Leaderboard

A Rebuttal: Via Vesper on "X" "Your take on what Pierre said needs an update from a fellow Montreal Conservative. Your post is a touching eulogy, Dimitris, for a Conservative Party that exists more in nostalgia than in reality. You speak of history, principle, and purpose, while scolding Pierre Poilievre for having the temerity to apply those very principles to a Prime Minister who treats the law as a suggestion box. Let’s be clear: your argument isn’t that Poilievre is wrong on the facts. It’s that his tone is impolite. How very Canadian to suggest that pointing out a Prime Minister’s alleged criminality is a greater offence than the criminality itself. You claim that in a “rule-of-law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a Prime Minister to be jailed.” What breathtakingly selective principle. A rule-of-law democracy ceases to be one when its highest official is seen to be above the law. The real recklessness isn't in calling it out; it's in the silent acquiescence to a two-tiered justice system. You accuse Poilievre of “grievance” for stating a grievance that is, according to the evidence, entirely valid. Let’s consult the very source you provided from Democracy Watch. Their request for an independent prosecutor lays out a case that is anything but the fever dream you dismiss it as. To summarize for those who won’t click the link: • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: The Ethics Commissioner found Trudeau guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act in the Aga Khan affair. In the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Ethics Commissioner found he used his authority to "circumvent, undermine and attempt to undermine" the rule of law. • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞: Democracy Watch points to Section 139 of the Criminal Code, which defines "Obstructing Justice." The evidence of a sustained, coordinated pressure campaign on the Attorney General to stop a criminal prosecution fits this definition to a T. • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐂𝐌𝐏'𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: As Democracy Watch details, the RCMP never even interviewed Justin Trudeau about SNC-Lavalin, despite a mountain of public evidence. Your post defends this as protecting “confidence in our justice system,” but to any objective observer, it looks an awful lot like the “despicable” shielding Poilievre described. If the RCMP won't investigate a sitting Prime Minister with this much evidence, who exactly will they investigate? You say Poilievre “has not learned the lessons of his electoral defeat.” Perhaps the lesson he learned is that a segment of the electorate is tired of Conservatives who bring a PowerPoint presentation to a knife fight. Canadians saw a Prime Minister who, according to multiple, independent watchdogs, repeatedly violated ethical and potentially criminal standards. What they “needed” was an opposition leader with the courage to name that corruption, not one who wrings his hands over parliamentary decorum while the foundations of accountability are eroded. The legacy of Macdonald, Diefenbaker, and Harper wasn’t built on politely ignoring brazen abuses of power, Dimitris. It was built on conviction. Poilievre’s rhetoric isn’t a distortion of that legacy; it’s a revival of its fighting spirit. The only thing being “rewritten” is the Liberal narrative that their former leader is untouchable."

