Pierre Poilievre

Thursday May 1, 2025

Canada's Conservative Party grapples with internal divisions, leadership scrutiny, and the challenge of uniting diverse ideological factions.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 1, 2025 (The Toronto Star)

The Conservative Conundrum: Disunity and Factionalism Post-Election

As Canada's election campaign nears its end, Trump's rhetoric and policies become pivotal in shaping voter perceptions of leaders Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney.

April 25, 2025

The recent federal election has laid bare the deep-rooted disunity and factionalism within Canada’s Conservative Party, underscoring a schism that has evolved over decades. As Pierre Poilievre grapples with his electoral defeat and the loss of his Ottawa-area seat, the internal blame game has commenced, revealing persistent tensions within the conservative ranks.

Pierre Poilievre’s decision to remain as leader, despite losing his seat, highlights the complexities of the current situation. His leadership style, which aligns with the populist, Alberta-centred wing of conservatism, contrasts with the Progressive Conservative tradition led by figures like Doug Ford. This ideological rift, dating back to the eras of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, continues to challenge the party’s cohesion.

News: ‘It’s an unmitigated disaster’: Conservative insiders debate Pierre Poilievre’s future as leader after election defeat

Pierre Poilievre's plan to invoke the notwithstanding clause threatens Canadian democratic norms and sets a dangerous precedent for federal governance.

April 19, 2025

The schism within the Conservative Party has evolved through key historical milestones. During the 1990s, the Reform Party, led by Preston Manning, emphasized Western interests, fiscal conservatism, and skepticism of federal intervention. Stephen Harper later unified the Reform and Progressive Conservative factions to form the modern Conservative Party, but underlying tensions have persisted.

The party has seen recent leadership turnover reflecting these internal divisions. Andrew Scheer, who led the party in the 2019 election, was criticized for being too socially conservative and was subsequently replaced. Erin O’Toole, who moved the party towards the centre, faced rejection in the aftermath of the 2021 election, highlighting the ongoing struggle to find a leadership approach that resonates with the entire conservative base.

April 9, 2025

Poilievre represents the values of the Reform wing, focusing on conservative fiscal policies and provincial autonomy. His allies, such as Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, share these priorities. In contrast, Doug Ford embodies the centrist Progressive Conservative tradition, emphasizing pragmatic governance and coalition-building. Tim Houston of Nova Scotia aligns with this more moderate approach.

The election results have intensified internal blame and criticism. Figures like Jamil Jivani have accused Ford of undermining Poilievre’s campaign, while Ford’s public criticisms of Poilievre’s strategy reflect deeper personal and political tensions. Ford’s strategic decision to distance himself highlights his alignment with more centrist values and his potential ambitions within the broader Conservative movement.

News: MP accuses Doug Ford of ‘sabotaging’ federal election campaign by helping Liberals

Danielle Smith's alignment with Trump complicates Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre's campaign as he seeks to distance the party from divisive politics while facing criticism over perceived weaknesses.

March 25, 2025

The schism is further exacerbated by Poilievre’s perceived lack of outreach and collaboration with key political figures, including Ford. This strategic misstep isolated his campaign and limited its appeal beyond its populist base. The absence of a united front, especially in critical regions like Ontario, hindered the party’s electoral success.

The Conservative Party now faces a critical juncture. Addressing internal divisions and fostering unity will be essential for future success. The challenge lies in balancing the priorities of both factions and presenting a cohesive platform that resonates with a national audience.

Doug Ford's evolution from a controversial provincial leader to a national unifier fills a leadership void left not just by Justin Trudeau, but also Pierre Poilievre, as Canada faces economic challenges similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, while dealing with his lingering past controversies.

January 15, 2025

Reconciliation efforts must focus on bridging the gap between the Reform and Progressive Conservative traditions. This involves finding common ground on key issues, fostering dialogue, and embracing a leadership approach that unites rather than divides.

