For my Canadian friends

Democracy Inc.​

seprntoSod201f011m2a72g09im0h1954h020i0m7518m206hf582f52alh2 ·

‘YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN ’: SEVEN CONSERVATIVE ATTACKS ON CANADA’S VETERAN'S

Pensions killed, offices shut, benefits clawed, a billion dollars unspent, and more.
Tom Beaver and Ron Clarke

Tom Beaver and Ron Clarke are co-founders of the veterans’ Anyone But Conservative campaign. Both served many years in the Canadian military.
Veteran Ron Clarke

Ron Clarke gives an emotional address at a June 4, 2014 rally in Ottawa protesting government treatment of vets. Photo by Fred Chartrand, Canadian Press.

Last year retired general Rick Hillier, the former head of the Canadian Military, spoke about high rates of suicide and mental anguish among Canadian soldiers returning home:

“I do not think we had any idea the scale and scope of what the impact would be. I truly do not. This is beyond a medical issue. I think many of our young men and women have lost confidence in our country to support them.”

And why would they not, given the callousness of the Harper government? In the past decade Conservatives closed offices, cut 900 jobs, clawed back benefits, killed lifetime pensions for Afghanistan veterans, and failed to spend $1.13 billion of the Veterans Affairs budget but found money to increase advertising and ceremonies for politicians to honour veterans.

Here are seven ways the Harper government has waged war on its own veterans.

1. Conservatives kill lifetime pensions for veterans

On April 6, 2006, the Conservative government enacted the New Veterans Charter, which represented the greatest change to veteran care since the Second World War. While the bill was conceived and passed by the previous Liberal government, Harper championed the policy shift even after it came to light it was failing veterans.* It erased the obligation for Canada to care for injured veterans and their families and replaced life-long monthly pain-suffering payments (in place since the First World War) with a lump sum payment.

By removing the right to a pension, injured and disabled veterans lost between 30 and 90 per cent of their entitlements, and even those payments and benefits were subject to claw back.

Lump sum payments for permanently disabled soldiers have proven so meagre that, as Veterans ombudsman Pat Strogan put it, “Deputy ministers make more on average in one year than a person who loses two legs in Afghanistan can expect to be paid out for the rest of their life.”

When veterans took the Conservative government to court, the government spent $700,000 to declare it was under no obligation to provide veterans with any special treatment.

Financial Post editor Matt Gurney summed up Harper’s intent, calling the one-time cheques “almost an act of cruelty” that leave injured veterans of recent operations “measurably worse off than they would have been under the old system.”

But Harper turned a cold shoulder to veterans like Kevin Berry, who pleaded, “We are left with our wounds, our scars, and the realization that our government has turned its back on us. You have forgotten.”

2. Harper minister insults veterans, closes nine veterans offices

Despite numerous reports of service failures and lack of support for veterans, the Harper government shut down nine Veterans Affairs offices to save $3.78 million and the same year increased its advertising budget by more than $4 million to buy playoff hockey ads.

The shutdowns laid off 89 employees, leaving eight workers to cover 17,000 veterans. In Sydney, Nova Scotia, one person was to do the work of 13 employees who had handled 4,200 clients.

Harper claimed the office closures would mean better services for veterans.

Last year, then minister of veteran affairs Julian Fantino was forced to apologize to a delegation of veterans after he showed up late to a scheduled meeting about the cuts, got in an argument and left. He blamed unions. Veterans called for his resignation, and Fantino was later demoted by Harper.

Given the same Harper government has “billions to spend on tax cuts and other benefits,” a Globe and Mail headline asked the obvious question: “Why do the Conservatives treat veterans so poorly?”

3. Auditor General finds Harper government failing veterans

Auditor general Michael Ferguson found the Conservative government was failing returning injured veterans by imposing up to eight months waiting time for mental health help.

“Damning,” the National Post called the report, noting the percentage of returned soldiers with mental health issues had increased six-fold between 2002 and 2014. “One statistic that jumped from the report was a 24 per cent refusal rate for veterans applying for disability benefits. That means 3,684 soldiers who believed they needed benefits to deal with mental health issues were refused on first application. After appeals, 2,841 potentially disturbed veterans have been cast adrift -- they are not tracked by Veterans Affairs and nobody knows whether they are a danger to themselves or anyone else.”

The Conservative government, knowing the report was coming, played misleading defence. It announced it would inject $200 million into the system over six years for mental health services -- only later admitting the money was not over six years but over half a century.

4. Conservatives slash 900 jobs despite pleas from managers

The Harper government launched the largest cuts to staff at Veterans Affairs in history. When they were finished, nearly 900 jobs or about one-quarter of the staff had been cut, with some of the biggest cuts coming in the disability awards branch.

Senior Veterans Affairs managers have warned every year since 2009 that the department needed more to meet the needs of its clients, but the government continued to slash staff and failed to spend millions of dollars allocated to help veterans.

Not a single Conservative MP stood up for veterans, rejecting a motion to cease cuts at Veterans Affairs. Result: a backlog of six to eight months in providing some care to veterans.

The cuts are killing morale within Veterans Affairs, according to a Statistics Canada report, staff saying the quality of their work has suffered has more than doubled since 2008.

Meanwhile, the government paid out more than $500,000 in bonuses over two years to Veteran Affairs managers as a reward to cutting budgets.

CONTINUED

Part 2

“We are right now, as a department, failing veterans,” said Cam Cannon Jr., president, Local 80041 of the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees. “We are not doing what we’ve been mandated to do. Our department has been systematically disembodied limb by limb. Ten-person jobs are being done by two people.”

