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.
October 7th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I appreciate that, Mr. Wilkinson.
We'll go on to Madame Normandin, please, for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sauvé, you mentioned that increased pressure was put on election workers because of the length of the ballot. If this kind of attempt to disrupt the electoral process were observed from one election to the next, would there not be a risk that election workers would increasingly abandon their duties along the way? As we know, not all workers show up at the polling stations on election day, which can cause problems. In fact, just last week, we talked about polling stations that were unable to open because workers did not show up.
Shouldn’t we keep in mind that we risk discouraging workers if initiatives such as the longest ballot paper continue to be implemented?
Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual
Absolutely.
I want to be clear that parliamentarians must take action to discourage this type of initiative. The question is how. The answer is up to you. Making decisions based on emotion may be good politics, but it does not make for good policies. It is important to find the right way to act.
In my opinion, increasing the number of signatures and imposing more restrictions on official agents are good avenues to pursue. However, I do not think we should prevent citizens from signing more than one form. We must also consider election workers.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Ms. Turnbull, should we factor in the risk that election workers will be discouraged from going to the polls if they know there will be a very long ballot paper? Will they continue to show up?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I think so. I really do think that the ones who are counting those ballots are the ones who are really absorbing the effect of what the longest ballot committee is doing, because it seems to me that whenever this tactic has been tried in by-elections and in general elections, the number of people who are voting for the people who are associated with this organization is minimal. It's not changing the result, and it's not coming close to changing the result anywhere. We don't have to worry about it from that perspective, but it's about the administration when it comes to just operationalizing it on election day.
I take the point about people expecting ballots to be counted fairly quickly, and we want to know what the results are. That's fair enough, but just going through these stuffed ballots.... There's no point in this. It would be different if it served a democratic purpose, but it doesn't. It's just a waste of time and a waste of resources.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
I believe Mr. Calkins is up first but will be splitting with Mr. Jackson.
I'll leave the timing up to you.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses here.
Obviously, the committee is now seized with the questions surrounding the longest ballot committee. I appreciate both of you being here.
I'm going to read a statement to you, Professor Turnbull, and I want you to tell me if you think the intentions or the motivations of the longest ballot committee would meet this definition: a mockery, distortion or gross misrepresentation that disrespects or undermines the spirit, rules or integrity of the contest.
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I definitely agree with the mockery part. The initial phrasing is “or”. It doesn't have to meet all three of those things.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
That's right.
Do you know where I got that statement from? This is actually grounds for a 10-minute misconduct in a game of hockey.
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
That's neat.
Conservative
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I like that.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
To my knowledge, there's no clause like that in our Elections Act. If you cause a travesty as a player, a coach or even a fan, whatever the case may be, there's a consequence to behaving that way.
The fact is that we've lost the ability to at least put a barrier in front of unserious people by having a non-refundable deposit. We lost that in 2017, with the Alberta court decision that wasn't appealed. Given that, and the testimony you've given us about whether you think that changing the process for getting people to sign nomination papers might not have the desired outcome, I'm left wondering what we could possibly do.
I can tell you that I am in the riding right next door to Battle River—Crowfoot in Alberta, and I heard more from my constituents during the by-election about how ridiculous it was and how ashamed and embarrassed they were about what was transpiring in the by-election right next door as a result of having over 200 names on the ballot. They used words like “travesty”. They even surmised greater nefarious motives behind that movement than the individual who just testified here did.
Do you think it's possible to craft a part of the legislation that would be enforceable? Who would be the adjudicator of whether or not somebody is making a mockery, distortion or gross misrepresentation of our elections?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
First of all, I really like this line of argument about trying to put something in the legislation that protects the integrity of elections, because in a number of ways, the integrity of elections is tested and we have to find ways for the public to be protected, which is really what it's about. It's about protecting the public's ability to choose their representatives in a way that is not taken over by these sorts of campaigns, which have nothing to do with the vote on the ballot in that particular riding.