As the Conservative Party stands at a crossroads, the recent election serves as a stark reminder of the challenges posed by disunity and factionalism. Pierre Poilievre’s leadership, now under scrutiny, embodies the complexities of balancing the party’s diverse ideological factions. His approach and ability to navigate these internal tensions will significantly influence the party’s trajectory.

Ultimately, the Conservative Party’s path forward hinges on its capacity to reconcile internal differences and adapt to the evolving political landscape. As Poilievre’s leadership is evaluated, there is a pressing need for reflection and adaptation to chart a course that ensures future success and stability. The party must seize this moment to unify and present a vision that resonates across the Canadian political spectrum.

Sunday April 27, 2025

Election 2025 Cartoons

A gallery of editorial cartoons leading up the the April 28, 2025 federal election campaign: 

March 15, 2025
March 21, 2025
March 25, 2025
March 26, 2025
March 27, 2025
March 28, 2025
March 24, 2025
April 2, 2025
April 2, 2025
April 8, 2025
April 9, 2025
April 12, 2025
April 15, 2025
April 17, 2025
April 19, 2025
April 22, 2025
April 23, 2025
April 24, 2025
April 25, 2025
April 26, 2025

Posted to Substack. Please Subscribe.

As people get older and experience many elections, those elections often start to blend together into a blur—especially when it comes to minority governments. It’s one thing to remember the leaders from one election to the next; it’s quite another to keep track of the gains and losses of seats among the four main parties. Add in the key issues of each campaign, and it quickly becomes confusing for anyone who believes the components of campaigning truly matter.

For me, as well as for political enthusiasts and historians, the details of elections are crucial. Campaigns in Canada tend to follow a familiar pattern. They start with the issuing of writs, followed by polls, gaffes, the dropping of candidates, debates, advance polls, the unveiling of costed platforms, endorsements, and the last minute frenzy leading up to election day.

In olden days, politicians would actually show up for editorial board meetings and answer questions with thoughtful answers. Here, Bob Rae, interim leader of the federal Liberal Party before editors at the Hamilton Spectator. Often, I would go to sketch the visitors and listen in on the Q&A. This is long a thing on the past.

These elements have remained consistent in federal elections throughout my career as a political cartoonist. However, what has changed significantly is how media shapes and shares information about candidates and issues. Social media has lessened the need for political groups to communicate through traditional media. In recent elections, I’ve noticed that many local candidates have stopped responding to basic policy questions from newspapers. Many have also not made themselves available for interviews or editorial board meetings. Politicians, like Mr. Poilievre, have limited the number of questions asked during scrums and restricted media access to their campaign buses and planes.

Before anyone brushes this off with a “cry me a river, media dude” attitude, I ask how it helps the public when local party representatives skip all-candidates debates. In my riding of Hamilton Centre, only one candidate showed up to face the sitting NDP MP, Matthew Green, in a televised debate. Ironically, the candidate who attended was from the low-polling Green Party, resulting in a Green vs. Green comedy scenario. This turned into a trivial exercise rather than a meaningful discussion that should have included candidates from the two parties most likely to influence the next session of Parliament. What happened to the days when candidates would knock on doors to meet voters? It seems that the people we elect have either become too important to be accountable to their constituents or have become so trained to stick to party lines that they can’t engage in local conversations.

There are security issues that may prevent candidates from freely interacting with the public and canvassing in neighbourhoods as they used to. We may need to raise awareness that harassment of public figures, as we’ve seen recently, should not be tolerated.

The beauty of editorial cartoons is that they capture feelings and ideas that vanish as soon as the votes are counted and the election dust settles. Will anyone remember who Paul Chiang was, that Neil Young endorsed Mark Carney, or why the Greens weren’t included in the debates? Probably not. Did the Niqab ban influence the 2015 election? What about the Blackface scandal in 2019 or the vaccine mandates in 2021? I would argue that they certainly did.