Don’t think Minister O’Toole isn’t well aware of this grim reality. Internal reports warned him “that hundreds of injured veterans were being forced to wait more than four months to hear whether they qualified for disability benefits as the applications were being processed slower than the previous year,” reported the Ottawa Citizen in July.

But so far real action by the Harper government has been more mirage than reality. Just before calling this election, it announced 61 new jobs at the veterans headquarters in Charlottetown -- while failing to note it had previously cut 300 jobs at the centre and closed the office in Prince Edward Island.

5. More than $1 billion not spent by ministry to help veterans

While veterans struggled to get claims accepted, live on lump-sum payments and get services they desperately needed, senior bureaucrats hoarded millions of dollars allocated for veterans, returning to general revenue $1.13 billion between 2006 and 2014.

For nearly a decade the Conservative government clawed back hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget of Veterans Affairs, money critics say should have gone to help veterans. The Veteran Affairs minister prepared a regular public report showing how the money for the ministry was spent with details about claims and support. In 2008 the Conservative government announced the report would continue, but the public would be barred from seeing it.

6. Judge orders government to pay $887 million to vets

The Conservative government spent $750,000 in legal fees fighting to keep in place a government policy that clawed back millions of dollars annually from more than 4,000 disabled veterans and their families. The government lost and the judge awarded $34 million in legal costs -- which was deducted from the money owed to veterans by Ottawa.

For decades federal governments clawed back the existing payments to veterans if they were given a disability award. The practice was condemned by the ombudsperson, the senate and a motion in the House of Commons, but the government refused to act. Finally, the court ruled that the veterans were right and the government was wrong.

Judge Robert Barnes found the claw-backs “create a particularly harsh effect on the most seriously disabled Canadian Forces members... and I reject it unreservedly.”

How much money was taken from veterans? The compensation package for past losses was negotiated at $887 million, including more than $80 million in interest. The government extended the legal settlement to an additional 2,500 veterans and their families at a cost of $177 million over the next five years.

7. Silencing and smearing veterans who criticize

When Sean Bruyea spoke out against legislation to strip veterans of life-time pensions, he never imagined the government would try and smear his reputation using his own medical records. The Harper government was later forced to apologize for its actions -- just one example of the government’s attempts to silence and discredit veterans standing up for their rights.

As Bruyea explained, many others who might challenge the department remained quiet because of the power the ministry had to curtail benefits.

Bruyea paid that price personally, as reported in 2013. “His medical and financial details had been circulated after he criticized the New Veterans Charter. In the minutes of a [Veterans Affairs Canada] conference call, a senior veterans official said, ‘It’s time to take the gloves off.’”

Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart ruled that Bruyea’s case was “alarming” and the treatment of his personal information “entirely inappropriate.” The veteran’s sensitive medical and personal information was shared -- seemingly with no controls -- among departmental officials who had no legitimate need to see it.

Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in privacy laws, told author Michael Harris the government’s actions were “despicable, It’s dishonourable. It’s unethical. And also illegal.”

But that hasn’t stopped the Harper government from vaguely threatening wounded vets who might speak out. Wounded soldiers were required to sign a form giving their agreement not to criticize senior officers on social media. The form was leaked by members of the military who saw it as a way of preventing them from making the case that the New Veterans Charter was not working.

The Harper government’s supposed rationale was as insulting as it was shameless. The form, explained a government representative to author Harris, was for the “protection” of the individuals because when they are suffering from mental health issues, they might say things they want to take back later.

As veterans, we answered the call from our country to serve. We went abroad to serve our country and we expected, if we were fortunate enough to come home, that we would be given the support we need to survive. In too many cases this has not happened. We believe that Canadians support their veterans and are also angered by the disrespect shown by the Harper Conservatives over the past 10 years.

Our group, of veterans and supporters, is asking all Canadians to support our campaign -- Anyone But Conservatives -- and on Oct. 19 vote to defeat Harper’s Conservative government.

Rob Johnson · rsdpenootS536m3ic880f903l2f1if95mc1lm0iug12hl3m994970685f152 ·


To my conservative friends:

There is so much negative stuff on social media about Mark Carney these days it is hard to keep up with.

I know you don't trust or like the guy and with all the negative stuff flying around I can understand why.

Nevertheless, I prefer him to Pierre Poilievre in this election, even though I am not usually a liberal supporter. Let me give you some of my reasons.

Is Carney an angel? Maybe not. It’s possible he did some questionable stuff in the corporate world. But you know what?

I don't care.

We don't need some pure-as-the-driven-snow guy right now. We need someone who not only knows the economic system backwards, and the people who run it, but who knows how to fight dirty.

We are in a no-holds barred battle with a guy who wants to wreck our economy in order to annex us. Trump doesn't fight by the rules, and neither should we .

With all due respect to Mr. Poilievre, he doesn't know the world economic system, has no real world experience in it, and has had a second rate education to boot. He can't game the system because he doesn't know it.

He is good at getting down and dirty in terms of campaigning though - I will give him that.

Poilievre has arms-length hired a company called Canada Proud to flood the internet with stuff about Carney that, if in print media, would bring libel suits. He is also flooding the internet with positive, and phony, stuff about himself. His campaign uses bots and fake groups to make his campaign look more successful than it is. Search CBC for a good explanation of this: chat/gpt-fake-politicians. (FB won’t let me give the link.) As we all know, anything goes on the internet.

Conservative attacks on Carney range from the silly (Carney isn't fit to be PM because he doesn't buy his own strawberries - Andrew Scheer) to the out and out scurrilous (deep
fake AI photos with Epstein and Maxwell - Canada Proud). Poilievre says he isn't involved with Canada Proud, but refuses to disavow their deep fakes.

This conservative campaign is shaping up to be the dirtiest in Canadian history.

