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

[Stéphane Perrault]

In my view, it makes it only marginally more difficult for most candidates, who don't rely on groups like that. For most candidates it would not significantly impact their rights. It's only, I think, when you reach a certain level—for example, now we're at the level of over 200 candidates. To reach that number, it would put a brake on that.

The benefit of this measure is that it would limit that without significantly limiting the people who truly wish to be a candidate. That wasn't the case with the deposit. It had a bit of an irrational impact. There was no rational connection, the court found, between the deposit and the seriousness of the candidacy.

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

I'm going to something else that Mr. Szuchewycz said and that his committee has been saying all along, which is that we, as parliamentarians, are in a conflict of interest by making our own rules about how elections are conducted.

What's your opinion on that?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's an interesting question.

There's no denying that there's an interest for any parliamentarian in the rules that govern their election. I don't think anybody would deny that.

It's interesting that, when you look at the history of changes to the legislation over the last 25 years, two things stand out. There's often an attempt to secure cross-party support, and it doesn't always succeed, and it shouldn't be a rule. There shouldn't be a requirement for unanimous consent because that would give a veto to the opposition, which I don't think is fair.

However, the vast majority of changes have come from recommendations of chief electoral officers, which come from a neutral source and often follow consultations, including consultations with political parties. They're examined in this committee, and they're disposed of one way or another. Certainly, not all of them have made their way to the legislation, but many have. I think that process is a healthy one, and I think that's something that needs to be maintained.

It does not prevent additional changes, and I've seen some very good changes over the years that have not come from chief electoral officers. I'm not saying there's a monopoly on wisdom here, but I think the fact that there is a process for a neutral policy intake and a cross-party examination of that neutral policy intake is a good system. It's provided for in the legislation and it needs to be maintained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

I ensured you got the 10 seconds that I took from Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Louis, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Monsieur Perrault, first of all, again, for your service as Chief Electoral Officer. Your experience is extremely valid here, as is your extensive testimony. This is the first time I've seen someone come twice to the same study, and I think that's fantastic. It's important to talk about long ballots, and you were pretty extensive about it in your first appearance earlier in the month.

I wanted to also talk about the scope of the misinformation and disinformation that happens, like false claims about voting times, locations, procedures and election results. You mentioned that Quebec passed Bill 98 in June, which will go into force next year. We don't have the information yet, but it will place a ban on spreading false information about election activities, the nomination process and the voting process.

Is that something that you, as Elections Canada, will look at to see its results and use as a bit of a study to see if this can be scaled up?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Certainly. We share experiences with all electoral management bodies across the country, and we meet regularly and talk about these things.

Of course, misinformation and disinformation has been an important topic over the recent years, especially with the growth of social media and the decline of traditional media, so we do talk about these things.

I wrote in my report on the election that we did see an increase in incorrect information. We monitor only information as it relates to the electoral process, but we did see some cases that were troubling. For instance, there was a case where Le Journal de Montréal had a fake article. It was an image that said we had changed the voting day for 60-year-olds because of lineups, and they would vote on the Tuesday instead. That was quickly taken down, but it is the kind of thing that is troubling and that can mislead electors and hinder their participation.

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

I appreciate that. With that kind of protection, consequences would happen if you catch somebody.

Right now, the laws that exist are really only within Canada. Is that the case? How can we stop not only someone from inside the country doing this, but how can we expand that outside of Canada to make sure that the misinformation—what you mentioned—can't be done, because now you're talking about different jurisdictions?

[Stéphane Perrault]

This is a complex issue. There has to be some nexus to Canada for the offence to be caught. Somebody saying something about a subject matter that's done elsewhere shouldn't be caught.

The real difficulty is not so much in crafting the offence; it is in enforcing these rules across jurisdictions. That will remain a challenge no matter what. That's why it's important to have a relationship with social media platforms and be able to rely on those relationships to take it down. In the example I gave, the information was immediately taken down.

The rules are important, of course, but you need more than rules to ensure a healthy electoral process.

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

For the companies that are spreading that information—let's say, your social media giants—do you have that relationship? Are you requesting that certain things to be taken down if they're false? Are they responding?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's interesting. We've never requested what we call a takedown. We typically avoid that simply because it's seen as state censorship. We make them aware of the problem and the dangers of the problem, and we expect that they act accordingly. In this case, they did.

