Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, colleagues. I hope everybody's had a good week thus far.

Welcome to the 134th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I want to welcome the witnesses.

As a friendly reminder to our witnesses, if you are not using your earpieces, place them on the sticker in front of you. Of course, if they are in use, having them on your ear is no problem.

Colleagues, we have two hours to meet this morning.

For the first hour, we're joined by Mr. Perrault and Mr. Sampson.

In the second round, we'll have a number of other witnesses with us.

With that, colleagues, I am going to turn the floor over to Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, and Robert Sampson, the general counsel and senior director of legal services.

Mr. Perrault, you will have up to five minutes for your opening statement, after which we will go to our rounds of questioning. Thank you very much for making yourself available to the committee today on this important piece of legislation, which obviously has a significant impact on the work you do on our behalf and on behalf of all Canadians.

With that, sir, I turn the floor to you.

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I may go slightly over five minutes. I'll try to keep it short.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about Bill C-65. I've already had the chance to speak to various members of this committee from all parties about aspects of the bill, and I'm happy to have the chance to speak more broadly about the bill today with the committee.

From the outset, I want to express my general support for this bill, but I have some concerns and potential improvements for the committee's consideration. I also want to speak to implementation challenges, given the uncertainty of the timing of the election and, of course, of this bill.

Many of the changes proposed in the bill come from or align with recommendations I made to Parliament in 2022. These include changes that are important to protect against foreign interference, such as new rules to restrict foreign funding of third parties and restrictions on the use of non-traceable monetary instruments and cryptocurrencies, as well as measures to remove barriers to certain groups of electors.

The bill would also codify Elections Canada's vote on campus service offering, which has been in place since 2015, with the exception of the pandemic.

As I mentioned, however, I have concerns, especially with the proposed change to move the October 25 fixed election date. The date in the bill would conflict with the territorial election in Nunavut, which presents unique challenges for recruiting election officers and leasing polling locations and could compromise our ability to serve electors in the territory. For this reason, I do not support the change of the election date.

There are other changes in the bill that I believe could be improved. These include, for instance, measures to address disinformation and to protect the privacy of Canadians. Because my time is limited, I have provided a table that includes an indication of my support for, opposition to or concerns regarding substantial changes proposed in the bill, and offers amendments for the committee's consideration during the clause-by-clause review. I'd be happy, of course, to expand on any aspect should members have questions.

The bill represents an opportunity to address emerging issues related to artificial intelligence and deepfakes, as well as ballots with a large number of candidates. Currently, there is very little in the bill to address generative AI, which offers domestic and foreign threat actors new capabilities to undermine the integrity of and public trust in the elections. The current impersonation provision in the act only applies to a person who is falsely representing themselves to be one of the listed individuals, including the CEO, a candidate or a party representative.

The act also prohibits misleading publications that falsely claim to be made by certain key players in the electoral process. Again, these are listed as the CEO, a returning officer, a party candidate or prospective candidate. Neither of these provisions covers a scenario where the voice or image one of one of these key players is manipulated to make them appear to say or do things that were never said or done, or to modify the context in which the words or actions took place.

While Bill C-65 proposes changes to clarify that these prohibitions apply regardless of the medium used or the matter or place in which it is made, these adjustments do not address in any way the threat of deepfakes that I have described. To address deepfakes, the act must prohibit misrepresentation of key participants in the electoral process that involves the manipulation of their voice or image without their consent. You'll find in the table I've submitted a proposal to that effect.

A second area that I would urge the committee members to consider relates to ballot accessibility.

As you know, a protest movement seeks to significantly increase the number of candidates on ballots. The movement started at the 44th general election and continued in four subsequent by‑elections. I brought the ballot from the fall election held in the constituency of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The metre‑long ballot features 91 names in two columns. Just imagine the difficulties faced by a voter who has any form of disability or literacy barrier or who can't easily handle this type of ballot. Any further increase in the number of candidates will require me to reduce the font size on the ballot, further compounding the task of voters who have literacy barriers or disabilities.

I support the proposal in the bill to reduce the number of signatures required for nominations from 100 to 75. However, the requirement for signatures mustn't be rendered meaningless. In the case of the longest ballot initiative, we saw nomination papers from different candidates featuring largely identical signatures. This indicates that voters who sign the nomination papers aren't supporting the nomination of a particular candidate, but rather the idea of having as many candidates as possible, whomever they may be. These voters are fulfilling the objectives of the longest ballot committee.

I wrote to Minister LeBlanc in September. I asked the government to consider an amendment to the bill, which I included in the table shared with the committee. This amendment would ensure that voters are limited to signing the nomination paper in support of only one candidate. However, the key lies in ensuring that the nomination paper isn't rejected or challenged simply because a voter also signed someone else's paper. The candidate doesn't know what other signatures the voter may have signed. We're talking about a prohibition, not a condition for the validity of the signature.

Finally, it's necessary to consider the implications of fairly significant legislative changes in the late stages of the electoral cycle and in the current context of a minority government. Full implementation of the bill will require updates to documentation, training and numerous information technology systems. These changes must be followed by thorough testing and simulations. There must be adequate time to address any issues before the system can be used in an election. These steps are critical to maintaining public trust in the electoral process.

If the bill is passed, my goal is to implement the new measures in a timely manner ahead of the October 2025 fixed election date. However, I may not be able to carry out integrated testing of the system changes before June. If problems are uncovered during the integrated tests, my priority will be to ensure that the integrity of the election isn't compromised. Although it seems unlikely—and for the record, I don't think that it's likely—I may need to delay the implementation of some changes for the fall 2025 election should technical concerns arise.

It would be prudent to provide a mechanism in the bill to allow for some flexibility. I made a proposal along these lines in the table that I submitted to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Perrault.

