Did François Legault & the CAQ steal the 2022 Québec Election with vote bribery?
by Dan Fournier, published Monday, Oct. 10, 08:14 EDT on fournier.substack.com
A polling station in Québec. Photo source: Élections Québec
The winner of the 2022 Québec provincial election – François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) – was declared rather early on the evening of Monday, October 3rd, 2022.
Many Quebecers were surprised by the stunning victory whereby the CAQ obtained a huge majority of the electoral votes with no less than 90 local CAQ candidates getting the nod representing 40.98% of the voting pie.
The closest rival was the Quebec Liberal Party with 21 electoral votes followed by Québec Solidaire with 11 seats, and a big fat zero for the Conservative Party of Quebec despite it obtaining 12.91% of the popular vote.
Final count for the 2022 Quebec provincial elections. Source: Elections Quebec
What stunned many voters, discounting the extremely brutal measures imposed by the Legault government during the Covid-19 Pandemic as well as the McKinsey controversy which plagued the Prime Minister, was the magnitude and speed at which the CAQ secured their decisive victory.
Many electors have contended that Prime Minister Legault bought votes by promising cash payments of $400 to $600 to the greater population of Québec with an extra $2,000 for the elderly, if re-elected.
Even though such kind of election promises are not necessarily uncommon, nor may be deemed illegal, many have blamed the CAQ and Legault of malfeasance, unfairness, and voter manipulation during the election campaign.
The morning of the election, popular Canadian YouTuber personality David Freiheit, better known as Viva Frei, posted an English translation of Prime Minister Legault’s campaign promise on his Twitter feed.
The original tweet from François Legault’s account garnered much attention and disgust by voters on the social media platform.
Oct. 1, 2022 tweet from Viva Frei showing the English translation of Québec Prime Minister François Legault promise.
The vast majority of comments are bitter; here are selected ones criticizing the controversial tactic employed by Legault:
English translation: “I need your vote and for this, I am buying it from you with your own money with a cheque from $400 to $600 for the recalcitrant and my partisan base will receive a nice cheque of $2000 again with money from those who do not vote for the CAQ. Frankie…..F[expletive deleted] off!”
English translation: “The politics of bribery.”
English translation: “Buying the votes of Quebecers….It’s like buying the silence of journalists, doctors, judges, unions….”
English translation: “Count on me, you will NOT get my vote! It’s not with a $500 cheque that you will change my mind.”
English translation: “The cheques will attract many votes. Just pitiful!”
English translation: “Here Lego, I’ll give you $500 if you leave Quebec. You are ruining our lives.”
English translation: “[Expletive…] If that is not buying votes, nothing is.”
All comments from above (but especially the last four) raise some rather pertinent and reasonable questions.
Despite the lack of clarity with regards to corresponding rules and guidelines set forth by the provincial election body and applicable election laws in the context of this controversy (as outlined further below), what remains is whether employing such a tactic during an election is fair, ethical, and democratic.
In some of the comments listed above, the term bribery came up. Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term bribe is as follows:
According to the definition above, one can easily conclude that what the political candidate M. François Legault from the CAQ party did during the election campaign can indeed be construed as a form of bribery.
In the business world, a common measure that is used to assess whether corruption or bribery has occurred is if, even the appearance of an influence to sway a decision (such as the selection of a supplier for a large contract, for instance) occurs, then it is considered as such.
Governments seek suppliers all the time for various projects and have strict guidelines and clear laws which prohibit choosing them based on money and influence.
Should it not be monitored in the same manner with provincial elections, especially since the election body – Elections Quebec – is an office that is under the purview of the provincial legislature (National Assembly of Quebec)?
Elections Québec has replied to one of my tweets regarding the François Legault plea to voters; and a media-relations spokesperson has also replied to my more detailed inquiry to them which contained many questions. Here are some of the key points retained from his email reply which are similar in nature to their tweeted reply (and linked explainer ‘Élections Québec explique le concept de promesses électorales vs contrepartie en échange d'un vote’):
“De façon générale, la Loi électorale prévoit une infraction pour toute tentative d’influencer un électeur à voter en faveur d’une personne candidate ou à s’abstenir de voter au moyen d’une contrepartie (don, prêt, charge, avantage, etc.). Ainsi, pour constituer une infraction, une contrepartie doit être liée à l’exercice ou non du vote, et ce, sans égard à l’issue de l’élection. Cela n’empêche toutefois pas les partis ou les candidats de prendre des engagements quant aux actes publics qu’ils entendent poser s’ils sont élus.”
English translation (via Google Translate, with emphasis added): “In general, the Election Act provides an offense for any attempt to influence an elector to vote in favor of a candidate or to abstain from voting by means of a consideration (gift, loan, office, advantage, etc.). Thus, to constitute an offence, consideration must be linked to the exercise or not of the vote, regardless of the outcome of the election. This does not, however, prevent parties or candidates from making commitments as to the public acts they intend to perform if elected.”