Looking ahead to 2025, it’s a given that Donald Trump has played a giant role in this election, and this is reflected in the editorial cartoons I create. Other themes in my work that will hold relevance in the days to months ahead include Preston Manning’s fears about Western separation, Doug Ford’s comments on Pierre Poilievre, and Canada’s passive approach to bolstering its defence. For the record, I think Jagmeet Singh’s tenure as NDP leader is on the cusp of coming to its end.

Together, editorial cartoons tell a story that written articles cannot replicate. With all due respect to my colleagues who write, this is why editorial cartoons matter—they provide insights that extend beyond mere words.

In this election, I have openly rejected Pierre Poilievre. He has shown himself to be hostile toward mainstream journalism, often criticizing reporters in a manner reminiscent of Donald Trump. He doesn’t offer solutions for struggling legacy media outlets that are being overwhelmed by foreign media companies. It’s challenging to view any politician fairly when they dismiss the role of journalism in a democracy.

As for the future of editorial cartoons, the platforms we once relied on—mainly print media—are disappearing. However, satire has existed for longer than the printing press, and it should continue. I strive to remain relevant in my newspaper’s digital space by animating my editorial cartoons. While static cartoons are appreciated by my generation and older audiences, younger viewers seek movement, and I work on that every day.

Past Election Galleries

2015 Federal Election
2019 Federal Election
2021 Federal Election

 

Friday April 25, 2025

As Canada's election campaign nears its end, Trump's rhetoric and policies become pivotal in shaping voter perceptions of leaders Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday April 25, 2025 (Published in the Toronto Star, April 27, 2025)

The Trump Factor in Canada’s Federal Election

Pierre Poilievre sets a 2% GDP defence target by 2030, aligning with Mark Carney's similar commitment to enhance Canada's military spending.

April 23, 2025

As Canada’s federal election draws to a close, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has become an unexpected yet dominant figure in shaping the political discourse. His comments on tariffs, trade agreements, and even the audacious suggestion of Canada as the 51st state have stirred the waters, presenting Canadian voters with three pivotal questions: “Carney or Poilievre: Who’s more Trumpy?”; “Carney or Poilievre: Who’s best for Dealing With Trump?”; and “Carney or Poilievre: Who does Trump Prefer?”

Who’s More Trumpy? In terms of policies and demeanour, Pierre Poilievre undeniably channels more of Trump’s attributes. His rhetoric, which echoes Trump’s nationalist populism, includes slogans that promote a “Canada First” agenda. Poilievre’s approach to reducing government influence, skepticism of international organizations, and a confrontational style resonates with Trump’s signature tactics. On the other hand, Mark Carney embodies a more traditional and balanced leadership approach, prioritizing multilateral cooperation and economic stability. Carney’s focus on diplomacy and evidence-based decision-making starkly contrasts with the more brash techniques associated with Trump.

News: Trump talked about the ’51st state’ during call with Carney: Radio-Canada sources

As Canadian political parties promise tax cuts without detailing spending cuts, voters face uncertainty about potential austerity measures post-election.

April 22, 2025

Who’s Best for Dealing With Trump? Despite Poilievre’s ideological similarities with Trump, this doesn’t necessarily make him the best candidate to handle Trump on the international stage. There’s a legitimate concern that Poilievre’s alignment might lead to submission during negotiations, reminiscent of some Republican figures in the U.S. Conversely, Mark Carney, with his extensive background in economics and crisis management, is well-equipped to engage with Trump from a position of informed authority. Trump’s acknowledgment of Carney’s economic expertise likely prompts him to take Carney more seriously than a leader whose policies merely mirror his own.

Who Does Trump Prefer? While it might seem that Trump would naturally favour a leader like Poilievre due to shared ideologies, the reality is more complex. Trump’s respect for Carney’s expertise and strategic acumen is evident. Known for his transactional approach, Trump likely sees value in Carney’s ability to address complex economic issues, understanding that a competent counterpart in Canada could lead to more productive engagements rather than simple ideological alignment.