I am far more worried about Poilievre's involvement with Steven Harper's right wing IDU than I am with Carney and the WEF. (You can search IDU on Wikipedia.) The IDU connects Poilievre and Harper with some truly unsavoury characters like Hungary's Orban, India's Modi, and of course, Trump and his republicans.

In his own campaigning, Poilievre has been the opposite of open. He doesn't allow the press on his plane, which is a break from normal practice for politicians, his people stage manage all his events to keep regular journalists away from him, and he only takes questions from tame reporters.

He still refuses to get a security check, probably because his leadership campaign was funded by Modi, and he won't get many Sikh votes in BC or Ontario if it gets out that he took money from a guy who has murdered their leaders. When questioned, Pierre responded that he gets lots of contributions and can't CSIS check them all. That is BS, because he knew these people very well and they had even organized events for him.

Carney, on the other hand, doesn't hide from the press, and takes questions from reporters from media organizations he knows are against him. They ask loaded questions, constantly interrupt him, and he still leaves them looking stupid. His campaign has also not been accused of manipulating social media with bots and AI.

Furthermore, Carney is the only politician I have heard of anywhere who has sworn to go after the Zuckerbergs, Musks, et al, and clean up the internet.

Carney kicked Trump's ass in their famous phone call. He first went to England and France to sign them on and talked to Japan as well. In that phone call he no doubt told Trump that if the 'governor' and '51st state' crap continued, Canada and its friends would start selling off US treasury bonds. ( Note that after the phone call Trump has not repeated that stuff again.) Carney has made the world aware of the US Achilles' heel - its massive debt is held by the foreign countries Trump is trying to tariff. The recent bond free fall is why

Trump pulled back and gave a 90-day reprieve on his ridiculous tariffs. The world can thank Carney for that. Trump has a bloody nose, and Carney hasn't even been elected yet.

Would Pierre have come up with that strategy? With his scanty knowledge of economics, that is hardly likely.

So is Mark Carney a nice guy? Maybe not. But is a nice guy what we need right now?

No - we need a Gordie Howe. We need a guy who knows the game backwards and isn't afraid to go into the corners and knock out some teeth.

Elbows up!

#41


Why so blue?

Relax - you've only got two weeks until the election and then no more about the campaign

Rolling Justice Bus​

Sedonpstor1h7i3li10ti3lt03fm62hig050utt75t27ua1215h3c65i70l2 ·

WE ARE NON-PARTISAN BUT WE SHARE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE IT CORRECTS SOME FALSEHOODS RAISED RECENTLY AND IN THIS ELECTION, WE NEED VOTERS TO BE WELL-INFORMED, NOT MISINFORMED.

The Conservatives’ Last Gambit: Smear Carney
Desperate, Poilievre and Harper teamed to show how low they’ll go. It’s going to get even uglier.
Michael Harris 14 Apr 2025 The Tyee

A recent Angus Reid poll found that 55 per cent of respondents had a favourable view of Liberal Leader Mark Carney. By comparison, just 36 per cent favoured Pierre Poilievre. Carney was also preferred as prime minister, 50 per cent to 28 per cent, over the Conservative leader.

That represents an astonishing political revival for the Liberals, and a staggering collapse for the Conservative Party of Canada, or CPC. For nearly two years, the Conservatives were crushing the Liberals in every survey. Poilievre and the CPC have blown a 25-point lead and now trail the Carney Liberals. Conservative Kory Teneycke, Doug Ford’s campaign manager, told CTV News the Conservative meltdown amounted to “campaign malfeasance.”

All of which means that the last half of Canada’s federal election will be a cage fight, not a conversation.

Having failed to win over voters’ minds with his plans and promises, the new game for Poilievre will be to trash Mark Carney — the classic far-right politics of personal destruction.

The process has already begun.

The Pierre and Steve show

On April 7, the CPC took former prime minister Stephen Harper out of political mothballs to appear onstage at a Poilievre rally south of Edmonton. Harper heartily endorsed his former protege “for a better, stronger and more united future.”

Harper said: “I am the only person who can say that both of the men running to be prime minister once worked for me, and in that regard, my choice, without hesitation, without equivocation, without a shadow of a doubt, is Pierre Poilievre.”

That was not just partisan poppycock. It was false.

Carney never worked for Harper; he worked for the Bank of Canada. That bank has been a special federal Crown corporation since 1938. The bank is independent from government, and the governor is appointed by an independent board of directors that sets policy independently. The bank is accountable “to Parliament, the government and all Canadians.” Bottom line? Mark Carney worked for the well-being of the country and its citizens, not for the former PM.

Nor is it accurate that Poilievre worked for Harper. It is true the PM is the one who gives things out. Cabinet ministers like Poilievre served at Harper’s pleasure.

But all elected members take an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the sovereign of Canada, and to the institutions the sovereign represents, “including the concept of democracy.” So the minister is working for “the best interests of the country,” not for an individual PM.

“And by the way,” Harper said in his speech, “as the guy who actually did lead Canada through the global financial crisis, I hear there is someone else claiming it was him. It was, of course, our government, the late great Jim Flaherty and our Conservative team.”

Another baloney sandwich at two levels.

First, throughout the 2008 election campaign, Harper denied that Canada was in recession. On Oct. 10, 2008, just four days before the federal election, he proclaimed, “This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries.” Harper admitted to the recession and what was then the largest deficit in Canadian history, $55 billion, only after the votes were cast.

Second, contrary to Harper’s remarks, Carney has never claimed to be solely responsible for the recovery from the 2008 recession — just to have been part of a team in his capacity as governor of the Bank of Canada from February 2009 to June 2013.

It has since been revealed by Carney himself that Harper asked him to join his cabinet as his finance minister in 2012. Very strange. Harper already had a finance minister in the person of Jim Flaherty, who would be in that position until March 2014, shortly before he died of a heart attack.

