Evidence of meeting #5 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 video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
That was your few seconds. It was literally a few seconds, but I appreciate that.
Dr. Turnbull, I will be using the term “promiscuity of voters”. I did enjoy that. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank both witnesses for their presence.
I will address you first, Mr. Sauvé.
You did a lot of door-to-door campaigning during the election campaign, and I imagine that some people mentioned this Longest Ballot Committee to you. I would like you to tell us what you took away from the comments you received.
First, did people talk to you about it a lot?
Second, did those who did talk to you make the connection between the existence of this committee and its demand for electoral reform?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
In fact, all the citizens I met expressed their dismay at the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing. While going door to door, no one ever told me that the committee’s work was wonderful. That’s the first thing.
Obviously, we tried to approach the situation with a bit of humour to convince voters, but also to encourage them to make up their minds. In any case, people found the situation frankly ridiculous and did not make the connection between the committee’s demands and the process.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
In your opening remarks, you mentioned that before coming to testify before the committee, you spoke with your official representative, with poll workers and with other people who were in the field. In your opinion, what impact, particularly in material terms, did the length of the ballot paper have on the special ballot paper, on advance polling day and on election day? What was the impact of this ballot at these different stages of the election, in the field?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
With regard to special voting, there were a few minor problems because the list of candidates was not available in its entirety at certain times. This situation could have caused problems for voters looking for the name of a serious candidate.
With regard to the advance polling station, there were problems because the spaces provided for voting were not large enough. That said, I think this problem also applies to general elections in general, if I may be permitted the pleonasm. Indeed, voters are increasingly voting in advance. The Chief Electoral Officer will have to ensure that the new electoral reality is adapted to meet the needs of society.
With regard to the counting of votes itself, the size of the ballot paper meant that the ballot boxes were often full very early in the day. I heard that the ballot boxes had to be changed at certain points during the counting process. This inevitably had an impact on the length of time it took to count the votes.
For example, Ms. Bibeau, an information and security officer, told me that she left the polling station at 3:30 a.m. because the number of ballots in the ballot boxes did not match, and you cannot leave the polling station until they match. Since she had to go to the returning officer’s office to return all the ballot boxes, she got home at 4:15 a.m. For this reason, she was unable to work the next day.
I think it is important for parliamentarians and the people on the Longest Ballot Committee to take into consideration the fact that election staff are often students, young people and elderly people who want to earn a little money because they are not very well off. We must think about these people, who are part of the working class and who care deeply about democracy. We should not inflict additional hardship on them.
Mr. Norris, who was my representative at a polling station, told me that election staff were very stressed and that, because of this stress, they were much less accommodating to political party representatives than they normally are.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Sauvé.
The following question is for you, Mr. Sauvé, but also for Ms. Turnbull.
The idea of allowing voters to sign only one nomination paper has been raised. However, at the beginning of an election, people do not necessarily know who they are going to vote for. If voters were prevented from signing the nomination papers of more than one person, would that not limit their choice to support two potential candidates for whom they might like to vote?
Isn’t the fact that a citizen wants to see several names on the ballot also part of democracy? Wouldn’t we be undermining the democratic principle if we limited the possibility of signing for more than one person?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
I think it’s a commendable idea, but ill-advised. I would rather increase the number of signatures required.
As a candidate myself, I have signed the nomination paper of an opponent, in this case from the Rhinoceros Party, whose candidacy I considered much more…. In short, the fact remains that everyone should be given a chance. That is a principle of democracy. When I went to see citizens and asked them to sign my petition, I did not ask them to vote for me, but to give me the chance to be a candidate. That is the spirit in which we must proceed.
When I saw the people from the Longest Ballot Committee asking for signatures and approaching me, I refused to sign. Citizens must also, in a republican spirit, take responsibility for the signatures and political actions they take.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would very much like to hear Ms. Turnbull’s comments on this subject, but I understand that I do not have time.
I will reserve your answer to my question for my next turn to speak, Ms. Turnbull.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you very much, Ms. Normandin.
Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.
Picking up where Madame Normandin left off, the Chief Electoral Officer stated in his testimony that the purpose of the act, with respect to the signing of nomination papers, is that candidates need 100 signatures to endorse their candidacy. It's not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I am paraphrasing what the Chief Electoral Officer said.
I think you would agree with that, Professor Turnbull.
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Earlier, I think in answer to Mr. Van Popta, you said that in circumstances like what we saw with the longest ballot committee, where a small group of electors were signing multiple forms clearly with the intent of creating what took place with the longest ballot committee in disrupting the electoral process, perhaps there would be room to make amendments to the Canada Elections Act to address that.
If it's not mandating exclusive signatures or prohibiting electors from signing multiple papers, what would be the alternative solution?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I don't know. To me, it's unfortunate if we have to make a restriction. I understand the point. Certainly it's possible for you to want to acknowledge, as an elector, the validity of multiple candidates. That, in itself, doesn't cause any problem to me at all, if all of those candidates are real. However, if it's part of an effort that is designed to go along with a sort of a stunt, it serves no democratic purpose. I can understand the point in wanting to make sure that voters don't end up participating in that.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Another suggestion was limiting official agents to acting for one candidate.
