Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always appreciate hearing from Canadians, particularly those who think we shouldn't have politicians making laws. They think that the people making laws should be people other than those who are actually elected and accountable to the electorate. I fail to see the logic, to be quite frank with you, given the fact—as my colleague Mr. Jackson said—that even when the Liberals had a majority from 2015 to 2019 and they proposed electoral reform, the Canadian public, through their elected representatives, decided whether or not that was going to be palatable. That's how we actually go through the sausage-making effort of making laws and regulations, including laws regarding our elections, being at this particular committee. Anybody with a basic understanding of a civics class would know that.

I am going to ask my first question of Mr. Loewen.

Mr. Loewen, in 2017, an Alberta court decision ruled that a provision in our electoral laws requiring a $1,000 deposit was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First of all, I think you would agree that elections are serious business. I don't think there is a more serious thing that a Canadian can do than cast their ballot in the democratic process. We're approaching Veterans' Week and Remembrance Day. Over 120,000 Canadians have paid with their lives in order to make sure that we can all do this. This is about as serious a business as it gets.

I always interpreted that $1,000 requirement as something put in place to make sure that unserious people weren't able to just get their name on the ballot. Do you think the government made a mistake by not challenging, or not trying to challenge, that decision made by an Alberta court in 2017?

[Peter Loewen]

I confess that I am not deeply fluent in the case, so I don't know the jurisprudential argument for it. It strikes me as an entirely reasonable limit of $1,000.

What I will say is that Canadian elections are cheap. Perhaps I don't actually know whether MPs feel like they're spending a lot of money or not, but I do know that many of you raise more money than you can spend. We also have examples of candidates who can win without spending a lot of money. I think it's great that, for the most part, we put pretty serious caps on our election spending, so that who wins is not determined purely by who raises more money. Where those exact limits are, Mr. Calkins, I'm not sure. I do think that, clearly, the $1,000 deposit, plus changes in the signatures or the ease of signatures and the fact that one can be an agent for multiple candidates, probably makes the ballot more permeable than is desirable, as evidenced by the ballots in the last election.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you for that.

You've answered the second part of my question, as to whether or not you think that should be put back in place. I don't know if there is a possibility to do that now, given that I think the time for challenging that court decision has elapsed.

Do you think that, in order to protect the integrity of our electoral system and treat it with the seriousness it deserves, this committee should look at the definition of “registered third parties” to make sure that this is obviously a very organized effort? Is there anything you would advise us to do with the definition of a third party?

[Peter Loewen]

Yes, I think this is critically important. I'll note that your party has a history of being the least supportive of regulations on third parties. I'm not saying that to score points or anything, but I raise that, Mr. Calkins, to note that we've come to a consensus in the country, even among your party, that it's good to have elections contested principally among political parties without huge outside influence. I think that's a good thing, and I've changed my own opinion on it over time.

As the cost of advertising changes and as the tactics of third parties change, I think it is worth asking whether legislation is fit for purpose to achieve what the overall animating principle is in Canadian elections, which is that elections should be a conversation between parties and voters without the cacophonous entry of hundreds of other people into that conversation.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Szuchewycz, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, told the committee that people should face penalties for signing multiple nomination papers. Would you agree with that statement?

[Tomas Szuchewycz]

I believe that was one of his suggestions. I don't really see a reason for that. I don't really see the logic in it. Personally, I prefer it when there's more than one candidate on the ballot, so I should be able as a voter to nominate more than one candidate.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

You're aware that subsection 480.1(1) says, “Every person is guilty of an offence who, with intent to mislead, falsely represents themselves to be, or causes anyone to falsely represent themselves to be...a candidate or a person who is authorized to act on a candidate's behalf.”

Would you agree that asking somebody to sign a nomination paper that has “all candidates” written at the top, or no candidate's name, would be a false representation under the act?

[Tomas Szuchewycz]

I'm not a legal expert, but I don't believe it was.

First, the returning officer determined that the candidates couldn't get accepted based on those forms, so they were refused, and that's fine.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Also in the Elections Act, section 482.1 says:

Every person is guilty of an offence who obstructs or hinders—or knowingly makes, either orally or in writing, a false or misleading statement to—the Commissioner of Canada Elections or any person acting under his or her direction while the Commissioner or the person acting under his or her direction is exercising or performing powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed on the Commissioner under this Act.

