Evidence of meeting #33 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 political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
There are other elements from Bill C-65 that do not relate to the security of the electoral process, and I won't speak to that. There is one element related to privacy that I have included in my suggested changes. That relates to the ability to opt out of the lists for concerns of security. There are elements there that could be brought back.
For the most part, this bill is really reflecting the recommendations of my 2024 report, in the context of foreign interference.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
I'd like to follow up on the questions that Mr. Jeneroux asked about the misuse of confidential information. This has to do with what happened in Alberta.
When candidates receive the lists, is it made sufficiently clear to them that it's prohibited to disclose that information?
Could something be added to the Canada Elections Act to deter party candidates and other candidates from doing so in the first place?
For example, could we make a confidentiality agreement mandatory?
Has anything been overlooked that could be added to the bill?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I'll take the liberty of answering that question.
We already provide guidelines to MPs, candidates and political parties, but they aren't binding. Those guidelines call for certain physical or administrative measures, such as getting campaign workers to sign agreements, to protect the information. Some of those measures could indeed be made mandatory.
I note that, as well as adding substantive privacy rules, Bill C‑25 extends the rules that would be found in the policies to candidates when they're working for the party. That means it isn't very clear whether it applies in any other circumstances. I think it's limited to cases where candidates are there on behalf of the party, not on their own behalf.
That aspect could be strengthened, then.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to ask another question along the same lines.
Parties are increasingly using computer systems to go door to door. They're no longer using paper lists. This always comes with a risk of cyber-attacks.
Is there anything that's a bit in our blind spot when it comes to using various platforms?
Should there be better commitments regarding the cybersecurity of the platforms used, to prevent phishing, attacks or anything else?
Are we missing something?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's a very relevant question.
Bill C‑25 states that, in their policies, parties must have rules to ensure that information is protected according to how sensitive it is. This should absolutely include cyber protection aspects.
This is something we'll have to discuss with the political parties, because, indeed, it no longer happens on paper these days.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to Mr. Cooper, who is splitting his time with Mr. Kram, I believe. I will leave it to the two of you.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Ms. Simard or Ms. Richard, I just want to follow up on your response with respect to the new offence of filing a nomination paper with false or misleading information. I want clarity as to whether the provision as drafted would capture a situation such as the one that there was some evidence the longest ballot committee engaged in, whereby they were alleged to have gone around with multiple blank nomination forms, had electors sign those forms, and then, after the fact, filled in a candidate's name. Would that be captured by this?
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
I would note that I believe the Chief Electoral Officer has the ability to add additional pieces to the nomination form, such as indicating that it's a contravention to sign more than one nomination paper. Through the OGI process, we could provide guidance in terms of that being considered to be false and misleading, so we would be able to use those new contraventions, which are violations, and tackle that type of scenario.
Of course, there may be facts that still get around it, but the idea is that we would be able to use those.
Conservative
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Yes. It is my intention to revisit the nomination paper to look at the different ways in which we could instill the greatest possible clarity in that regard. That would support the work of the commissioner.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
One way to address it is to simply add an amendment that would expressly make it an offence to induce electors to sign multiple blank nomination forms, in addition to making it an offence to submit a nomination paper with false and misleading information.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's correct. There is a provision in the bill that deals with counselling people to commit various offences, including signing multiple nomination papers. That would not capture signing a blank nomination paper. That is not expressly addressed in the bill. It could be specifically mentioned.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us today.
Mr. Perrault, my questions will be directed toward you.
As you are aware, this committee studied in depth some of the disruptive behaviours of the longest ballot committee. We provided a report with recommendations to the House not too long ago. One of the recommendations was to update the nomination papers to explicitly state that electors are not allowed to sign more than one paper. When we had the minister here earlier this week, I pointed out that this particular recommendation was not included in the bill. He said it was because you already had the power to do that.
I will ask you what I asked the minister on Tuesday. Is that something you are planning to act on outside of the bill?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Absolutely. Yes.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Okay. That was easy.
Mr. Chair, how am I doing for time?
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Perrault, you mentioned the issue of deepfakes in your opening statement. It occurred to me that if we were having this conversation even a couple of decades ago, the whole idea of deepfakes would be in the realm of science fiction. As we know, technology can evolve very quickly, and laws and regulations often fail to keep up.
I'm wondering if you feel that the rules put in place are flexible enough and robust enough that the laws can be enforced even as the technology evolves.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's correct. I believe the wording was carefully drafted to provide some flexibility in that regard. I wish I knew the future and could guarantee that it would capture all the mischief the future will bring us. I believe it was well drafted with that in mind.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
You also mentioned in your opening statement the idea of standardized labelling mechanisms for AI-generated content. Can you briefly elaborate on how that would work?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's something that could be done more broadly. The committee on heritage recently recommended that it be done across all communications.
In the context of the Canada Elections Act, my recommendations would be made specific to electoral communications. We would have to define in the act what is captured by electoral communications. Right now, the act certainly captures advertising, but it should be much larger than advertising. It should be communications in the electoral context made by regulated political entities, including third parties, at a minimum. It could be made broader.
The point is that electors should be aware. If they see an ad or hear an audio recording that has been modified using AI, they should be on alert.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
We'll now go to Madame Brière.
Mrs. Brière, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here this morning.
Mr. Perrault, you talked about the new funding rules to improve transparency and prevent funds from anonymous, foreign or obscure sources from being injected into our democratic system.
What do you think would be the risk of removing the option for third parties to fully use their own funds as a source of funding for regulated activities?