EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared on Parliament Today, a Village Media newsletter devoted exclusively to covering federal politics.
Unnecessarily long ballots violate “the competitive spirit” of elections, waste time and resources of election staff, and risk making “a mockery” of the political process, experts and politicians told a parliamentary committee Tuesday.
The Longest Ballot Committee has been flooding electoral ballots in ridings since 2021 in protest of Canada’s first-past-the-post election system, arguing that it’s a conflict of interest for electionrules to be decided by elected representatives who benefit from the existing system.
There were over 200 candidates listed on the ballot in the most recent federal byelection, held in Battle River—-Crowfoot, where Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilivere was vying for a seat after losing his riding of Carleton in the April general election.
Poilievre’s former riding of Carleton was also targeted by the Longest Ballot Committee in the federal election.
Ballots have had to be redesigned or adapted as a result of the increased number of candidates, leading to significant delays in vote counts, as well as accessibility concerns.
A report on the April general election, written by Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault, noted that voters with visual impairments, mobility limitations or literacy challenges faced difficulty in managing the oversized ballot, and that the ballot was, in general, more difficult to mark and refold for the ballot boxes.
“These issues impacted voting autonomy as some electors were forced to rely on assistance from election workers to complete their ballot,” Perrault wrote of the race in Carleton.
“Electors at polling places in Carleton also generally experienced longer wait times as a result of these issues, which were especially challenging for individuals who could not stand for extended periods or who required assistance.”
Peter Loewen, dean of the college of arts and sciences at Cornell University in New York, said that Canada has “a history of monkey business on ballots — some funny, some not.”
“This long ballot business is less funny. It's the handiwork of self-proclaimed democratic reformers who have lost referendum after referendum, sometimes after citizens assemblies and sometimes not, and who recently lost another court case affirming the constitutionality of our electoral system,” he said.
“Canadians have time and again indicated that they don't want what they're selling. So you might find it less funny that they want free rein to gum up election ballots.”
Loewen was one of four witnesses called to speak at Tuesday’s Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to discuss the actions of the Longest Ballot Committee in Canadian elections.
Tomas Szuchewycz, the official agent of the Longest Ballot Committee, was also present to answer questions, arguing in an opening statement that “democracy is best managed with strict, nonpartisan impartiality.”
He called for an independent body to be created to oversee election law, although Szuchewycz did not weigh in on who would be called to participate in the process.
Conservative MP Michael Cooper questioned the Longest Ballot Committee’s tactics, suggesting that candidate names on nomination forms were left blank — a claim Szuchewycz denied, although he did later say that some forms had the words “any and all candidates” written down.
An electoral officer rejected those forms, Szuchewycz added.
Candidates hoping to run in an election in Canada need 100 signatures from electors in their riding to register. The Conservatives have suggested these rules should be changed, with a petition launched by Hamilton resident Ryan Davies — who will be speaking with the committee Thursday — calling for a requirement that the signatures be “unique” and for candidates to provide a “declaration of intent” confirming they will serve as an MP if they are elected.
That petition was sponsored by CPC MP Ned Kuruc.
Loewen described the Long Ballot Committee’s efforts as a “signature harvesting exercise,” and added that voters “are not there to cast a ballot for some obscure person.”
“They're there to vote for one of the major parties, or maybe a real independent local candidate, or a local notable or a third party, a small party that's trying to break through.”
That’s one concern that Dalhousie University political science professor Lori Turnbull had with any change in the rules around nomination signatures. She argued there could be a reasonable situation in which an elector would sign more than one nomination sheet, and that increasing the number of signatures needed could be challenging for a candidate without the backing of a major political party.
“The only concern I have is the extent to which any legislative response could make life more difficult for independent candidates who are serious,” she said, adding that flooding ballots of people who have no real intention of running “risks making a mockery” of the ballot itself.
“I don't want that person to have to pay an extra price because of the Longest Ballot Committee.”
Former Bloc Québécois MP Louis-Philippe Sauvé, who served between 2024 and 2025 after winning a byelection in the Montreal riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, noted that he signed a nomination paper for one of his opponents, arguing it’s about the principle of democracy.
He said that when he asked people to sign his nomination papers, it wasn’t out of an expectation that he had their political support — only the opportunity to run in the election.
Sauvé’s riding was targeted by the Longest Ballot Committee, with 79 candidates on the ballot associated with the group.
He said he spoke with election staff, who said the long ballots caused a lot of challenges at the polling stations where ballot boxes filled up faster than usual, resulting in more work and stress. He also claimed that when he was door-knocking, voters didn’t seem to connect the lengthy ballot with the protestors' demands.
Szuchewycz told the committee that he believes voters understand their form of protest, citing media attention and the fact that he was asked to speak at the committee as proof.
“I think people do understand the message. It's very straightforward that politicians are obviously in a conflict of interest when they're in charge of writing the rules for their own elections,” he added.
Turnbull said that she “understands the argument” that politicians could be in a conflict of interest when determining electoral rules, but that there would be no accountability if a group of people with no partisan interests were somehow able to “spit out the right electoral system.”
“You're also accountable for the decisions you make, so you've got to face the public, whereas members of a citizens assembly wouldn't in the same way.”