I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, trustworthy Conservative Party we tried to build By Dimitri Soudas Contributor Dimitri Soudas is a political analyst for Radio-Canada. He was a director of communications and senior advisor under Stephen Harper and later executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party that was shaped by the nation-building of Sir John A. Macdonald, the moral conviction of John Diefenbaker, the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney, and the steady discipline of Stephen Harper is far greater than any one man. It is a party rooted in history, principle, and purpose, a party built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader. No individual, no matter how loud or popular, has the right to rewrite that legacy or distort it into something it was never meant to be. Leader Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity. As a senior aide to Prime Minister Harper, I had the privilege to witness first-hand his leadership style: serious, principled, steady and deeply committed to the country’s long-term interests. He was the embodiment of what Canadians should expect from a national leader, governing with discipline, competence and a profound respect for Canada’s institutions. He brought credibility to the Conservative movement, not through theatrics, but through thoughtful policy-making, fiscal prudence, and strategic vision. He was never swayed by short-term headlines or the chaos of the news cycle. Instead, he focused on results: balanced budgets, trade expansion, national security, and pragmatic federalism. Harper spoke less, but when he did, it mattered. He built a unified party that reflected the broad spectrum of conservative values, from fiscal responsibility to national unity, without sacrificing seriousness or integrity. In an era of rising populism and political noise, Harper remains a reminder of what real leadership looks like: thoughtful, focused, principled, and unwavering in service to the country. Harper was able to unite fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, progressive conservatives, libertarian conservatives, Red Tories and Blue Tories into a serious, policy-driven coalition grounded in discipline, pragmatism and national interest, a legacy now being unravelled by Poilievre’s politics of spectacle and division. This week, Poilievre accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of committing what he described as the worst possible offence for a head of government, violating the Criminal Code and escaping justice. He claimed that Trudeau’s free vacation from the Aga Khan was a clear-cut criminal breach and that the RCMP deliberately chose not to lay charges. Poilievre went further, declaring that Trudeau should have been criminally charged and sent to jail. He went as far as accusing the RCMP leadership of being “despicable” and actively shielding the Liberal government from prosecution. In a rule-of-law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police and ultimately the Crown. That kind of rhetoric isn’t strength, it’s recklessness and it shows a leadership approach that remains rooted in grievance rather than governance. Months after losing the federal election, Poilievre seems not to have learned the lessons of his electoral defeat. For all the fiery slogans and viral clips, Canadians saw through the performance. What they needed was a prime minister-in-waiting. What they got was a man addicted to opposition, stuck in partisan combat, incapable of transformation and unwilling to rise above the instincts that had always held him back. Voters wanted maturity, reassurance and vision. He gave them grievance. He ran as the angry Question Period debater, not the steady hand of a G7 nation. The result? Swing voters waited for growth that never came. His message was reduced to punchlines. “Carbon Tax Carney” and “Sneaky Mark Carney” may have earned social media points, but it insulted the intelligence of voters craving real dialogue on housing, inflation, crime, immigration, climate and affordability. As Carney put forward a detailed, albeit debatable, vision, Poilievre delivered slogans and sneers. Canadians rightly asked: if this is how he acts in opposition, how would he behave in power? Worst of all, Poilievre failed to build a team. A party rich with talent was never showcased. No foreign affairs lead. No visible finance minister. No credible plans for trade, immigration, or defence. It was a one-man show and when the curtain rose, there was no cast, just more spotlight on him. The most baffling part? Trudeau’s record was wide open. Canadians were ready to hear a compelling case. But Poilievre couldn’t deliver one. He had the opportunity to prosecute a decade of Liberal failures, and instead leaned on hyperbole, exaggeration and recycled sound bites. The contrast never sharpened. The plan never appeared. He delivered none of it. His latest comments show once again he has failed to make the leap from critic to leader. Canadians are tired of the anger. The mockery. The volume. They need calm, confidence, and answers. Yet, despite warnings from advisers, polls, and “common sense,” he is still giving them attacks, blame and fury. In the last election, Canadians didn’t reject conservative ideas. They rejected Pierre Poilievre. Months later, there’s little evidence he has reflected, adapted, or grown. If anything, he seems more committed than ever to the very approach that cost him credibility with the voters he most needed to win. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/im-a-former-senior-aide-to-stephen-harper-pierre-poilievre-is-dismantling-the-principled-trustworthy/article_7a2f717f-2e67-4e70-aa5b-5153c0cb980b.html

For all you twats who think that it was PP who was trump's stooge. Carney was trump's man since the beginning, and you all got played.

They sure did ignore the science when the science debunked their pseudo science.

That's true. Now if you want a list of what conservatives did FOR Canada... Lower the GST Sign dozens of new trade deals and increase trade with numerous partners Got a new softwood lumber deal that was worth fortune to Canadians Reduced taxes on Canadians Radically increased business investment to keep GDP per capita solid Had world's best performance on the great recession, got the Canadian dollar up well over an American dollar Radically reduced crime Created system to fairly elect judges without political bias Created ethics commissioner and parliamentary budget officer positions which still are a thorn in the liberal side to this day Passed new laws to keep governments honest, one of which stopped Trudeau with the snc lavalin affair Significantly increased funding to the provinces Had the best immigration system Canada or the world has ever seen which was even highly popular with the opposition Eliminated much red tape to help businesses begin to thrive End of the useless gun registry Kept Canadian Banks liquid by using the hmsc reserves in a brilliant and hitherto I'm done fashion which actually made Canadians money Reduced the debt to GDP ratio All but wiped out western separation and quebec separation sentiment Sense of unity amongst Canadians that had not been there previously I could go on for several pages The liberals have destroyed Canada. The conservatives create Canada

One thing we learned from the washington sniper, you don't have to kill them all. You just have to kill a few in each city and the rest will live in fear of going outside.

There oughta be law...

He mimics Donnie Doughbrain every day. Now it's speeched against DEI, wanting to make the RCMP go after political 'enemies' that are now history, blaiming others for not implementing his policies, criticizing the Libs for doing exactly what he wanted to do. He'd the lowest form of career politician, grabbing at anything populist. Trying to form a 'big tent' of the disgruntled rather than an identity. Completely ruined the Conservatives as a reputable party.