News: Trump reinserts himself into Canadian politics, saying ‘as a state, it works great’

Trump's rhetoric and policies loom over Canada's leaders' debate, influencing politics and personal decisions.

April 17, 2025

The assumption that Trump would prefer Poilievre simply due to ideological kinship oversimplifies Trump’s pragmatic nature. Trump recognizes Carney’s capabilities and respects his economic insights, understanding that effective leadership involves not just agreement but the capacity for meaningful engagement. As Canadians cast their votes, these considerations emphasize the importance of selecting a leader who can effectively stand up to Trump’s pressures while also facilitating constructive discussions in U.S.-Canada relations. In this election, Carney’s combination of diplomatic skill and economic expertise may offer Canada the most effective path forward in addressing the challenges posed by the Trump era.

Reflection Time

I’ve only got two more editorial cartoons to draw before voting day, and this one featuring Pierre Poilievre consulting the magic mirror counts as one of them! It seems fitting, especially since no U.S. President in living memory has influenced our election so much as Donald Trump has. His comments and antics are really shaping how we view our leaders, especially when it comes to Poilievre and Mark Carney.

As I’m sketching this out, it’s hard not to see how Poilievre channels Trump’s vibe with his “Canada First” attitude and confrontational style. But then there’s Carney, who offers a more diplomatic and balanced approach. It really raises the question: who’s actually better suited to deal with Trump on the global stage?

While Poilievre might seem like a natural fit for Trump due to their shared ideologies, I think Carney’s economic expertise could give him an edge in negotiations. Trump might actually respect Carney’s skills more than just having someone who echoes his populist rhetoric.

It’s fascinating (and a bit concerning) to watch history unfold right before our eyes. So, as we get closer to the polls, let’s think about who can really stand up to Trump’s pressures and foster productive discussions for Canada.

Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 25, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!

You Tube: Pre-Election Day Reflection https://youtu.be/_9UWr9hliC4

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

 

Wednesday April 23, 2025

Pierre Poilievre sets a 2% GDP defence target by 2030, aligning with Mark Carney's similar commitment to enhance Canada's military spending.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 23, 2025

Canada’s Quiet Resolve in Strengthening Defence Amid Global Uncertainty

Canada must enhance efforts to meet NATO’s 2% defence spending target, reinforcing its obligations and commitments to global security.

March 1, 2024

In the ever-shifting landscape of global politics, where alliances are tested and national interests recalibrated, Canada finds itself at a pivotal juncture. Recent events and political shifts have underscored a growing realization among NATO member countries, including Canada, that bolstering military capabilities is not just a response to external pressures, but a strategic necessity for a world where traditional security assurances can no longer be taken for granted.

The backdrop to this realization is a United States led by President Donald Trump, whose rhetoric and actions have raised concerns about America’s commitment to global security frameworks established post-World War II. Trump’s calls for NATO allies to increase defence spending to five percent of GDP, though seemingly about shared burden, mask a deeper unease about the U.S.’s role as a reliable security partner. Trump’s annexation rhetoric concerning Canada and Greenland, while alarming, reflects an unpredictable approach to international relations that has left many allies wary.

News: Trump wants NATO to spend 5% on defence. What do Canada party leaders say?

January 12, 2022

Canada, traditionally seen as a steadfast partner within NATO, has faced criticism for not meeting the alliance’s defence spending target of two percent of GDP. Yet, there’s a nuanced understanding emerging among Canadian political leaders. Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre have now committed to reaching the two percent target by 2030, aligning their strategies to ensure Canada’s sovereignty and security in an increasingly unstable world. This alignment signifies a shared recognition of the importance of enhancing military capabilities amidst global uncertainties.

