry based on a two-tiered system:

a) Parties with at least 0.5 percent popular support (Garvey, 2013, 0.5 Percent Rule).

b) Parties with at least 0.1 percent popular support.

The FDA believes that a two-tiered system is necessary to distinguish parties with low popular support from receiving the same benefits as parties with high popular support.

Parties that do not meet the 0.1 percent popular support threshold can register as political parties, however, must function without the benefits associated with meeting this threshold. This provision would enhance electoral competition and protect the integrity of the system while still maintain a barrier to entry.

2) The FDA believes that a proportional representation voting system should replace the first-past-the-post system. It is a more effective system to capture the will of the majority by allowing more votes, and therefore more people, to determine election outcomes (see p. 29 for examples). It also works to prevent a minority party from garnering a majority of the Canadian Parliament. The FDA recommends the Sainte-Laguë’s modified method proportional representation system that is currently used in Norway and Sweden. It is a simple system based on a quotient derived from the total number of votes received and a divisor. Due to a higher divisor, the Sainte-Laguë is less favourable to larger parties than the D'Hondt method (Sainte-Laguë method, 2013; FDA Global Electoral Fairness Reports on Sweden, 2011).

3) Canada should increase the campaign period from 36 days to 60 days to allow new and smaller parties reasonable opportunity to share their platforms and candidate backgrounds.

4) Public subsidies should be accessible and available equally to all registered parties that meet the 0.5 percent popular support threshold. A common pool of public funds would provide funding for these subsidies, distributed equally to qualified registered candidates and parties. Private contributions would be restricted to citizen, corporate, and union contributions to the common pool of electoral money.

Parties with popular support between 0.1 and 0.499 percent of the corresponding total electorate population whether in the form of votes or membership ought to receive public subsidies from a common pool of public funds which can be added to through private contributions.

5) Both free and purchasable minutes for broadcast time should be available equally to all registered parties that meet the 0.1 percent popular support threshold or greater.


6) The percentage of vote received, rather than the support from members of parliament, should guide the parliamentary process. A minimum 50 percent of popular support (of actual voters) needs to be established. The level of popular support any member of parliament received should determine the value of their vote. This provision will ensure that any bills that pass in Parliament truly represent the majority of the Canadian electorate.

For example, there are 308 seats in the Canadian Parliament:

a) Seat #1 received 40 percent of the total voter turnout for her electoral district. Her vote value in Parliament would be 0.80. (40 out of 50 percent).

b) Seat #2 received 60 percent of the total voter turnout for his electoral district. His vote value in Parliament would be 1.2. (60 out of 50 percent).

7) Broadcasting law and private codes of conduct should require media outlets to present balanced and complete coverage of all registered parties that meet the 0.5 percent of popular support threshold during the election period.

8) The law should require networks that broadcast national debates to include the leaders of all registered parties with regional or national platforms and at least 0.1 percent popular support. The amount of debate time allocated to each leader should reflect the amount of their popular support relative to the popular support for all other parties.

9) The law should not allow third-party expenditures unless the caps on these expenditures are reflective of 10 percent of Canada’s per capita net income. Canada’s current caps on third-party expenditures favour wealthy individuals and corporations and trade unions. (For further discussion see p.16 and (Garvey, 2013, 10 Percent Rule)).

10) Equal access to and reasonable cost of media advertisement should be available to all registered parties regardless of popular support level.


References

A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada. (2001, May). Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/LegisFocus/legislative-e.htm.

Accessibility Policy. (2012). The Globe and Mail Inc. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/help/accessibility-policy/

Bank of Canada Act. (1985). Last amended December 19, 2912. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-2/

Black, J., & Hicks, B. (2006). Visible Minorities and Under-Representation: The Views of Candidates. Retrieved from Elections Canada http://www.elections.ca/res/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=145&lang=e&frmPageSize

Blackwell, C. W. (2003). “Athenian Democracy: a brief overview.” In Adriaan Lanni, ed., “Athenian Law in its Democratic Context” (Center for Hellenic Studies On-line DiscussionSeries). Republished in C.W. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A. Mahoney and R. Scaife, edd., The Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]). February 28, 2003.

