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

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

I appreciate the clarity on that. I do think this committee will need to take expert advice as to an outcome when we get to the conclusion of this study, to ensure a balanced but swift approach so that this is in place for future by-elections and this farce doesn't continue any longer. I certainly appreciate that.

I wonder about your perspective on the overall number of signatures that are required. The number is 100 right now. We know that in a previous Parliament the Liberal government actually brought forward a bill to reduce the number of required signatures, I believe, to 75. I'm just wondering if you have a perspective on that and whether you think that's appropriate or wrong-headed, given the longest ballot committee and the general context overall.

[David Moscrop]

To use a contemporary reference, it's the difference between winning a ball game 6-1 and 7-1. Whether it's 100 signatures or 75 signatures, I don't think there's a material difference there, because if you can get 75, you can probably get 100. Now, can you get 1,000? That's unreasonable. It's really a matter of scale, so I don't think there's any real pressing.... I don't think it would be worth the paper you'd have to print it on to reduce it to 75.

It's a show. It's more of a gesture than it would be a substantive change, and ditto for raising it to 125. The 100 is entirely reasonable. I don't see why you would lower it, unless you're going to lower it to zero, and then you're having a philosophical debate, not a regulatory debate.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

All right.

Do you have any further perspective on Mr. Davies' commentary about the longest ballot committee operating, rather than as a protest movement, as either a political party or a third party, as has been suggested in previous conversations? This is a centrally organized group of a very small number of individuals who are giving central direction sometimes to people who are not even full candidates yet, as we've heard in testimony—people who are prospective candidates.

Should they be governed in some way by either the rules that govern third parties in our elections or the rules that govern political parties in our elections?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Give us a very brief answer, Dr. Moscrop.

[David Moscrop]

I hadn't thought about it until Mr. Davies brought it up, but I found his argument cogent.

Again, I'll go back to this: We have, effectively, an exploitation of loopholes in the law right now that is in violation of the spirit of the law. Mr. Davies made quite a cogent argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll move on to Mr. Louis, please.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Ms. Kayabaga.

Thank you to both of the witnesses. I appreciate your time.

In the limited time I have, I'll direct my questions to Dr. Moscrop because of his journalism background.

You spoke about the need for trust in elections. I—and, I'm sure, most Canadians—believe that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy. You referred to what you called an “information environment”, which I imagine is a combination of traditional media and social media. I want to ask you questions to address that, specifically during the election period.

In your opening statement, you said we can't over-prescribe a solution, but we can address issues in a way that supports quality, fact-based and local journalism. As a journalist, what role do you see Canadian journalism playing in helping to safeguard democracy and building that trust, particularly during election periods?

[David Moscrop]

I am a strong believer in the supply-side argument of good information. It is a betrayal of my politics otherwise.

Part of the challenge here is that you have good information and bad information competing in an information environment. What are people going to go to? To a certain extent, they are going to go to whatever is in front of them, whatever's easiest and cheapest to access. In another sense, they are going to go to things that emotionally resonate with them and confirm their preconceived notions. They'll go to things they find entertaining, things that their social group approves of and so on. That information may be good or bad. I'm not talking substantively, but it could be bogus. It could be informed; it could be ill-informed. The challenge is to supply enough good information that you displace the bad information. This is my approach. You can try to regulate it, but it's extraordinarily difficult. You run into issues of freedom of speech and expression. You run into technical issues and regulatory enforcement issues. It's really hard to do.

What you can do is say that we're going to displace the bad information with better information by ensuring that we have well-trained individuals, journalists, out there doing their job. The problem is that we have an environment in which influencers, some of whom are quite good and some of whom are definitely not quite good, are out there capturing more and more attention. I don't know how you address that.

That's why I keep saying that the committee ought to think about this. Parliament ought to think at some point about how you displace the bad information with better information, particularly in an environment where the incentives and the structure push a new model of media that includes people who, quite frankly, just aren't journalists.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

Part of limiting interference in elections to maintain the integrity of an election deals with donations. In social media, you control what you write, but you don't control what you see. However, money can influence what is out there.

On the subject of untraceable donations, such as cryptocurrency and prepaid cards, what is your stance on allowing or disallowing those outright in Canada's political financing system?

