Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number six of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee is meeting in public on the actions of the longest ballot committee in recent Canadian elections.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would ask that all in-person participants consult the guidelines written on the back of the cards on the table. A QR code links to the video, should you have any questions. This is for the health and safety of participants, especially our interpreters.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

I'd like to welcome our panel. First we have David Moscrop, a political writer. Then we have Ryan Davies from Northern Perspective.

You will each have five minutes to deliver your opening remarks. Then we'll proceed with questions from all sides.

Mr. Moscrop, you have five minutes, please.

[David Moscrop, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for having me.

The last time I was here, I was beamed in from South Korea in the middle of the night, so I want to start by saying that this is much more convenient and much more pleasant, but the food isn't as good.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Moscrop]

I am delighted to be here today, because this is something I've been following for some time. In this statement, I want to focus on the goals, trade-offs, effects and risks to our democratic institutions of the longest ballot committee's activities.

Let's start with trying to conceive of what this thing is. I mean, it's a protest. The goal is to protest to effect change. As a protest, it's meant to disrupt, because that's what protests do. Disruptive tactics are typical for protests, but the mechanism here is a slightly unusual one, at least in the way the longest ballot committee has proceeded, because they've effectively weaponized election rules meant to facilitate public access to the ballot to raise awareness of two perceived problems and to subsequently make the case for change.

Now, the perceived problems, as far as I can tell, are these: one, inadequacies and distortions inherent in the first-past-the-post electoral system; and two, the fact that politicians who stand to benefit from electoral rules are the ones who set those rules. This is what I take to be their complaint. We can discuss my personal opinions on those issues if you want, but I want to focus on the longest ballot for now.

The effect of long ballots, as far as I can tell, has been to draw attention to the group—and to their goals, I believe, to a lesser extent—but I've seen no evidence that the tactics have helped make the case for electoral reform or for a non-partisan electoral rules-making body. In fact, a poll from the Angus Reid Institute this summer found that a plurality of Canadians support a law restricting the capacity of the longest ballot committee to stack ballots with names. In that sense, the efforts of the organization may in fact be undermining their stated goals, at least at this time.

We shouldn't overstate the scale or the effects of the longest ballot committee's actions, as previous witnesses have suggested. The effects on election outcomes and voting are likely limited, but we can imagine a protest like this at scale becoming a more serious problem that would undermine the trust in our elections, discourage voter turnout at an equal scale and even shape the outcome of a race or races. As the world faces a democratic recession, from which Canada may not be immune, maintaining trust in elections is critical.

While our elections are regulated, some elements of the process rely on the forbearance of individuals and groups to maintain electoral integrity: There are certain things you can do that may, strictly speaking, be legal or permitted, but you shouldn't do them. Doing those things undermines the spirit of the laws and regulations that govern the process. The net outcome may be deleterious effects on the public good, even if the stated aims of certain actions are perceived to be rooted in other, complementary public goods.

Ultimately, I believe that those who take part in the activities of the longest ballot committee are acting in good faith to protest in favour of changes they think will help strengthen Canadian elections and electoral outcomes. But I also believe that their efforts don't serve those ends, and in fact undermine them by disrupting the electoral process, irritating voters and election workers, and encouraging election law changes that will make it harder for candidates to get on the ballot.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies, you have five minutes, please.

[Ryan Davies, Northern Perspective]

Thank you for the invitation to appear.

My name is Ryan Davies. I am the president and co-host of Northern Perspective, an independent Canadian media platform focused on parliamentary transparency and civic education. I'm a 20-year IT professional and executive, where I have spent my career leading teams and improving systems, processes and organizations across broadcasting, health care, data management and government.

We have already made multiple recommendations within our parliamentary petition on how to address the longest ballot problem, such as mandating 100 unique signatures, having candidates sign an affidavit of genuine intent to run and fining candidates up to $2,000 if they fail to live up to the genuine intent to run.

We first reported on the longest ballot committee during the Toronto—St. Paul's by-election, but we began a deeper investigation after the group publicly announced its plan to run more than 200 candidates in the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election. What followed raised serious concerns about the integrity of the electoral process.

In July, following our exposé on the group’s origins, we interviewed a verified LBC whistle-blower and obtained internal communications, including text messages, emails and organizer videos sent to LBC candidates. These materials, along with the group’s own public posts, revealed four key findings.

One, the internal communications show a centralized direction, coordinated timelines, standardized messaging and top-down instructions from organizers to participants, functioning in practice like a political party apparatus rather than a decentralized protest. I believe this is a direct violation of the Canada Elections Act, as they are operating as a registered political party despite not being registered.

Two, our evidence shows that organizers stated they already had the signatures for participants who had not yet registered or even agreed to run. The communications we received from the whistle-blower acknowledge that signatures were collected before organizers knew who the candidates would be. This is a clear violation of section 67 of the Canada Elections Act and may amount to forgery under section 366 of the Criminal Code.

In a testimony on October 2, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that Elections Canada has seen the longest ballot committee submit blank forms in past elections and confirmed that the candidate's name must be present.

Three, key internal messages state that there were no authorized delegates acting for specific candidates while signatures were being collected. Electors were asked to sign without a properly authorized representative of that candidate, as emails show organizers asking candidates to ensure they designate their delegate after signatures had been collected. This violates section 67 of the Canada Elections Act and constitutes impersonation under paragraph 480.1(1)(e). This was further corroborated by reports from volunteers for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Harris, during the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election, who heard from electors that individuals had approached them falsely claiming to be collecting signatures on behalf of his party.

Four, separate from signatures, our investigation uncovered a substantial and sustained overlap between the LBC and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. LBC messaging, announcements and narrative pieces regularly appeared on the MLPC's official website and social channels, with posts encouraging voters to support candidates of the longest ballot project. We could not find similar statements on any other social media platform, including the longest ballot committee's.

