Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Calkins.

Ms. Brière, you have six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to thank the two witnesses for their presence and their testimony.

I will address a topic other than the longest ballot and leave it to my colleagues to ask their questions on that subject.

Yesterday, I heard Minister Champagne's announcement concerning fraud affecting banks. He said that artificial intelligence and deepfakes would become the danger to monitor and control in the coming years.

In your opinion, how can we ensure that elections will always be reliable?

What must we do to ensure that artificial intelligence, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation do not spoil everything?

[Jean-François Blanchet]

Actually, we’re straying a bit from the main topic.

All electoral authorities in Canada, including Elections Canada, are keeping a close eye on developments in this area. We are also monitoring what is happening elsewhere in the world and the best practices that can be implemented. As we know, artificial intelligence is evolving every day. New uses are constantly being discovered. It is currently evolving faster than the law.

We must therefore ensure that we have control over accurate information and be prepared to disseminate it to voters. I believe that during the last election, Elections Canada had a special committee that monitored what was happening in terms of disinformation, but also interference. The difficulty right now is that everything is interconnected. It’s just getting started, but we are really monitoring what is happening. We will be making recommendations. In Quebec, an article was added to the Election Act by Bill 98. This article stipulates that anyone who disseminates information that they know to be false is committing a criminal offence.

As with any criminal offence, it will have to be proven that it was done intentionally. The prosecution will therefore have the burden of proof, but it is a start.

I urge you to remain vigilant and make the necessary amendments to the laws when necessary. We must not wait. In this case, the longest ballot is a way of discrediting the electoral process. In the current context, we must ensure that we maintain voters’ confidence in our system.

If you look at what is happening around the world, you know that it does not take much for democracy to be called into question. I therefore urge you to be extremely cautious and to act accordingly to ensure that our electoral system remains one of the best in the world.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In the eyes of voters, things like artificial intelligence and deepfakes undermine confidence in our system.

[Jean-François Blanchet]

Citizens are currently questioning everything, including the electoral system. We have our part to play, as do the media, and you have yours as well.

We have this shared responsibility.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Kingsley, did you want to add something?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I would like to add a few points, because I’ve had a chance to think about this.

If a message contains an element derived from artificial intelligence, this should be stated; the name of its creator should be indicated, and written permission should be included from the person whose image or voice has been imitated in any way. In other words, your image cannot be used without your permission.

I have another recommendation to make. If someone starts posting messages, consideration should be given to removing the anonymity allowed by the system. It was believed that this anonymity guaranteed freedom of expression, but it was forgotten that all freedom comes with responsibility. Without this responsibility, freedom of expression becomes an unlimited right.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

I understand your comment. Let’s take a more concrete example, that of deepfakes. This is a misuse of technology. Obtaining the approval of the person being imitated seems a little utopian to me, or at least difficult to implement.

Considering this, what is your opinion about people who use deepfakes?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

First, there is nothing wrong with utopia.

Second, I believe that it is possible to track down the authors of these deepfakes and find out who is doing these things, using networks in Canada. Everyone is allowed to do whatever they want. I was telling you that there is a relevant conference somewhere. Europeans are coming to Canada, to Montreal, I believe, to talk about the measures they have taken. They have already undertaken several things.

In other words, we must not think that we are facing a problem with no solution. There are solutions, and we must find them. We must also ensure freedom of expression for those who are prepared to be held accountable for their opinions.

Those who are not prepared can be denied the opportunity to express their opinions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

We are very grateful to both witnesses for being with us.

I would like to begin with an open question for both witnesses.

The committee began its study of the longest ballot without perhaps asking itself for whom a potential amendment to the Canada Elections Act would be made.

In your two opening statements, you discussed the right of electors to have uniformity in the ways they vote, for example, and the right of election workers to have a healthy work environment. We must not forget the right of individuals to run for election either.

I would like to know who we should think about first when making amendments to the Elections Act. Is there a hierarchy among the rights of the people we should be thinking about?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I will answer first.

First, we must consider the voter, the media, of course, and then the political parties. It must be in that order.

