Evidence of meeting #20 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
After the fact, however—
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
They're casting their ballot immediately upon getting on the voters list.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Correct.
There have been very few cases of prosecutions, of people finding that there was elections fraud related to that.
It's important for people to understand the critical balance between making the system accessible and ensuring its integrity. A system that rejects too many people who are entitled to vote is not a system that has integrity.
The controls are in place. The vast majority—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
It was a good line of questioning. I wanted to hear the answer, but then he interrupted the really good answer, so I'll have to just cut it off there.
We'll turn to Mr. Wilkinson.
February 5th, 2026 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Thank you again for appearing.
You mentioned in your opening statement that you made a number of recommendations with respect to some of the protections against foreign interference. I just want to explore a few of those.
I think Elections Canada has highlighted some of the vulnerabilities with respect to third party financing and also with respect to untraceable contributions. Could you speak to why those are a challenge at this point and what you would suggest that we do?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In my report, I want to make sure that any potential loopholes for illicit funding are addressed. We are concerned that if there are non-traceable instruments, prepaid credit cards, for example, that are used to make contributions, this does not provide a proper trace of where the money comes from. I see no reason why we should allow these kinds of contributions in our system and I've recommended that they be eliminated.
I also recommended some changes to the third party funding regime. Right now, third parties can use their own funds. Of course, in the case of individuals, that's appropriate, but what comes into a group's own funds can potentially be a range of sources. We've seen, increasingly, third parties report their expenditures as being paid out of their own funds and we don't know the original source of that money.
My recommendation is if groups want to use their own funds, that should be limited to groups that receive 10% of their revenues from contributions. Fundraising entities should not be able to use their own funds. Groups that largely depend on contributions should need to set aside a separate campaign bank account to receive contributions from Canadians and permanent residents.
Liberal
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
It's the same thing. We don't see that a lot, so it hasn't been a burning issue. We have issued guidelines on how to treat cryptocurrencies. We treat them as non-monetary contributions, the same as the U.K., which has recently followed our own guidelines. There's no really good reason, at the end of the day, to allow cryptocurrencies, whose main feature is the inability to trace the sources.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Obviously you folks are focused very much on general elections, but I do know that you have raised some issues, concerns and recommendations with respect to nomination and leadership races. Can you explain those?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
There are a number of recommendations that I've made in that area.
I've not recommended—I think it's well known—that we overtake the oversight of nomination races. I don't think that would be a wise avenue.
However, there are a number of offences in the act that pertain to the electoral process, such as bribery, and we've seen the allegations of bribery in other races and jurisdictions, or threats. I see no reason why these prohibitions should not equally apply to nominations or leadership races. That's one area of recommendations.
I also think more transparency overall, in the rules pertaining to leadership and nominations, is warranted. I did recommend that parties, in the case of leadership and nomination races, ascertain that their members who vote have, at least, permanent residence.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Obviously, one big topic of conversation these days is the emerging importance of artificial intelligence. Associated with that are concerns relating to things like deepfakes. Maybe you can explore the issues that are there and some of the ways you think we can protect against them to ensure the integrity of the process.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
There was a lot of concern coming into the last election that we would see—and not just in Canada but also in other elections around the world—deepfakes as a major threat. We have seen deepfakes, but I don't think the threats or the dangers have yet materialized.
I think you've heard witnesses before me who are of the view that it continues to be a risk. I share that view The manipulation of voices and images could deeply mislead electors, and the sophistication that comes with AI increases that risk. It's very cheap. It's easily accessible to anybody. We have to expect that it's going to come.
I don't know that there's a magical solution to deal with that, but there are elements. I do believe that it would be appropriate to have a watermark, basically a marker, whenever AI is used in the production of electoral communications. At the very least, if it becomes unlawful to not put that label, platforms' own moderation policies, which typically include taking down unlawful content, could act upon that immediately. It creates additional leverage. Of course, it does create more transparency for Canadians.