The spokesperson referred me to the related election law provision (in French) to this effect [emphasis added]:
“558. The following persons are liable to a fine of $5,000 to $20,000 for a first offence, and of $10,000 to $30,000 for any subsequent offence within 10 years:
(1) every candidate or every person who later becomes a candidate who, in order to influence the vote of an elector, obtains or attempts to obtain, by himself or through another person, his vote or incites him to refrain from voting by promising or granting him any gift, loan, office, employment or other benefit;”
Though the spokesperson did not mention the following in his email reply, Elections Quebec did include it in their referenced tweet:
“De plus, une distinction doit être faite entre une « promesse électorale », qui est associée aux actes publics qu’un candidat s’engage à poser s’il est élu et la tentative d’offrir une contrepartie (monétaire, emploi, etc.) à un vote ou à une abstention. /6”
English translation (via Google Translate, with emphasis added): “In addition, a distinction must be made between an "electoral promise", which is associated with the public acts that a candidate undertakes to perform if he is elected and the attempt to offer a counterpart (monetary, employment, etc. ) to a vote or abstention. /6”
Along with:
“Pour constituer une infraction, une contrepartie en échange d’un vote doit être reliée à l’exercice/abstention du vote d’un électeur, peu importe le résultat de l’élection. Cette infraction vise à bloquer toute tentative de contrôler indument le vote d’un électeur. /7”
English translation (via Google Translate, with emphasis added): “To constitute an offence, a consideration in exchange for a vote must be connected to the casting/abstaining of the vote by a voter, regardless of the outcome of the election. This offense is intended to block any attempt to improperly control a voter's vote. /7”
So, what are we to make of this? The aforementioned statements and laws fall short in providing absolute clarity on whether M. Legault’s words and actions constituted an offence.
The key determining passage here is [emphasis added] “To constitute an offence, a consideration in exchange for a vote must be connected to the casting/abstaining of the vote by a voter…” In other words, did [some] voters cast their ballots for M. Legault and the CAQ based on the consideration he verbally mentioned in his video plea (i.e., the monetary incentive/benefit that would ensue)?
This is perhaps a matter that could be best contemplated by lawyers and experts in the field.
At the very least, there are ethical and fairness considerations that should be genuinely examined and retained from this 43rd provincial election.
In Quebec, The Ethics Commissioner (an independent authority responsible for enforcing and applying the ethical principles and rules guiding the conduct of the Members of the Québec National Assembly and their staff) is the authority to examine this affair from these ethical and fairness perspectives. Though this author has not had time to contact this office as of publishing time, it his intention to do so. And if concerned citizens wish to contact them for a related inquiry into this matter or complain about the situation, they can and certainly should do so.
While a ruling party has a right to allocate funds in projects it sees fit, many have contended that using taxpayer money as a driver for promotional activities concurrently in the midst of an electoral period is highly inappropriate.
Moreover, even if it had been promised before the election campaign, using it as a persuasion tool during the campaign can be regarded as improper, or interpreted by the voting public – particularly all those who were not voting for the CAQ – as “consideration”.
There is also the added controversy about the source of the funds to be used for cheques paid to citizens that were explicitly mentioned by M. Legault in his message to electors.
This very sentiment was expressed by Journal de Montréal columnist Michel Girard in his opinion piece from March 29, 2022 titled ‘Le cadeau caquiste de 500$ vient de nos poches’ (English translation: ‘The caquiste gift of $500 comes from our pockets.’ ,note: ‘caquiste’ refers to the ruling members of the CAQ party in power). Here, the journalist was referring to an earlier income tax credit to citizens from the Legault government which ended up costing Québec taxpayers a whopping $3.2 billion from the provincial coffers. In the user comments section for this article, we can see an extension of the author’s sentiment with the following mention:
User comment from the Journal de Montréal opinion piece ‘Le cadeau caquiste de 500$ vient de nos poches’. English translation: And some dusty eyes prior to the elections!! Buy our votes with...our own money...they have it down...the CAQ”
So, even long before this election campaign was underway there already existed a sentiment that the ruling party was using taxpayer funds for its own political advancement.
Sure, probably a large part of the population welcomed these cheques with open arms amidst a backdrop of rampant inflation. But the point here is that it engendered an unfair playing field for the provincial election that was to come since it put the other political parties at a distinct disadvantage.
For a supposed vibrant democracy such as Canada and an esteemed province such as Quebec, this creates a very dangerous political precedent that can beget very unhealthy consequences in the years to come.
There is a wise quote ringing in my ears after reading this.
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."
2 Peter 2:3
Feigned words...covetousness...merchandise...
The impulse for deception and manipulation is as old as the hills.