Yet if a guy robs a bank and is arrested and 'split up from his family', strangely this is ok. Or maybe he wants that stopped too.

Well said. Conservative Canadians are not opposed to foreign aid. The reactionary populists who think they are conservatives are.

Wait at least 48 hours before driving.

The present Liberal government is the most secretive in Canadian history. Finding any information at all about any program at all takes dedicated effort and patience, and is still often unsuccessful.

Americans don't have the staying power to put up with a sustained operation of sabotage and assassinations for long. Not to sustain a war they would know is wrong, to keep control of a country that doesn't belong to them and doesn't want them there. That isn't what those small-town Americans send their sons off to the military for. And politicians who supported and launched such a war would absolutely be legitimate military targets.

Any examples? (Apart from the childish right-wing insults you guys always resort, or should I say regress to)? Every day I see thousands of people going about their business without conflict. People of all ethnicities getting along. 'Course that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

You don't have a clue as to how modern houses are built. Google it.

OMG!! That's the wittiest thing anyone has ever said in the history of comebacks!!! Really! If there was a Nobel prize for comedy.... Keep up the good work. Our nation needs talent like yours!

They are protesting the US having a king...when they have a king. They are mòrons.

That is pure BS. You are deliberately confusing the job of Prime Minister with the job of the leader of the opposition. In our parliamentary system the job of the Prime Minister and his cabinet is to produce budgets and govern all the departments and lead the country as required. The job of the opposition leader is to expose and criticize the faulty way government operates. It's as simple as that. The opposition is not the government and does not have power of the government. The business of the opposition is to oppose the government when necessary. That is all the conservative leader is doing. You are making up a pile of BS.

Robo..... Wouldn't that make you the pu$$y?

And when you keep trying to avoid politicizing or sensationalizing the word the more you realize societies that socialize are...socialist...you apparently can't do that without getting all bent out of shape because some commie or fascist chose to use the word. It blinds you from realizing all governments are inherently socialist because they're socialized societies. You people get similarly profoundly confused between the term liberal and the name Liberal.

