Pierre Poilievre: Canada's Stagnant Conservative
A look at the importance of honesty and integrity in policy and communication.
As the current leader of Canada’s Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre should consider a vast array of factors before arriving at a position. Political decisions and opinions can be derived from ideologically grounded principles, but policymaking is not so simple as defending unmoving, theoretical positions. Not even for Canada’s current federal Conservatives.
Our politicians must also be willing to consider the wishes and needs of their constituents as political, social, and economic environments evolve, encouraging the embodying of public opinion. Keep in mind that a politician is obliged to consider the wishes and needs of all their constituents, rather than only their party’s voters. This point reveals a key requirement for anyone seeking to be, say, Prime Minister of Canada: they must be capable of collaborating and building trust with those who disagree with them.
People, not just politicians, build trust by honestly discussing issues, transparently communicating about decisions, and acting with integrity. With that in mind, consider the following case from the Kawartha Lakes area of Ontario of an August 2025 break-in, and how Pierre Poilievre communicated about it, the relevant concept of self-defense, and Canada’s Criminal Code.
On August 18, 2025, the home of Lindsay, Ontario resident Jeremy McDonald was broken into by alleged intruder Michael Kyle Breen. There are few details available that clarify precisely how the altercation unfolded, but Breen was allegedly armed with a crossbow and, by the fight’s end, had sustained what Kawartha Lakes Police Service called “life-endangering injuries”. McDonald had allegedly inflicted Breen’s wounds with a knife after discovering Breen in his home.
Both men are facing criminal charges. Breen is facing Break, Enter, and Theft and Possession of a Weapon for Dangerous Purposes, and two other charges, while McDonald is facing Aggravated Assault and Assault With a Weapon. Your immediate intuition is probably that this is a ridiculous result; that McDonald should not be facing these charges for defending himself and his home against an armed invader with unknown intentions. I urge the reader to withhold that kneejerk judgement until more information is available.
Of this case’s few known facts, one is that the men knew each other as long-time Lindsay residents and another is that their homes are close in proximity, confirmed by two acquaintances of Breen and court documents. Learning that the two men know each other changed how I imagined the altercation may have played out, from Breen’s motives for breaking in to the extent to which McDonald may have been disposed to fighting back and consequently harming Breen. Further, the Kawartha Lakes Police Service, in a media release, asked the public to understand their side:
Investigators have access to information that is unavailable to the wider public and they will present their findings to the justice system.
Charges are laid after the available evidence has been reviewed.
Charges are not convictions. Charges are one component of a multi-step judicial process.
Self-defense exists in Canada, as clearly enshrined in the Criminal Code’s sections 34 and 35, but it is not unlimited. Self defense must be “reasonable given the circumstances”.
In case it needs to be said, of course there is the possibility of incompetent investigators and thus there are bound to be cases where charges are laid incorrectly despite a surveying of the evidence or because evidence was neglected. Since we’re not privy to that process, I cannot simply assume, without more information, that this is a case where the police failed in their duty. For now, I want to focus on the final point about self defense and our Criminal Code.
That chunk of our Criminal Code, pertaining to defense of oneself, others, and property, was introduced during the administration of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a significant reform of the old provisions. This Harper-era amendment improved the language of our Criminal Code’s provisions for self-defense, defense of others, and property, making it much more comprehensible for the public and those trained in legalese alike.
At the time, the changes were welcomed. Pierre Poilievre voted for them with the government he was a part of in 2012. Why, then, would he blame the Liberals for the current Criminal Code and for how the Lindsay, Ontario case is being handled?
During a press conference on August 29th during which he spoke about the Lindsay case, Poilievre did exactly that by saying the current “complicated and indecipherable legal doctrine” requires consideration of “nine very vague and complicated conditions.”
Instead of implying the current government is responsible for the Harper government’s changes (changes he now disagrees with, apparently), why didn’t he communicate honestly? This is clearly a fringe self-defense case, so why not take this chance to speak about its complexity? Alternatively, he could also have begun with “the legal doctrine with which I agreed previously has nine conditions which have proven to be insufficient for properly analysing all cases of self defense, as seen in the Lindsay, Ontario case.”
What is perhaps most telling about Poilievre’s motives for communicating in his chosen fashion is that he spoke in such sweeping terms about a developing story, well before any such strong opinions should be held. It seems obvious that he cared more about using this story to fit his political narrative than he did about discussing it with nuance and honesty.
After blaming the Liberals (and, directly or not, the Kawartha Lakes police), Poilievre proclaimed that his Conservatives would propose a private member’s bill with the “Stand on Guard principle” at its core, outlined in this press release, if the government did not propose a bill to the same effect. Poilievre wants the “vague and subjective” law of the Criminal Code replaced with one which “protects the innocent, presumes reasonableness, and ends legal limbo.”
Under the proposed Stand on Guard principle, any amount of force used against an intruder in your home who poses a threat would be presumed reasonable. In order to make that distinct from current law, “poses a threat” has to do a lot of work and proportionality must be regarded as less important.
However, “poses a threat” still requires subjective analysis by the one perceiving the threat, despite subjectivity being something Poilievre seems to want to eliminate, and proportionality is a factor that, surely, everyone agrees should be considered. Do you have the right to simply kill someone if they enter your home? What if you incapacitate or apprehend someone, can you continue to beat them, perhaps to death, after they’re passed out? What about juvenile offenders? Do all criminals lack moral value? Imagine a confused person who enters the wrong home. Did they abandon their right to life once they crossed the property line?