Broadcast Act. (1991, February 1). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/page-1.html

Broadcasting Guidelines. (2011, March 28). May 2, 2011 Federal General Election. The Broadcasting Arbitrator. Retrieved from Elections Canada http://www.elections.ca/abo/bra/bro/guidelines2011.pdf

Burkholder, C. (2010, August 23). Photojournalism Ethics. Retrieved from http://j-source.ca/article/photojournalism-ethics-0

Canadian Federal Election. (2011). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 16, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982, April 17). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-38

Clerk of the Privy Council. (2011, July 13). Government of Canada Privy Council Office.Retrieved from http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. (2011). Postmedia Network Canada Corp. Retrieved from http://www.postmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Postmedia-Code-of-Business-Conduct.pdf


Code of Ethics. (2011). C.E.P Media. Retrieved from http://www.cepmedia.ca/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=68

Competition Act. (1985). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-1.html

Constitution Act. (1867, March 29). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html

Constitution Act. (1982, April 17). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-38

Constitutional Role. (2013). The Governor General of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.gg.ca/events.aspx?sc=1&lan=eng.

Contact Us. (2013). Elections Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=cont&lang=e

Criminal Code. (1985). Last amended February 28, 2013. Retrieved fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense. (2013). Desjardins. Retrieved March 14, 2013, fromhttp://www.desjardins.com/en/particuliers/conseils/gerer-finances/budget-mensuel/calculez-depenses.jsp

Economic Statistics Report. (2012, November 2). BC Stats. Retrieved from www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/.../EconomicStatisticsReport1211.pdf

Election Advertising Expenses. (2012, April 16). Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=thi/ec20227&document=p5&lang=e

Elections Act. (2000, May 31). Elections Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part00&lang=e

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. (1985). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e

Federal Courts Act. (1985). Last amended December 12, 2012. Retrieved fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/

Female Population. (2010) Statistics Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11475-eng.htm


FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Canada. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement.Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2011/04/2011_fda_electoral_fairness_audit_of_the_canadian_federal_electoral_system/

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Spain. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement.Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2011/09/2011-fda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-of-spain/

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Sweden. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2011/07/2011-fda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-of-sweden/

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on the United States. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2012/10/2012-fda-electoral-fairness-report-on-the-united-states/

Garvey, S. (2013). FDA Talking Points Series: 0.5 Percent Rule. Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2013/04/fda-talking-points-series-05-percent.html

Garvey, S. (2013). FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule. Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2013/03/fda-talking-points-series-10-percent.html

Garvey, S., & Rapchuk, S. (2013). FDA Talking Points Series: First-Past-the-Post and Proportional Representation. Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2013/03/fda-talking-points-series-first-past.html

Globe Privacy Code. (2012, March 13). The Globe and Mail Inc. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/help/privacy-policy/

Governor in Council Appointments. (2012, April 13). Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://appointments.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=RCM&type-typ=1&lang=eng.

Guide to the Canadian House of Commons. (2011, December). Library of Parliament. Retrieved from Parliament of Canada http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/GuideToHoC/who-e.htm.

History. (2013). The Governor General of Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14615.


House of Commons Procedure and Practice. (2000). The Confidence Convention. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?

Sec=Ch02&Seq=3&Langua ge.

Indian Act. (1985). Retrieved from the Department of Justice: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-1.html

Legislative Process. (2010, February). Canadian Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/compendium/web-content/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm.

Letters Patent. (1947, October 1). Letters Patent Constituting the Office of GovernorGeneral of Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/LettersPatent.html

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Retrieved from digamohttp://digamo.free.fr/lijphart99.pdf

Limit on Election Advertising Incurred by Third Parties. (2012, October 22). Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?

section=pol&document=index&dir=limits/limit_tp&la ng=e

Longley v. Canada (Attorney General). (2007, December 6) Ontario Court of Appeal 852 (CanLII). Retrieved from http://www.canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca852/2007onca852.html

Long description of Advance Poll Turnout (2006–2011). (2013). Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/eval/pes2011/ege/longdesc/img1_e.html

Principles for Ethical Journalism. (2010). The Canadian Association of Journalists. Retrieved from http://www.caj.ca/?p=1785

Public Notice CRTC. (1988, September 2). CRTC. Retrieved from http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1988/PB88-142.HTM

Questions and Answers About Third Party Election Advertising. (2010, August 24). Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?

section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/que&lang=e

Robles, U. C., & Milan, A. (2011). Female Population. Retrieved from statcan http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11475-eng.pdf

Sainte-Laguë method. (2013). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method

Smith, J. (2012, July 4, 2012). Parties Lose 186 Million In Per-Vote Allowance As Subsidy Dropped 25%. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/04/parties_lose_186_million_in_pervote_allowance_as_subsidy_dropped_25_per_cent.html.

