18 Aug 2025: Poilievre/By-election in Battle River–Crowfoot (AB)

[Good2Golf]

100% disagree. Elections Canada asked last year for this nonsense to stop. It pisses people off. One of my 1,001 Liberal voting aunts (who lives in Pierre's old riding) was furious about the ridiculous ballet. As were many other people.

Meh. It didn’t bother me at all. Maybe your aunts need to harden up?

 

[RangerRay]

Want to see it stop? Do it in a liberal riding. Elections Canada will outlaw it within days.

They did it in my riding which is Liberal. Nothing changed.

 

[lenaitch]

Whatever, I'm sure it will have it's own discussion when the Election Canada inquiry takes place into the irregularities in the recent election.

What inquiry? There were some allegations of irregularities but I don't what became of them. Even at that, would any have turned a riding? Are we turning into the US where every election is 'stolen' and the 'other' should all be in jail?

 

[Remius]

I’m of two minds. They are not breaking any laws or rules. It’s allowed but it isn’t something that was an intended.

Rules as written and rules as intended conundrum.

I support their right to make a statement about their cause. But not the method being used.

But the effect it can have on some people (ie people with disabilities) means that it can risk the democratic process even if it affects a small amount of people. Yes, I know that elections Canada put steps in place to mitigate any of that which is good. But…

Malicious Compliance is what I would call it.

 

[Remius]

What inquiry? There were some allegations of irregularities but I don't what became of them. Even at that, would any have turned a riding? Are we turning into the US where every election is 'stolen' and the 'other' should all be in jail?

There is no inquiry.

Elections Canada prepares a full report after every election. Including recommendations.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Meh. It didn’t bother me at all. Maybe your aunts need to harden up?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

But the effect it can have on some people (ie people with disabilities) means that it can risk the democratic process even if it affects a small amount of people. Yes, I know that elections Canada put steps in place to mitigate any of that which is good. But…

Malicious Compliance is what I would call it.

My wife has worked multiple elections, and was a Poll Site Supervisor this most recent election.

There is EVERY opportunity afforded to eligible electors to cast their ballot. The training program Deputy Returning Officers and Poll Clerks receive is thorough and covers many of the "what if" scenarios.

I asked her about the "Longest Ballot" thing and she kind of shrugged. She said it would cause a delay, but ultimately they would throw as many DROs at it as they could to assist the electorate, because they do that anyways if turn out is higher than expected or if they are in a high needs polling station (e.g. a hospital, LTCF, or area with a large unhoused population).

 

[Good2Golf]

I asked her about the "Longest Ballot" thing and she kind of shrugged. She said it would cause a delay, but ultimately they would throw as many DROs at it as they could to assist the electorate, because they do that anyways if turn out is higher than expected or if they are in a high needs polling station (e.g. a hospital, LTCF, or area with a large unhoused population).

The DRO I spoke with said it would take more ballot boxes because of the size, which would have some cost associated, but he thought it was minor compared to the overall costs including personnel pay.

Certainly far less money than an unwanted election barely halfway through a mandate…

 

[HavokFour]

Critchley certainly isn't going to make it easy for Poilievre. Her presence online has really ramped up the last week on social media. Gotten to a point where I'm seeing more of her than anything Pierre related to the byelection. Even getting her campaign ads thrown at me on Youtube, a resident of Ottawa.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Certainly far less money than an unwanted election barely halfway through a mandate…

Oh I don't know, I know lots of people that want another election. I can wait though. Carney hasn't been tested under fire yet. I'll reserve judgement until PP is back in the House, trying to keep him honest (a lofty goal for anyone, when Carney is the subject).

We have thousands of Canadians living rough, because of an inept government. Millions using food banks, out of control crime and punishment, and making Canada the international illegal pharmaceutical lab that it has become. However, we always seem to have billions to spend on foreign aid, in part, establishing housing and food relief around the world. The cost of an election is paltry pocket change comparatively. Money is moot though. We don’t have any. We're broke. If we're going to borrow the better part of $100,000 billion, on top of what we've borrowed/ wasted already since trudeau/carney took over, a few million of non existent money for an election should be a simple line item buried in the non existent budget. The cost of an election needs to be weighed against the costs to the country under another liberal government.

 

[ArmyRick]

And that is due to what, exactly? That there were more candidates than a Blue one and Red one like in the U.S.?

Under our laws we can have multiple independent candidates who are valid options, but also, this can be used to flood the ballot. How do you differentiate the two? Who gets to decide? The Canada Elections Act prescribes who can become a candidate and as far as I am aware, all 50 in this by-election were legal and vetted by the Chief Electoral Officer.

If Elections Canada wants it to stop, it is Parliament that must amend the Act to forbid it. Which brings me to your secind point...



This is exactly what democracy is. Using the system in place to try and bring about changes to it that people feel are in need of changing.

Eliminating this kind of protest would require revisions to the Canada Elections Act. No one in their right mind wants to do that, especially in a minority parliament. Why? Amendments.

Additionally, me things that may be the end goal. This group wants to move away from FPTP and they are using the system as written to at least bring awareness to their cause.


