Procedure and House Affairs

The House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee met to study the actions of the longest ballot committee in recent Canadian elections. Witnesses were David Moscrop, Ryan Davies, Jon Pammett, and Holly Ann Garnett.

David Moscrop, appearing as an individual, argued that the longest ballot committee is a protest that has weaponized election rules meant to facilitate ballot access, but that its tactics may be undermining its stated goals of electoral reform and a non-partisan rules-making body. He noted that a plurality of Canadians support restricting the committee's activities, and warned that while current effects are limited, scaling up such protests could erode trust in elections and discourage voter turnout. He recommended small legislative changes, such as requiring unique signatures and limiting one official agent per candidate, but cautioned against overreacting and creating barriers for legitimate candidates.

Ryan Davies, president of Northern Perspective, presented evidence from a whistle-blower showing that the longest ballot committee collected nomination signatures before candidates were registered or had authorized delegates, which he argued violates the Canada Elections Act and may amount to forgery. He stated that the committee operates like a political party apparatus with centralized direction, and that its activities are a coordinated campaign of mischief, not a protest. He recommended mandating 100 unique signatures, requiring candidates to sign an affidavit of genuine intent, and fining candidates up to $2,000 for failing to meet that standard, and noted that Elections Canada has not responded to his complaint.

Jon Pammett, a distinguished research professor at Carleton University, described the longest ballot committee as a protest group exploiting a loophole to overload electoral mechanisms, causing inconvenience and annoyance. He said the impact has been confined to single constituencies and is largely potential rather than actual, but could deter voters with disabilities, raise information costs, and create obstacles for local media and community associations. He supported tightening rules to require unique signatures and unique official agents as reasonable corrections.

Holly Ann Garnett, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada and co-director of the Electoral Integrity Project, argued that long ballots threaten the principles of contestation, participation, and adjudication in elections. She noted that they create accessibility barriers for voters with disabilities and burden temporary election workers, and cautioned that write-in ballots are not a viable long-term solution. She supported the Chief Electoral Officer's proposals for unique signatures and unique official agents, and emphasized that electoral reform should be based on empirical evidence, stakeholder input, and transparency, while acknowledging that all actors have political incentives.

The committee also heard testimony from members of Parliament, who questioned witnesses on the evidence of signature collection violations, the potential for the committee to be operating as an unregistered political party, and the impact on voter trust and turnout. No procedural debate, motions, or votes were recorded in this meeting.