[David Moscrop]

When it comes to political financing, every time someone makes a donation, you should know who it is. You should be able to know who that person is, but that's not what worries me. What worries me is what happens between elections. People's opinions aren't just formed at election time; they're formed prior to election time. I am sure we have all kinds of questionable money floating around funding people between elections. What I want to know is who's getting paid by whom and in what way between elections.

We've seen scandals in the United States over the funding of influencers, people on YouTube, people on TikTok and people elsewhere, because there are people in the world who want to shape those democracies. I'd like to know who's funding that and why.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

I'll turn it to Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you to my colleague for allowing me to take the extra three minutes in this panel.

Thank you so much for being here today. My questions will also be directed to Mr. Moscrop.

Building on the questions my colleague was asking and what you were saying about influencers.... You said in your opening comments that most information that Canadians consume right now comes from influencers online, more so than from official channels of elected officials or even Elections Canada. I am curious to know how you think we can manage that and where governments can play a role in regulating misinformation, because a lot of information is not factual. It can't be tracked, and it can't be true. A lot of foreign actors can be using those influencers to pass massive information that is probably not true. What does that do to our electorate and our democracy?

Can you talk a little about what our role would be in managing that without partisanship or censorship?

[David Moscrop]

That's a very easy question. We'll be out of here by next week.

That, to me, is the primary question for the future of good political decision-making and democracy. How do you manage information so that people have good information and can make good decisions? You indicated the core challenge, which is that, at some level, we want to be able to control what's out there, but the state shouldn't be adjudicating truth—or facts, for that matter, unless we're talking about labels on products. That's one thing. When it comes to democracy, we're making value statements and judgments. I'm very nervous when the state starts deciding what is fit to pass as a judgment and what's not, because that's going to be inherently subjective and based on values that may not be universally shared in this country.

I come back to this argument: We want to maximize the information Canadians have so that, if something is on the Internet, you should have a reasonable expectation that you're getting what you think you're getting. If it's AI-created, for instance, I'd like to know it's AI-created. It's becoming increasingly difficult to know that. If it's just partially AI-created, how do we do that? I don't know. At least at the theoretical level, you want to be able to know what you're consuming. You want to have the capacity to navigate that as an individual, as an educated person, not have the state do that work for you. We need to make sure we're educating people to navigate these spaces, but also incentivizing them to do the work.

I'll close on this point. Let's ask ourselves how people consume this stuff. Maybe they're walking around. Maybe they're watching the ball game in the background. Maybe they're playing a video game. Maybe they're on the bus. When people are consuming things, they're not necessarily sitting down and thinking, “I'm really going to dig into what I'm watching now.” It's white noise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

I would like to thank both of our witnesses.

We'll suspend for a few minutes for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We are back.

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

As individuals, we have Professor Jon Pammett, distinguished research professor of political science at Carleton University; and Dr. Holly Ann Garnett, Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership at the Royal Military College of Canada, by video conference.

Professor Pammett, you have five minutes, please, to deliver your opening remarks.

[Jon Pammett, Distinguished Research Professor, Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you. I appreciate the invitation.

I know you've been hearing from quite a number of other witnesses, so whether, when we get to this point, I'll be able to come up with anything new or anything that you haven't already heard is doubtful, but I'm certainly willing to tell you what my thoughts are.

I think the long ballot committee is a protest group that, according to its statements, is in favour of electoral reform and wants this to be done by a citizens' assembly. The nature of that reform, as I'm sure has been pointed out by other people, is not clear at all, nor is it clear how the change would actually be brought about with a citizens' assembly working with existing institutions. However, I think those would be reasonable goals.

Its method has been to discover a loophole in the electoral rules that allows the nomination of a large number of candidates in an election in one constituency, which is the way our system works, thereby overloading the electoral mechanisms there and causing inconvenience and annoyance of various sorts. The annoyance is accentuated by the fact that the tactics don't appear to relate to the overall goal very well.

I think that's my basic view.

So far, the impact of this protest has been confined to single constituencies. It's not widespread throughout multiple constituencies and has had a relatively minor impact, but a lot of the discussion that we've been having here relates to the possibility that it will become more widespread and, if so, what the consequences would be. I'm certainly prepared to add to that discussion. I think it's important to keep in mind that in most cases, it's potential that we're talking about, not actual effects.