Despite the facts, including Harper’s job offer to Carney, Poilievre’s wife, Anaida, criticized Carney on social media, accusing him of “claiming the legacy of a man who has since passed.”

More nonsense. In response to this comment, Chisholm Pothier, who was Flaherty’s director of communications and deputy chief of staff, defended Carney from Anaida Poilievre’s attack: “Oh please. I was there and Carney played a big role. Flaherty and Harper provided the political leadership that was key, but Carney was on deck with insight and smart money policy. Trying to erase that for partisan reasons is, well, beyond disgraceful.”

Trying to smear the Liberal leader gets harder when one considers who else had praised Carney’s work in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis — Jim Flaherty in a video: “Mark has been a superb governor at the Bank of Canada for more than five years.”

And then there was the praise for Carney from Harper himself. When prime minister, Harper welcomed Carney’s appointment as chair of the Financial Stability Board. The FSB was established to co-ordinate national financial authorities at the international level. It was international recognition for a job well done.

Carney’s appointment was announced during the G20 leaders’ summit in France on Nov. 4, 2011. Harper said at the time: “The selection of Mr. Carney as chair of the Financial Stability Board is testament to his skills and to the strength of Canada’s financial system. This is the right appointment at the right time as the world works to strengthen the global financial system and sustain a fragile global economic recovery.”

Another feather in Carney’s hat? For the previous four years, the World Economic Forum rated Canada’s banking system as the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine also named Canada as the best place in the world to do business.

Taught by a ruthless master

So with all that praise, how does one knock Carney down a peg or two? The answer reaches back in time to a master of dark political arts who influenced both Harper and Poilievre.

At the rally where Harper endorsed him, Poilievre praised the former PM as “the best mentor” he could have had in his career.

And that conjures the identity of Stephen Harper’s mentor. His name was Arthur Finkelstein, a brilliant pollster and political adviser who helped right-wing governments in the United States and around the world get elected — including those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. Sort of what the International Democracy Union does under Harper’s leadership.

Finkelstein was most famous for one thing. He perfected the art of the political attack ad. In so doing, he transformed politics and became the most sought-after neo-conservative political strategist in the world.

How did Finkelstein work his black magic? He used pinpoint polling to find a weakness in an opponent, then produced trenchant, repetitive advertisements to exploit that Achilles heel. To Finkelstein, politics was war. If you couldn’t frame the ballot question and therefore began to lose, there was only one tactic left. You had to tear down your opponent, no matter how scurrilous your allegations, no matter the facts.

And that is where Pierre Poilievre finds himself with just two weeks left until election day. After sticking to his loop of slogans for the first few weeks of the contest, the polls showed that the old plan was not working. The Conservatives couldn’t improve Poilievre’s personal ratings, so they had to bring Carney’s ratings down.

That’s why Stephen Harper appeared at that rally south of Edmonton. He was there to trash the man he had once so highly praised.

Pierre Poilievre chimed right in. Assuming his familiar role as attack dog, Poilievre baselessly asserted that Carney was not a businessman. “He is a political grifter who’s used his political influence to turn decisions that profit his company at the expense of workers and seniors.”

And that is what to expect from the Poilievre camp for the balance of the current campaign. From the debate to their final ad blitz, it will be all swift-boating the Liberal leader. Carney as the exploiter of widows and orphans. Carney as the sneaky tax avoider. Carney as the buddy of Beijing. Carney as the elitist blowhard. Carney as the preferred candidate of Donald Trump. And more mudslinging.

The only question is whether gutter politics and character assassination can achieve for Pierre Poilievre what his plans and policies have utterly failed to do. He had two years to successfully vilify Justin Trudeau. Can he vilify Mark Carney in two weeks?

Shiftless2 said:

From S2 " He had two years to successfully vilify Justin Trudeau. Can he vilify Mark Carney in two weeks? " #45

Click to expand...

Does Canada have Snopes ?

sear said:

Does Canada have Snopes ?

Click to expand...

Snopes does comment on Canadian news as well as American

Save the CBC​

pdStnorose774m6h7f5g03glm02famgii521tll9ual004686mm0a3i14cg9 ·

It took Conservatives 40 years to start demanding the very thing they destroyed in the 1980s.

Pierre Poilievre loves to shout about pipelines and energy independence—but Canada could’ve had that decades ago.

In the 1980s, Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program laid out a bold vision:

Energy sovereignty.

Pipeline infrastructure.

Protection from foreign oil shocks.

National control over our own resources.

But Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government tore it down.

They gutted the plan, dismantled national capacity, and handed our energy future to foreign oil giants.

Now Poilievre acts like it’s a new idea—like it’s his idea.

It’s not leadership. It’s cleanup.

Forty years too late.

What else will Canadians have to wait decades for because Conservatives keep dismantling progress?

Affordable housing?

National childcare?

Green jobs and clean energy?

A truly independent media?

Stephen Harper stalled climate action, muzzled scientists, and slashed the CBC.

Now Poilievre wants to finish the job—by defunding public media entirely.

Because CBC remembers. CBC reports.

CBC keeps the receipts.

And that’s what they’re really afraid of.

Don’t let them erase the past. Don’t let them delay the future.

We need public media. We need the CBC.

Shiftless2 said:

" Save the CBC​

...
We need public media. We need the CBC." #48

Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

This yea / nay polarization provides an alarming if familiar distinction.
We clarify this specific political dispute by acknowledging the role of CBC .

With a journalistic reputation to uphold, the CBC parallels the BBC, & PBS,
a conduit for relatively objective news / public information.

Apparently in Canada as in the U.S., objective news feed is welcomed by some,
scorned & reviled by others.