When a Harper Conservative goes after Pierre Poilievre, you know there’s blood in the water Oct. 17, 2025 at 8:40 p.m. By Althia RajNational Columnist Althia Raj is a national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj The uprising against Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre may have officially begun. Just three months before Poilievre’s leadership review in Calgary, Stephen Harper’s former spokesman is letting it be known that knives should be out. Writing in the Star, Dimitri Soudas accuses Poilievre of “dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity.” Soudas, who served as the former prime minister’s communications director, suggests Poilievre is rewriting the legacy of the party, and he reminds the public — and Conservatives — that theirs is a party that is “far greater than any one man,” that was “built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader.” The Conservative establishment, it appears, won’t remain silent as Poilievre tries to remake the party into a grievance movement — as Republicans were when Donald Trump turned theirs into an outlet for racist, corrupt and conspiracy-fueled authoritarianism. Soudas’s column is the first public sign that those around Harper, long heralded as the guardian of the party, may be unhappy with the performance of Poilievre, his former parliamentary secretary. During the election campaign, there were multiple reports of frustrations behind the scenes from Harper’s camp, despite his public endorsement of the current Conservative leader. In a statement Friday, Harper’s team tried to disassociate itself from Soudas’ comments, saying his words did “not reflect Prime Minister Harper’s views. “Mr. Soudas does not speak on behalf of Mr. Harper,” Anna Tomala, the chief of staff of Harper & Associates told the Star. But privately, many big Conservative names — the party’s elite, if you wish — are disappointed and discouraged by Poilievre’s antics. They muted their complaints when Poilievre was rising in the polls and it seemed certain he would become prime minister; now that he’s not, the rumblings are getting louder. Inside the Conservative caucus, there are also many unhappy members. The more Prime Minister Mark Carney talks about pipelines and crime and rewrites the Justin Trudeau-era legacy, the more these Conservatives are reminded that they may be backing the wrong leader. It’s not just those who see themselves as progressive conservatives — there are also pragmatic conservatives, fiscal conservatives, rural conservatives, Quebec conservatives, Eastern conservative, Western conservatives, and just not-crazy conservatives. For nearly 10 years, these MPs looked across the aisle and thought Trudeau lacked the maturity to do the job. Now they are asked to defend a leader who muses that his former opponent should be jailed, who calls the RCMP leadership “despicable,” who wants to “restore merit” by ending diversity, equity and inclusion policies — despite his own track record of appointing Conservative candidates who could not win nomination races, and displacing an elected MP after losing his own seat last spring. Much as the 2015 election campaign left many New Democrats dispirited after Trudeau gave voice to their issues and ideals better than NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, many Conservatives aren’t upset that they lost. They are upset about how they lost. They feel they didn’t run on their principle. They feel they are represented by a leader that does not represent their values. What are they willing to do about it? Some caucus members were approached by Liberal emissaries this spring about crossing the floor, but ultimately felt they couldn’t make that switch. Intellectually, emotionally, they were not Liberals. Some represent ridings that would be hard to win as a Grit. But six months later, those calculations may have changed, especially for Quebec MPs and those in Eastern Canada. Poilievre is going down a darker path. Can they win their riding in spite of him as leader? Defection to the Liberals, however, is not the only option. Much like Chuck Strahl once led a group of Canadian Alliance MPs who were disenchanted with Stockwell Day’s leadership to sit in the House of Commons as their own parliamentary grouping, these Conservatives could form their own caucus. That would signal disappointment with Poilievre, and could spur more of an effort to defeat him in Calgary next January. A new leader would no doubt welcome those dissenters back into the Conservative fold. But most Conservative MPs feel Poilievre’s leadership review — his confirmation — is all but sealed and delivered. Some delegates have yet to be selected, but the location choice of Calgary, the simultaneous Ontario Progressive Conservative convention, and the makeup of the current membership seem like insurmountable obstacles to those who oppose his leadership. And unlike the revolt that led to Erin O’Toole’s removal as Conservative party leader after the disappointing 2021 election campaign, Poilievre has no leadership rival actively organizing against him the way he organized against O’Toole. It’s mainly why the movement to push Poilievre out the door has so far had few legs. No one wants to stick their necks out for fear of having Poilievre refuse to sign their nomination papers, essentially ending their political careers. And everyone, in and out of the Conservative caucus, knows Poilievre won’t go without a fight. Would he even contest the leadership of the party again if he lost the leadership review? If Conservative MPs were waiting for a white knight before showing some resolve, that person hasn’t materialized. Leadership options may not present themselves until Poilievre is out the door and with him the MAGA rhetoric that he is espousing. What they and grassroots Conservatives have been given by Soudas now, though, is a push for moral clarity. They may not have the numbers yet to defeat Poilievre in January, but there is now a suggestion that many more feel like they do, and that if they don’t act, the legacy of their party will be reshaped in a manner they find unrecognizable. https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/when-a-harper-conservative-goes-after-pierre-poilievre-you-know-theres-blood-in-the-water/article_927fbc57-9b7f-4c0a-a638-1fc504ca0204.html

So how long was the recovery after removal?

Calling your fact free response bullshit is not an emotional response, it is a rational response to your LIES.

Don't be mean. He's an adult now so he's got his OWN unicorn

What? Don't hold your breath, or are you buying your vests from the Tamarack's

Empathy is not an emotion per se but a complex process that involves both understanding and feeling others' emotions, she clearly exhibits a capacity for both. A little snarkiness comes thru perhaps but c'mon, it's 2025, grow up.l1lq In any case she's correct to point to the amygdala as something that's clearly bigger in more people who identify as conservative than it is in lefties. The amygdala governs fear and the thinking is that the more conservative the individual the bigger the amygdala and the greater the fear...an emotion that all too often overwhelms logic along with the ability to think straight about almost anything.

Utterly false. A number of people here have spoken in support of hamas and indicated that israel deserved what hamas did to it. And palestinian support has been strong in the polls taken.

Nobody here supports Hamas, dumbass. Even in Palestine, support isn't particularly strong. Only about 30% of Palestinians were even alive when Hamas took power. Didn't stop Israel from killing tens of thousands of innocents.