It has the potential to be a physical deterrent to voting for the disabled and perhaps others, and a psychological deterrent to others due to the delays in the electoral process, possibly ultimately affecting voting turnout rates. I can speak more about that later, if you wish.

I think it has the potential to affect elections in the local constituency in which it's taking place, in a number of ways. Because it's not really a local issue, it draws attention away from local issues in constituencies, which I think is unfortunate. I think local constituency issues have a hard enough time making their way to the fore in elections as it is.

I think it generally raises information costs for voters, because voters are seeking cues as to who the candidates are and what they stand for. It creates difficulties there. It creates obstacles for local community associations that might be seeking to organize all-candidates meetings, debates or otherwise local information sessions. These are volunteer organizations of people trying to organize ways in which voters can see all the candidates talking about issues in the same place. They organize whom to invite, whom not to invite and that kind of thing.

I think it can have an impact on local media as well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

My apologies, Dr. Pammett, we don't have sound on ParlVU.

I'm going to suspend for a moment while we try to sort it out. We're having technical difficulties.

Hold on for one moment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We are back. There were some technical issues, which seem to have been resolved.

Professor Pammett, if you could please start from the top.... We did hear all of your evidence. If it's not exactly the same this time, it's fine. We've still heard it. It'll be part of our record, but this is just in case anyone's watching at home. It's entirely up to you. You don't have to repeat anything that the committee members have heard.

[Jon Pammett]

I can do that if you wish. Do you wish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Yes, please.

[Jon Pammett]

The longest ballot committee—as I see it, anyway—is a protest group that, according to its statements, is in favour of electoral reform and wants this to be done by a citizens' assembly. The nature of that reform has not been made clear, as has been pointed out already by multiple people. Neither has exactly how this change would work and how a citizens' assembly would be achieved and would work with existing institutions.

With regard to the method that the group uses, it has discovered a loophole in the electoral rules that allows for the nomination of a large number of candidates in an election in one constituency—and potentially in more than one consistency, in all constituencies—to therefore overload the electoral mechanisms there, causing inconvenience and annoyance. The annoyance is accentuated because the tactics don't seem to relate very well to the ultimate goals as expressed by the group.

The impact of this protest has been confined to single constituencies in elections or by-elections, but it has the potential to increase if it were expanded to other places and to other constituencies. At the moment, it has not had a terribly major impact, but it could have. Everything else is being discussed on the basis of the potential that it might have.

It has the potential to be a physical deterrent to voting for the disabled or for people who might have to wait in long lines at polling stations because of the slowed proceedings. It also has the potential to be a psychological deterrent to others due to not just these delays but also the information-gathering difficulties they might have, possibly affecting, ultimately, the voter turnout rates.

It has the potential to affect elections in local constituencies in a number of ways, diverting attention away from local issues to what is essentially a national issue of overall electoral reform—the changing of the electoral system—if that's what they're wishing to talk about.

It generally raises information costs for voters who seek information and cues as to who candidates are, what they stand for and why they're seeking election. If voters take this information gathering seriously, the sheer numbers make this overwhelming.

It creates obstacles for local community associations that may be seeking to gather candidates together for all-candidate meetings, debates or other kinds of events. These organizations, run by volunteers, may be unsure, perhaps, about whom to invite, whom not to invite and what procedures to undertake. There may be a deterrent there.

Finally, I think it can have a negative impact on local media that are attempting to cover the election and would have some similar difficulties.

I think the situation could be corrected, if it is considered necessary to do so—as I said, this is the potential aspect of things—with some of the suggestions that have been made, such as some tightening of the electoral rules to require that those signing a nomination form only do so for one individual, and the suggestion that there be a unique agent for each candidate. These seem to me like reasonable suggestions that might correct the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We will move on.

Dr. Garnett has five minutes.

[Holly Ann Garnett, Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee today.

I am a Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership at the Royal Military College of Canada, and hold cross-appointments at Queen's University and the University of East Anglia in the U.K. I am also the co-director of the Electoral Integrity Project, an international network of scholars and practitioners seeking to improve the quality of elections with academic evidence. I will refer, in this statement, to the work of myself and co-director Toby James.