You brought back some nightmares to me by putting that ballot on during my by-election of just over a year ago. At that point, that was the record. Since then, I think we've doubled and tripled that record. I'm certainly interested to hear if there are questions from committee members on that today.

With that, we will transition into our line of questioning.

Mr. Duncan, the floor will be yours for six minutes to start us off.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.

Recently, the committee received a written response from the Privy Council Office outlining two meetings earlier this year, on January 25 and March 30, at which NDP political party representatives were present to get secret briefings from the Prime Minister's Office and Elections Canada and information to craft this bill.

Mr. Perrault, you attended both of those meetings. As you are aware, this bill is quite controversial, as it was clear that the NDP and Liberals negotiated a deal to move the election date back to protect the pensions of likely-to-be-defeated NDP and Liberal MPs.

We know that you and Elections Canada staff were at these two meetings that were held. Can you confirm to the committee if you or any Elections Canada staff had any other meetings, briefings, calls or exchanges with the NDP present or participating regarding Bill C-65 before it was announced?

[Stéphane Perrault]

There are many elements to your question, Mr. Chair.

As is customary before a bill is introduced, at the very last steps in the preparation of a bill, the Privy Council Office typically shares with my office a copy of the bill to make sure that there are no errors or technical issues. This is not a policy discussion.

I have had policy discussions with representatives of all parties both prior to and after the bill was introduced.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I have to clarify that, because when we go through this, there's a difference between having a standard meeting and one on policy information that PROC deals with.

When it came to crafting Bill C-65, the NDP had special access that other parties were not provided. The NDP was given information specifically on crafting Bill C-65.

Mr. Perrault, my question was whether there were any other meetings besides the ones on January 25 or March 30, when you met with or provided information in any way to anyone from the NDP in advance of the bill's being announced. I'm not talking about meetings on general policy or anything like that, but specifically Bill C-65 and its being crafted.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I had several meetings about the supply and confidence agreement, which had elements of the two additional days of voting. I had meetings with Mr. Blaikie then. I had meetings with Ms. Mathyssen, Madame Gaudreau and you after the bill was introduced, and with Mr. Cooper both prior to and after—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Again, you are conflating two different things, Mr. Perrault. There's having meetings—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Eric, I'm sorry. Give me just one second.

Colleagues. I understand, but listen. We spent the last meeting losing an hour of witness testimony. I don't want that to happen again.

Mr. Duncan, go ahead.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Perrault, you are conflating two different things again. If there's information on policy in reports you provided to this committee.... I can tell you, you did not meet with Conservative Party representatives about drafting Bill C-65. This is the thing I asked about specifically, and you've acknowledged now that you met with Mr. Blaikie specifically on crafting Bill C-65.

I'm asking you to table with the committee the dates and the times of, and who from the NDP attended, any briefings and information—not about general policy matters, but specifically on the question of crafting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Duncan. I have a point of order I have to attend to.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Duncan is misrepresenting what the witness said. It is incumbent upon you, in your position as chair, to ensure that witnesses are treated fairly and that when they say something, they're not immediately subject to members around this table misrepresenting their words in order to immediately use them against the witness.

I would encourage you to ask our colleagues across the way to be more judicious in their approach to witnesses at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I appreciate the encouragement, Mr. Gerresten. I will let Mr. Duncan finish, and will provide Mr. Perrault the opportunity to defend his view and his statement, should he feel that's necessary, and hopefully that will get us to where we need to be.

Mr. Duncan, you have about two and a half minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to repeat the question I've asked a couple of times.

Can you confirm to the committee and provide in writing whether you or any Elections Canada staff had any other meetings—besides those on January 25 and March 30—briefings, calls or exchanges with the NDP members present regarding the drafting and considerations of Bill C-65 before it was announced?

I'm not talking about general meetings on policy, which are the standard meetings afterward—I've had meetings with you, Mr. Perrault, afterward on different topics—but specifically meetings on Bill C-65 with the NDP before it was announced.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Mr. Chair, just to be clear, I did not know what would be in Bill C-65 and I did not participate in meetings regarding the entire bill. I had discussions on elements of the supply and confidence agreement, as well as on the recommendations I made in 2022 to Parliament.

I was very deliberate in making sure that whenever I met with members from one side, I met with members from all other sides to convey the very same message. Any topic I addressed with one side, I addressed with the others, prior to or after....

I'll give you an example. There was one item that was neither in my recommendations nor in the supply and confidence agreement. I asked the government to consider addressing deepfakes. After I made those representations, I spoke to members—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'm going to ask again for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Duncan, just let him finish.

[Stéphane Perrault]

—of all parties to repeat myself. Every time I met with one side, I conveyed the same messages to all sides.

With respect to the bill, before it was tabled, I did not have a complete view of the bill. I did not participate in the drafting of the bill. I participated in discussions on specific policy areas.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

In the drafting of the bill, before Bill C-65 was announced, the NDP was present at the announcement with Minister LeBlanc. Its members had access to information and briefings, including ones you were at, when it came to this. The Privy Council Office gave the two dates of January 25 and March 30.

Would you provide the names of all NDP MPs you met with, specifically during those two meetings and any others, particularly whenever we have the word “NDP political party representatives”. Would you provide the names of those individuals?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I will certainly do that to the best of my ability, and I will also include all meetings that I had with all members of this committee on the same topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm going to let Mr. Gerretsen start off with a minute of my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, there are six minutes for that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming forward.

Unfortunately, you're being subjected to an ongoing line of conspiracy theories by Mr. Duncan.

My only question for you would be—and you kind of prefaced it by saying that you would provide the names of all members of this committee.... Mr. Duncan has asked you to provide the names of NDP members specifically. I would ask that you provide the names of all members whom you've met with, even outside of this committee.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I will do that.