Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

It's wonderful to see you again. Thank you for being here.

You mentioned that the percentage of people who are removed from the voters list is very small. I wonder if you would commit to providing a riding-by-riding breakdown of the number of people who have been removed from the voters list, who are not eligible to vote, per constituency.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I can, but it will not be the way you phrased it, in the sense that when we have information that someone, according to the IRCC, is not a Canadian citizen, it is not conclusive evidence. It may or may not be accurate. There may be errors. People who join the register have all done a solemn affirmation that they have Canadian citizenship.

These are cases where we have conflicting evidence: the evidence of the person who has attested that they have citizenship and bureaucratic information that says that they do not. When we match that, we take them out and we inform them that they've been removed. It may be an error, and we offer them the opportunity to join back.

The regime, as it exists, allows people to come in on polling day and, as was indicated earlier, to affirm formally that they are Canadian citizens. If they lie about that, then there are potential serious consequences.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Sure. I think that's fair.

We're not asking you about what happens before the vote. I'm just curious whether we can get a sense of the number.

[Stéphane Perrault]

We can, but I would caution not to assume that everybody who's been removed is not a citizen. That would be erroneous.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Okay, fair enough.

I am a little bit concerned that the main point of contention is IRCC's database. It's publicly well known that the immigration system is an absolute disaster. We have no idea who's a citizen, who's here on PR status or who's on a temporary foreign worker permit. These guys have lost complete control of the immigration system.

If that's the only database that you're using.... I understand that you're limited in the available data points at your disposal, but if that's the sole piece.... I wonder whether Elections Canada has a concern around the status of that database and that it's deeply flawed.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I would say that the quality of the data, as far as we are aware, has greatly improved over time. The information that we receive—

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Has that happened recently?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Yes, it has.

I would also inform the committee that, to my knowledge, we are the only jurisdiction that does this data matching with immigration data. Most democracies do not have documentary proof of citizenship, for a good reason—and I can speak to that—but they do not also do that cross-reference with immigration data.

I think what we have in Canada is one of the most robust systems that exist, but it's important not to make it so robust that it excludes legitimate Canadians from voting. Again, there's a balance here that needs to be struck.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I just wonder, for the average Canadian out there.... I can get a driver's licence and it doesn't matter. The vast majority of people who go to vote use their driver's licence. If you have that, I guess the question is this: What guarantee can you give them that there is some ratification confidence? They cast their ballot, and it might get removed later. Are you doing recounts in those seats? We've got seats that were won by one vote or four votes.

In the case where you remove a voter from the list after their ballot's been cast, is a recount then required in that seat if it's such a tight margin? I'm just curious how that works.

[Stéphane Perrault]

The law provides that if any citizen believes the election results have been affected by fraud, they can contest the election. It's up to the losing candidate or any other citizen, based on evidence they could provide, including, of course, prosecutorial evidence if somebody is charged, that the results have been affected. Then a court could overturn the election. That would be the role of a court, not the role of Elections Canada.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

It would be very onerous for a candidate to pursue a court decision to ask for the election result to be redone after they've run an election campaign and lost if, four months later, or whatever the timeline is, they find out that in a one-vote-split seat, a vote was cast erroneously by an individual, whether it was intentional or not.

I'm just confused as to why the onus would be on the losing candidate in a situation where this happens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Give a very quick answer, please.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Any Canadian can contest an election based on evidence that the results were impacted by fraud, but you're right, there is an onus that comes with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you much.

Madame Kayabaga, you have five minutes, please.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, I'd like to welcome Mr. Perrault.

Again, thank you for taking the time to continue to engage on these very important conversations.

I did hear you earlier when my colleague asked you questions around financing in elections. You talked about the problems around potentially foreign financing.

Can you mention some other systems that we can use to protect nominations and general elections from any foreign financing?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think the committee should be aware that we have a very good system overall, but there are elements that can be improved.

