The Ink — April 28
🇨🇦 2025 Canadian Federal Election Special...
Our thoughts are with the victims of the horrific attack at the Lapu Lapu Day festival in Vancouver on Saturday night. Support is available for those affected.
Welcome to The Ink.
Good morning. It’s election day in Canada. If you’re a Canadian citizen, please exercise your right to vote!
Recently on The Squid
by Julian A.S. — How today’s long-anticipated election was shaping up on the eve of its announcement.
🇨🇦 2025 Canadian Federal Election Special:
Election Day Information & Resources.
“The Conservative kingmaker behind Poilievre” – Front Burner
Why Poilievre’s Pledge to Use the Notwithstanding Clause Troubles Me So
Election Day Information & Resources
Compare the major parties on key issues with the CBC’s platform tracker.
Verify your voter registration with Elections Canada.
Find information on your riding, including who is running, and where to cast your ballot today.
Long Lines at Advance Polls. Hopefully Not Today!
Julian: Today’s election is the second in which I have voted this month. In early April, Vancouver held a municipal by-election to replace two city councillors. If you are at all familiar with my work on The Squid, you might not be surprised to learn that I voted in advance at the first opportunity in both the civic election as well as this federal election. While the dynamics and stakes of these two campaigns were undoubtedly quite different, the common thread was the unacceptably long lines at polling places during the respective advance voting periods. In the municipal by-election, I had to wait an hour to cast my ballot. A few weeks later during the federal advance voting days, my parents were made to wait for two hours (no, this is not an exaggeration) to vote.
Forcing electors to queue for hours is voter suppression. I don’t mean that there is a malicious or targetted conspiracy at play to make voting more difficult (like in parts of the United States), but the intent or lack thereof isn't really the point. Hours-long lines at polling places is, ipso facto, voter suppression: some electors simply can not or will not wait that long, and fewer people will vote as a result. The logistics of the voting process should never be an impediment to democratic participation.
So what gives? These two recent elections I participated in, which saw similarly unacceptable wait times, were run by entirely unrelated bodies: the municipal by-election by the City of Vancouver, and the federal election by Elections Canada.
In the case of the Vancouver by-election, the reason for the long lines quickly became clear: the city had made a gamble, prioritizing mail-in ballots and therefore cutting staff by almost two-thirds for in-person polls. Coupled with unusually high voter turnout for a by-election (probably due to voters’ dissatisfaction with the incumbent ABC Party) the result was frustrated electors waiting an hour or more to cast their ballots.
Similar factors looked to be on display across the country during advance polling in this federal election. A record two million Canadians voted on the first day of advance polling alone, with many complaining of very long wait times, including my patient parents. It seems that our electoral systems, at various levels of government, have settled into assumptions about lacklustre voter turnout which are now being challenged by high-stakes campaigns and a resurgent electorate. The result is a system which is straining under the demand, to the detriment of voters. This is unacceptable, and Canadians should expect more investment in our electoral infrastructure going forwards.
I’m very curious to see what the ultimate participation rate will look like in today’s federal election. Early indications suggest that turnout may be higher than recent elections. However, advance polls are not necessarily reliable indicators of overall turnout: my belief is that, by and large, people who vote early are motivated electors who were going to vote in any case. How the chips fall on election day itself is what really counts. Let’s hope that Elections Canada has learned the right lessons from the recent polling debacles and has made the necessary preparations to run today’s election as efficiently as possible—and that Canadians, in turn, show up to make their voices heard.
Go vote! Even if you have to wait in line (though hopefully—probably—not for hours)!
“The Conservative kingmaker behind Poilievre” – Front Burner
Julian: Given that the Conservatives have ostensibly been preparing for this election for quite a while, one might have expected them to have spent that time building the campaign infrastructure necessary to hit the ground running: scouting and vetting solid candidates, building competent teams to support them, and so on. However, beyond the political headwinds of serious messaging problems and a dramatic collapse in public opinion, both of which I wrote about in greater length at the outset of this campaign, the Conservatives have also been struggling with basic operational issues. Despite months of demanding an election, their internal disorganization was such that some members of the Conservative team were reportedly still waiting to learn their roles just hours before the campaign began. As the campaign unfolded, the party was forced to drop numerous candidates, failed to properly nominate others, and has been accused of centralizing power with Poilievre’s chief strategist—Jenni Byrne—in a bullying and controlling fashion. In short, it’s been a mess, described by insiders as “dysfunctional” and likened to a civil war.
The broader political environment may be outside of the Conservative Party’s control, but these self-inflicted campaign missteps—both political and managerial—have only served to make their bad situation even more precarious. Byrne and Poilievre have spent the campaign largely doubling down on the tactics and rhetoric which had served them so well last year, even while the evidence increasingly suggested that this may no longer be a surefire strategy.
The frustration over the way the Conservative campaign was run is perhaps best demonstrated by the heated war of words that erupted between the provincial Ontario Progressive Conservatives and the federal Conservatives. Kory Teneycke, one of Premier Doug Ford’s chief strategists, said of Poilievre’s campaign, “you've got to get on the fucking ballot question that is driving votes or you are going to lose.” Considering Jenni Byrne’s near-unilateral authority over the Poilievre campaign, these attacks can be understood as harsh criticisms of her management. Or, as Doug Ford put it, “...if Kory was running that campaign, I don’t think Mr. Poilievre would be in the position he’s in right now.” Clearly, there is no love lost between the Poilievre and Ford camps.