This decision reflects a pragmatic approach to defence policy. Canada recognizes that in a world where the U.S. might retreat from its role as a global security guarantor, it must step up to ensure its own defence readiness. The focus is on modernizing the military, securing the Arctic, and investing in cutting-edge technologies like AI and quantum computing, all while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

News: Mark Carney unveils a plan to Trump-proof Canada

July 12, 2018

Canada’s resolve to meet NATO commitments “on its own terms” is emblematic of a broader trend among NATO members. Many countries are recalibrating their defence policies not just due to external pressures from the U.S., but because of the realization that global threats are multifaceted. The unpredictability of a U.S. administration dismissive of trade and military alliances only adds to the urgency.

In this context, Canada’s approach is both sensible and strategic. It is about strengthening defence capabilities while fostering unity and consensus among political leaders. The decision to bolster military spending is not about succumbing to external demands but about safeguarding national interests in a changing global order.

As Canada moves forward, the focus should remain on maintaining a balanced approach that prioritizes security, economic stability, and diplomatic engagement. By doing so, Canada can navigate the complexities of international relations with resilience and resolve, ensuring its place as a respected and reliable partner on the world stage.

PPs 2% Promise

I’ve been closely following Pierre Poilievre’s approach to Canada’s NATO obligations, and his recent commitment to the 2% GDP defence target by 2030 has caught my attention. Until last week’s debate, Poilievre hadn’t specified a timeline, often critiquing the Liberals’ fluctuating target dates between 2028 and 2034 over the past couple of years without presenting his own. Now, it turns out his target aligns precisely with the Liberals’ plan, even as countries worldwide are exceeding the 2% benchmark.

Interestingly, Poilievre’s decision to announce this commitment late in the campaign suggests strategic timing. It’s likely not a stance that would be met with overwhelming enthusiasm, especially within his own party, where it could be quite polarizing. Let’s face it, bolstering defence—even amid increased threats—isn’t high on the average voter’s priority list, particularly with the cost of living crisis intensifying as Trump ramps up tariffs.

This revelation suggests that Poilievre might not be as hawkish as many believed. His mealy mouthed attitude toward supporting Ukraine’s struggle against Putin tyranny is a chief indicator of this for another day. While he shares Trump’s scepticism towards international agreements and multilateralism, evidenced by his rare mention of the Paris Accord, his reticence on NATO commitments raises questions. Nevertheless, he acknowledges the need to strengthen Canada’s military, including against potential U.S. threats.

Historically, Canada’s Conservative Party has championed robust military and defence policies. Yet, in the era of Donald Trump, who demands a 5% GDP commitment to NATO, one might expect Canadian conservatives to follow suit. Instead, Poilievre’s proposal mirrors the Liberals’, aiming for 2030, which I find both intriguing and somewhat lacking.

While I often see parallels between Canadian conservatives and Trump’s Republicans, this divergence is significant. The traditional hawks within Canada’s Conservative Party appear to have less influence, a point worth noting. When it comes to defence, the differences between Canada’s two major parties offered to voters are strikingly similar.

Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 23, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!

PPs 2% Promise https://youtu.be/7QXYW_dp024

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Saturday April 19, 2025

Pierre Poilievre's plan to invoke the notwithstanding clause threatens Canadian democratic norms and sets a dangerous precedent for federal governance.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 19, 2025

Poilievre’s Notwithstanding Gamble: A Risky Precedent for Canada

The concerns regarding Pierre Poilievre's casual use of the Notwithstanding clause include the potential undermining of the balance of power, diminishing the importance of Charter rights, the risk of misuse and abuse, and setting a dangerous precedent for future governments.

May 4, 2024

In a political landscape increasingly characterized by divisive rhetoric and the erosion of democratic norms, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a troubling signal. His proposal to use this powerful constitutional tool to impose consecutive life sentences for multiple murderers may tap into populist sentiments, but it sets a dangerous precedent that should disqualify him and his party from gaining the reins of power.