Anything else we need to know?
That single distinction may be enough for most voters to choose their candidate. The champions of ignorance, vs the champions of enlightenment. Tough choice?

Mark Gerretsen​

sonSodeptra11icug22tt360a5609u70793302c41687iai15061uh2fth3i ·

BREAKING - After spending weeks attacking Mark Carney's former company, it is now revealed that *SEVEN* Conservative MPs held stock in that company - including Poilievre and his Deputy Leader, Melissa Lantsman.

These are the assets disclosed by Canada's party leaders, and the rules that govern them​

Federal party leaders face different disclosure rules — and some face none at all​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-2025-leaders-assets-1.7499198

Click to expand...

Politics · Politico

Canada professors association tells academics to stay away from US​

The announcement comes as President Donald Trump continues to crack down on higher education and international students.

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

Louis Guertin · rSsodoepnt53ig8012l8ih47550l3c2215uh57f817l7u9m03672h0lf8g16 ·

https://www.facebook.com/#
A long read but one that shows what Carney was about as governor of the Bank of England.

As MARK CARNEY prepares for the most consequential debate of his life, we tested his Bank of England bona fides — and his rep back home for lacking a certain charisma — against the memory of FIONA MAXWELL, POLITICO's U.K. finance editor. Here's her view:

CARNEY? BORING? — To half of the U.K., MARK CARNEY as Bank of England governor was a calm, apolitical figure during one of the most tumultuous periods in recent British history. A statesmanlike individual, a smooth operator and a steady hand while the actual elected politicians fought like school kids (and it didn’t hurt he was easy on the eyes).

— To the other half: Carney became the Brexit bogeyman, stepped out of his lane by overly warning of the impact of leaving the EU on the U.K. economy and acted too politically.

A leading Conservative MP, JACOB REES-MOGG, once described him as “the high priest of Project Fear,” a term generally used for anti-Brexiteers.

So it’s quite funny to watch him being described as "boring" on the campaign trail in Canada, or as too much of a "technocrat."

There are plenty of criticisms of Carney to be found — but neither of those would resonate with those who used to work with him, or even the wider population.

— A more accurate view: Carney was a divisive figure because he came down quite heavily on one side of the Brexit debate —warning vociferously about the possibility of a recession if the U.K. voted to leave the bloc. But he was certainly a household name, and not a dull one.

“It’s interesting, the commentary about him now, they say he’s a technocrat and he’s not a politician. But he was in all those meetings with politicians, and he’s still around. Many of them are not. He was doing Brexit as more of a politician than most of our politicians,” said a former BoE official who worked closely with Carney.

— Rival take: Conservative Leader PIERRE POILIEVRE said Carney should have been fired when he was governor of the Bank of England — making the case that he’s oversold his record, which Poilievre says was “disastrous.”

That’s probably a bit of a stretch. Carney joined the central bank just after the global financial crisis, dealt with the fallout of Brexit, and handled the initial onslaught of Covid-19 on the financial sector. He was generally praised for his calm presence during those crises.

— Of course, his record isn’t clean: Apart from disapproval by some over how the Bank communicated about Brexit, Carney was also labeled an "unreliable boyfriend" for hinting at post-crisis rate hikes but failing to follow through.

But perhaps his biggest criticism came from within his institution. He was known for having a bit of a temper and for not suffering fools lightly (although whether that’s enough to stand up to U.S. President DONALD TRUMP remains to be seen).

→ That was a pro and a con, said the former official.

“He always wanted to be the best briefed person in the room. Some might have described him as ruthless. But there was a sort of efficiency in a meeting. It’d be like, ‘Right, OK, move on.’ It wasn’t really personal. He’s thinking: ‘I’ve got 1,000 things I’m going to get done today, I’m not going to spend an extra minute on this if I don’t need to.’”

Yet, somehow, that approach seemed to cut through to the wider population. In the final few days before the U.K. held its Brexit referendum, a BBC editor asked a retired woman whether Carney was qualified to predict the impact of Brexit on Britain.

"Yes," she replied, "but does he know what it's like to go round Sainsbury's?” (Sainsbury’s is the U.K.’s second biggest grocer.)

— His legacy in Britain: Carney is remembered as a steady and decisive leader during several turbulent events, even if some people didn’t like what he was saying. But with just over half of the electorate voting for Brexit, he didn’t quite grasp what many of the working-class voters wanted. Of course, as a central bank governor he didn’t really have to.

If he's elected as the prime minister of Canada, he very much would.

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

Dyana Forshner-Juby · oprnSedotsca8f048i41gfa79f66ccg34675gtmgmm1cu02h1m9mifa43ghi ·

https://www.facebook.com/#
I Am Not Justin Trudeau — I’m the Leader Who’ll Keep Canada Free

Danny I.P. – No Retreat. No Surrender.
April 16, 2025

For the first time in this federal campaign, Canadians were able to witness the stark contrast between leadership and extremism. And Mark Carney made one thing abundantly clear: he’s not Justin Trudeau — he’s the future.

While Pierre Poilievre sputtered through his usual scripted rage and conspiracy-laced one-liners, Mark Carney came armed with facts, compassion, and the kind of real-world experience you want in a Prime Minister facing off against Donald Trump’s America.

Let’s break it down.

Carney spoke up for women — openly acknowledging the backward slide on gender representation in politics and stating plainly that it has become harder to recruit women to run. He didn’t make excuses. He didn’t shift blame. He answered like a leader who understands the moment and is committed to doing better.

Meanwhile, the moderator pointed out what the camera couldn’t ignore: not one woman stood on that debate stage. Not one. That’s a shameful reality in 2025, and it says everything about who the parties really are when the spotlight is on.

