Pierre Poilievre, in the eyes of many fiscal conservatives, represents a return to economic pragmatism—something we haven’t seen in Canadian leadership for years. Compared to Mark Carney, Poilievre is seen by this blog’s contributors as the stronger candidate to lead Canada, not only because of his stance on inflation and spending, but because of the potential to repeal censorship-driven legislation currently enshrined in Canadian law—God willing.
The political honeymoon for Mark Carney will likely end by September 2025. By then, measurable results will be expected. While Carney’s international reputation and polished résumé are impressive to some, his policies appear increasingly aligned with large-scale spending and top-down governance. His support base—consisting heavily of public sector workers and welfare recipients—recognizes that his defeat could mean a reduction in government expansion and job security, especially for those in redundant white-collar roles.
Compounding this political dynamic is Canada’s aggressive immigration policy, which, for many left-leaning strategists, is less about economic productivity and more about securing votes. The Conservative Party sees this demographic shift clearly, and Poilievre’s team has crafted a message accordingly.
That said, this blog’s contributors believe that Pierre Poilievre is missing a key opportunity. Rather than focusing solely on criticizing Carney’s record, he should be laying the groundwork for a much-needed austerity agenda. We call this the “Doug Ford strategy”: say less, act more. Ford, despite his flaws, has maintained power largely by avoiding polarizing language and acting pragmatically within the constraints of his provincial mandate.
Ford’s approach isn’t without criticism, but it works in Ontario—a province where political literacy is often low, and where voters may hesitate to back both federal and provincial conservatives simultaneously. If the federal Conservatives win, Ford’s leadership may become a casualty of perceived “conservative overload.”
Still, a unified conservative agenda—focused on substantial spending cuts and deregulation—would be the dream scenario for fiscal conservatives in Ontario. To achieve this, Poilievre must avoid making the mistake many conservatives do: assuming that Canadians understand economics. They don’t. Too many voters conflate politics with economics, failing to grasp the importance of liberty, property rights, free speech, and bodily autonomy in preserving national prosperity.
Socialism, in practice, depends on force and censorship. Modern environmentalism, for example, has become dogmatic. Many climate activists believe dissenters should be silenced or punished. This is not new—such zeal mirrors religious fanaticism from ancient times. In the absence of faith in God, many look to the state to be their provider and protector, a “Nanny Earth Daddy,” so to speak.
This is why spreading truth and educating the public is critical. Even Jesus Christ, during His time on Earth, faced rejection. After raising Lazarus from the dead, many in power didn’t rejoice—they feared the political consequences and plotted against Him. Unbelievers will always invent their own truth, even in 2025, when some believe mankind can “control the weather” through taxes and regulation.
While radical climate solutions already exist, they’re costly—and incompatible with cradle-to-grave welfare systems. That’s why the climate movement has evolved to include censorship, price controls, and the demonization of fossil fuels, even if it collapses economic viability. These zealots won’t stop until the Kingdom of God—or the very notion of liberty—is erased.
Rather than appeasing this ideology, conservatives must focus on truth and clarity. Argentina offers a recent example. That nation, crippled by socialism, embraced freedom of speech. As a result, outsider Javier Milei gained traction not by conforming, but by educating and confronting the socialist narrative head-on.
Pierre Poilievre should take note. Canadians are approaching a breaking point. We don’t need more political games—we need economic literacy. The issue isn’t merely Mark Carney’s spending. The real concern is the trajectory of the country. Canada is heading toward bankruptcy, and Poilievre’s job isn’t to argue with the left—it’s to explain where this path leads.
Poilievre’s biggest mistake so far? His full-throated support of Canada’s supply management system. That stance signaled party loyalty over principle. Patrick Brown, during a past debate, offered a better response: remain non-committal, neither endorsing nor condemning the policy outright. Conservatives don’t need to win every battle now—they just need to avoid alienating future opportunities for reform.
Doug Ford understands this. He’s trimmed programs quietly, avoided tyrannical mandates, and kept the focus on jobs—even though many jobs are leaving due to federal mismanagement. He’s made mistakes, such as following Ottawa’s reckless EV agenda, but compared to Carney, Ford is pragmatic.
Let’s not forget: it was Ontario voters who handed Carney his victory. Many simply wanted “easy answers,” not detailed economic policy. This is where conservatives must rise. Instead of politicizing every issue, we must educate the public. You don’t have to attack Carney to win—you just have to dismantle the socialist narratives.
And finally, for those seeking real security, we offer this encouragement:
Consider making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior today.
Because no matter who leads Canada, eternal life and truth come from only one King—and His Kingdom is not of this world.