Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the March 19, 2012, By-election Held in Toronto–Danforth and the November 26, 2012, By-elections Held in Calgary Centre, Durham and Victoria
Appendix
Type of facility | Ordinary poll 2 | Advance poll | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Percentage (%) | Number | Percentage (%) | |
Toronto–Danforth | ||||
Apartment building | 4 | 9.3 | 0 | 0 |
Church hall | 6 | 14.0 | 3 | 33.3 |
Community centre | 5 | 11.6 | 1 | 11.1 |
Educational facility | 15 | 34.9 | 2 | 22.2 |
Municipal or township hall | 1 | 2.3 | 1 | 11.1 |
Royal Canadian Legion | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 |
Seniors' residence | 10 | 23.3 | 1 | 11.1 |
Other | 1 | 2.3 | 1 | 11.1 |
Total | 43 | 100 | 9 | 100 |
Calgary Centre | ||||
Apartment building | 4 | 12.5 | 0 | 0 |
Church hall | 5 | 15.6 | 0 | 0 |
Community centre | 10 | 31.3 | 2 | 66.7 |
Educational facility | 10 | 31.3 | 1 | 33.3 |
Seniors' residence | 3 | 9.4 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 32 | 100 | 3 | 100 |
Durham | ||||
Church hall | 13 | 18.8 | 3 | 42.9 |
Community centre | 18 | 26.1 | 3 | 42.9 |
Educational facility | 29 | 42.0 | 0 | 0 |
Municipal or township hall | 1 | 1.4 | 0 | 0 |
Recreation centre | 1 | 1.4 | 1 | 14.3 |
Seniors' residence | 6 | 8.7 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 1 | 1.4 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 69 | 100 | 7 | 100 |
Victoria | ||||
Church hall | 7 | 24.1 | 4 | 23.5 |
Commercial site | 1 | 3.4 | 1 | 5.9 |
Community centre | 3 | 10.3 | 4 | 23.5 |
Educational facility | 13 | 44.8 | 6 | 35.3 |
Recreation centre | 1 | 3.4 | 0 | 0 |
Royal Canadian Legion | 1 | 3.4 | 1 | 5.9 |
Seniors' residence | 1 | 3.4 | 1 | 5.9 |
Other | 2 | 6.9 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 29 | 100 | 17 | 100 |
1 Because the percentages have been rounded, there may be some discrepancies in the totals.
2 Excludes mobile polls.
Electoral district | Ordinary polls | Advance polls | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Stationary | Mobile | |||
Toronto–Danforth | 184 | 0 | 10 | 194 |
Calgary Centre | 236 | 12 | 11 | 259 |
Durham | 218 | 2 | 14 | 234 |
Victoria | 220 | 17 | 17 | 254 |
Electoral district | Ordinary polling sites | Mobile polling sites | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2012 by-election |
41st general election | 2012 by-election |
41st general election | |
Toronto–Danforth | 43 | 41 | 0 | 0 |
Calgary Centre | 32 | 35 | 29 | 18 |
Durham | 69 | 66 | 7 | 5 |
Victoria | 29 | 27 | 46 | 44 |
Statutory provision(s) adapted | Explanatory notes |
---|---|
Sections 22, 135, 283 | Purpose: Allowed returning officers to hire additional election officers where necessary to effectively conduct an advance poll. This adaptation was made in the by-election of March 19 as well as in the by-elections of November 26, 2012. Explanation: Provisions of the Act dealing with staffing levels at advance polls and on polling day have not been amended to deal with the additional and more complex tasks that election officers must carry out. These tasks result from the new voter identification requirements as well as the need to transmit data about electors who have voted to candidates' representatives periodically during the day. As well, more and more electors are voting on advance polling days, but the Act provides for fewer personnel on these days and requires more formalities for voters to complete. Adaptation: Authorized the returning officers to appoint additional persons to carry out functions under the Act, including counting the ballots, if required. |
Section 124 | Purpose: Permitted additional central poll supervisors not resident in the electoral district to perform tasks as part of the on-site conformity advisor initiative. This adaptation was made only for the by-elections of November 26, 2012. Explanation: It was found that during the 41st general election, administrative irregularities occurred at the polls in Etobicoke Centre. Given the serious impact that these irregularities could have on the confidence of the public in the integrity of the electoral process, an on-site conformity advisor initiative was devised for the by-elections of November 26, 2012. The advisors would monitor the electoral operations and record-keeping practices of election officers to prevent irregularities and better understand the problems that arise. Individuals with a superior understanding of electoral processes were required to carry out the initiative as additional central poll supervisors, even if they did not reside in the electoral districts, as is normally required for this type of election officer. Adaptation: Authorized qualified electors to be appointed as additional central poll supervisors to supervise proceedings at the advance polls and on polling day. |
