Mark Carney’s speech in Quebec City sparked a backlash among sovereigntists because he used the 1759 British Conquest as a historical lesson for modern Canadian resilience. Speaking at the Citadelle, Carney framed the Conquest as a foundational moment for Canadian sovereignty, arguing that it helped forge a nation capable of resisting American influence. For the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois, this was an offensive and tone-deaf gesture; they view the Conquest not as a symbol of shared strength, but as the historical subjugation of the French-speaking nation.Furthermore, sovereigntists were angered by Carney’s appropriation of the word "sovereignty" to describe federal power and Canadian unity. To them, the term is reserved for Quebec’s independence. By using it to promote pan-Canadian nationalism, Carney was seen as erasing Quebec’s distinct identity. Ultimately, his speech was condemned as a "humiliating" display of federalist arrogance that ignored Quebec's history.
Poilievre lost his Carleton seat because he was honest about cutting the public service. The Carleton riding is heavy with public servants. Carney is cutting the public service but didn't disclose his plans until after he won the election.So if Poilievre had been underhanded and hid his intentions he might have won his seat of 19 years.
"He called for an American-style "castle law"The right to security within one's own home is a fundamental human liberty that predates government itself. When an intruder violates the sanctity of a dwelling, they actively choose to threaten the safety of those inside. The current Canadian legal framework, which can criminalize victims for using "disproportionate" force, is morally inverted. It demands that terrified citizens make complex legal calculations during life-or-death moments, often prioritizing the aggressor's safety over the innocent.A robust "castle law" acknowledges that the state cannot be everywhere at once. If the government cannot guarantee immediate protection, it has no moral authority to strip citizens of the tools and legal standing necessary to protect themselves. The law must clearly stand with the victim, ensuring that no Canadian fears prosecution for defending their family and property against criminal violation.
Saying he "fumbled" ignores the reality that the Conservatives actually gained 24 seats under his leadership. That is clear progress, not failure.It’s not "shocking" that he’s still leader when he just secured 87.4% support in the leadership review, a massive mandate. The membership clearly doesn't blame him; they know the election result was driven by the Liberals swapping in Carney and the economic hit from the trade war, not Poilievre’s performance. He’s back in the House via Battle River, Crowfoot and obviously has the party's full backing for the next round.
When I can hear a dog barking and kids making noise in the background that interferes with the conversation I'd say yes, it's time to go back to the office.
It is remarkably ironic to see a millennial use the same reductive "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" logic, like the "lotto ticket" trope that has been used to dismiss their own generation’s struggles for years. For over a decade, millennials were told their inability to afford housing was due to "avocado toast" and lattes, rather than systemic economic shifts. By echoing that rhetoric here, you have adopted the very dismissive attitude millenials resent.To suggest that elderly poverty is simply a failure of "planning" ignores the reality of 2026. A fixed pension cannot outrun record-high inflation or skyrocketing healthcare costs. Whether the excuse is toast or tickets, these tropes only serve to distract from a system failing people at both ends of the age spectrum. If millenials want their own economic hurdles to be taken seriously, they cannot meet the vulnerability of others with the same recycled cruelty. Compassion shouldn't have an age limit.
Your claim that Poilievre offers "just outrage politics" is objectively false. He has released substantive, detailed legislation: the "Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act" to incentivize 2.3 million new homes, a "Dollar-for-Dollar" law to cap spending, and targeted bail reform for repeat violent offenders. These are concrete policies, not empty rhetoric.Furthermore, labeling the modern CPC as "far far right" is hyperbole that ignores the actual platform. Fiscal discipline, lower taxes, and safer streets are traditional, mainstream conservative priorities—not extremism. Analysts note he is actually consolidating the centre-right, effectively blocking the rise of chaotic fringe politics seen elsewhere.Pining for a "Peter MacKay type" ignores that the membership spoke decisively, giving Poilievre a historic first-ballot mandate. Even MacKay backs this unity. You are dismissing a serious policy agenda by pasting a scary label on it.
It is unclear why a democratic process functioning exactly as intended constitutes a "sad day." A major party just held a leadership review where members spoke decisively, granting Poilievre an 87% mandate. In a healthy democracy, a leader securing clear confidence is a sign of stability, not sorrow. Unless "sad" is simply code for "a result I dislike," your ambiguity misses the point: democracy happened, and voters made their choice.Furthermore, the Trump comparison is intellectually lazy and factually weak. Trump was a chaotic outsider with zero political experience who challenged institutional norms. Poilievre is the exact opposite: a disciplined career parliamentarian and "policy nerd" operating strictly within the Westminster system. Equating the two ignores their vastly different backgrounds, reducing complex politics to a generic label for "conservative I don't like."
He said it contributed to increased costs on everything, not just food. And he is correct. Gas dropped by 11 cents a liter the day after Carney borrowed the Conservative plan to axe the tax.
@Royal CityI appreciate the etymological perspective! While 'sovereignty' certainly has Old French roots, in the theater of Canadian politics, words function as more than just dictionary definitions—they are symbols. For the last 60 years, that specific term has been the linguistic pillar of the independence movement.Using it inside the Citadelle while framing the 1759 Conquest—the literal site of French defeat—as a 'foundational moment' isn't just a language choice; it’s a massive failure of political semiotics. It isn't 'cynical' to point out that Carney chose a metaphor that carries deep historical scars for his audience. We don't have to agree with the sovereigntist reaction to recognize that the rhetoric was objectively tone-deaf to the setting. It’s less about 'trademarking' a word and more about the PMO failing to read the room in a province where history is never just in the past.
From the horse's mouth.https://youtu.be/TuaWWKyczLE?si=xIzrVfVXHSx_U1boKurek wasn't forced. He voluntarily stepped down. And he talks about in the video. So please click the link and educate yourself.
I'm astounded that anyone would disagree with your comment. As evidenced by the number of thumbs down votes.This country is abused on a daily basis by Interlopers so I'm forced to believe that the naysayers are part of the problem.
"Retired Railroader," claiming Poilievre "lost" an election "his to lose" is a shallow reading of the results. The Conservatives gained over 20 seats and achieved their highest popular vote share in decades. Calling a razor-thin minority a "failure" ignores the massive growth in the party's base.Your claim that the party is "falling apart" is also factually wrong. Poilievre just secured 87% support in the leadership review, a massive mandate proving the membership is united. If the party were fracturing, he wouldn't have near-unanimous backing. You are mistaking the noise of a few unhappy outliers for a crisis that doesn't exist. The numbers prove the party is stronger, not weaker.