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

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

I'll turn it to Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Mr. Perrault, welcome back. It's great to have you.

I want to hone in on one of your recommendations about prohibiting misrepresentation. I know that's already come up quite a few times here, with the Conservatives having already tried to misrepresent your testimony here today, but we want to talk about deepfakes and the use of AI. I think you've called this technology a shock to the system, a "shock" to our electoral system in Canada. I think it's right to think about it as being of great concern. It's certainly something that concerns me.

I've been fortunate enough to be on the industry committee and working on a piece of legislation, a portion of which deals with.... The proposed act is called AIDA. It's the AI legislation that our government put forward. Unfortunately, it has been blocked for quite some time by opposition parties. Nonetheless, this is an opportunity to talk about how this relates to Bill C-65.

You've made some specific recommendations. Can you give us some more detail on how important this is because of how disruptive the disinformation may be to our democracy in the upcoming election, whenever that is? Please also hone in on your specific recommendations.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Mr. Chair, we have seen instances in Europe in the past year in elections where party leaders were a subject of deepfakes. We've seen that also in the United States. I'm not aware of situations where that has happened yet in Canada, but it is something that is concerning.

In my recent report regarding threats to the electoral process, I've made a number of recommendations to deal with that, including certain prohibitions on misrepresentation of the voice or image by any means, and also some transparency rules around the use of AI in electoral communications.

Now, in the context of this bill—and I'm not an expert in procedure—I believe that there is no window of opportunity to deal with the transparency requirements. Certainly, there are provisions that are open that deal with impersonation right now that could be amended to include misrepresentation of key actors through the manipulation of their voice or image. I am happy to provide suggestions in that regard. I think that would be an important improvement to the bill.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay.

Does this cover beyond just the election period itself or the writ period? Would this cover disinformation that's AI generated or misrepresentations of people's image or voice outside of election periods as well?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It should. Because of the way the provision exists right now, it covers a list of individuals. It's not anybody. Of course, the committee may want to look at the sufficiency of that list, but I do not believe it is limited to the election period.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Regarding the suggestions that you've made, I would love to receive more specific information on your proposed changes to Bill C-65 that could address this, if we haven't received them already. If I'm unaware, I apologize.

I guess what I wanted to understand was how AI-generated misrepresentations could really impact public trust in the upcoming election from your view. I think there's a real risk here. I've spoken with some of our world-leading experts in AI, who have said that it's almost an Oppenheimer moment, where you have the new technologies that have been developed, these large language models, etc. The risk is so much higher than it has been in the past with other technologies that they're now focused on how we can put the beast back in the box kind-of-thing because AI presents such a big risk to humanity on multiple levels. One of them is disinformation in electoral systems. That's what Yoshua Bengio said to me in a meeting.

Can you speak to the risk of eroding public trust?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Sure. There are a number of risks. As you noted, misrepresentation is not new, but the technology now is such that it's very difficult even for experts to differentiate between AI-modified images or created images and actual images. There's a real risk that the technology could be used to have certain important people in the electoral process, like party leaders or the Chief Electoral Officer, be made to say things that they have not said.

There's also the concern, and I speak to that in my report, that people use chatbots to query and to obtain information about all kinds of subjects, including the electoral process. In some cases, that information is incorrect. There are some chatbots, like I believe Microsoft does, that refer electors instead to the proper authority rather than trying to allow their system to create an answer that could be based on incorrect information. In my more recent report, I have made recommendations that platforms who put out AI chatbots refer electors or refer people who have queries to the appropriate authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

Ms. Gaudreau, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Perrault.

In your opening remarks, you said that you were against changing the election date. It seems strange that the government is trying to tell you what to do and getting involved with your activities despite your independence. Section 56.2 of the Canada Elections Act gives the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to change the date if necessary. However, the bill tells the Chief Electoral Officer what to do.

Isn't the government seemingly trying to serve the interests of many of its members by postponing the specific date to ensure that they receive a pension? Even if we set this interest aside, isn't this a sign or an indication that the government lacks confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer to make an informed, neutral and independent decision to change this type of date?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for her question.

I won't speculate on intentions. The legislation has a process for recommending alternate dates. Bill C‑65 changes that process to provide a bit more predictability over time.

By the way, I held consultations. A public report on our website shows just how difficult it is to find a good date in the fall. It's a difficult process because no perfect date exists. There are always conflicts that—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Perrault, I was just saying that it seems strange that the bill disregards your neutrality. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I'll say it again. I encourage parliamentarians not to change the date and to leave the regime as it stands. The Chief Electoral Officer can currently make recommendations when a date isn't appropriate.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll continue along the same lines.

It's strange that the government‑imposed date conflicts with the dates of a number of elections. You talked about Nunavut, but there are also municipal elections in Quebec.

Moreover, advance voting would take place the weekend before, on October 27. This poses a real challenge in terms of workforce management, human resources and material resources. Let's face it. The government is putting you in an extremely difficult situation.

