I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, trustworthy Conservative Party we tried to build

[BeaverFever]

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

 

[BeaverFever]

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

 

Edited October 19, 2025 by BeaverFever

[Goddess]

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."

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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.

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.

[Legato]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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

 

The barrel you scraped to gather that nonsense must have contained Liberal tears that turned to vinegar.

Try directing your efforts at something positive, it does enrich the soul.

[Venandi]

11 hours ago, Goddess said:

In the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Ethics Commissioner found he used his authority to "circumvent, undermine and attempt to undermine" the rule of law.

I find the whole SNC thing pretty interesting, mostly from the standpoint of it being about bribes in the "land of bribes."

By all accounts, CBC reporters (and others BTW) carried suitcases full of cash to bribe their way into areas they wanted access to.  That's how it works there, it's just how things get done... a simple fact of life if you will.

Now, In the interests of full disclosure, I know nothing of the details and wouldn't be commenting on it if I did... BUT. 

During OUP Libya, when CF elements were involved in combat operations and the Gaddafi family were under UN imposed travel restrictions, there were SNC security operators known (through open source reporting) to be in Libya.

What were they doing there?

Some might opine that they were coordinating the evacuation of Gaddafi family members to third party countries.

You and I will probably never know, but offering bribes in the land of bribes, which is an SOP by any definition of the term, became an under inflated political football and the outrage about it, propagated by other organizations that were equally culpable in paying bribes, always struck me as a bit over the top and lacking the ring of truth.

Perhaps we don't even know what we don't know, and maybe I'm totally wrong...in either case  though I'm willing to bet we never find out.

I have a list of basic security questions about the NS shooting, the Danforth shooting and the "assault on the US capital"that remain unanswered to this day and I'm just cynical enough to believe that those answers are in the same file folder as the SNC debacle.

 

Edited October 19, 2025 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, trustworthy Conservative Party we tried to build

Who was FIRED by Stephen Harper for his lack of ethics. 

[Goddess]

The good thing about all this is that people are talking about the scandal again.  And some are looking into it more, since it was swept under the carpet initially.

It's exposing the Liberal party and its supporters as having no moral compass.

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper.

Who's resignation Harper personally demanded after 4 months on the job.

Now tell us why he did that... 

[Shady]

The fact that Justin Trudeau was never interviewed by the RCMP when he was the primary person of interest is deeply troubling.  This was either serious incompetence or corruption.  Either one is pretty bad.

[Legato]

[Venandi]

7 minutes ago, Shady said:

This was either serious incompetence or corruption

Or maybe it's a function of The Official Secrets Act and our grand kids will wonder why we never thought to consider the possibility.

 

[LinkSoul60]

Soudas is spot on...   Poilievre's entire schtick is anger and soundbites with little substance. That works for those who enjoy anger and divisiveness but doesn't play well with the majority of Canadian's who have seen enough of this in US politics and don't want/need it here.  I'm not even remotely close to a Trudeau fan but find it comical the amount of space that Trudeau continues to occupy in this guys and his supporters heads.  He has nothing else so might as well be angry about the last 10 years of Trudeau and find fault when and where he can with Carney to create those soundbites he believes keep him somewhat relevant.  For a career politician you'd think his instincts would be better...

His political career has plateaued. He's simply not likeable as the election and every single poll show, and is most certainly not a person the majority of Canadian's want or will likely ever want as the face of the country. 

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

Are you talking to me or the Conservative who wrote the article? 
 

What you’re missing is that PP wasn’t the opposition leader and Carney wasn’t PM when these scandals came to light YEARS AGO. There have been MULTIPLE ELECTIONS since these issues came to light. It’s the business of the opposition to oppose the current government, not some past government from years ago when someone else was opposition leader and someone else was PM  

Canadian voters have long ago moved past these issues 2 or 3 elections ago. The fact that PP is fixating on these past issues and also now is introducing new conspiracy theories attacking the RCMP shows he’s oblivious to the fact that he lost his “guaranteed win” in the last election for trying to run against Justin Trudeau and for catering to the far right base, which most Canadians have no interest in. 

6 hours ago, Legato said:

The barrel you scraped to gather that nonsense must have contained Liberal tears that turned to vinegar.

Try directing your efforts at something positive, it does enrich the soul.

“Barrel I scraped”?  “Liberal tears?”

