In this section
Counting of the votes in the electoral division of Gaspé (2018)
In the 2018 provincial general elections, a judicial recount overturned the election of the candidate initially declared the winner in the electoral division of Gaspé. This was a first in Québec since 1976.
A defeated candidate had requested the judicial recount, alleging several irregularities. One of these was of particular concern to the Chief Electoral Officer: all the votes in one particular ballot box, ballot box 61, had been attributed to the same candidate on the statement of votes. He therefore opened an inquiry into the counting of the votes in the electoral division of Gaspé. The purpose of this inquiry was to explain the changes made to the election result following the judicial recount, but also to understand other non-determinative irregularities that were found and to determine whether any penal offences had been committed.
In particular, the inquiry revealed that the election officers responsible for ballot box 61 had counted the votes for each candidate correctly, but had transcribed the results incorrectly onto the statement of votes. However, they made this error in good faith, so it did not constitute an offence under the Election Act. An offence would have been committed if the inquiry had shown that a person had deliberately changed or attempted to change the election results (by fraudulent means or by falsifying documents, for example). The report on the inquiry into the counting of the votes in the electoral division of Gaspé (PDF – in French), released on April 30, 2019, in a press release (in French), sheds light on the situation in further detail.
Grenier Inquiry: Option Canada’s activities during the 1995 referendum (2007)
In January 2006, the publication of Les secrets d’Option Canada raised concerns: the authors claimed that the group had illegally spent over $5 million during the 1995 referendum campaign. They gave all the evidence they held to the Chief Electoral Officer.
More than 10 years after the referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer could no longer institute penal proceedings. Despite this, he decided to launch an inquiry, based on this new evidence, to shed light on the situation. On January 20, 2006, he entrusted this major mandate to Mr. Bernard Grenier, a retired judge, and asked him to formulate recommendations for improving the rules governing political financing in the context of a referendum.
In March 1997, the Chief Electoral Officer launched an initial inquiry into Option Canada’s expenses following the publication of an article in The Gazette. In October 1997, he ended this inquiry, partly because of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in the Libman case. This ruling declared of no force or effect certain legislative provisions that unduly restricted freedom of expression, including a section that provided that only the official agent, their deputy, or a local agent could make or authorize regulated expenses during a referendum period. Since then, the private intervenor status has been introduced into legislation.
On May 25, 2007, Mr. Grenier produced an inquiry report into the activities of Option Canada during the referendum held in Québec in October 1995 (PDF – in French), in which he reported irregularities and implicated certain individuals. He concluded that certain expenses incurred by Option Canada and the Council for Canadian Unity were illegal because they had not been authorized or declared by the official agent of either side. These expenses amounted to approximately $539,000. He was unable to evaluate certain illegal expenses, however.
On June 27, 2007, Mr. Grenier published his recommendations (which are included at the end of the inquiry report accessible above). They contained suggestions for improving control of expenses during pre-referendum and referendum periods. In particular, he recommended:
- making the Québec referendum process more transparent by introducing a mechanism for disclosing expenses incurred prior to the referendum period
- improving supervision of partisan volunteer work
- increasing the responsibilities of the official agents of the Yes and No committees, while making them more independent
Moisan Inquiry: allegations made before the Gomery Commission (2006)
In 2005, a number of witnesses before the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, chaired by Justice John H. Gomery, alleged that companies had illegally financed certain Québec political parties.
In November 2005, the Chief Electoral Officer mandated Mr. Jean Moisan, a retired judge, to shed light on these possible offences of the Election Act. The Chief Electoral Officer also asked him to make recommendations for improving legislation to maintain the confidence of the public in the rules governing the financing of political parties.
In June 2006, the Chief Electoral Officer made Mr. Moisan’s inquiry report (PDF – in French) public. He concluded that Groupaction had made $104,725 in disguised contributions (made by its staff, but reimbursed by the company) over several years to two Québec political parties.
The allegations made before the Gomery Commission also prompted the Chief Electoral Officer to set up a group to reflect on the rules governing political financing and their underlying principles. The report by the think tank on the financing of political parties (PDF – in French) outlines its reflections. It revisits the recommendations made by Mr. Moisan in the course of his inquiry.
Among his recommendations, Mr. Moisan proposed that all contributions be accompanied by a signed declaration from the contributor confirming that the donation comes from their own assets and will not be reimbursed or compensated in any way. This recommendation was supported by the Groupe de réflexion sur le financement des partis politiques. It was introduced into the legislation in 2010.
Rejected ballots and Unity Rally in the 1995 referendum (1996)
During the referendum of October 30, 1995, two events raised concerns: the “Unity Rally,” which supported the “No” side, and the abnormally high rates of rejected ballots in three electoral divisions. The Chief Electoral Officer conducted two inquiries, the results of which were made public in the report on rejected ballots – Unity Rally (PDF – in French), released on May 13, 1996.
Unity Rally inquiry
On October 27, 1995, tens of thousands of people took part in a rally for the “No” side in downtown Montréal. Many participants came from outside Québec. While all expenses related to this partisan rally should have been paid and authorized by the official agent of the Comité des Québécoises et des Québécois pour le NON, doubts had surfaced that other contributors were involved.
The inquiry showed that individuals and organizations, some of whom were from outside Québec, paid transportation fees or offered transportation services at reduced prices, thereby contravening legislation. However, the Comité des Québécoises et des Québécois pour le NON was not directly involved in these expenses.
The Chief Electoral Officer instituted legal proceedings, issuing 20 statements of offence. However, he was forced to abandon them in October 1997, when a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in another case, the Libman case, invalidated the main legal provisions supporting them. Essentially, the Supreme Court declared of no force or effect certain provisions that unduly restricted freedom of expression, including a section that provided that only the official agent, their deputy, or a local agent could make or authorize regulated expenses during a referendum period. Since then, the private intervenor status has been introduced into legislation.
Inquiry into rejected ballots
Following the counting of the referendum votes, three electoral divisions reported rates of rejected ballots that were abnormally high compared to other divisions: Chomedey (11.61%), Marguerite-Bourgeoys (5.50%), and Laurier-Dorion (3.60%). The inquiry showed that deputy returning officers had unreasonably rejected valid ballot papers. Two official delegates of the Comité national du Oui also helped or encouraged deputy returning officers to act in this manner during their training. However, there was no province-wide conspiracy: the scope was limited to three electoral divisions out of 125, and 29 deputy returning officers were involved out of a total of 22,431.
The Chief Electoral Officer instituted proceedings against 31 individuals. The courts acquitted the first two individuals during their trial on the grounds that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent. In fact, the judges concluded that these deputy returning officers had indeed rejected correctly marked ballot papers and acted against the law, but that this was an error of judgment, not an attempt at fraud. Both judgments were upheld by the Court of Appeal. In light of these judgments, the Chief Electoral Officer abandoned the other pending proceedings, which were related to a similar course of action.
These cases led to changes in legislation, including a new ballot paper, to reduce the scope for interpretation by election officers as to the validity of ballot papers.