I also think that there should be some very narrow but specific prohibitions on misrepresentations of political actors or of the Chief Electoral Officer, with regard to using or manipulating by any means the voice or the image to have them say things they haven't said or put them in a context where they haven't been.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
You've made a range of recommendations, as have a number of other bodies. Of the various recommendations you have made, which do you see as being the most pressing, moving forward?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
It's hard to point to a particular one. It's a matter of looking at every option we have to combat foreign interference.
I am concerned—and I mentioned that in my remarks—about the fact that people can, with impunity, deliberately put forward false information about the electoral process and can do so with the very specific intent of either preventing people from voting, though there are existing rules that we can use against that, or undermining confidence in the election. We saw—and I think you've heard from witnesses—after this election, AI-produced content showing or purporting to show poll workers stealing ballots. To me, this is the very kind of harm that we need to find remedies against before it's too late.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Mrs. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Once again, it's a pleasure to have them with us.
Mr. Perrault, I'd like to hear your comments on foreign interference, somewhat related to the testimony we heard earlier this week.
I don't know if you had a chance to listen to the presentations, including by people from the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. A pertinent question was asked by my colleague Blaine Calkins, I believe. Part of his premise was that the task force may have a bit of a fire alarm role: very good at detecting the presence of smoke, a good team on the ground capable of analyzing metadata to see any potential interference, but perhaps a little less adept at heading it off it or sharing the information with the public, which seems to be more one of your strengths.
Early in your presentation, in your opening remarks, you talked about interactions on social media. The Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, is also given credibility.
I would like to hear what you have to say about the collaboration or lack thereof between the CEO and entities like the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. Do they really work in silos or do they work together, obviously while respecting the independence of both entities? Do discussions already take place? If not, would it be appropriate for there to be more?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Yes, there are daily discussions during the election, through my colleague here, with members of the security community, including members of the task force. There are meetings every day, and we share all information. That way, we have access to all the information they have.
My mandate is very specific. In a way, you talked about the credibility of Canadian elections. Addressing disinformation or misinformation is extremely delicate. We could be accused of censorship. However, when it comes to information on the electoral process, it's much easier. In terms of disinformation or misinformation about candidates, what they have said on their platform, it's much more sensitive. That's not our role.
It's a much bigger challenge. In this case, we're talking more about educating, informing and enlightening the public through efforts over time. I think that's the role of security agencies. We had technical briefings during the election to raise awareness among Canadians so they could take a critical look at the content.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you.
I would like to hear your opinion on the importance of the foreign agent registry in relation to your role, particularly in terms of access to ministers. We know that contributions can buy a seat at a minister's or prime minister's table at an event or get privileged access. Unfortunately, there have been situations in the past that subsequently led to contracts being signed, particularly with the Bank of China.
Will the future foreign agent registry facilitate the work of the Chief Electoral Officer in analyzing potential foreign interference? Will it lead to further deliberation on the issue of paid access to ministers?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
It further encourages the critical eye of the public, journalists and ministers themselves who may not know who they are dealing with. As a politician, you meet people from all walks of life in your riding. I think a registry can inject a level of transparency into who is working for foreign interests. Do these people make contributions? Are they working on political campaigns?
I think transparency is good for the system as a whole. To a large extent, the Canada Elections Act regime is built on that transparency, the transparency of contributions. There are very strict rules on fundraising, including meet-and-greets with ministers, to ensure transparency.
In my opinion, that's part of the same type of remedy, and I think it's a good thing.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Continuing on the issue of access, I would like to know if there has ever been any consideration, particularly in Quebec, on maximum contributions. Is that something that should be included in the discussions on lowering the funding cap? The goal would be to avoid everything that can be linked to the use of false names and money from third parties, which is harder or impossible to trace. You mentioned cryptocurrencies.
Do you think it would be useful to review the funding cap?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In my opinion, this is a matter for Parliament. Compared to other countries in the world, we have one of the most stringent contribution regimes. I know that in Quebec, for example, there are more restrictive rules at the provincial level. When you look internationally, we're among the toughest. Until recently, Australia had anonymous donations up to and including $10,000, so we're in a different place.
We have a regime that I think is very robust. I also think it's Parliament's role to review it regularly to determine whether there is a fair balance. We have to make sure that candidates and political parties can still fund their activities, so we need to find a balance in the contribution thresholds.
Liberal