This was a a major op-ed that has been headline news this week. How clueless are you?

Edited October 19, 2025 by BeaverFever

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Canadian voters have long ago moved past these issues 2 or 3 elections ago. The fact that PP is fixating on these past issues and also now is introducing new conspiracy theories attacking the RCMP

PP is correct in his comments because remember we still have many of the same old Liberal gang in cabinet that we had under Trudeau.  Same ol same ol.  So PP's comments simply point out the fact of how corrupt the Liberal Party was and is.  It seems the RCMP was reluctant to do anything under Trudeau.  Maybe Trudeau had the power to fire the RCMP commissioner;  I don't know.   That might affect how they operate.  Do you think things are going to be any different now?  We will see.

  Not much has changed.  A new Liberal leader who seems to hold to the same globalist agenda.  Carney is a committed globalist who doesn't appear willing to change the Liberal agenda much to make Canada an energy superpower.  I am not sure he is going to approve an oil pipeline to the B.C. coast and he is the one who holds the power to do something.   The High Commissioner of India just said Canada is not yet a reliable energy superpower.  That's a big problem.

The bottom line is it is the opposition's job to criticize the government and that's all PP does.

Edited October 19, 2025 by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Legato said:

Except that PP is the opposition leader in 2025 not 2017 or 2019 when these issues were relevant. The fact that he’s still running against Justin Trudeau scandals from 8 years and several elections ago when he wasn’t even the opposition leader shows how desperate he is. 

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The bottom line is it is the opposition's job to criticize the government and that's all PP does

Which is why he’s still the opposition leader and not the PM

[herbie]

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.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Are you talking to me or the Conservative who wrote the article? 
 

What you’re missing is that PP wasn’t the opposition leader and Carney wasn’t PM when these scandals came to light YEARS AGO. There have been MULTIPLE ELECTIONS since these issues came to light. It’s the business of the opposition to oppose the current government, not some past government from years ago when someone else was opposition leader and someone else was PM  

Canadian voters have long ago moved past these issues 2 or 3 elections ago. The fact that PP is fixating on these past issues and also now is introducing new conspiracy theories attacking the RCMP shows he’s oblivious to the fact that he lost his “guaranteed win” in the last election for trying to run against Justin Trudeau and for catering to the far right base, which most Canadians have no interest in. 

“Barrel I scraped”?  “Liberal tears?”

This was a a major op-ed that has been headline news this week. How clueless are you?

You are the expert at major barrel scraping. It's just a political opinion from a fired non-entity.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Except that PP is the opposition leader in 2025 not 2017 or 2019 when these issues were relevant. The fact that he’s still running against Justin Trudeau scandals from 8 years and several elections ago when he wasn’t even the opposition leader shows how desperate he is. 

 

 So you are okay with the fact that the RCMP let everything slide in favour of your beloved Liberal scam artists.

Get real.

[CdnFox]

19 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

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

 

Dude the guy was thrown out of the harper government for corruption and join the liberals

. This is your idea of a non-biased and impartial source?

What the hell is wrong with you

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Except that PP is the opposition leader in 2025 not 2017 or 2019 when these issues were relevant. The fact that he’s still running against Justin Trudeau scandals from 8 years and several elections ago when he wasn’t even the opposition leader shows how desperate he is. 

Which is why he’s still the opposition leader and not the PM

What is he running for right now? You say he's running against Justin Trudeau but there's no election that I'm aware of. So that was kind of a stupid thing to say.

It does play to the base, and he has got a leadership review. Liberals don't care about these things, they didn't care about the crime and corruption of the liberal party when it was happening. Let's get real at this point being corrupt is almost a prerequisite for a liberal leader

But it probably won't hurt him to remind the base going into a leadership convention that he gets just how scumbaggy the liberals are

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

You are the expert at major barrel scraping. It's just a political opinion from a fired non-entity.

It’s not barrel scraping when it’s headline news. PP is sagging in his own party. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Dude the guy was thrown out of the harper government for corruption and join the liberals

. This is your idea of a non-biased and impartial source?

What the hell is wrong with you

Who said it was a non-biased and impartial source?  It’s a sign of growing dissatisfaction in PP’s own party. A growing number of conservative factions are saying they are unhappy with his leadership and style 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not barrel scraping when it’s headline news. PP is sagging in his own party. 