Supreme Court Act. (1985). Retrieved fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-26/page-1.html

Television Broadcasting Regulations. (1987). January 9, 1987. Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-87-49/page-1.html

The Electoral System of Canada. (2012). July 19, 2012. Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part1&lang=e.

The Royal Prerogative. (2013). Canadian Crown. Retrieved fromhttp://www.canadiancrown.com/uploads/3/8/4/1/3841927/the_royal_prerogative.pdf.

The Senate Today. (2013). Parliament of Canada. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/Today/home-e.html

Voter Turnout at Federal Elections and Referendums. (2013). Elections Canada. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=turn&document=index&lang=e

Weakening of Responsible Government. (2007, June 2007). Maple Leaf Web. Retrieved from http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/prime-minister-cabinet-canada.

Women in Parliament. (2010, July 14, 2010). Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0562-e.htm#a2

What is the Competition Bureau? (2012, September 26, 2012). Competition Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_00125.html

Appendix


Research & Audit Methodologies

The FDA research methodology is rooted in non-partisanship and the political concepts of egalitarianism and liberalism. A non-partisan approach allows the FDA to remain as objective as possible.

Egalitarianism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political equality (or neutrality), in which each person has one vote of equal value. The FDA extends political equality into non-election and election periods, demanding a relatively equal playing field for registered candidates and parties and broad and balanced political discourse. The FDA believes that political equality is a core component of democracy, whereby electoral legislation is neutral for all candidates and parties, the value of a vote is same for all eligible voters, and candidates and parties have an opportunity to disseminate political viewpoints in a reasonably balanced manner. The FDA recognizes that complete political equality is not likely attainable, but assumes that a reasonable state of political equality is possible.

Liberalism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political freedom, and progress, innovation, and reform through the freedom to initiate reform. The FDA believes that political freedom is also a core component of democracy, whereby candidates and parties, citizens, and media persons are permitted to express their political views.

The FDA believes that the union of freedom and equality, an essential part of democracy, means compromise for the greater democratic good of society and political freedom within the bounds of political equality.

Based on its research of international electoral systems and study of fundamental democratic concepts, the FDA believes that optimal democracy results from a balance of freedom and equality. Too much freedom can allow the most powerful (or wealthy) to dominate politically, and too much equality can weaken individual freedoms to a point that impedes progress and innovation. The FDA's methodology centers on finding the optimal balance between freedom and equality.

The FDA methodology has two main components: research and audit. The research component is qualitative, based on collecting relevant facts and data, and sourcing the information collected using APA guidelines. The audit process too is qualitative but also employs a quantitative aspect. The audit entails team analysis of research using matrices and financial spread sheets and statistical data, and the interpretation of the audit results using scoring scales.

Matrices

The FDA matrices are a detailed, spreadsheet scoring system of relevant data and information. The matrices' scores conform to the concept of optimal democracy defined as a balance of freedom and equality. The purpose of the matrices is to objectify the audit process and help create result reliability through an established structure of scoring. Relevance to the electoral process and the four

audit sections inform the variables in the matrices. To illustrate, the two subsections below were part of the matrices used in the Canadian electoral fairness audit:


Table 12 Media Election Coverage, Audit Matrix Section, for Canada

Categories Measures Example or Alternative

Scale

Rational Score

Freedom of the Media

Is the freedom of the media (including journalists) established through constitutional or legislative law?

If yes<4; if no=0

The score of 4 represents the significance of media freedom within reasonable limits. The score of 0 represents imbalanced, one-sided political discourse in the media through unreasonable restrictions on media freedom.

4

Broad & Balanced Political Coverage

During the campaign period is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

If yes=2; if no=0; if freedom of media=0, then yes=0

The campaign period is the most heightened period in terms of voter awareness. The media due to its mass influence has the means to impact significantly electoral discourse. The requirement of balanced, broad media coverage would prevent the media from being imbalanced and partisan.

0

In this example, media freedom garnered significant weight (40 percent of the total score for election content of media) and value in other subsections. (As an example, see the intersection of column 'Example or Alternative Scale' and row 'Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage' above.) Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage is weighted on grounds of the democratic importance of a broad and balanced electoral discourse and a corresponding well-informed electorate. As mentioned, a positive or negative impact on the electoral process determines matrix weightings and scores. According to the scores in the matrix example above, the FDA assumes that freedom of media has more impact on the electoral process than impartial and balanced political coverage.