These questions are worth asking because it is these very situations that the Stand on Guard principle would complicate. Similar principles, like that of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Statute, lead to more deaths, and more death is not a goal we should be working towards. You can read more in this JAMA publication on the topic. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those from marginalized communities make up disproportionately high numbers of the increase in deaths.
In that Conservative press release from earlier, they referenced a 2019 case from Collingwood, Ontario, in which homeowner Cameron Gardiner was arrested after defending himself, his girlfriend, his children, and his property. Two masked men with guns broke into his home, zip-tied Gardiner and his girlfriend, and searched their home. Gardiner broke free when his older son arrived, and both masked men were killed in the tussle with their shotgun.
Gardiner was arrested by police, much to his dismay, and the Crown initially pursued second-degree murder charges against him before lowering them to manslaughter charges. The Crown withdrew their charges because there was no reasonable chance of conviction. I’ll repeat that. Under current law, Cameron Gardiner was not convicted of a crime for defending himself, his family, and his property, despite killing two men.
When it comes down to it, Poilievre seems to be most impassioned by the immediate aftermath of these events, such as Cameron Gardiner being treated like a criminal and going through exhausting “legal limbo”, incurring legal fees, etc. But instead of focusing specifically and explicitly on that issue, Poilievre paints with far too wide a brush as an attempt to score political points, trying to pass off a Criminal Code amendment that he agreed with as a “legal doctrine” devised by the Liberals. Hilariously, it’s his own proverbial baby he’s throwing out with the bathwater.
The Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre have adopted and committed to a contrarian and dishonest political style, and it is proving to be increasingly repulsive to Canadians. He has dedicated far too much energy to sparring with the political ghost of Justin Trudeau and far too little to understanding what Canadians actually want from their leaders. It’s no surprise that two Conservative MPs have crossed the floor to join the Liberals and another is resigning.
Before Justin Trudeau resigned, Canada was ready to elect Poilievre as Prime Minister, though it is now obvious that it was only because we no longer wanted Justin Trudeau as our leader. At that time, Conservatives and Poilievre enjoyed large leads in the polls and Jordan B. Peterson, a major figure on the right, titled the episode of his podcast that featured Poilievre “Canada’s Next Prime Minister”.
Poilievre did not get what he brashly believed he was entitled to. Instead of the Conservatives forming a government, they had lost the election and blown a nearly 30 point lead in the polls. Poilievre wasn’t even re-elected in his own riding, where he had won seven elections. He only regained his status as a Member of Parliament by running in a by-election in the safest seat in the country: Battleriver-Crowfoot, Alberta; a riding that had just elected Damien Kurek. Kurek was pushed aside so that Poilievre could run. Poilievre’s desperation to regain relevance was palpable.
After such a dramatic and historic reversal of political fortunes, one may feel that introspection was duly in order. Perhaps, after all, there was something about him that affected the outcome. Unthinkable, Poilievre must have thought, for he did little to change how he approaches policy, communication, and leadership. Any changes to his style after the election were mild, short-lived, or both.
Since he became the MP for Battleriver-Crowfoot, Poilievre has been mostly ignored by the Prime Minister and the government, a government that is now two MPs larger thanks to newly minted Liberal MPs Chris d’Entremont and Michael Ma. After d’Entremont crossed the floor, Poilievre was asked if he felt that he should reflect on his leadership style. He responded with an instant and concise “No.”
No wonder the government is ignoring him and his Conservatives! Without anything constructive to add and the Liberals effectively capturing public opinion, the Leader of the Opposition is left to complain on the sidelines, saved from having to do any of the hard work himself.
Poilievre is a liability to his federal Conservatives. With the shadow of his impending party leadership review now looming over him, will he survive as leader? The Conservatives are maintaining a strong average level of support across the nation, but Prime Minister Mark Carney consistently and substantially outperforms Poilievre as Canadians’ preferred Prime Minister. While his party is inexplicably still supporting him, one has to wonder if Poilievre’s leadership will endure if another of his MPs crosses the floor, giving the Liberals a majority government.
The Kawartha Lakes case was an illustration of Poilievre’s failings. He hastily spoke about an issue, not caring if he had all the relevant information, blamed the Liberals for the very policy he previously endorsed, and wants to usher in changes to self-defense law that would almost certainly lead to more harm than good. This is not someone who acts with integrity, communicates honestly, or collaborates well. Especially not with his rivals.
The Conservatives are in a difficult place. As things stand, Poilievre has no chance at beating Carney as Canadians’ preferred Prime Minister, but they also have no obvious choice for replacing Poilievre. Do they support him in his leadership review only to lose the next election anyway because Poilievre is broadly unlikeable? Such an election could even give the Liberals a majority, if they don’t get one from Conservatives fleeing Poilievre’s party before then, that is. Do they oust him, only to replace him with a candidate with no national recognition or ability to hold the party together against a strong Liberal mandate? That option could also reduce their likelihood of winning an election.
Pierre Poilievre has led the Official Opposition to stagnation. Canadians deserve better than a politician whose primary guiding principle is contrarianism and we should expect better than someone who is more focused on slam-dunking the previous Prime Minister on podcasts than he is on holding his own caucus together. Poilievre’s political survival demands his adaptation but he has proven unwilling, incapable, or both, to commit to any such changes. Until he does, I predict that the curse of irrelevance will haunt him to retirement.