That's obstruction. Do you think any of the actions of your committee met the definition of obstruction under the Canada Elections Act? Have you been given any warnings? Have you been given any reprimands? Have you been threatened with charges by Elections Canada?

[Tomas Szuchewycz]

Certainly the answer is no to any of those questions. I've never been reprimanded and have no intention of misleading anyone. We have nothing to hide. We do everything by the book.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

My colleague—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much, Mr. Calkins.

We'll go now to Madame Brière.

Mrs. Brière, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank both witnesses for joining us this morning.

Professor Loewen, we know that it is difficult to encourage people to enter politics, especially women. Do you think that this tactic of the Longest Ballot Committee makes it even more difficult for some people to decide to enter politics?

[Peter Loewen]

I'm not sure. Because the effects are probably small, I suspect that it's not having a huge effect there, although it could be having one. I think the notion that elections are something that you play with strikes me as degrading, so perhaps that makes it less appealing to both male and female candidates, but I'm not sure that it would have a differential effect on women.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you think it is too easy to put your name on a ballot in any riding? All you have to do is collect 100 signatures and find an official agent. As we have seen, the actions of the Longest Ballot Committee created chaos during the last election and by-elections.

Do you think we should respond to these actions? Should we instead give serious consideration to a more fundamental change to our electoral process?

[Peter Loewen]

It seems clear to me that the combination of 100 signatures and allowing a small group of people—one or two people—to harvest the signatures necessary to get candidates onto the ballot is leading to ballots that are too long. I guess the choice you have is whether you legislate against that directly or you just hope it goes away. That's a serious choice about what you want to spend your legislative time on.

I will tell you that in my professional opinion, it's hard to sustain an argument that this behaviour is desirable for democracy. I don't think it's good that people are principally using the ballot for something other than putting up candidates in front of people. It's not a petition, and it's not a social media stunt. It's the presentation of people who want to represent other people in office and are willing to go out there and put their ideas to the test.

It offends me a little bit. Whether or not you should spend time legislating against it is another question, but I could certainly see why you would.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Szuchewycz, your actions have been described in many different ways. You say that you are happy to be here this morning and to have the attention of politicians.

However, do you really think that what you have done has achieved the real objective? Don’t you think that we should get together and have a serious and more in-depth discussion about the electoral reform that you would like to see?

[Tomas Szuchewycz]

This committee has a mandate over election law and conflict of interest, so yes, this is the perfect place for you all to be discussing whether or not it's appropriate for MPs to be writing the rules for their own elections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Madame Brière.

I will exercise my ability as chair to ask a question. It's picking up on what Mr. Calkins was alluding to: appointing people who would seemingly not be accountable. In our system—and I think you even spoke about it, in terms of Elections Canada being respected—the executive appoints a nominee to be the head of Elections Canada, an organization that's independent, like the RCMP. A person is appointed and then is accountable to Parliament. It worries me that you're proposing an agency that may not be accountable.

Who are these individuals who would be appointed to this committee, if politicians or the executive are not going to make that appointment?

[Tomas Szuchewycz]

That's a fantastic question.

I'm not a policy expert. It's very obvious to everyone that it's inappropriate or a conflict of interest for MPs to be in charge of it. I'm extremely confident that if you had an in-depth discussion about it, you could come up with something very reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'll leave it as a comment that it's very bizarre to me that you're engaging in this protest without the very basic answer to the first question that would come up in solving what you are seeking to protest, but I appreciate your appearing before the committee.

We will suspend for a few minutes to set up for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We are back.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for today's second panel.

As individuals, we have Louis-Philippe Sauvé, former member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun; and Dr. Lori Turnbull, professor in the faculty of management at Dalhousie University. That was painful to say, for someone from St. Catharines, because we pronounce “Dalhousie” differently. I want that noted on the record.

Mr. Sauvé, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Former M.P., LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of Parliament, thank you for inviting me to testify before you about the events of September 16, 2024, and the role played not only by the Longest Ballot Committee but also by its antics in the conduct of the electoral process.