Elections are designed to achieve the goals of democracy, to empower citizens through equality of contestation, deliberation, participation and adjudication. Choices of electoral procedures and laws must be aimed toward these principles. I will briefly outline how three of these principles are affected by the actions and arguments of the longest ballot committee, which is the subject of our meeting today.

First, contestation requires that elections allow a wider range of groups, individuals and parties to put their names forward for election. A large number of candidates on the ballot can counterintuitively threaten this principle, as it makes it more difficult for legitimate smaller parties and candidates to be noticed or heard in public forums. In response to this challenge, any measures to discourage the protest activities of the longest ballot committee must not have the by-effect of discouraging legitimate candidates who wish to put their names forward in hope of getting elected, nor should it discriminate against certain candidates based on their platforms or group affiliation.

I believe the suggestions of the Chief Electoral Officer to address the consequences of this protest are reasonable means to ensure the seriousness of candidates, while also permitting open contestation. I support a move to allow citizens to sign only one nomination form. Given the size of our electoral districts, this should not unduly discourage legitimate candidates from running. Second, each candidate should have a unique official agent to work with them in the campaign. I do not believe this would be a barrier to serious candidates.

Next, I will highlight that elections should foster wide and even participation. Long ballots may be an annoyance for the average citizen, but for those with accessibility needs, long ballots reduce their ability to independently take part in the election. I would refer you to the consultations that Elections Canada conducted with advocacy groups, noting that long ballots could affect electors with low vision, blindness, dyslexia, challenges with dexterity or mobility, our second-language English or French speakers, or our wheelchair users.

The Chief Electoral Officer's decision to use write-in ballots in the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election was the best option in a difficult situation. However, I would caution that write-in ballots also present barriers to many of the same voters and are not a long-term viable solution, given the example of inevitable situations of similar-sounding last names. Perhaps, in this regard, the proposal from Bill C-65 from last fall to allow for party names to be written in rather than a candidate's name on a write-in ballot could help to alleviate these concerns.

Finally, long ballots and the workaround write-in ballots are more difficult to count, making the vote-counting process more susceptible to technical error. Given that we have safeguards in place in Canada to ensure that the vote count is accurate, I would be surprised if these ballots directly caused any inaccuracies in results, but I must stress the burden that it places on a temporary workforce that, in many cases, has been working since early in the morning. It could even discourage voters from signing up to be poll workers and further exacerbate very real concerns about the future workforce of elections.

Finally, I wanted to address the principle of electoral adjudication. This involves ensuring not only that the rules of the election are followed but that new laws are determined fairly. The issue of effective electoral reform mechanisms is, as I understand it, the main goal of the longest ballot committee. I will thus end with a few comments on best practices for the creation of electoral laws as set out by the global network for securing electoral integrity and a forthcoming volume by my colleague, Toby James.

These principles first recognize that electoral reform is not simply a technical but a political activity. It is true that the policy-makers involved in reforming elections will have a vested interest in the rules that will get them elected in the future. However, there are measures that can mitigate these threats, which include building solutions to problems based on empirical evidence, meaningfully involving a variety of stakeholders while acknowledging that all actors have political incentives in the process, and ensuring transparency throughout the process. Citizens' assemblies can be part of this process, but like any other mechanism of governance, the rules and procedures that guide their discussions will have political implications, and thus require transparency and oversight as well.

To recap, long ballots pose an accessibility issue for those seeking elected office and for voters. The proposals set forth by the Chief Electoral Officer are reasonable measures to address the challenges posed by this movement. Reforming electoral laws does pose challenges related to conflict of interest for all stakeholders, but there are principles that can be followed to mitigate these threats.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to Mr. Van Popta for the Conservatives for six minutes, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here and sharing your insights for our study on the actions of the longest ballot committee in recent Canadian elections.

At our meeting last week with the Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault, he shared some of his thoughts on the negative impact of the political pranks that are being used by the longest ballot committee. That's a term that the committee actually uses to describe their own actions. Others have called it “weaponization” or nothing but “malicious intent”. Dr. Pammett, I think you called it “inconvenience and annoyance”.

Is the annoyance at the point where we as parliamentarians should actually take some action? Everybody has their section 3 democratic rights to be involved in election campaigns. We don't want to overreact, but I think a consensus is growing that Parliament has to do something about this weaponization of our electoral system.

What are your comments on that?