Statutory provision(s) | Explanatory notes |
---|---|
Section 233 (new adaptation for the purposes of a by-election; previously made in a general election) | Purpose: Extended to electors voting by special ballot the rules regarding proof of residence applicable to electors voting at the advance polls or on polling day who have no civic address. Explanation: Subsection 143(3.1) of the Act provides that if the address contained in the piece or pieces of identification provided by an elector at an advance poll or on polling day does not prove the elector's residence, but is consistent with the information relating to the elector appearing on the list of electors, the elector's residence is deemed to have been proven. The Act does not contain a similar provision for electors who wish to vote by special ballot, but it sometimes happens that electors residing in rural or remote areas have no civic address by which to prove their address or that such a residential address is not contained in their pieces of identification. Adaptation: The adaptation by instruction gives electors who wish to vote by special ballot the same flexibility in proving their place of residence as is given to electors who vote at the advance polls or on polling day. |
Section 237 (new adaptation for the purposes of a by-election; previously made in a general election) | Purpose: Allowed a returning officer to issue a second special ballot kit, with the prior approval of the Special Voting Rules Administrator, to an elector who swears under oath that he or she did not receive a special ballot issued by the local Elections Canada office. Explanation: The Act does not allow for a returning officer to issue a second special ballot voting kit to an elector. Adaptation: The adaptation by instruction was required in order to allow an elector to exercise his or her right to vote by special ballot. |
Sections 246, 247 (adaptation made in a previous election) | Purpose: Extended the statutory process for voting under the SVR in provincial correctional institutions to federal correctional institutions. Explanation: Because the Act formerly prohibited voting by incarcerated electors in federal institutions, it does not describe a process whereby such electors can vote. Adaptation: Since the 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauvé struck down the prohibition, the Act has had to be adapted in every federal election to extend the statutory process for voting in provincial correctional institutions to federal correctional institutions. |
Section 276 (new adaptation for the purposes of a by-election; previously made in a general election) | Purpose: Allowed certain ballots to be counted that had not been placed in an outer envelope. Explanation: Electors voting under the SVR sometimes do so before the ballots are printed. In this case, they use a blank ballot, writing on them the name of the candidate for whom they are voting. They then place their ballot in an outer envelope. When they vote at a local Elections Canada office, the envelope and the ballot it contains are then put into the ballot box. Once the ballots are printed, individuals voting under the SVR at a local Elections Canada office use a printed ballot instead of a blank one. They must still place their ballot in the outer envelope, which is then dropped into the ballot box. Election officials administering this type of vote sometimes forget that even when regular ballots are used, voting under the SVR requires that voters place their ballot in the outer envelope before dropping it in the ballot box, and they can give voters the wrong instructions. Adaptation: The adaptation by instruction provides that in this type of circumstance, if certain conditions are met and subject to the agreement of the Special Voting Rules Administrator, the ballots may be counted. |
Electoral district | Toronto–Danforth | Calgary Centre | Durham | Victoria |
---|---|---|---|---|
Electors on preliminary lists, including SVR | 74,612 | 90,663 | 94,137 | 88,083 |
Moves between electoral districts1 | 678 | 1,922 | 1,116 | 2,645 |
Electors added2 | 562 | 4,631 | 1,659 | 2,847 |
Moves within an electoral district3 | 334 | 862 | 911 | 1,993 |
Other corrections4 | 895 | 835 | 572 | 587 |
Electors removed from lists5 | 739 | 2,629 | 1,200 | 2,640 |
SVR Group 1 updates6 | -2 | -5 | -2 | 7 |
Electors on final lists7 | 75,111 | 94,582 | 95,710 | 90,942 |
1 Electors who moved into the electoral district from another electoral district before the beginning of the revision period but were not included in the last release from the Register before the by-elections were called.