 

Quoting a liberal is not really suggesting he's sagging within his own party

Quote

Who said it was a non-biased and impartial source?  It’s a sign of growing dissatisfaction in PP’s own party. A growing number of conservative factions are saying they are unhappy with his leadership and style 

It's not even the tiniest bit of a sign of growing dissatisfaction. The guy isn't a conservative he's a liberal. He was thrown out of the conservative party for corrupt Behavior. No conservative actions are saying they're unhappy with his leadership and style.

He said he was going to lose the by-election or it was going to be super close because of fractures in the party and he absolutely aced it, now he's going to a leadership race which he will also absolutely Ace.

You guys are so desperate you're quoting disgraced former conservatives that were tossed from the party for unethical behavior and trying to pass this off as evidence that there's fractures in the party. You are not the stupidest lefty on this board, you have to be able to realize that this guy represents nothing but propaganda from the liberals of which he is a member currently

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What is he running for right now? You say he's running against Justin Trudeau but there's no election that I'm aware of. So that was kind of a stupid thing to say.

What don’t you understand?  I am saying he is still acting like he’s running in an election against Justin Trudeau. So really you’re the one saying the stupid thing. Also he has a leadership review coming up so one could argue he’s running against himself to keep his job. It’s also a minority government which historically only lasts about 18 months or so, so he SHOULD be still trying to position himself to the electorate. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But it probably won't hurt him to remind the base going into a leadership convention that he gets just how scumbaggy the liberals are

You can’t get elected PM by playing to the conservative base which is only about a third of voters. Especially with conspiracy theories and trying to rehash old controversies from the previous decade that the voters YOU NEED have long ago put behind them in multiple elections. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

What don’t you understand?  

I don't understand why you would lie.  You seem to be confused as to why someone would have a problem with that

Quote

I am saying he is still acting like he’s running in an election against Justin Trudeau.

He's not running in an election at all nor does he seem to be

Quote

So really you’re the one saying the stupid thing.

No it's still you. There's no election.

Quote

Also he has a leadership review coming up so one could argue he’s running against himself to keep his job

LOLOL  he's running against himself is he   Well if he shows up before he gets back i'll ask him to wait till i can talk to the both of them and sort this out   LOL

Quote

 It’s also a minority government which historically only lasts about 18 months or so, so he SHOULD be still trying to position himself to the electorate. 

You mean like you did last time. We wound up giving away all of his cards early and then the liberals did a bait and switch, ran on his own platform and tricked the electorate into winning by claiming that they would be elbows up. Yeah I don't think he wants to do that again.

Also side note, I see carney canceled more tariffs today quietly behind closed doors and trump had a new ones. Yay for elbows up

Quote

You can’t get elected PM by playing to the conservative base which is only about a third of voters.

The conservative basis expanded and is it around the neighborhood of about 38% right now. And he needs to solidify that vote and make sure that it's 100% behind him going into the leadership review. It is not enough to just get 60% or something, he needs a strong showing so that conservatives unite behind him and then he can do what he needs to do to get the rest of the mushy middle.

 

 

Quote

Especially with conspiracy theories and trying to rehash old controversies from the previous decade that the voters YOU NEED have long ago put behind them in multiple elections. 

Motor he needs haven't put it behind them and he knows. Frankly I think it's a mistake though to be honest, I think he's going to win over the base without doing stuff that will have negative press..

Having said that liberal supporters are very stupid people with extremely short memories. They won't remember any of this in 6 months. If he comes out looking Prime ministerial after the leadership review that's all they'll think about.

And more interestingly he's already polling higher than carney regularly. Now that boat is a little inefficient and he has to make headway in certain areas, but the other fact is the NDP is going to be chasing after Carney's ass in short order and will be spoiling for an election as soon as they're ready in order to regain party status. And those votes will come away from Carney for the most part.

Do not mistake the fact that the liberals cheated the electric once to mean that they will be able to do so again as easily. By this time next year carney will have failed with trump and we will have our new agreement which will be far worse than what we had. The economy will be in tatters, the audio industry will have continued to flee Ontario, the deficit will be out of control, and Carney will have to run on his record which will be now the same record as the liberals have had but now he has to wear it.

I doubt very much he survives 2026. When the NDP get back on their feet it is just a matter of time for him