The Canadian election was free and fair. The recount process is open and transparent. Restating these truths has become essential in the face of growing misinformation and conspiratorial narratives.
We have the right to be angry if our preferred party doesn’t win an election. We have the right to express that anger through words. And we have the right to question our voting procedures, push for improvements, and seek accountability. However, that doesn’t mean deference is automatically owed to those who spread misinformation and false narratives to undermine confidence in our electoral process.
Rights go both ways, and those who believe in elevating the truth over partisanship and believe our institutions should be defended when defence is warranted have the right to push back against those who are deliberately and baselessly sowing doubt about the integrity of Canada’s elections.
Stopping ‘stop the steal’
At this moment, some on the right are attempting to create the equivalent of the ‘stop the steal’ movement that emerged in the United States following Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election. Rather than accept his defeat, Trump lied to his supporters and the world by repeatedly claiming the election was stolen, claims that had no basis in fact. Trump’s ‘stop the steal’ rhetoric was successful among his supporters, with up to 70% of Republicans believing former U.S. President Joe Biden’s win was “illegitimate”.
There are concerning indications that this is starting to happen in Canada. A post-election Leger poll shows 65% of Canadians trust the accuracy of the 2025 election results. 36% “trust a great deal,” while 29% “trust a lot”.
Meanwhile, 29% don’t trust the results. 16% “trust a little,” while 13% “don’t trust at all.”
Except for those who voted Conservative, a majority of respondents trust the results. Among CPC voters, however, 52% don’t trust the results (27% trust a little & 25% don’t trust at all), compared to 44% who do trust the results (27% a lot and 17% a great deal).
While the Conservatives are not directly promoting this sentiment, they are making allusions to it in fundraising appeals, as you can see in a recent CPC fundraising email:
Considering the CPC raised $28.1 million in 2025, it is unlikely they are struggling to pay for legal counsel. Further, recounts are not something you can ‘win’ through donations. In fairness, it must be noted that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre unequivocally accepted the results of the election on election night and has not spread any kind of Trump-style election denialism. This is important. That said, there are some in the CPC who are seeking to exploit ignorance regarding the recount process for fundraising purposes, which conflicts with the tone set from the top.
Given that the Conservatives lost the election in part because they could not adequately distance themselves from Trump in the minds of many Canadians, indulging in misinformed sentiment regarding the electoral process is unwise.
Unfortunately, the combination of mixed messages from the CPC and the financial incentives of some conservative influencers online is raising the likelihood that a Canadian ‘stop the steal’ movement becomes entrenched, a development that would be disastrous for Canada.
Condescension & Truth
A key element of populist thought is that condescension from ‘elites’ towards the ‘common person’ must be avoided at all costs. But those are vague and ever-shifting categories, and condescension is in the eye of the beholder. All too often, populist influencers (a label that once could have been applied to yours truly) treat the dispensation of accurate information as condescension. This creates a dangerous dynamic, where ‘non-elites’ can say whatever they want and must be treated with the utmost respect, while ‘elites’ have to walk on eggshells and be defensive even when they are correct.
This is unsustainable, given that it incentivizes easy-to-sell lies over difficult truths. And while the avoidance of condescension is important, and is based upon legitimate concern over the fact that many ‘elites’ did become out of touch with and arrogant towards the broader public, we must always prioritize the truth rather than soothing feelings. Ultimately, we all have a responsibility as adults to educate ourselves about the world around us, and while we have the right to spread misinformed opinions, others have the right to correct us, as noted at the outset.
All of this is to say that the current ‘debate’ between those sowing doubt in the recount process (a group that became much louder after the Liberals won the riding of Terrebonne by one vote following a recount) and those defending the process is not a ‘debate’ at all.
One side is presenting either false information or avoiding the issue completely by generating a miasma of conspiracies that don’t touch on the recount process itself. The other side is presenting accurate information about how the process works.
Consider the argument being made by those sowing doubt. According to the ‘stop the steal’ narrative, the Liberals are flipping ridings in recounts through nefarious means, an effort that extends to the judges agreeing to hold recounts, votes being unfairly rejected to ensure a Liberal victory, and a coordinated plan in multiple ridings to push the Liberals to 172 seats (a majority) after the fact by turning narrow Liberal losses into narrow Liberal wins.
The problem with this narrative is that there is zero evidence for it. There is no evidence that votes are being unfairly rejected. There is no evidence of coordination between different ridings to hold recounts that benefit the Liberals, and that simply isn’t how the system works.