I know that takedowns have been asked for elsewhere. I think the commissioner has asked for takedowns, but we haven't had to ask when we've seen.... Often, simply correcting the information or downgrading the prevalence of the information on the platform is sufficient. I have examples of that.

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

There would be two steps to that. One would be for them to admit that they will change this information or take it down. Second is that speed counts. If it's an election cycle with misinformation getting around quickly, speed is of the essence.

Is there any way of asking for—

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely. Regimes with offences after the fact are not particularly helpful in that regard. They, of course, create a deterrence, but it's the ability to make the platforms move in real time that's critical.

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

In my final 30 seconds, I'll thank you. In addressing this, you mentioned flooding the market with the proper information—which is the importance of journalism—and making sure there's more of a supply of information from independent journalists. That's important. That's something that sticks with me, so I appreciate that.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's important. We really strived to put out as much correct information as possible about the process in the last election. We're going to continue to build on that. Increasingly, platforms have their own AI chatbots. That's both an opportunity and a challenge because they're fragmented. I think it's an opportunity where, if we flood our website with correct information, it will be caught. We can use that. We can leverage that.

One of the recommendations I've made is that when a question relates to electoral process issues—increasingly, people don't do a search; they ask a chatbot to provide the information—AI chatbots be required to point to authoritative sources of information. In the case of a federal election, the bot would be required to do this. It could provide the information, but it would also have to direct the elector to or point to our website.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Louis.

I did promise her the additional 30 seconds, so for three minutes we'll go to Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to discuss the terms and conditions for the single signature and the potential implementation of this measure.

For example, electors must be informed that they can sign only once. In other words, if they already signed a nomination paper, they can't sign a second paper.

Do you already have some ideas on how to share this information with electors?

[Stéphane Perrault]

The simplest way would be to make sure that this information comes across clearly on the form itself and to ask the people collecting signatures to exercise some due diligence in this area.

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

Should we change the approach or the way that we explain to electors the purpose of the nomination paper?

Let me explain. When I ask certain people for their signatures, I inform them that their signature doesn't constitute tacit support or a commitment to vote for me. I tell them that their signature simply confirms their acceptance of my candidacy and that they can vote for any candidate afterwards.

However, should we change the definition of the nomination paper, now that people can give their signature to only one candidate? Should it become a form of tacit support? That said, we must also take into account the secrecy of the vote.

Can you elaborate on this topic?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Clearly, collecting a signature isn't the same as asking for support, since the signature doesn't mean a commitment to vote for the candidate in the election. I think that this could be clearly stated on the form as well.

I assume that people are currently asking you this question and that you're certainly answering it. This wouldn't change. I think that we could look at clarifying this.

That said, we must be careful with the forms. When they're overloaded with information, people don't read them anymore. We must carefully select the information included. However, we should definitely look into this matter.

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

I want to bring up a question that I asked one of your colleagues.

At the start of a campaign, people may not have yet decided how to vote. They may then want two candidates from two parties to run, for example.

If electors were asked to put their name down for only one candidate, wouldn't this somewhat limit their freedom of choice, given that the campaign would only just be getting started and that they would have time to change their minds? Furthermore, is this a reasonable limit on a person's right to run for office?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think that I already said that it was a reasonable limit on the candidate's right.

However, this raises another issue, which I believe that other witnesses have addressed. Does this limit the elector's right to show support for multiple candidates? I would answer yes to this question. It does constitute a limit, but I consider it reasonable.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that this administrative procedure wasn't designed as a platform for people to express themselves. That isn't the goal. The goal is to ensure that candidates show a certain level of effort and commitment.

In my opinion, this procedure shouldn't be viewed from the elector's perspective, but rather from the candidate's perspective.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to Mr. Calkins for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions for you, Mr. Perrault, and then I'll hand it over to my colleague Mr. Jackson.

In your exchange with my colleague Mr. Cooper, you intimated that the complaint submitted by Mr. Davies somehow got caught up in what I would presume is the safety firewall of your email system. Fortunately, because other people had followed up and because Mr. Davies is a public figure to a certain extent, you were able to get what you needed in order to pass it along to the commissioner.

Will you let us know about that? Have you asked your system administrators to investigate and report back to you? Hopefully, you can then report back to us what measures you're going to take to mitigate this and make sure that serious complaints will not be missed this way again.