Bloc Quebecois candidate Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagne speaks in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on May 15.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
In a less partisan, more conciliatory political environment, there would be cross-partisan consensus about the need for a by-election in the Quebec riding of Terrebonne.
It’s not simply that the margin of victory was razor-thin, with the Liberals’ Tatiana Auguste winning the riding by a single vote. Nor is it about the flip-flopping of the result: Terrebonne was first won by Ms. Auguste, then it flipped to the Bloc Québécois’ Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné after a validation process, then flipped back to Ms. Auguste following a judicial recount.
But the issue that so irremediably undermines the result in Terrebonne is that we know that at least one vote that should have been counted (and possibly more) was not.
Last week, Elections Canada released a statement saying that the return postal code on a special ballot envelope issued in Terrebonne contained an error in the last three digits. It noted that it was only aware of one case where a marked ballot was returned because of the error, and though the statement didn’t include specifics, CBC News reported that the individual who came forward had voted for the Bloc. Had that vote been counted, Ms. Auguste and Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné would have been tied, which would have meant a new election for the riding. The Bloc Québécois, through a legal challenge, is calling for that now.
Elections Canada has subsequently said it is aware of five more return envelopes with the misprinted postal code, but that is essentially superfluous: because Ms. Auguste won the riding by one, one returned vote is enough to undermine the result. Indeed, it would be reasonable for voters to consider the results null and void until such a time that they have the opportunity to cast their ballots again.
There is precedent here. In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a challenge to the 2011 federal election results from Liberal candidate Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who lost the Ontario riding of Etobicoke Centre to the Conservatives’ Ted Opitz by just 26 votes. Though the Ontario Court of Justice sided with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, discounting a total of 79 votes based on alleged irregularities in vouching and registration, the SCC upheld the election result in a split decision, which restored 59 of the 79 votes the lower court judge set aside. In its decision, the Court held that the entitlement to vote cannot be annulled by procedural errors. That determination will be relevant when the legal challenge over the results in Terrebonne is heard in Quebec’s Superior Court.
Though Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said last week that “the situation is quite clear,” and most impartial observers would agree with him, he is the only party leader calling for a by-election in Terrebonne. When asked about it last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney first quipped that it is “better to win by one vote than to lose by one vote,” and then said that the matter of a by-election in the riding is “up to Elections Canada” (though, in fact, only the court can nullify the result now).
No one should be naive as to the political implications at play here. Mr. Blanchet knows that his party has a much better shot at taking the riding now than he did back in April simply because Terrebonne residents already know the overall outcome of the federal election. Mr. Carney is and will be the prime minister regardless of what happens in Terrebonne; therefore traditional Bloc voters who might have voted strategically for the Liberals last month will feel safe going back to the Bloc. That could very well mean that a one-vote margin of victory for the Liberals turns into a several-thousand-vote landslide for the incumbent Bloc candidate. In fact, it’s quite likely, and both Mr. Carney and Mr. Blanchet know it.
Is that fair for the Liberals? No, not particularly. But the integrity of our electoral system should take precedence over partisan interests, even if it costs money (and it will – millions) and changes the result (people can change their minds in a democracy, alas). It is also important, at a time when there is so much skepticism, distrust and outright disinformation being circulated about the integrity of our elections, that there is political consensus about the need to get things right, and to ensure that every single vote is counted. It would send a strong message if a leader besides the one whose party stands to benefit would come out and advocate for the voters in Terrebonne, though it’s likely the next voice we will hear on the matter will come from the benches in court, not Parliament.