Although Jenni Byrne is not well known outside of Conservative circles, she has played a massive role in Canadian politics over the last two decades. She has been a top advisor to generations of Conservative leaders, notably Stephen Harper, Erin O’Toole, and Pierre Poilievre. Byrne is notorious for her ruthless drive and desire for a certain style of right wing politics, though in this unconventional campaign, her inflexibility may have become a liability as much as it has been an asset. This recent episode of the CBC podcast Front Burner dives into Byrne’s career to unpack who she is, her influence on Canadian conservatism, and the extent to which she has single-handedly shaped this campaign. Her fate, like that of Pierre Poilievre, may well be decided by the outcome of today’s election.
Why Poilievre’s Pledge to Use the Notwithstanding Clause Troubles Me So
Julian: During this campaign, the Conservatives made a promise that has truly unsettled me. Poilievre says he will do something unprecedented: invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, to guarantee that multiple-murderers die in prison with zero chance of parole.
I have little sympathy for convicted mass murderers. That’s beside the point. The problem is that the Conservatives want the government to begin dictating who is and who is not deserving of constitutional protections, in direct contravention of constitutional principles and judicial verdicts. That is a very dangerous game to play. It is perhaps one of the slipperiest of slippery slopes in the Canadian political context.
So what is the notwithstanding clause?
The notwithstanding clause is a mechanism of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows provincial or federal governments to pass legislation that does not adhere to certain sections of the Charter, specifically the fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights sections. Its use means that, for a period of five years at a time, the courts cannot strike down the pertinent legislation even if it is otherwise unconstitutional. The clause is a legal quirk that was included as a compromise to get the provinces and territories to agree to the current constitutional framework when it was being negotiated in the early 1980s. In theory, it gives elected legislatures recourse in the face of judicial overreach.
To this end, the notwithstanding clause was supposed to be a last resort for governments to implement essential legislation in extraordinary circumstances (provincial governments have increasingly and controversially used the clause, though the legislation of criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government). There is good reason that no federal government has yet invoked the clause: once it is deemed politically acceptable to override the fundamental rights of Canadians at the national level, especially those directly affirmed by the courts, there is no telling where that path may lead. It’s no surprise that human rights watchdogs have expressed alarm at Poilievre’s plan.
But the Conservative promise to leverage this unprecedented power must have an airtight and irrefutable justification, right? Right?
There is no doubt that there are legitimate conversations to be had about criminal justice reform in Canada. Data appears to show a slow rise in violent crime over the last decade, and there is a public perception that bail policies are too lax, allowing violent criminals or people in crisis to be released without receiving proper support. Poilievre is seeking to tap into the real concerns that this trend raises. With that said, what’s being proposed by the Conservatives is unbelievably ill-conceived. Revising bail policies to keep violent offenders off the street while awaiting trial—about which there is room for reasonable debate—has absolutely nothing to do with parole eligibility for convicted murderers who will be serving life sentences.
The harshest sentence that can be handed down in Canadian criminal justice is that of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. The previous Conservative government amended the law in 2011 to allow parole ineligibility periods to be stacked, effectively allowing convicts to be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. This was deemed cruel and unconstitutional in a unanimous 2022 Supreme Court ruling. Poilievre has suggested that this was a mistake, and that the notwithstanding clause is now necessary to keep these people locked up.
Crucially—and perhaps someone should remind Mr. Poilievre of this—the ability to apply for parole is by no means a guarantee of being granted that parole. The types of horribly violent offenders, the worst-of-the-worst Poilievre claims to be targeting, are not just being released after 25 years. They are repeatedly denied parole. They are serving their life sentences. Handing down excessively draconian (and unconstitutional) sentences to those who are going to be behind bars for life will not make you safer. It’s political theatre.
Poilievre himself is not able to cite a single example of such a criminal being released early. The only potential public safety benefit one might be able to proffer is that a guaranteed life sentence—as opposed to a practically-guaranteed life sentence—is a slightly better deterrent to a would-be mass murderer. Does anyone seriously think that someone on the brink of committing unspeakable violence is pausing to consider the nuances of parole eligibility a quarter-century down the line? No. Of course not.
On its face, this is not a serious policy proposal. It does not address any legitimate public safety concerns that might exist. This is a political stunt designed to score cheap tough-on-crime points with a move that sounds decisive but is actually meaningless. Beyond that—and the thing that really concerns me—this move would do tremendous harm to our democratic norms. This time, it’s murderers’ fundamental rights that are at risk. It might be cathartic to see them excessively punished. It’s easy enough to look the other way. But once the norm is shattered, who next might we decide is no longer worthy of their rights?
Or, as the Supreme Court ruled: “Everyone would agree that multiple murders are inherently despicable acts and are the most serious of crimes, with consequences that last forever. This appeal is … rather about the limits on the state’s power to punish offenders, which, in a society founded on the rule of law, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”
The potential harm of Poilievre’s promise is unpredictable and long-lasting. The potential benefit is extraordinarily slight—if you even think it’s credible at all. That is just not good enough.
The notwithstanding clause should be used—if ever—as an absolute last resort, not one of the first tools to be reached for. Using the constitutional nuclear option to address an invented problem is ridiculous. This move would weaken the rule of law in Canada, not strengthen it, and would erode crucial democratic norms. There is absolutely no good reason for a Conservative government to invoke the notwithstanding clause in this instance, and there are many excellent reasons not to.
It doesn’t matter that the Conservatives are only promising to trample the constitutional rights of the absolute worst amongst us. The bottom line is that Poilievre is willing to play fast and loose with our bedrock legal protections, and the ability of the courts to enforce them, if he thinks it might score him a few votes. That troubles me, and it should trouble you, too.
whoa! good job. people willing..