By Lori Turnbull

May 20, 2026

In an editorial in November of 2025, The Globe and Mail called out political parties’ nomination and leadership contests as “a massive weak spot in Canadian democracy.”

In 2024, reports from both the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference (PIFI) and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) raised the same concern. Sadly, these warnings came as no surprise.

The recent controversy over the Ontario Liberal Party nomination process in Scarborough Southwest has put the issue back on the front pages.

Federal Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith lost by 19 votes and is challenging the process, arguing that a number of people were taking pictures of their ballots (which is illegal in elections as it is evidence of vote-buying), that there were inconsistencies in providing identification and proof of residence, and that there was an “organized effort” by his nomination rival, “Mr. (Ahsunal) Hafiz’s campaign to direct, monitor and pressure people throughout the voting process.” Erskine-Smith also says that there were 34 more votes cast that than there were recorded voters.

There is no universe in which these alleged behaviors and practices would have been possible if Elections Ontario had been running the show and if nomination contests followed the same legal rules as elections, or any legal rules at all really, with respect to proof of identity and residence as well as behaviour at a polling station.

But parties use nomination processes to sign up members, collect their data, maybe make a bit of money, and generally fire up interest in the party and the upcoming election. They are not going to sign these things over to Elections Ontario.

Nomination and leadership contests are largely unregulated, which makes them – more so than elections themselves – attractive targets for interference. And yet despite broad awareness of the obvious lack of policy cover, very little – if anything at all – has been done to fix the problem. This is largely because these contests sit in a complex grey zone where the difference between “public” and “private” is difficult to pin down.

As Canadians, many of us take pride in living in a stable democracy (despite evidence of regression on several fronts). One of the reasons for this is the fact that we have a system of free and fair elections run by an independent, non-partisan body that is recognized around the globe as the gold standard in election administration.

But while Elections Canada runs elections and referenda in keeping with its mandate to the public, nomination and leadership contests are treated by law as “private” exercises that belong to political parties rather than to the public.

However, as soon as we try to distinguish clearly between what is public and what is private in the election space, which includes nomination and leadership processes, we quickly draw the conclusion that this is a false dichotomy.

The stakes are high in these competitions, both for the parties and the public more broadly.

Political parties are in the complex position of being private clubs with public responsibilities. If we wanted to better fortify nomination and leadership contests against threats of interference and disruption, it would be up to parties themselves, in their capacity as public policy makers, to make the necessary legislative changes to do this.

However, as private clubs who use nomination and leadership contests to build and maintain competitiveness in elections, political parties tend to be understandably allergic to increased regulation. It would amount to a handing over of power and control to Elections Canada, which could ultimately undermine parties’ self-determination and create new and unwanted administrative burdens.

All of that said, just because parties are private clubs does not mean they can dismiss the fact that their activities have important implications for the public and for citizens’ ability to participate in elections and democracy more broadly.

It is no exaggeration to say that parties are democracy’s gatekeepers. Sure, you can run as an independent, but for the vast majority of people with political aspirations, your ticket to becoming a political leader, cabinet minister, or even a backbench member of Parliament needs to be punched by a political party.

Nomination and leadership contests are not elections per se, but can be accurately described as election-adjacent. They are integral and indispensable parts of our democracy as key entry points to public office. And in ridings that are considered “safe seats” for a party, the nomination is the real election.

Depending on a political party’s standing, its leadership contest might end up choosing the prime minister or the leader of the opposition. Prime Minister Mark Carney was chosen leader of the Liberal Party through a leadership contest and was sworn in as prime minister even before he became an MP. The stakes are high in these competitions, both for the parties and the public more broadly.

And so, the processes by which they choose candidates and leaders are not just private business. They are public matters. And this is why it is so important to protect these processes from interference, whether foreign or domestic.

Parties are not going to cede control over nomination and leadership processes to elections administrators. However, a compromise might be for parties to provide Elections Canada and its provincial equivalents with a voters’ list and proof of results after such a contest takes place.

This would provide the public with some assurance that there is a way to track and verify results. And if people wanted to contest the number of ballots cast or the identity or residence of a voter, there would be a way to do that so that the results could be trusted.

Democracy is both too important and too fragile not to warrant great care. Political parties are not going to relinquish control over what they see as their own internal processes.

But the clear public interest in the integrity of these processes means that there is a need for more transparency and accountability in leadership and nomination contests.

Dr. Lori Turnbull is a professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University.