There is a recount going on right now in a Newfoundland riding the Liberals currently lead by 12 votes. Why risk a Liberal riding flipping Conservative by holding a recount if this was all part of a conspiracy?
In one oft-cited case by those sowing doubt in the process, a judge ordered a review in Windsor-Tecumseh, where the Conservative candidate defeated the Liberal candidate by 77 votes (just outside the automatic recount threshold) after Liberal candidate Irek Kusmierczyk requested one. As noted by Elections Canada, this is well within the rules:
“A request to a judge to carry out a judicial recount may also be made by any elector, including a candidate. Notice in writing must be provided to the returning officer in the appropriate electoral district before a request may be made to a judge. The request must be presented within four days of the validation of the results and must include an affidavit stating that the count was improperly carried out, that ballots were improperly rejected, that the statement of the vote contains an incorrect number of votes cast for a candidate, or that the returning officer incorrectly added up the results at the validation.”
Further, Kathy Borrelli, the Conservative candidate in the riding, is not contesting the request for a recount:
“Reached by the Star later on Friday afternoon and asked for comment, Borrelli said she would send a statement.
“Together with my legal team we decided not to contest the Liberal’s request for a recount,” Borrelli’s statement read.
“It’s important that voters are confident in the democratic process. I respect the order by Justice Ross McFarland for a recount of the ballots. My team will cooperate fully in all that is required.”
The process is fair and transparent
The reason we can confidently say that the ‘stop the steal’ narrative is wrong is that the recount process is incredibly fair and transparent. As noted by Elections Canada, Candidates, representatives, and legal counsel are all able to attend recounts:
“Unless one has the permission of the judge, the only people permitted to be present at a recount are the judge, the returning officer, the staff appointed by the returning officer, the recount teams, the candidates, a maximum of two representatives for each candidate who are not members of a recount team, one legal counsel for each candidate and legal counsel for the Chief Electoral Officer. A recount can be conducted in one of three ways: the judge can add the number of votes reported in the statements of the vote, recount the valid ballots or recount all of the ballots (including the rejected ballots). The judge then totals the ballots cast for each candidate (according to the procedure chosen).”
If the process were rigged in some way, why are CPC and Bloc lawyers not crying foul? Why are candidates who lost in recounts not speaking to the media, demanding ‘justice’?
The answer is that they aren’t doing those things because there is nothing to cry foul over. Those MPs, their representatives, and their legal counsel were all able to present for the recount process. Though they may be unhappy with how it turned out, they know the process was rigorous and fair.
And this rigour extends to the mail-in voting process. Some have tried to echo the U.S. ‘stop the steal’ movement by raising doubts about mail-in ballots. Yet, as noted by Rachel Enns, a teacher, business owner, and former CPC nomination candidate in Vernon – Lake Country – Monashee, the process is quite secure:
“In what way is a screenshot of a driver’s license to apply to vote by special ballot (mail-in ballot), election fraud? @Stockwell_Day (or potential fraud?)
- Application must be approved by ECHQ.
- Applicant is recorded in a database
- Applicant is prevented from voting at advanced polls and on E-Day
- Post election audits reveal any discrepancies, which must be reported and investigated
- Penalties for election fraud = $10,000 fine and 2 years in prison
- Bill C-76 also gave Elections Canada the power for the first time to cross-reference its voters list with data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Before the 2019 federal election, the agency identified 85,000 names on the federal voter register whom it determined were not Canadian citizens. The agency, through its work, later removed 74,000 of those names from the list.”
A free and fair election
The 2025 Canadian federal election was free and fair. Whether someone is personally happy with the results has no bearing on the accuracy of the results.
At a critical moment in Canadian history, when our old assumptions about the United States and our sense of security are being called into question, it is essential to hold on to the truth. If we allow unreason, conspiratorial thinking, and ignorance to undermine our institutions, holding our nation together will be much tougher, and we will be much more susceptible to those who want to undermine our sovereignty, our rights, and our freedoms.
Canada’s nascent ‘stop the steal’ movement is a potential risk to our cohesion as a country, and could do long-term corrosive damage to the underlying trust that underlies successful societies. That’s why it must be confronted and countered. The best way to do that is by sharing the truth about how Canada’s elections work, as many times as it needs to be shared. While it may seem naive to say in such a lie-saturated world, we must ultimately have enough confidence in ourselves and our fellow Canadians to believe that the truth will prevail.
Spencer Fernando
If you value principled and thoughtful insight, consider subscribing to SpencerFernando.com for C$6 per month or C$72 per year – subscribe here.