December 14, 2022

The notwithstanding clause, or Section 33 of the Charter, allows federal and provincial governments to override certain Charter rights temporarily. Traditionally, its use has been confined to provincial matters, such as Quebec’s secularism laws, where it has already sparked controversy. No Canadian Prime Minister has ever used this clause at the federal level, and for good reason. It represents an extraordinary measure intended for exceptional circumstances, not a tool for advancing populist agendas.

December 6, 2022

Poilievre’s willingness to be the first Prime Minister to wield this clause reflects a concerning alignment with tactics seen south of the border under Donald Trump. Trump’s efforts to undermine the judiciary and politicize the courts have led to a weakening of the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy. Canadians should be wary of similar trends taking root here.

News: Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

Critics, including legal experts and political leaders, have voiced strong opposition to Poilievre’s plan. They warn that normalizing the use of the notwithstanding clause for routine legislative purposes could erode the Charter’s protections and lead to further politicization of fundamental rights. This slippery slope could extend beyond criminal justice, potentially threatening academic freedom, reproductive rights, and other areas where individual liberties might clash with political agendas.

Pierre Poilievre faces challenges adapting his strategy against the fresh leadership of Mark Carney, as Canada's political dynamics shift from opposition to unity.

March 15, 2025

Public sentiment, as reflected in reader comments and broader discourse, reveals deep apprehension about Poilievre’s intentions. The use of the notwithstanding clause is seen not only as an overreach but also as an indication of Poilievre’s authoritarian tendencies—a “trumpy” approach that prioritizes personal opinion over established legal norms. Such a path risks alienating those who value the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

News: Poilievre says he’ll use notwithstanding clause to ensure multiple-murderers die in prison

While both Trump and Poilievre use populist slogans and insults to galvanize supporters, Poilievre has thus far avoided Trump’s more extreme policies, opting to focus his populist messaging on economic concerns.

November 9 2024

Poilievre’s tough-on-crime rhetoric may resonate with certain voter bases, but the implications of his proposals extend far beyond immediate policy goals. They strike at the heart of Canada’s democratic values and the delicate balance of power that protects citizens’ rights. As we approach the upcoming election, it is crucial for Canadians to consider the long-term consequences of granting power to a leader willing to circumvent the Charter for political gain.

In a time when global democratic institutions face unprecedented challenges, Canada must stand firm in upholding its principles. Poilievre’s promise to invoke the notwithstanding clause is a stark reminder of the stakes at play. It is a promise that, if fulfilled, could fundamentally alter the landscape of Canadian governance. For this reason, it stands as yet another compelling argument.

“Notwithstanding Clause” no doubt instantly triggers eye glazing in vast swaths of Canadians, a nation where many voters remain unaware of its implications until they feel the impact firsthand. Pierre Poilievre, echoing Trump, is using populist outrage to justify potentially overriding judicial independence with the notwithstanding clause, signalling a troubling shift towards authoritarianism. What might have been seen as fear-mongering before an election becomes irrelevant once a movement takes power. When these accusations no longer trigger instinctive reactions, they solidify into harsh realities. Just look south for proof of this. Timbit Trump’s promise to enforce life sentences by bypassing court decisions raises concerns about future threats to constitutional rights, drawing unsettling parallels with recent U.S. politics. Today, Poilievre targets criminal sentencing, but despite denying admiration for Trump, he emulates many strategies from the Trump playbook, suggesting he might next challenge academic freedom, women’s rights, or other constitutional protections. This commitment to undermining judicial independence to consolidate power is the pivotal issue of this election, as it echoes the U.S. pattern of filling the judiciary with like-minded judges and defying court rulings, reflecting a desire to centralize authority. Sure, just what democracy ordered: another leader eager to override court decisions with his own, thanks to the trusty notwithstanding clause. Vote for this at your peril.

Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 19, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!

YouTube: Easter Bunny Rejection  https://youtu.be/jDyQEaocYGc

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack