Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Stéphane Perrault]

I would like to answer, please.

It is not premature to examine the issue internally to see what needs to be done, and to do it to make sure that serious complaints are not ignored. As I said, in this case, the subject matter was brought to the attention of the commissioner. Perhaps it was determined that it was sufficient to do that. As I said, in this particular case, the allegation of a blank signature...or of no candidate being identified is not an offence. That needs to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Perrault.

Mrs. Brière, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Perrault, thank you for joining us for a second time during this study.

I'll let you finish answering the question just asked.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think that I covered everything. We need to make sure that the right processes are in place to avoid missing any serious complaints.

In the case in question, it should be noted that the relevant information was forwarded to the commissioner's office. It should also be noted that this issue was raised in 2022 and that the legislation still doesn't specify an offence in this type of case. I don't know what the commissioner plans to do about this issue. This matter falls under the commissioner's purview. In any case, recommendations have been made in this area.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

The longest ballot committee situation has been driving these discussions for four meetings now, if I remember correctly. Do you think that we're giving these people too much attention? Have we chosen the right process for pondering and considering measures to prevent this type of situation from happening again?

[Stéphane Perrault]

The committee is certainly free to choose how it wishes to proceed. All that matters is that the issue gets addressed. I asked for changes in the past. I'm glad to see the committee looking into the matter.

I think that it's wise to seek the right balance. In trying to resolve an isolated issue, we mustn't make the rules unreasonable for the entire community of potential candidates. We need to keep this in mind.

I also think that the longest ballot committee has reached a point where things are becoming increasingly difficult, because the list of candidates keeps growing. I don't think that very restrictive rules are needed to effectively resolve the issue. I doubt that the longest ballot committee wants to see a return to ballots with 30 or 40 candidates, after gradually increasing that number. I don't think that this is about revolutionizing the system. I think that it's more about adjusting the current rules.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Admittedly, it's a fine line and it's all about balance. When considering the various solutions proposed, particularly the number of signatures and the deposit to pay, we must bear in mind the accessibility factor. People have the right to be able to run for office.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely. It's a constitutional right, just like the right to vote. This matter requires careful consideration.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

I have one minute left.

I too am very interested in issues relating to misinformation, disinformation, AI and deep fakes, among other things. You already talked a little bit about this, but would you like to add some general comments?

[Stéphane Perrault]

This is somewhat the challenge facing our society and other contemporary societies. Indeed, we're not the only ones trying to address these issues. The world of information has literally exploded. Now that we have AI tools, we're moving to another level. Things are changing dramatically.

One of the recommendations I made in 2022 was to stop looking at content in terms of advertising under the Canada Elections Act, since that's a fairly narrow definition of content, and instead look at it in terms of election communications. I think we're ready for this paradigm shift in the Canada Elections Act. The world of elections, in which traditional communication is based primarily on advertising as we know it, no longer represents the world in which we live.

We need to broaden our perspective a little and review the transparency requirements of the act in terms of election communications. I'm thinking here of authorization statements, which indicate where the content comes from. We need to know who's sending these communications and whether the content is manufactured or real. For our part, the situation requires us to play a role in ensuring that information about the process is well known, widely disseminated, and accurate.

These are therefore significant challenges.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Brière.

Ms. Normandin for two minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Two main proposals seem to have emerged from the committee's discussions and to be of interest to everyone: unique signatures and one official agent. I'd like you to compare these two proposals. This could help us make a choice if we ever have to choose just one.

Here are my ideas.

What's interesting about the unique signatures proposal is that financial penalties could ultimately discourage people from voluntarily organizing to collect signatures from the same people. This proposal should be considered from this perspective. However, it could have the opposite effect. As you said, the longest ballot committee will always want to have an increasingly long list of candidates. After paying the fine once, it could decide it might as well as have 300 candidates.

The one official agent proposal could hinder entry. It's still complicated to find 200 official agents to validate each candidate's application.

Which of these two proposals is the best solution?

[Stéphane Perrault]

There are pros and cons to both proposals.

In a long ballot scenario, I don't know if we would prohibit candidates from acting as official agents for another candidate. We mustn't forget that, as we've seen in past reports, virtually all of these candidates incur no expenses and receive no contributions. Naturally, the official agent makes a commitment when they sign their name, so that's not insignificant. That said, it's not an administrative burden: All they have to do is enter a zero with a line through it and sign the report after the election—not before the election, of course—to ensure its accuracy.

In my opinion, both proposals are good, but, as you say, the advantage of the unique signatures measure is that it can be formulated in such a way as to target the organizers. That's the advantage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Perrault, for your testimony. I'm sure we'll see you again in the near future.

The committee will suspend while we move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]