But the most chilling moment? Pierre Poilievre doubling down on his plan to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, you read that right. The man who wants to be Prime Minister of Canada is proudly vowing to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce his punishment agenda — without debate, without nuance, and without regard for constitutional protections.

Let’s be crystal clear: if you’re willing to override the Charter once, you’re willing to do it again. First it’s for sentencing laws, next it’s abortion rights, trans healthcare, or even the right to protest. That is the road Poilievre is sprinting down — and it should scare every Canadian who values democracy and freedom.

Carney, by contrast, offered economic solutions grounded in reality. He’s not feeding people rage or nostalgia — he’s focused on building the economy of the future. He’s not afraid to say the words “climate change” or “human rights.” And he doesn’t need to wrap himself in the flag to prove he loves this country — his record speaks for itself.

And let’s not forget the subtext: this election is not just about politics — it’s about survival. The survival of our rights. The survival of Canadian sovereignty. The survival of a media landscape not poisoned by American-style propaganda.

So when Carney says “I am not Justin Trudeau,” he’s not throwing shade. He’s drawing a line in the sand.

He’s saying: I will defend what’s worth defending. I will fix what needs fixing. And I will lead this country into the future — not drag it into the past.

To those flirting with apathy or protest votes, here’s your wake-up call:

We cannot let Pierre Poilievre become Canada’s Trump.

Not now. Not ever.

Keep on rockin’ in the FREE world.

Shiftless2 said:

"While Pierre Poilievre sputtered through his usual scripted rage and conspiracy-laced one-liners, Mark Carney came armed with facts, compassion, and the kind of real-world experience you want in a Prime Minister facing off against Donald Trump’s America." Forshner-Juby #54

Click to expand...

That might be a little less unreassuring if it didn't so closely mirror the 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign.

It's a titanic blunder to misunderestimate the political power of sloganeering.

Canada Strong and Free​

Nancy MCClure · npSerostod1uh5liuu8m71h43m7m441uitl3m5c90f4cimh39gf59099h7ti ·

Canada is shifting — and last night, we watched the fault lines widen in French. The French-language debate wasn’t about applause lines or slick rehearsals. It was a political MRI — and the scans were revealing. Pierre Poilievre walked in like a man told to behave — and it showed. Gone were the shouty soundbites, the rage-tinted slogans, the performative anger. What we got instead was the quiet version of Poilievre… and honestly? There was nothing there! No TikTok cadence. No faux-fury. Just awkward pauses and the unsettling realization that without the noise, he doesn’t actually have much to say. Jagmeet Singh looked good. Sounded good. But left almost no mark. Yves Francois Blanchet was bold, biting, and very Quebec — he played to his base, but his base isn’t what it used to be. Mark Carney, the guy they all came for, stood there calmly -answering, clarifying, sometimes stumbling, but never flinching. His French wasn’t perfect, but it was enough. He didn’t perform. He persevered. There’s a difference. And it matters.
Now, with the French debate in the rearview, we shift to the final stage: Thursday, April 17-the English-language leaders’ debate. This is it. The last chance to see all the leaders side by side, speaking in a language they all understand, on a stage where no one gets to hide behind subtitles or hometown crowd advantages. So what should we expect? Poilievre will try to recalibrate. Expect him to swing between slogans and smirks. But now that we’ve seen what happens when the volume drops, don’t expect much substance. Singh will bring the heart. But it may land like déjà vu unless he can carve out something new. Blanchet will toss cultural grenades from the sidelines. Because even in English, he knows how to make Quebec heard. Carney will be the wildcard again. Still not polished. Still not a seasoned politician. But maybe that’s the point. No stunts. No script. Just well-informed responses and calm.

So, indulge me for a moment as I have my own debate question… I am just curious Mr. Poilievre, if you want to lead Canada, could you pretend you don’t want to burn half of it down to win? Let’s start with what we’re all pretending not to see. The Freedom Convoy crowd didn’t disappear — they just traded their rigs for lawn chairs at your rallies. And from the looks of it, they’re not just supporting you… they might be writing the damn agenda. And where are you, Pierre? Right there. Not just watching it happen — encouraging it. You’ve got convoy cosplay at every rally, flag-bearers with a vocabulary that begins and ends with “F***” and you haven’t said a word. Not one. First it was F** Trudeau*. Now it’s F** Carney*. Tomorrow? Probably F** Literacy* -as long as it fits on a flag and keeps the rage machine running. So here’s the real question, Mr. Poilievre: Will you ever look your base in the eye and say, “This is not the Canada I want”? Because until you do, you’re not just tolerating it. You’re endorsing it — with silence, winks, and staged rallies so sanitized, even Fox News might call it propaganda-lite. But of course you won’t say that. Because to denounce them is to lose them. And without them, your campaign isn’t a movement — it’s just a merch stand with a podcast. Do you lead these people? Or just read their comments section and call it policy? Because if you can’t, or won’t say that the flag-waving hate mob doesn’t represent your vision for Canada, then we’ll have to assume that it does. And at that point, let’s be honest: You’re not running to be Prime Minister of Canada, you’re auditioning to be manager of the Maple MAGA outlet. Same rage. Different flag. Because this one isn’t about politics anymore. It’s about whether you actually give a damn about this country or do you just want to watch it burn from the top floor of 24 Sussex with a smirk and a slogan.

And now that I’ve emptied that political junk drawer here we are. The French debate peeled back the polish. The English debate may expose some gaps. And the question Poilievre will never answer is still hanging in the air like smoke from a fire he helped start. And now? Now we vote. Not to relive history — but to stop it from repeating what's happening next door. Because this isn’t about slogans or seats anymore. It’s about sovereignty - ours. And whether Canada steps forward with spine... or follows the convoy into a country it won’t recognize by Christmas. So vote like the border just caught fire. Because actually it kind of already did. NDM

sear said:

It's a titanic blunder to misunderestimate the political power of sloganeering.

