Evidence of meeting #6 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 candidates.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I think the act specifically requires that registered political parties are allowed to run only one candidate at a time in a constituency. These folks are operating—
Distinguished Research Professor, Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
They'd be operating illegally.
Distinguished Research Professor, Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'm afraid I am still not going to venture an opinion on that.
Conservative
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you.
I have been watching the activities of this committee, so I have had a little more time than everyone else to have a think on that one. Again, I'm going to give the caveat that I'm not a legal scholar. I'm just presenting some initial thoughts. I would say that the longest ballot committee appears to be acting more as a third party advocacy organization that is advocating for specific policies and proposals and using the ballot as a way to do that. They don't appear to be working as a party insofar as they are actually running candidates for election. Even with the fact that they're running multiple candidates, it doesn't seem as though getting elected or contributing to the conversation in an election campaign is really the goal.
That being said, I would leave it to the legal scholars whether they meet either of those two thresholds and thus should be treated as a party.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Interesting. I would question the third party piece a little bit because, while I understand they are advocating for a certain cause, the organizer who testified was quite honest that he had no prescribed outcome he is actually advocating for in terms of a solution. They say they want electoral reform, but when they were questioned by our chair as to what that might look like, the organizer had no answer and, in fact, stated that he hoped we would solve that problem for him if we ever got to that point. I don't know how you can be a third party advocating for something when you don't actually know what you're advocating for specifically.
Do you have any comment on that?
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
That is fair enough. I have read some of their materials, and they seem to be advocating for citizens' assemblies to work towards electoral reform but, like you, I was a bit perplexed watching the exchange that happened on Tuesday.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you.
I would give the rest of my time to Mr. Cooper, if I could, Chair.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Okay.
What about the threshold for signatures? It's at 100. Should it be higher? This is for both witnesses.
October 9th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.
Distinguished Research Professor, Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
I don't see any compelling reason for it to be higher.
Once again, it's not something that I've particularly thought about.
No, 100 seems reasonable to me.
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I would probably echo what Dr. Moscrop mentioned earlier: It would appear that 100 seems to be around the appropriate, and we know where that limit would be. Getting closer to a larger percentage of the electorate could be a means of dissuading those with fewer networks from being on the ballot. We know that network access is very important for ensuring diversity in the candidates we see, so I wouldn't be keen to see that number go very much higher.
However, I think the suggestion of the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that there are unique individuals could help to prove the viability and the legitimacy of a candidate, while not discouraging diversity in people running for politics.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
It was an effective use of your 60 seconds, as when Mr. Jackson effectively used his 40 seconds the previous meeting in the splitting of time.
We're moving on to Madame Kayabaga, please.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I would also like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today.
I'm going to go to Dr. Garnett.
Earlier, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the write-in ballots. I'm curious to explore that a little. I'm glad this worked out for the people who used it in the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election. I wonder if there are any potential barriers that we would see with the write-in ballots, perhaps for the staff and for the folks who have to write those names.
Are there any potential barriers that you perceive?
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Absolutely. As I mentioned in my opening comments, it is not a viable long-term solution. It was a good workaround for the situation that Elections Canada and the local returning officer found themselves in, but it is not a long-term solution.
You're entirely correct, in that the same population groups that may find a long ballot difficult to manage are quite likely to find write-in ballots difficult to manage, especially as it refers to the independence of being able to go in and cast your own ballot without assistance. I think we need to always consider the dignity of the voter and their independence in being able to cast a ballot. Also, you can see that conceivably there will be issues of people with similar last names or last names that are more difficult to spell. These sorts of issues mean that write-in ballots can be very tricky for the same sets of voters for whom we are trying to alleviate some of the concerns in terms of a long ballot.
Then, when you get to the end of the day and you are counting them, that again is going to be more difficult for the election workers. Really, the thing to remember is that this is a temporary workforce that is doing this for one day. They have probably been up for a very long time and now it's the end of the day, it's getting dark out and they are going to have to start reading all of these names. The write-in ballot can be very difficult.
Also, although I don't think I have any specific evidence, it is possible and very conceivable to have a likelihood of contesting them or to have challenges in making sure what the ballot says—“Did they say this or that?”—especially if candidates' names are quite similar. It could just prolong the process. One thing we know is that people do have an expectation to get the results on election night, and with that many write-in ballots, it might not be the case.
It is not a long-term solution, although it seems to have, in some ways, taken some of the wind out of the sails of having a very long ballot if you actually end up having a much shorter ballot because it is a write-in one. Again, I agree with you insofar as it is not a viable long-term solution.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you for that answer.
I agree, especially with some names that are hyphenated. I imagine that if they leave out the hyphenation it potentially could be cause to remove the name off the vote completely.
Did you want to comment on that?
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Yes, please, I'd like to mention something else, if I could.
The other challenge is that currently ballots have names and parties written on them, whereas write-in ballots have just the name. That additional heuristic, as Dr. Pammett was mentioning, that additional cue that voters can use to make decisions, would be essentially eliminated in that case, unless there were an allowance for party write-in, but that is another issue for another day.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Are you suggesting that write-in ballots would already have the political parties' names and the names of their candidates written down? Would that leave out the independents who may not have political parties?
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I believe that in the previous Bill C-65 there was a suggestion that, rather than writing in the name of the candidate in a write-in ballot, an elector could write in the name of the party, to allow that additional cue, but again, you're completely correct that it comes with its own can of worms and set of issues. Again, it is not the ideal situation to be using write-in ballots widely, beyond those who absolutely need special ballots.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I am going to have lots of time at the end of this meeting to ask questions.
Go ahead, Ms. Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Garnett, the options that have been put forward include increasing the number of signatures, requiring unique signatures and having a single official agent.
I would like to hear your views on the responsibility of the candidate. Could imposing financial penalties for not complying with the Canada Elections Act be a way to counter the problem? What about making it a bit harder for candidates to register, in the hope that the problem would resolve itself? Fewer people would want to join the longest ballot committee if there were consequences to their actions.
Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Is the challenge you're suggesting that of essentially encouraging returning officers to investigate more fully up front, before these people make it onto a ballot? Could you clarify?