We must think about the voters first and foremost. Election workers come third, fourth or fifth. It’s not a major concern; it’s the concern of the Chief Electoral Officer, but it is a shared concern nonetheless.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Blanchet?

[Jean-François Blanchet]

I agree that voters come first. The right to stand as a candidate is also important. Obviously, we are thinking of our workers, and they must be able to do their jobs. Workers therefore come third, because whatever we adopt must be easily applicable. As you know, there are 60,000 election workers in Quebec on polling day. In Canada, I believe there are 300,000 workers, if I am not mistaken.

These are people who work only one day and do not have much time to learn everything. They often do this work because they want to be of service, so we must not discourage them from returning the next time. As for the four constituencies where the ballot papers were very long, I am not convinced that the electoral staff will be inclined to return to work there in the next election. There you have it.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Please, Mr. Kingsley.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I would like to amend my answer to agree with my colleague: the voter, the candidate, the political parties, the electoral machine. Thank you.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you. That will be noted in the minutes.

I have a more specific question for you, Mr. Kingsley. In your recommendations, you mentioned that a person should only be able to sign one nomination paper. I would like to hear your opinion on the balance between this possibility and the fact that, for example, people may not yet know who to vote for at the beginning of the campaign. After all, the purpose of an election campaign is to convince people. Also, given the technically secret nature of the vote, if you sign only one person’s ballot paper, aren’t you revealing your political allegiance, for example? Is there a risk in limiting yourself to a single signature?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I imagine that this presents a risk to a certain extent, but the risk has already been taken. No one other than this group is collecting multiple signatures. Obviously, the endorser suggests that he has a certain allegiance. Perhaps this is true, but perhaps it is not. However, people will perceive that he does. I don’t believe that allowing multiple signatures will dilute this perception. If there aren’t many false candidacies, signing two or three ballots won’t make a difference, in my opinion.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Blanchet, you mentioned the possibility of having only one official agent per electoral district. You somewhat dismissed the other options: multiple signatures, a thousand signatures, one deposit. Can you tell me why you find certain options less appealing?

[Jean-François Blanchet]

I will start with the deposit. This was withdrawn in Quebec in 1980, and I do not think there are any plans to reverse that decision. However, signatures still pose a technical challenge in terms of enforcement.

Listening to Mr. Kingsley, I learned that at the federal level, anyone can support a candidate. Therefore, they do not have to be on the electoral list for the riding. Is that correct?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes. Unless I am mistaken, it is the person who signs as a witness who must be registered.

[Jean-François Blanchet]

Agreed.

The difficulty is technical in nature.

You will understand that it is difficult to ensure that a person has not supported two candidates.

For my part, I think it is possible that a person may want to support more than one candidate. People respect those who run for office. They sometimes support someone because they want to get involved in politics, without necessarily supporting the political party they represent.

However, there is a difference between supporting two candidates and supporting 100. It is therefore important to understand that this is not what we are looking for.

Having heard what Mr. Perreault said, I know that his objective is to impose a penalty on people who encourage others to sign multiple candidacy declarations because, once again, this has been proven to be the case.

In the case before us, it is clear that someone is encouraging people to sign all the nominations at the tables. In my opinion, the goal is not necessarily to verify every signature one by one, but to conduct verifications whenever there is doubt.

I can understand that this is one way of solving the problem, but I believe that a combination of several measures is needed, and I know that the idea of an official agent is not foolproof. There are still ways to get around this method.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Moving on to our next round, Mr. Jackson, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. It was a pleasure to meet you both before the committee started this morning. I'm very glad to have your expert testimony.

We've had a number of experts from different political fields. I appreciated your comments in your opening statements, both very specifically about the official agent piece and about the signatures piece. We're hearing from experts that they seem to feel those are reasonable restrictions to put in place, in terms of 100 unique signatures and one official agent per riding.

I would like to talk about the signatures piece a little bit more. Mr. Kingsley, your successor Mr. Perrault was here, and he was very clear that the checking of signatures would be very difficult to do and that it's not currently being done.

In your experience, what provisions would need to be added to the roster of Elections Canada to be able to meaningfully check signatures to make sure that if this provision is put in place, they are unique to each candidate, should the committee and, indeed, the House of Commons decide to enact such a change?