I think there's a way for language to be crafted so it doesn't go too far. That's the key. If you make it too heavy or if you make the range too wide, there will be too much overlap and too much of a restriction on rights and things like that, and it will be struck down.
As far as who makes the decision is concerned, I can see that landing in court if people are.... I think that's probably where it would end up.
Liberal
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I'll be very quick, Mr. Chair.
I agree that we've probably given this farce too much time, to be honest, and the individual is pleased that they got zero votes in a constituency, which made international headlines. However, we need to have an outcome from this.
To summarize your position, you do not support the restriction of signatures to being able to sign only one candidate's paper, but you would support a change so that one official agent can be the official agent for only one candidate anywhere in the country. Is that a clear statement of your position?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Absolutely. Yes, it is, on the official agent piece.
On the other part, I wish we didn't have to do it. I wish we didn't have to restrict signatures, for the reasons I've said, but I'll live with it. I wouldn't say you got it wrong. If you decided to go that way, I'd understand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
You're a bit over time, but that was a textbook use of 40 seconds. That was excellent.
Mr. Louis, please go ahead.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Madame Brière.
Thank you both for your testimony.
Dr. Turnbull, you talked about protecting the integrity of our elections. You talked about what keeps you up at night. The single biggest risk is misinformation and disinformation, and it seems most of that is coming from social media.
You hinted at this, but I'm hoping you can elaborate. What role does Canadian journalism play in countering that threat? How important is that, and how can Parliament better support our own journalism as a trusted source of information so people aren't relying solely on social media?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
When it comes to the role of journalists, one of the risks we see is that some things, like investigative reporting, that really help to educate the voter are not heavily resourced or not really resourced at all. People end up absorbing information that might give them some facts but doesn't necessarily give them the kind of background, education or analysis that helps them become more informed citizens in all kinds of ways: better critical readers and critical thinkers.
That's what we want. We don't just want people to say, “Yes, I trust that journalist, so I'll just read what they write, and then I'll be good.” That creates another problem, in that you have a lot of people who are just homing in on their own echo chambers. People aren't all absorbing the same kinds of broad pieces of information, and then you get more of that polarization.
I'm really oversimplifying here, but there's a relationship between disinformation and polarization, where people aren't checking their own assumptions against a broader piece, because they don't have to. You can read all day, and you're still only being subjected to a very narrow range of ideas.
As far as journalists are concerned, one thing I don't like is this tendency sometimes toward what we call fact-checking. As soon as you go down that road, there's going to be someone who puts up their hand and says, “No, that's not right.” There's sometimes a misuse of that space, and I don't know that this is necessarily the right way to do it. That said, it's important to do something to get those facts out there and to separate out opinion writing and fact-based reporting that says, “This is it. Make up your own mind.”
Again, I understand the provincial jurisdiction over education, but it would be wonderful to see more resources going toward programs—maybe online journalism or maybe print journalism—that help to build up people's civic awareness.
Liberal
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Good morning to our two guests. I thank them for being here today.
Ms. Turnbull, the act provides protections against misleading publications, undue foreign influence and misinformation, but it only applies to activities that take place in Canada.
Do you think it would be wise to extend these protections to activities that seek to disrupt our elections but originate outside the country?
Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I definitely worry about foreign interference. I think it's difficult for us to regulate the kinds of outside information, misinformation and disinformation and the flow of content that is coming into the country. It's hard for us to do that. In many ways, that runs the risk of being way too heavy and undesirable for other reasons, too.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I really think the best way is for people to be informed on their own and to develop those critical skills so that, even if something looks sophisticated, they know the different ways to double-check and triple-check it to make sure they're not being fooled. There's no substitute for that.
For anything the government does, clearly there should be accountability, and in other ways, too. If people are deliberately trying to create instability and disruption in a conversation about who's going to be elected, there needs to be accountability for that, but there are limits to how much the government can do when you really need citizens to be able to recognize misinformation and disinformation themselves.