Of course, most Liberals live in urban areas. However, back home, in Mont‑Saint‑Michel or Lantier, two elections will be held in the same room. Each small municipality has only one room.

I would like to hear your comments on this topic.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It is indeed a challenge. At the federal level, we're bound to come into conflict with many elections in different territories, municipalities and provinces.

As I said, no date is perfect. The current date conflicts with the municipal elections in Alberta. We can't ignore that. If I had a perfect date, I would be the first to recommend it to the Governor in Council. However, according to the current legislative regime, no perfect date exists.

My point is that the current date of October 20 certainly isn't the worst. If we set the date for October 27, it poses specific challenges for Nunavut. In Nunavut, recruitment is a major challenge. The communities are small and often few facilities are available. I think that it would be extremely difficult to hold the election at the same time as the Nunavut election.

However, we mustn't think that there won't be any conflict on October 20 and that a date, for example in the fall, will be conflict‑free. There are always conflicts.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I would also like you to shed some light on the issue of the number of signatures required. You spoke earlier about the infamous ballot featuring 91 candidates. You're advocating for a change whereby an individual can't sign more than one nomination paper. As a candidate in 2019 and 2021, I never asked anyone whether they had signed another candidate's nomination paper. I obtained 200 signatures because I wanted to ensure that my nomination would be confirmed. However, if 101 people who signed my nomination paper had signed the paper of another candidate, I would have had no way of knowing this. My nomination paper would have been invalid when I submitted it to the returning officer, since the first signature takes precedence over the others.

How can this proposal be implemented?

[Stéphane Perrault]

You're absolutely right. That's why I'm simply proposing a ban on voters signing multiple nomination papers, along with a requirement that a nomination can't be affected by the inclusion of the same signature on more than one nomination paper. If a voter signs more than one nomination paper as a result of absent‑mindedness, malice or any reason whatsoever, the returning officer won't reject the nomination papers. In any case, we can't know the order in which the papers were signed.

I'm not proposing a measure that challenges the validity of the nomination paper. However, people must be prohibited from signing more than one nomination paper or from encouraging others to do so, and penalties must be imposed on offenders.

The validity of the signature isn't being challenged. People are being told that, if they do these types of things, they'll face penalties. The candidates aren't affected.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I understand.

How will your proposed measures ensure that we don't end up with 91 candidates on a ballot? According to the proposal, we vote once and we trust you, but how do we verify this? How long will it take? When will we have the answers? Will it be a race? I'm having trouble understanding this.

[Stéphane Perrault]

None of this will happen during the nomination process. This process will take place. If Bill C‑65 passes, you'll have 75 signatures to collect and the returning officer will validate your nomination. After the election, we can see whether people have signed multiple nomination papers. The commissioner can then take action, if she deems it appropriate, against these people.

We don't want to challenge the nomination papers at all and create uncertainty around them. That's key. However, we want to introduce a measure that tells these people that, if they start signing 90 nomination papers, they'll face penalties. This isn't the purpose of these signatures. These signatures are meant to confirm the voter's support for the candidate—Ms. Gaudreau, Ms. Mathyssen or Mr. Berthold, for example—and not for the nominations in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Perrault.

If you still have questions, Ms. Gaudreau, you can ask them in the next round.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, just before my time begins, I do need some clarification from you.

If you recall, at the last meeting, unfortunately, due to some of the partisan games of this place, we lost the time that we were supposed to have with specific witnesses. There was an indication that we would try to invite them back again. I'm hoping that you can clarify with the clerk whether or not those witnesses are available and when we will be able to hear from them so that we have a fulsome discussion on this bill with those witnesses as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Mathyssen, I take your point and the objective you hope to achieve here. I'm going to ask if we can save that for the end of the meeting, once we've utilized the time with the witnesses before us, in order to not find ourselves in the same situation. I will absolutely take the question back, have a discussion and commit to you that we'll find an opportunity to raise it. I just worry that if we start engaging in this conversation now, we're going to find ourselves in exactly the same position and down a rabbit hole.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I thought it was a simple answer, but okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

No, unfortunately, it's not a simple answer.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your appearing before the committee today, and I appreciate the professionalism with which you treat your role in understanding the very clear, neutral rules, and the importance of conducting the elections and lobbying.

I'm very happy that Mr. Gerretsen got clarification and ensured that we heard about the extensive work you have done on policy and larger questions around election improvements, considering we want to better enfranchise people to fully take part in the process of voting.

I wanted to mention the specific problems you have with moving the election date. In the NDP, we have been very clear in announcing the amendment we intend to put forward, which would put that date back to the original date. I'm hoping that satisfies your concerns about that. Yes. Great. Perfect.

I wanted to ask you about the current provisions in the Canada Elections Act regarding partisan advertising and election advertising. They clearly exempt communications between unions and their members. They specify that the regulated communications are those aimed toward the public.

Given this, could you explain the decision by Elections Canada to more broadly interpret partisan activities and election surveys? I ask because no clear exemptions exist and no specific audience is clearly defined, but there are no restrictions either.

Is that correct? Could you explain those broad interpretations?