Evidence of meeting #7 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 candidate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Blanchet for being with us here today.
We're talking about a possible amendment to the Canada Elections Act requiring 100 unique signatures for any serious candidate. It seems like a reasonable change, but I have a question about how that might work out in reality.
Mr. Kingsley, I think you said that you would prefer a form where the person signing would have to declare specifically that this is the only form they have signed, so that they sign only for one candidate. What happens if a person signs more than one, either accidentally or intentionally? What is the remedy then? Would that candidate be disqualified? Would they not have their name on the ballot, or would there be a penalty for the person who signed more than one form?
Earlier in your testimony, you were signalling that you wanted to talk about penalties. Maybe here's your opportunity.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada from 1990 to 2007, As an Individual
I did identify penalties in an earlier discussion. I agree with the Chief Electoral Officer. This does not result automatically in the suspension of a candidacy, unless it can be demonstrated that the candidate initiated the process. That would require, however, that it be done before the election, because you cannot suspend a candidacy once the election is over. That's finished.
That's why I said that, if that candidate is elected, it has to go to a court of law. I do not see a remedy occurring at the level of the commissioner of elections for that. If there are elements of proof, they should be submitted to the director of public prosecutions, and the director of public prosecutions should go to a court of law and determine what should happen with that after the election. The judge may decide to start the election over, or he may decide something else, but that would be a decision of the court, as opposed to an electoral authority.
I remember that when I was the Chief Electoral Officer, people thought the Chief Electoral Officer sent people to jail. I think it's very important to remember that only a court of law finds a person in Canada guilty of a crime under the Canada Elections Act. The commissioner of Canada elections does not decide that. The Chief Electoral Officer does not decide that.
If you decide that you want to have a compliance agreement that you broke the law, which you sign voluntarily, that's one thing. You don't have a criminal record when you do that. If you're ascribed a fine by the commissioner and you decide to pay the fine, you're still not guilty of a crime. You've admitted that you broke the law. These are very important nuances.
My suggestion, if it's possible, is to ascertain before the election whether people signed more than once. It will occur, no matter what you put on that form. What that form is meant to do, the way I described it, is to appeal to the reasonableness of Canadians, which is an outstanding value in Canada that Canadians have and that many other countries don't have in their citizenship. It's to underline that.
If it happened, did it occur because the person was not thoughtful, innocent in thought? It may, and if that's determined, that may well be the end of the story, and the commissioner can very well make that decision.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Thank you.
There was a case, and reference was made to it, in Alberta in 2017, where the same people behind the longest ballot initiative in the last couple of elections were the plaintiffs. They were successful in convincing the Alberta court that the $1,000 deposit was unconstitutional, as infringing section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they were unsuccessful in a second argument in that same case about the 100 signatures. The judge said that was not unconstitutional; it was perfectly reasonable. Now we're talking about taking it a step further and floating the idea that perhaps there should be 100 unique signatures, which is clearly another hurdle for candidates to overcome.
In your opinion, Mr. Kingsley, would that survive a charter challenge, either as not infringing section 3 of the charter altogether or, if it did, as being a reasonable infringement, a reasonable limitation?
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada from 1990 to 2007, As an Individual
Not being a Supreme Court justice, I can only offer an opinion with very little weight behind it. I think that it would sustain a challenge, that a challenge would not succeed in overcoming the requirement that there be unique signatures. In light of what the objective is, it does not impinge the right to be a candidate at all, in no instance whatsoever. It does not touch the right to vote at all. Those are the constitutional rights we're talking about.
Political parties don't have constitutional rights, by the way. They have rights by rebound, such as the right of expression and the right of assembly, but—
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
That's fair enough.
I have a related question, and it has to do with—
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Okay, well, it's going to take me longer than 10 seconds just to set the stage.
Liberal
Conservative
October 21st, 2025 / 11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here. It's an important study. We're talking about democratic integrity here in our elections. I appreciate the service from both of you.
I think it was your words, Monsieur Blanchet, when you said that we do not want to fall into a climate where democracy is questioned, and misinformation and disinformation are allowing that to happen more frequently in countries around the world. I wanted to know how we can help protect democracy and fight against misinformation and disinformation, and a previous witness said that it's a supply-and-demand thing. One way is by supplying more information that's based on facts.
Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Kingsley, and then I'll go to Mr. Blanchet. I would like to know how critical you think a free and independent journalism sector is to maintaining election integrity. How can Elections Canada work with journalism and media to make sure that the right information is getting out there?
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada from 1990 to 2007, As an Individual
Certain aspects of that I will leave to Jean-François, because of his more immediate.... There was a question earlier about who should be involved in implementing rules about this. We have an organization in Canada called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. It regulates broadcast media. Why can it not monitor social media? Why can we not require that social media register with Canada? There's a part of the Canada Elections Act that is about a third party regime. If they're foreign-based, they should have to register as a third party regime and be limited in the amount of money they can spend in this country, as well as the veracity of what they transmit as messages.
Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, Élections Québec
I find Mr. Kingsley's answer rather interesting.
I know that in federal elections, social media managers are much more likely to sign agreements and register as a third party. However, the managers of the major social media companies don't seem to think that provincial and municipal elections are important. That means we have a major challenge there. We have to try to force the major social media stakeholders to work in a way that respects democracy.
Again, it comes down to money. It's clear what's happening across the border, with the support that social media is openly giving to major political parties.
It's difficult to get the last word with those platforms.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Blanchet, it's good to talk to you. You mentioned Bill 98 in Quebec, which would make it an offence to knowingly disseminate false information, including AI-generated deepfakes. I know this is in its infancy, but you mentioned working with social media companies as well. How can we strike that balance? I also know that, in the same legislation, there are exemptions for satire and parody, which preserve our freedom of expression. How can we, as a government, if we're looking into things that would protect freedom of expression, also stop misinformation from being used with AI or deepfakes?
Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, Élections Québec
As Mr. Kingsley said, as soon as the message is controlled by artificial intelligence and the author is identified, if it's satire, it can still be acceptable. We can't prevent or even limit comedians from enjoying freedom of expression.
On the other hand, if it really isn't humour and people are trying to mislead the public and systematically give false information, voters can file complaints, and there will be an investigation. If we're able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the person acted voluntarily, there will be sanctions. It isn't a perfect solution, but we're in the early days.
I'll compare it to computer viruses. Viruses arrived and took up space, but there have always been antiviruses to counter them, so we also have to trust in organizations. Artificial intelligence is going to be harmful, but it will also be able to help find the causes of disinformation.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you very much, Mr. Louis.
I'd like to thank both of our witnesses for being here today.
Seeing no further business, this meeting is adjourned.