For instance, the law prohibits someone like a third party from using foreign funds, but it does not necessarily prohibit a foreign entity from making that contribution. The law prohibits the provision of money by foreign entities but does not include non-monetary contributions. There are refinements that need to be made to the regime to improve it that I've recommended in my report.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Just for the record, I think a couple of people have asked you the question around the trust that the public needs in order to get out and vote and not fear any other foreign influencer that may know they're voting.

We know that Elections Canada is very good at protecting the voters. There's privacy involved, but for the record, because that question has been asked a couple of times, when we politicians talk about certain things, I think the public begins to worry about the wrong thing.

Can you just put on the record what you think about privacy and electors?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I can assure anybody that it is not possible for someone to know who voted for which candidate. When you vote in person with a regular ballot, the ballot is pre-folded in such a way that the elector is instructed to return it to facilitate covering the name of the candidate the person has voted for. There are, of course, scrutineers around to make sure the process is followed properly. We have audits of the election that look into ensuring this is done properly.

If you look into voting by special ballot, when we receive the ballot, it is protected by secrecy envelopes. We have to separate the envelopes before we can put in the secrecy envelopes. The outer envelope contains information about the voter. The inner envelope contains no information. They're separated and counted only once that separation has taken place.

There are controls in place and, most importantly, witnesses to the count to make sure these controls are applied.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I appreciate your putting that on record. I think it's really important that the public is not misinformed about what happens when they go to the ballot box.

Earlier this week, I was able to ask a question to other people who work in that space. I was asking around about the markers on AI transparency and whether we should move towards making everyone who uses AI, especially if they're posting on a public platform, to put in that marker to indicate to the consumer that they are consuming AI information.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I must say that my thoughts have evolved on that. I was skeptical at the outset. I now think that it should be a requirement, and that's been my recommendation.

People who use AI in good faith, and there are many people who do that, will not hesitate to put the marker on, and people should become educated as they see those markers to AI content. Obviously, someone could try to cheat and not put the marker on.

I think that the marker is also important in that once it can be determined that it was AI content, for that reason alone, it becomes illegal content, and platforms would normally take it down. It provides a lever to prevent attempts to improperly influence the vote that we currently do not have.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I don't have a lot of seconds left, but I'll just say that I agree with you.

I think that the markers are really important, not just for elections but also for other uses where we see children and women being vulnerable with deepfakes taking over. I appreciate your putting that on the record and sharing that your thoughts have evolved since I last asked you this question. Thank you very much.

Is there any other comment that you would like to put on the record in five seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

That's excellent. That's exactly five minutes.

Madame Normandin, you have three minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Perrault, you've already discussed this a bit in response to questions from Mr. Wilkinson, but I'd like to hear you talk about anti-vote-buying measures at the federal level. It made headlines in Quebec. We know that you have previously recommended having something that would prohibit bribes, threats or attempts to interfere in the voting process for party nominations and leadership races.

However, I see that, when you made your recommendation, in November 2024, you also mentioned the issue of foreign agents and foreign influence. I'd like you to give us examples of situations where there could be foreign interference in a party's nomination or leadership process, talk a bit about the ideas that come to mind and tell us how that could be prevented through legislation.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think we need to introduce transparency to know when it starts beforehand and not give notice after the fact. I'm talking about nomination races. For leadership races, there's advance notice, but not for nomination contests. Therefore, I think we need to inject transparency. The rules also need to be more transparent to reassure people about what the rules are. I think Parliament should let entities determine their own rules, but I think transparency is a good thing.

Next, regarding the measures we just talked about, it may come as a surprise that it isn't already prohibited, but it isn't. It is prohibited for voting in an election, but not for a nomination race. Intimidation and fraud can obviously be used by foreign states. We have seen allegations of intimidation in the electoral process. That could be the case in nomination races. We know that there are ridings in Canada that lean one way or another. In those ridings, the nomination race is actually the gateway to the Canadian political system. Therefore, it's important that basic protections be in place to ensure that foreign agents or states are not seeking to influence elections through nomination races.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I understand that it would be done in a way that complements the recommendations you've already made on the obligation to declare the rules for nomination races in advance and to prepare financial statements and everything that entails. That would not necessarily be enough. Measures should also be added to officially prevent any potential bribes, threats and so on.