2 Electors who did not appear on any lists at the beginning of the by-elections and were added during the events.
3 Electors who appeared on a list for their electoral district at the beginning of the by-elections but at the wrong address. These figures also include administrative changes that the returning officers made to elector records during the by-elections.
4 Electors who appeared on a list of electors with the correct address and requested a correction to their name or mailing address during the by-elections.
5 Electors who appeared on a list of electors but were removed for one of the following reasons: they had died; they asked to be removed; they had moved; they were not qualified to be on the list (for example, because they were under 18 years of age or not citizens); they had a duplicate record on the list. This figure also reflects elector records removed because the electors had moved to another electoral district during the by-elections and duplicates removed when the final lists of electors were being prepared.
6 Indicates the increase or decrease in the number of Group 1 electors registered under the SVR (Canadian electors temporarily residing outside Canada, Canadian Forces electors and incarcerated electors) during the by-elections.
7 The number of electors on the final lists is the sum of electors on the preliminary lists, moves between electoral districts, electors added, and SVR Group 1 updates, minus electors removed from lists.
Election day | Electoral district | Ballots issued | Valid ballots | Rejected ballots | Ballots cast | Ballots returned on time1 | Ballots received late | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 (Canadian Forces, international, incarcerated) | March 19, 2012 | Toronto–Danforth | 88 | 29 | 0 | 29 | 33.0% | 1 |
November 26, 2012 | Calgary Centre | 234 | 39 | 2 | 41 | 17.5% | 2 | |
Durham | 148 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 11.5% | 1 | ||
Victoria | 509 | 71 | 1 | 72 | 14.1% | 12 | ||
Subtotals | 979 | 156 | 3 | 159 | 16.2% | 16 | ||
Group 2 (local 2 and national 3) | March 19, 2012 | Toronto–Danforth | 504 | 491 | 7 | 498 | 98.8% | 2 |
November 26, 2012 | Calgary Centre | 558 | 546 | 0 | 546 | 97.8% | 1 | |
Durham | 514 | 493 | 1 | 494 | 96.1% | 5 | ||
Victoria | 715 | 697 | 1 | 698 | 97.6% | 7 | ||
Subtotals | 2,291 | 2,227 | 9 | 2,236 | 97.6% | 15 | ||
Totals | 3,270 | 2,383 | 12 | 2,395 | 73.2% | 31 |
1 Percentage of ballots cast by ballots issued.
2 Electors whose applications were processed and whose ballots were counted by local Elections Canada offices. This includes electors who registered to vote in acute care facilities. The number of local ballots received late is not available.