Works for whom? It works great for Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, and Ontario, but not so much for the rest of Canada. It works for staunch Conservatives and Liberals, but makes Dippers and other party followers have to either vote with their heart or vote strategically.

FPTP worked when our electorate was small and centralized to a few ridings. It has outlived its suitability due to our population growth and regional disparity.

Proportional Representation and Ranked Balloting work in other social democracies around the world; perhaps we at least look at it as an option?

The majority of these people running as "longest ballot candidates" have ZERO intention of trying to be an MP to represent that particular or any other riding.

In fact, I did your response typical "lets not deal with a problem that is" mind set that plagues so many Canadian minds. The ONE and ONLY f-ing reason you run as a candidate is to legit try to become an MP. If not wanting to be an MP, GO HOME and shut up.

Want to protest the electoral system? Try a petition. Try a protest outside the MPs office. This is not the way to do it by putting a bunch of names on a ballot of people who will do ZERO door knocking, zero canvassing, zero in person debates, zero event attendance, etc.

That alone is the deciding factor that put a full stop to this, period, end it NOW.

 

[ArmyRick]

Critchley certainly isn't going to make it easy for Poilievre. Her presence online has really ramped up the last week on social media. Gotten to a point where I'm seeing more of her than anything Pierre related to the byelection. Even getting her campaign ads thrown at me on Youtube, a resident of Ottawa.

I can respect that Bonnie is NOT a longest ballot candidate but a legit independent candidate. She is door knocking big time, canvassing, advertising and ohhh, she has also asked the ballot committee to politely knock it off (it HURTS her chances more than anything as a legit candidate.

 

[ArmyRick]

Meh. It didn’t bother me at all. Maybe your aunts need to harden up?

Trust me, my aunts are as Liberal as you can get. They vote Liberal and when they don't like the Liberal option, they don't vote at all.

This is pissing people off on ll sides of the political spectrum. And the head of Elections Canada did have words to say about it.

The people who think this is an ok form of protest probably think our criminal justice and bail is fine, our immigration is hunky dorry, our economy is doing just marvelous and other stupid wish washy mind sets. Face the real world before it hits you in the face full force.

 

[Blackadder1916]

100% disagree. Elections Canada asked last year for this nonsense to stop. It pisses people off.

This is pissing people off on ll sides of the political spectrum. And the head of Elections Canada did have words to say about it.

The people who think this is an ok form of protest probably think our criminal justice and bail is fine, our immigration is hunky dorry, our economy is doing just marvelous and other stupid wish washy mind sets. Face the real world before it hits you in the face full force.

These are the words that the Chief Electoral Officer had about long ballots. Like most activity of Elections Canada, it concerns itself mostly with the legality and mechanics of conducting elections. In the last election, it was very evident during the poll worker training (I was a Central Poll Supervisor) the emphasis that Elections Canada places on impartiality and providing accessibility. I see nothing in the CEO's position that indicates a stance against the motives of the long ballot crowd or consideration of the negative reactions of those who disagree with them.

Statements and Speeches

---

www.elections.ca

---

A second area that I would urge the committee to consider relates to ballot accessibility. As members are aware, there is a protest movement that has encouraged large numbers of candidates in the 44th general election and in four recent by-elections. The ballot in the September by-election in LaSalle–Emard–Verdun featured 91 candidates.

We have now reached the point where any further increase to the number of candidates will require me to reduce the font size on the ballot, further compounding accessibility challenges. Marking and counting modified ballots takes longer and is more complex for voters and election workers.

While I support the proposal in the bill to reduce the number of signatures required for nominations from 100 to 75, it is important to ensure that the requirement for supporting signatures is not turned on its head. In the case of the longest ballot initiative, we have seen nomination papers for the various participating candidates signed by the same electors. This indicates that voters who sign the nomination papers are not supporting the nomination of a particular candidate, but rather the idea of having as many candidates as possible, whomever they may be (consistent with the goals of the longest ballot initiative).

I wrote to Minister LeBlanc in September, asking the Government to consider an amendment to Bill C-65, which I have included in the table that I shared with the Committee, to ensure that voters are limited to signing the nomination paper in support of only one candidate. It is essential, however, that candidates should not have their nomination papers rejected or challenged simply because a person happens to have signed someone else's nomination paper.

---

Long ballot accessibility considerations - CEO appearance on Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Electoral Participation Act) before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Appearance of the Chief Electoral Officer Bill C-65 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Electoral Participation Act)

www.elections.ca

Key messages

• Elections Canada (EC) strives to ensure that the ballot's design is adapted to fit any number of confirmed candidates while maintaining a balance of accessibility, security, reliability and fairness.
• Long ballots create additional barriers for voters and electoral workers with disabilities.
• Long ballot accessibility considerations were first identified during the November 2022 by-election in Mississauga–Lakeshore.
• Since then, EC has used various channels to gather feedback on accessibility considerations associated with long ballots.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree the long ballot thing is stupid but it's within the rules.

If you want the rules changed engage your MP. Make it known this is an issue for you.