Click to expand...

Love the malapropism but it's also a blunder to misunderestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

While "misunderestimate" isn't a formal, standard English word, it is widely recognized as a humorous or malapropism, meaning it's a word that sounds similar to a real word but is used incorrectly. It essentially means to underestimate mistakenly or wrongly. It gained prominence due to its use by former US President George W. Bush, who frequently used it, according to Slate.

Click to expand...

Shiftless2 said:

US President George W. Bush #57

Click to expand...

While in full election campaign mode GWB was asked by a perky young female reporter: "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"

GWB replied: "I'm not a tree. I'm a Bush."

Pierr𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚: 101 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝑵𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝑽𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒎
(A Final Guide Before the 2025 Election)

𝟏. 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌 𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝑫𝒂𝒚
On the same day Canada apologized to residential school survivors, Poilievre said Indigenous people needed “hard work” not money. He apologized later—but the mindset was clear.
𝟐. 𝑽𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑩𝒊𝒍𝒍
In 2014, he introduced the “Fair Elections Act,” which made voting harder for Indigenous, students, and seniors. Experts called it a targeted attempt to suppress non-Conservative voters.
𝟑. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 “𝑩𝒂𝒓𝒃𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒄 𝑷𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔” 𝑻𝒊𝒑 𝑳𝒊𝒏𝒆
In 2015, the CPC launched a hotline to report so-called “barbaric cultural practices.” It was widely condemned as Islamophobic—and even Conservatives admitted it backfired.
𝟒. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝑻𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈
MP Kellie Leitch proposed screening immigrants for “Canadian values.” The message? If you think differently, you’re a threat. It divided Canadians, not united them.
𝟓. 𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒔
During the 2022 convoy blockade, Conservative leader Candice Bergen told MPs to not resolve it—but to make it “Trudeau’s problem.” Public safety was sacrificed for politics.
𝟔. 𝑩𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒐𝒊𝒏 𝑩𝒍𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓
Poilievre told Canadians to fight inflation by buying Bitcoin. It crashed by 50% shortly after. That’s not leadership—it’s reckless gambling with people’s savings.
𝟕. “𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒂 𝒊𝒔 𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒏” 𝑹𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄
His first speech as leader claimed the country was “broken.” But tearing down Canada with slogans isn’t leadership—it’s an excuse for division.
𝟖. 𝑩𝒊𝒈 𝑶𝒊𝒍’𝒔 𝑩𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑭𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅
Poilievre met with oil executives—then promised to cancel carbon pricing and green investments. He sided with polluters while the country burned.
𝟗. 𝑷𝒂𝒚-𝒕𝒐-𝑷𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔
While attacking “elites,” he quietly attended dozens of private fundraisers with corporate lobbyists. Poilievre rails against gatekeepers—then dines with them.
𝟏𝟎. 𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑯𝒚𝒑𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒚
He claims to fight for affordable housing—yet voted against it, and takes donations from landlords profiting off unaffordability.
𝟏𝟏. “𝑮𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒕” 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒚
In 2020, Poilievre promoted a petition against a fictional “Great Reset,” fueling conspiracy theories. Leaders should solve crises—not invent imaginary threats.
𝟏𝟐. 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒏 𝑫𝒓. 𝑻𝒂𝒎
CPC MP Derek Sloan implied Canada’s chief medical officer was disloyal due to her Chinese heritage. Conservatives chose division over unity during a crisis.
𝟏𝟑. 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒂𝒍
In 2021, CPC delegates rejected acknowledging climate change as real. Denying science won’t save our future.
𝟏𝟒. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑽𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔
CPC MPs openly opposed COVID vaccination and mask mandates, undermining public health. Good leaders protect citizens—not put politics first.
𝟏𝟓. 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
Poilievre praised the 2022 convoy protest despite foreign funding and rampant disinformation. Responsible leaders confront lies—they don’t promote them.
𝟏𝟔. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒔
Conservative MP Gary Vidal accused climate scientists of exaggerating for grants. Rejecting experts won’t prevent climate disaster.
𝟏𝟕. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑽𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
MP Leslyn Lewis spread vaccine misinformation. Poilievre refused to denounce her publicly. Silence speaks loudly.
𝟏𝟖. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑳𝑮𝑩𝑻𝑸+ 𝑹𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄
CPC MPs supported anti-LGBTQ+ protests, spreading harmful lies about education. Hate has no place in Canadian politics.
𝟏𝟗. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
Poilievre called Canada’s 2050 net-zero goal “utopian madness.” Abandoning climate commitments endangers our future.
𝟐𝟎. 𝑿𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒄 𝑹𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄 𝒐𝒏 𝑰𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
CPC MPs spread fear by exaggerating immigration numbers, claiming Canada would be overwhelmed. Leaders unite—they don’t spread division.
𝟐𝟏. 𝑻𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑭𝒂𝒓-𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝑬𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔
Poilievre was pictured shaking hands with far-right extremist Jeremy MacKenzie. Leadership must clearly reject extremism.
𝟐𝟐. 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒍 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒔
During Ottawa’s 2022 blockade, Poilievre sided openly with protesters waving hate symbols, undermining law and order.
𝟐𝟑. 𝑳𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑼𝒍𝒕𝒓𝒂-𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝑴𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒂
Poilievre repeatedly appeared on Rebel News, a platform known for extremism and conspiracy theories. Leaders should challenge misinformation—not endorse it.
𝟐𝟒. 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒊𝒆𝒔
Conservative MPs dined with Christine Anderson from Germany’s extremist AfD party. Only after public backlash did Poilievre distance himself. Too little, too late.
𝟐𝟓. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑺𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌𝒔
CPC youth leader posted neo-Nazi content online. While removed later, such individuals should never have risen within party ranks.
𝟐𝟔. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑹𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄
Former CPC MP Maxime Bernier criticized “extreme diversity,” emboldening extremists. CPC must decisively reject such narratives.
𝟐𝟕. 𝑸𝑨𝒏𝒐𝒏 𝑻𝒊𝒆𝒔
A CPC candidate associated with QAnon conspiracy theorists had her candidacy withdrawn only after public exposure. Screening failures compromise party integrity.
𝟐𝟖. 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒔
CPC delayed ejecting MP Derek Sloan after he received neo-Nazi donations. Leaders must act swiftly against extremism, not reluctantly.
𝟐𝟗. 𝑬𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒆𝒑𝒆 𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒔
Poilievre met lockdown protesters known for sharing far-right Pepe the Frog memes. Legitimizing such figures normalizes online extremism.
𝟑𝟎. 𝑫𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔
Extremist Jeremy MacKenzie, whom Poilievre once met, made violent threats against Poilievre’s family. Leaders must proactively denounce extremism—not after becoming victims themselves.
𝟑𝟏. 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔
Despite tough talk, Harper’s CPC had senators with close ties to pro-Russian lobbyists, raising concerns over foreign influence.
𝟑𝟐. 𝑫𝒐𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂
Conservatives criticized the government for attending a Russian event in 2022, while some CPC figures had previously done the same—hypocrisy undermines trust.
𝟑𝟑. 𝑾𝒆𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
CPC secretly spread misleading ads in Chinese communities via WeChat, falsely accusing Liberals of legalizing hard drugs—ethically questionable tactics.
𝟑𝟒. 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝑭𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔
Despite criticizing Trudeau over Chinese influence, CPC candidates accepted donations from individuals linked to Chinese state firms—a troubling double standard.

