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.