False. Nice try but you obviously don't understand the world and what we're talking about. 1. There are capitalist governments and there are Socialist governments in the world. Some governments are far more Socialist than others. 2. The subject is our government using taxpayer money to send to foreign countries instead of taking care of Canadians. That is a form of global Socialism. Seems that Carney is more interested in taking care of the rest of the world than the people of Canada whom he was elected to serve. That should come as no surprise because he has been a strong globalist for years. He held positions on the WEF, the UN, the Vatican, and various other international organizations. So that seems to be where his interests lie. Of course the Liberal party is that way too. They have a history of diving into global matters and have been whole-hearted supporters of the U.N. What can we expect when the Liberals are globalists as well as Socialists. The Liberal PMs, their ministers and entourage love to jet set around the world and wine and dine with the other globalists. What can we expect? Under Trudeau 276 delegates from Canada went to the Paris climate conference at taxpayer expense. More than any other G7 country. Remember that? We the taxpayers are being used constantly as suckers. We put them in those positions and give them a free reign on taxpayer money and they are using it to their advantage as much as possible. Nothing like living high off the hog at other's expense. But the rest of us must work in ordinary jobs and pay for all this luxury living by politicians.

" FIRST READING: The Canadian taxpayer money funding and enabling Hamas The Trudeau government has contributed more than $100 million to a UN agency with a lengthy history of enabling Palestinian extremism" The Canadian taxpayer money funding and enabling Hamas | National Post

Where do you think foreign aid money comes from? Rob the taxpayers to spread around the world. We don't need politicians who make $400,000 a year plus robbing taxpayer's money to spread around the world. How about promoting personal charity instead of Communism? Jesus never advocated Communism. When was the last time you read the Bible? Why doesn't Carney ask the Pope to start giving billions of dollars to Nicaragua and all the other poor countries? Carney had a high position in the Vatican and has lots of connections. The Vatican is the richest corporation in the world and has billions, probably trillions of dollars in banks and real estate.

Justin is gorgeous, let’s face it, starting with those flowing locks. I don’t think Trump will ever get over his hair envy.

I’d hate to see what not getting along looks like for you.

Somebody called me a farm animal. We don't really get along.

A tariff on Canadian lumber is a tax on young American homebuyers. Trump wants to tax these people so he can give tax breaks to others who certainly don’t need them. MAGA voters are in for some hard lessons.

Where are people discussing the new duties on lumber on this very strange, allegedly Canadian, forum?

How stupid does he think his followers are that he assumes they don't even remember who was president on Jan. 6?

Carney promised something to Trump today? Good thing Carney is a liar.

I love California except that its filled with crazy people.

Or believe the bullshit that the 7 million that turned out were all leftist extremist agitators or Antifa operative like your Overlords tell you. It should have been called "No Emperors Day" to make it less confusing, judging as how many Americans seem to think the King of the British Commonwealth actually does something besides wave at crowds while ignoring your own elected Tyrant who rules by the stroke of a pen and ignores the Courts, Congress, your own Constitution, and every historical precedent he doesn't like. No wonder you hate wokeness so much, your brains must be totally asleep to be numb to what's happening.

Bullshit. Study after study shows that undocumented immigrants are a net positive for the economy, commit crimes at lower rates than citizens, pay taxes into our system, and are not eligible for most social programs. Those are the facts. You simply reject them because MAGA doesn't like brown people. Brown people don't have any place in there MAGA vision for a white, Christian nationalism--with men dominating the power structure. That's not logic. It's emotion. An ugly one.

true. Ambitious people say "i want to win". Competitive people say "And i want you to lose," Trump is both. Carney is neither comptetative NOR ambitious. He's an opportunist. An opportunist says "what can i steal for myself today without too much work, and then ''ll be gone tomorrow"

If you are genuinely still shocked by the fact that he doesn't care about Canadians and only does things that benefits him in some way, I can only assume you haven't been paying attention until this point

It is and the rule remains

Then you get up and kick them back. China did that and got a better deal with the Americans than they were originally offering The fact of the matter is bullies do not like when people hit back and very quickly they become tired of it We are America's largest trading partner. If we go full tilt and run ads all across America about how this is trump's fault the people will turn on trump and that's not something he's interested in. And we have more tools at our disposal than tariffs. We could put our own export tariffs on oil and electricity that would drive their prices through the roof. We can begin doing deals with Chinese car manufacturers or European car manufacturers or expand our arrangements with Japanese manufacturers to absolutely replace the car industry in Canada and eliminate that market. We buy more American cars than anybody else on the planet so they will care about that So you're just 100% wrong. We can kick hard enough to do real damage and that's not a fight trump is interested in. He's interested in being a bully

This explains the cognitive dissonance to which I often refer and right wingers don't understand because they believe there's only ONE definition. https://www.facebook.com/reel/553518044484965 video