CONTINUED

PART 2

𝟑𝟓. 𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒐𝒏 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
Poilievre hesitated to support Trudeau when India was implicated in the murder of a Canadian citizen, showing weakness in defending national sovereignty.
𝟑𝟔. 𝑫𝒊𝒂𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒂 𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔
CPC panders selectively to diaspora groups, avoiding principled stances on human rights violations abroad—undermining Canada’s international credibility.
𝟑𝟕. 𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒎𝒑-𝑺𝒕𝒚𝒍𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎
Poilievre emulates Trump’s divisive rhetoric and campaign style, posing a risk of importing destructive American-style polarization into Canada.
𝟑𝟖. 𝑼𝑺 𝑮𝒖𝒏 𝑳𝒐𝒃𝒃𝒚 𝑻𝒊𝒆𝒔
CPC consistently opposes Canadian gun control measures, echoing the U.S. NRA’s talking points—prioritizing foreign interests over Canadian safety.
𝟑𝟗. 𝑶𝒊𝒍 𝑳𝒐𝒃𝒃𝒚 𝑰𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
Poilievre promises pipeline expansions regardless of environmental concerns, clearly prioritizing oil interests over climate commitments and long-term economic stability.
𝟒𝟎. 𝑯𝒖𝒂𝒘𝒆𝒊 𝑳𝒐𝒃𝒃𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
Former CPC ministers lobbied for Huawei, contradicting their public stance on Chinese influence—raising serious conflict-of-interest concerns.
𝟒𝟏. 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑺𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔
CPC Senator Lynn Beyak publicly praised residential schools as beneficial, showing deep insensitivity toward Indigenous communities.
𝟒𝟐. 𝑰𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒄 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕
CPC MP Michael Cooper insulted a Muslim witness by reading a terrorist’s manifesto during a parliamentary committee hearing—demonstrating reckless prejudice.
𝟒𝟑. 𝑩𝒖𝒓𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒊 𝑱𝒐𝒌𝒆 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒖𝒓𝒆
Lisa Raitt mocked Muslim swimwear (“burkinis”), reinforcing CPC’s image of cultural intolerance and insensitivity toward religious minorities.
𝟒𝟒. 𝑩𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝑫𝒐𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔
CPC condemned Trudeau’s blackface scandal while overlooking similar racist incidents within their own ranks, highlighting hypocrisy.
𝟒𝟓. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑩𝑳𝑴 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆
Former CPC leader Andrew Scheer called Black Lives Matter “radical Marxism,” alienating voters and dismissing legitimate concerns about systemic racism.
𝟒𝟔. 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒄 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒎
Senator Céline Stewart publicly dismissed systemic racism, undermining CPC credibility in addressing racial inequalities in Canada.
𝟒𝟕. 𝑶𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑴-𝟏𝟎𝟑 (𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑰𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒂)
Poilievre and 85 other CPC MPs opposed a parliamentary motion condemning Islamophobia, revealing reluctance to fight anti-Muslim hatred.
𝟒𝟖. 𝑨𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒏 𝑸𝒖𝒆𝒃𝒆𝒄’𝒔 𝑩𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝟐𝟏
CPC refused to condemn Quebec’s discriminatory law banning religious symbols, putting political gain ahead of religious freedoms.
𝟒𝟗. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑰𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝑫𝒆𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒆
CPC opposed gender-neutral changes to Canada’s national anthem, demonstrating resistance even to symbolic progress toward equality.
𝟓𝟎. 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒕 𝑹𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒔
CPC MP Carolyn Leavitt participated in anti-LGBTQ rallies, promoting harmful narratives against transgender rights and safety.
𝟓𝟏. 𝑶𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒚 𝑩𝒂𝒏
Poilievre and 62 CPC MPs initially opposed the ban on conversion therapy, only reversing their stance under massive public pressure, showing their reluctance to genuinely support LGBTQ+ rights.

CONTINUED