We invited the LBC to appear on air to discuss their conduct, but they refused the opportunity. One candidate initially agreed to an interview but then withdrew, after being told by organizers they were not allowed because the narrative could not be controlled. Shortly after our whistle-blower episode aired, we received a legal demand to remove all coverage of the longest ballot committee within 48 hours. We declined.

We compiled our evidence package and emailed Elections Canada on July 25, 2025, at 12:06 p.m. eastern. To date, we have received no response.

The longest ballot committee is not a protest. It is a coordinated campaign of mischief designed to make a mockery of our democratic process by violating the charter section 3 rights of Canadians across the country—nothing more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Davies.

We'll now turn to Mr. Cooper for six minutes, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

Mr. Davies, you testified that you've interviewed and have been in communication with a whistle-blower who has been associated with the longest ballot committee. That whistle-blower provided you with communications from the committee, including text messages and emails, as well as photographic evidence. Is that correct?

[Ryan Davies]

That's correct.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Okay.

Now, pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, in order to get on the ballot, a candidate must receive the signatures of at least 100 electors endorsing their candidacy. Some of the text messages and email evidence from the committee indicates or is evidence that the committee was collecting signatures from electors before they had candidates to collect signatures on behalf of, in violation of the Canada Elections Act. Is that fair?

[Ryan Davies]

That's fair. Some of the text messages that we have from the whistle-blower confirm that they hadn't even started the process and were asking for help in order to navigate that process while the signatures were already in hand, as evidenced by the text messages.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I'm going to go through some of the relevant text messages and emails, copies of which you provided to me. I have what appears to be a mass email dated May 31, 2024, sent out from the longest ballot committee. This was during the Toronto—St. Paul's by-election. It reads, “Please excuse me, just throwing out the invite one last time!” Then it goes on to say, “We've collected the 100 nomination signatures you will need, and we'd love to have you; but certainly understand there are many many many good reasons not to participate in our crazy project. Just 3 more days till the deadline for candidate nominations arrives.” It was signed, “Kieran”; that's Kieran Szuchewycz.

How is it that electors could have signed nomination forms endorsing candidates before the candidates themselves knew that they were candidates?

[Ryan Davies]

That's the whole question we're asking. That is why we try to raise awareness of this and emailed Elections Canada to ask about this. If a candidate has not registered as a candidate and therefore has not authorized somebody as their delegate, how can you have that authorized delegate, who hasn't been authorized, to actually collect the signatures in the first place?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Precisely.

Then, I have another text message exchange between the whistle-blower and Kieran Szuchewycz, dated August 16, 2024, during the LaSalle—Émard—Verdun by-election, in which the whistle-blower writes, “How many people so far? Gonna break the record?”—as in, going to break the record of candidates—to which Szuchewycz replies, “Its 53 right now, probably 60 tmw. We collected signatures for 109 so it's possible we ll break 100 but it depends on who can get it all done in the next week! Fingers crossed”.

Then, two days later, there was a video posted on the longest ballot committee's YouTube channel of Tomas Szuchewycz, with the title of the video being “Message from the Official Agent”. I've watched the video. Tomas Szuchewycz states as follows: “If we're going to break the record for the longest ballot, we need everyone to sign up as soon as possible. We've already collected a hundred nomination signatures for you.” Just to be clear, that YouTube video has been removed by the longest ballot committee. Is that correct?

[Ryan Davies]

That's correct. After our exposé, they removed that, and lots of the other longest ballot organizers disappeared from social media.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

That's very interesting. How convenient.

Then, there is a text message from, again, Kieran Szuchewycz dated March 31, 2025, in the context of the longest ballot committee recruiting candidates in the Carleton riding, in which he states to the whistle-blower, “I emailed you the nomination signatures and Official Agent form a few days ago.”

Now, you've talked to the whistle-blower about his involvement in the longest ballot committee. According to the whistle-blower, he had not indicated any interest in running for the longest ballot committee in Carleton. Is that correct?

[Ryan Davies]

That's correct.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

He was not involved in the longest ballot committee at that point.

[Ryan Davies]

That's correct. Evidence even shows that there were repeated attempts by Kieran to engage him over the course of several days and even in the course of a week, trying to get him to say that he was going to run. There was no response by the whistle-blower.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Yet, the longest ballot committee had already collected his signatures. How is that possible?

[Ryan Davies]

That's the whole point—it wasn't. In Tomas Szuchewycz's testimony on Tuesday, he was trying to say they already knew who was interested and that's how they knew to collect the signatures. However, if that person hasn't registered as the candidate.... There's even another email we have that's specifically from the longest ballot committee to the whistle-blower, asking him not to forget to assign Tomas as his delegate as soon as possible. But in the same email, they say they already have the signatures. One cannot happen without the other if you're playing by the rules.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Chair, this evidence is very disturbing. It raises serious questions about whether the longest ballot committee collected invalid signatures, which in turn raises the question of how many candidates connected with the longest ballot committee have appeared on the ballot but should not have, because they didn't have the requisite 100 valid signatures as required by the Canada Elections Act. It raises further questions about whether the longest ballot committee broke the law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Mr. Davies, give us a very brief response.

[Ryan Davies]

When you look at the scale of it and how many candidates the longest ballot committee has engaged since it started back in 2019, and if you multiply this procedure—if they've followed it every single time for every single candidate—you have hundreds of violations of the Canada Elections Act. That potentially compounds. It could be impersonation or obstruction. Depending on how the Criminal Code interprets it, it could amount to forgery as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. You can elaborate on that through further questions.

Mr. Wilkinson is next.

You have six minutes.