What are your thoughts on that type of amendment?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
That makes total sense.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Okay.
Mr. Sauvé, thank you. It's good to see you back here.
You spoke about the disruption that occurred in terms of administering the election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. What about the impact it had on voters in terms of filling out the ballot for persons who might have certain barriers, whether it be mobility issues, literacy issues or visual impairment issues? Can you speak to that?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
In fact, this reminds me that, on advance polling day, I drove one of our constituents, who was blind, to the polls. She had vision problems. This type of precaution already exists in the electoral system, i.e., allowing a polling clerk to declare under oath that a person is exercising their right to vote. I don’t think this had a significant impact on the outcome of the vote.
That being said, we agree that the situation is difficult for voters, of course. However, it did not affect the outcome of the vote, as evidenced not only by my victory, but also by that of the new member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
So that is not the problem. I would say that, to a certain extent, it has also made it possible to—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
If I may interrupt, I don't think anyone is asserting that this committee impacted the overall outcome of the election, but it did create challenges for individual voters. Is that correct?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. It certainly creates challenges, but these challenges are not insurmountable, if and only if the returning officer takes the necessary measures. When this kind of unfortunate situation arises, it’s really just a matter of organization.
To answer your question, I would say that, to a certain extent, it may have allowed voters to better confirm their choice, that is, to really know which candidate they were going to vote for. In this election, my NDP opponent had the same surname as me. So, naturally, when we communicated with voters, we emphasized that. In our communications, we were able to adapt to the situation.
I wouldn’t say it’s ideal, but I don’t think it had a significant impact on the outcome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Welcome to our newest member, Mr. Wilkinson.
Go ahead for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Thank you very much.
Let me ask a question of Professor Turnbull.
I come to this conversation as somebody who is sympathetic to the discussion around electoral reform. I think it's a desirable conversation to have, but there are avenues that are available presently. Certainly, those who feel strongly about it can convince political parties to make it part of their platform, as the Liberals did in 2015. When folks come to see me about this, I say to them that the best way to do that is to show that the public cares. If you poll on this issue and there are 20 issues, it's typically 18th, 19th or 20th on the minds of Canadians. The other thing is that you can run candidates who are single-issue candidates who focus on this particular issue.
On the other hand, the longest ballot committee clearly creates the potential for the frustration of voters. If you think about the lineups that can potentially exist in many constituencies, people will just not vote. They'll bail out of the line, and they won't vote. This is a tactic that is frustrating the democratic rights of Canadians.
I hear your argument that we don't want to put restraints or restrictions on the range of voter freedom but, in my mind, we already do that. We don't allow you to sign the nominations of people who live in the riding beside you; they have to live in your own riding, so there are ways in which we have done that.
I guess my question is, in your opinion, given that this tactic can frustrate the rights of those people who are serious about voting, what should we do about this if we're not prepared to put those kinds of minimal restrictions on the range of freedom? It seems to me that the ability to sign only one nomination form is not a particularly big restriction.
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes, I agree. I don't think it's a big restriction either. I think it's a restriction, but it's probably one that we can justify because, again, I don't think it will affect all that many people when it comes down to it.
I also want to say again that I thought the response that Elections Canada came up with was fantastic: Write the name down. As far as I know, in Battle River—Crowfoot, there didn't seem to be any problem with that. There was no big concern around more spoiled ballots or something like that. It seems that it went okay. If it's possible for Elections Canada to pivot in those sorts of circumstances, if this tactic is tried again, they can say, “Well, we're just not going to print a big long ballot. People are going to write in the name, and that's it.” I thought that was great.
October 7th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Thank you.
Let me ask you a higher-level question about the impact of the rise of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. How much do you think we should be concerned about it being easier for foreign actors to try to influence our elections? What should we be thinking about doing in that area?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I do think this is a significant cause for concern. I think that a lot of times when it comes specifically to foreign efforts to affect the conversation in an election, these things are happening at the community level, to a large extent. It's going to require a lot of work with local communities, with diaspora communities, to understand what's going on and what kinds of communications they are receiving. We are doing some of that work. I kept track of everything SITE did, as much as I could, during the election campaign, and there were public announcements around some of what was happening. That helps voters to determine how to make the right decisions and what information is coming at them. In several cases that I'm thinking of right now, there was an AI component. There was an effort made to make this piece of information look authentic and sophisticated.
That's the world we're in. I think it's an education thing, more than anything else. Trying to go down the road of controlling communication is very difficult. When it comes to something like generative AI in political ads, I agree with those who say we shouldn't be doing that, because it's an election. It's not just about trying to get the most sophisticated ways of getting people's attention. We're giving voters information about who they should be voting for, and we have to take that really seriously.
Liberal