3 Electors whose applications were processed and whose ballots were counted by Elections Canada in Ottawa.
Electoral district | Toronto–Danforth | Calgary Centre | Durham | Victoria |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of electors on final lists | 75,111 | 94,582 | 95,710 | 90,942 |
Ordinary polls2 | 27,077 | 24,478 | 28,782 | 32,611 |
83.4% | 88.3% | 84.2% | 83.3% | |
Advance polls | 4,865 | 2,667 | 4,890 | 5,749 |
15.0% | 9.6% | 14.3% | 14.7% | |
Voting by special ballot (under the SVR) |
527 | 587 | 511 | 770 |
1.6% | 2.1% | 1.5% | 2.0% | |
Rejected ballots | 150 | 92 | 115 | 98 |
0.5% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | |
Total valid ballots | 32,319 | 27,640 | 34,068 | 39,032 |
99.5% | 99.7% | 99.7% | 99.7% | |
Total votes cast | 32,469 | 27,732 | 34,183 | 39,130 |
Voter turnout in 2012 by-elections |
43.2% | 29.3% | 35.7% | 43.0% |
Voter turnout in previous general election (May 2011) |
65.0% | 55.3% | 63.2% | 67.5% |
1 The percentages have been rounded.
2 Includes electors who voted at mobile polls.
Candidate and affiliation | Place of residence | Occupation | Valid votes obtained | Percentage of valid votes (%) 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Toronto–Danforth | ||||
Craig Scott New Democratic Party |
Toronto | Law professor | 19,210 | 59.4 |
Grant Gordon Liberal Party of Canada |
Toronto | Advertising executive | 9,215 | 28.5 |
Andrew Keyes Conservative Party of Canada |
North York | Consultant | 1,736 | 5.4 |
Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu Green Party of Canada |
Toronto | Community organizer | 1,517 | 4.7 |
Dorian Baxter Progressive Canadian Party |
Newmarket | Anglican clergyman | 208 | 0.6 |
John Christopher Recker Libertarian Party of Canada |
Toronto | Halfway house case manager | 133 | 0.4 |
Leslie Bory Independent |
Waterford | Machinist | 77 | 0.2 |
Christopher Robert Porter Canadian Action Party |
Victoria, BC | Sales manager | 75 | 0.2 |
John C. Turmel Independent |
Brantford | Banking systems engineer | 57 | 0.2 |
Brian Jedan United Party of Canada |
Toronto | Media consultant | 55 | 0.2 |
Bahman Yazdanfar Independent |
Toronto | Business consultant | 36 | 0.1 |
Calgary Centre | ||||
Joan Crockatt Conservative Party of Canada |
Calgary | Journalist | 10,191 | 36.9 |
Harvey Locke Liberal Party of Canada |
Banff | Conservationist | 9,033 | 32.7 |
Chris Turner Green Party of Canada |
Calgary | Writer | 7,090 | 25.7 |
Dan Meades New Democratic Party |
Calgary | Poverty reduction advocate | 1,064 | 3.8 |
Antoni Grochowski Independent |
Calgary | Architect | 141 | 0.5 |
Tony Prashad Libertarian Party of Canada |
Calgary | Calgary Transit employee | 121 | 0.4 |
Durham | ||||
Erin O'Toole Conservative Party of Canada |
Courtice | Lawyer | 17,280 | 50.7 |
Larry O'Connor New Democratic Party |
Minden | Retired | 8,946 | 26.3 |
Grant Humes Liberal Party of Canada |
Bowmanville | Retired businessman | 5,887 | 17.3 |
Virginia Ervin Green Party of Canada |
Hampton | Field technician | 1,386 | 4.1 |
Andrew Moriarity Christian Heritage Party of Canada |
Bowmanville | Student | 437 | 1.3 |
Michael Nicula Online Party of Canada |
Toronto | IT entrepreneur | 132 | 0.4 |
Victoria | ||||
Murray Rankin New Democratic Party |
Victoria | Lawyer | 14,507 | 37.2 |
Donald Galloway Green Party of Canada |
Victoria | Professor | 13,389 | 34.3 |
Dale Gann Conservative Party of Canada |
Victoria | High technology executive | 5,654 | 14.5 |
Paul Summerville Liberal Party of Canada |
Victoria | Adjunct professor | 5,097 | 13.1 |
Art Lowe Libertarian Party of Canada |
Victoria | Property manager | 193 | 0.5 |
Philip G. Ney Christian Heritage Party of Canada |
Sooke | Physician | 192 | 0.5 |
1 The percentages have been rounded.