I am not here to promote any particular opinion, but rather to give my testimony about the events and to answer your questions.

When I learned that I had been invited to testify before the committee, I made every effort to gather testimony from people who played a role in the electoral process, including people who played a strategic role in my campaign. They are: Mr. Stevens Héroux, my campaign manager; Mr. Mathieu Desquilbet, the chief executive officer of the Bloc Québécois; Ms. Sophy Forget Bélec; and Mr. Pierre Norris, my representative at a polling station. I would also like to thank Ms. Suzanne Grothé and Ms. Thérèse Robichaud, who were poll clerks and kindly answered my questions, as well as Ms. Célyne Bibeau, who served as an information and security officer.

I am here primarily to answer questions from members. You may ask me questions not only about the nature of the events, but also about my personal convictions as a citizen who has served as a parliamentarian, a position you have the privilege of holding today.

I am now ready to answer questions from members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Turnbull, you have five minutes, please.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull, Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you. I'll try not to be the witness who goes over the five minutes.

Thank you very much for having me. I really appreciate it. I've thought about the actions of the longest ballot committee a lot, so I really appreciate being included in the conversation.

Many things about the state of our democracy keep me awake at night. I think voter apathy is a big problem. I think misinformation and disinformation are big problems. Polarization is a big problem. Foreign interference is a problem, and it's not going anywhere. We don't have to look too far to see one of the world's greatest democracies be in serious trouble. I don't think Canada is immune to the effects of democratic regression that we can see around the world. In light of all this, with all due respect to the longest ballot committee, what they're doing doesn't keep me awake at night.

I completely agree with Professor Loewen when he says that it is undesirable to have ballots flooded intentionally with names of people who have no real intention of representing a riding. It risks making a mockery of this ballot. Again, it's not desirable. I think it's a waste of time and a waste of resources, but I also think we have shown that we can manage it.

As individuals associated with the committee have pointed out, Elections Canada is a very strong, independent, competent organization that runs free and fair elections. They can handle a stunt or two. They have been the ones who have had to count these ballots. In my view, they are the real victims of the longest ballot committee's tomfoolery. When they came up with the response of the write-in ballot rather than letting this longest ballot continue in the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election, honestly, I thought that was brilliant. I thought it was a really good response. It kind of took the air out of the longest ballot committee's tires, so I'm not sure that we won't see the end of this kind of thing from now on.

I have to say, though, that while I find myself kind of frustrated but not overly concerned with the tactics employed by the longest ballot committee, the argument around a potential conflict of interest has been made before. That's something that has come up before in terms of studying how we might get to electoral reform, even if we never were to change the electoral system. Is it the right way to have politicians who, as partisans...? Yes, they have an interest. You have an interest in what kind of system we use and what kind of rules we use to elect people. Is there a conflict there?

That said, I am not sure there's really a better way to do it. If you really want to see electoral reform happen.... We've had citizens' assemblies several times. Even when the citizens' assembly is in favour of it, it doesn't necessarily convince enough of the public to move it over. We can talk about the 57% in British Columbia.

I do want to raise one thing here. In what I've heard from the longest ballot committee, the focus is on elected officials. Since we're here and having the conversation, I would invite us to do a little bit of thinking on the role of political parties. When politicians are coming to these questions about what electoral system we should have, if there's a conflict of interest here in this role, it's not just because the people are elected. It's also because they are members of political parties, and political parties often have some stance on these issues. Political parties are acting as disciplined organizations. Elected officials are part of those political parties.

I think it's worth thinking about the kinds of things that political parties do, as both public institutions and kind of private clubs. In the last year or so, when we have talked about things like irregularities in nomination and leadership processes and things like that, we've talked about the role of political parties as gatekeepers of democracy. They have a pretty firm grip on it. When we're talking about things like nominations and leadership, political parties are making decisions about who gets to play. It's not just about the rules. It's about who is included in the whole process.

While we're here, then, I think it would be interesting to reflect on the role of political parties and what they're doing in terms of facilitating democracy.

I will leave it there.