The FDA matrices are comprised of four sections:

1) Electoral finance. 2) Media election coverage. 3) Candidates and parties. 4) Voters.

In the electoral finance section there are 14 subsection variables; in election content of media section there are 11 subsection variables; in the candidates and parties section there are 42 subsection


variables; and in the voters section there are 37 subsection variables. The subsection variables are the focal points of the audit. Each subsection variable has a weighted maximum score.

Weighting and Scoring

Overall, the soundness of reasons for scores and the relevancy of each area guides FDA grading. Since each audit section has a maximum and minimum score, subsection scores are determined based on their relation to each other and their impact on optimal democracy as related to the relevant section. The FDA acknowledges that the determination of scores is an unavoidable qualitative step. The FDA minimizes the subjectivity of scores through required group consensus on their values.

Each audit section has a score range between 0 and 10, and each section counts equally. As mentioned, the FDA matrices allow, based on relevancy, subsections apply to multiple sections. For example, the subsection 'electoral finance transparency' is part of the electoral finance, voters and candidates and parties sections.

As illustrated in the matrix example above, scores are based on the formula if yes=#, if no=#. The scale rests on yes and no answers. In the case of ambiguous answers, the FDA uses the lesser than and greater than values (“<” and “>”). When these values are used, the FDA audit team attempts to reach consensus on the score, and if that it is not possible, the FDA takes the mean of the individual scores, with each score having equal weight. Relevant and sound evidence, facts, and/or reasons, whether team or individual, must support audit scores. To enhance the reliability of audit results, the FDA has a group of experienced auditors. An audit team has a minimum quorum of five auditors and maximum of nine auditors. Any auditors in excess of nine act as silent observers. New auditors are introduced to the process first as observers, then as researchers, and finally as auditors within a team of experienced auditors.

Survey

The FDA has an ongoing survey of relevant persons with a background in political science, finance, accounting or related field on the FDA’s main variables for electoral finance. The FDA used two surveys: a scoring table and preference table (reproduced below). The purpose of the surveys is to test the validity of FDA weights for its electoral finance variables.

Survey 1


Please weight each section so that the total score for all sections is 10; weights based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Score RationaleElectoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens

Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties

Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies

Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Survey 2


Rank each section based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Highly insignifican

t

Very Insignifican

t

Insignificant

Significant

Very significant

Highly significan

t

Rationale

Electoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens

Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Audit Focus

The FDA audits four electoral areas because they cover broad aspects of the electoral process. The FDA acknowledges that electoral laws may not necessarily correspond to the implementation of those laws or the public response to them. The implementation and response could be positive or negative, in terms of electoral fairness. Nevertheless, laws provide the foundation for democracy, framework for the electoral system, and an indication of electoral fairness. A country's constitutional and/or electoral laws are part of the functionality of its democracy. The FDA acknowledges that in countries that are lawless, process audits are useless. However, in countries guided by the rule of law, process audits are extremely useful in determining electoral fairness.

FDA Research and Audit Teams


FDA Research Team

Mr. Stephen Garvey: Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Mr. R. M. González: Master of Public Policy and Governance, University of Sheffield.

Mr. A. Qureshi, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of Alberta, and Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, University of King's College.

Ms. Sarah Rapchuk, Bachelor of Arts in History, University of Calgary, and Juris Doctor, Capital University Law School.

Mr. David Sandoz, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, University of Calgary.

Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary.

Ms. Colleen Slofstra, Health and Nutrition Diploma, Alive Academy of Health, and Intermediate & Advanced Studies in Mandarin, Harbin Normal University.


FDA Audit Team

Chief Electoral Auditor

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Electoral Auditors

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.

Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce and Master of Accounting (in progress), University of Saskatchewan.

Ms. Sarah Rapchuk, Bachelor of Arts in History, University of Calgary, and Juris Doctor, Capital University Law School.

Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology and Minor in Political Science, University of Calgary.



Audit Observers

Mr. Nick BrownMr. Michael FabrisMr. Guillermo MunozMs. Mila Rudic Ms. Jessica TruongMs. Liza Valentine Mr. Tijana Vujadinovic


canada--2013 fda global electoral fairness audit report

News & Politics