Canadian Conservatism is losing its soul

Pierre Poilievre is leading the Conservative Party away from compassion and compromise toward division, fear, and authoritarian-style tactics

Interview requests

The Progressive Conservative tradition of compassion and compromise I grew up with has given way to a harder, more uncompromising brand of politics under Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.

My first encounter with Conservatism in Canada came when I lived in a riding represented by Michael Wilson, a former finance minister and key figure in Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government. We corresponded often. Though we disagreed on many issues, Wilson always emphasized that his party believed in compassion and compromise.

That rang true. On matters such as the economy and foreign affairs, the Progressive Conservatives showed a willingness to find middle ground.

But over the decades, that kind of conservatism has been replaced.

When Canada’s right-leaning parties merged in the early 2000s, the result was a more rigid and narrow political force. Even Preston Manning’s Reform Party, a western-based populist movement of the 1990s, allowed for debate and compromise. Under Poilievre, the Conservatives have hardened into something less tolerant, less pragmatic and more ideological.

Political movements evolve, but this version of the Conservative Party stands apart, not only from Canada’s past, but from conservative traditions abroad.

In Britain, the Tories have at least acknowledged the suffering of Palestinian civilians caught in conflict. Poilievre’s Conservatives have shown no such nuance. They’ve lined up uncritically behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government is leading the war in Gaza, even as many Canadians question the disproportionate toll on civilians.

In Europe, parties like Germany’s Christian Democrats still blend fiscal responsibility with strong social supports, much like the old Progressive Conservatives once did. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, is drifting closer to the populist margins of global politics.

That contrast matters because it shows just how far Poilievre’s Conservatives have strayed, not only from Canada’s past, but from today’s centre-right mainstream abroad.

While Poilievre is not authoritarian, some of his messaging echoes tactics used in more authoritarian styles of politics—such as targeting vulnerable groups, stoking fears of decline and enforcing rigid internal loyalty. These are not the traits of a party looking to govern for all Canadians. They are signs of a hard-edged movement unwilling to compromise.

Taken together, these tactics show how Poilievre’s party isn’t just targeting vulnerable Canadians; it’s also contributing to public distrust in the institutions meant to protect them.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the focus on gender non-conforming Canadians.

This small and vulnerable group poses no threat to anyone, yet they have become political targets in public messaging. My experience with inclusive schools shows the opposite of what Poilievre’s supporters claim—that acceptance makes things better for everyone. The fearmongering simply doesn’t hold up.

A similar pattern emerged when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner pledged to legislate against what she described as a “double standard” for immigrants who commit crimes. According to Statistics Canada and multiple independent studies, immigrants are statistically no more likely to commit crimes than Canadian-born individuals. Her proposal wasn’t a meaningful policy solution. It was political messaging that risks undermining public trust in the rule of law.

That matters. In Canada’s Westminster system—a parliamentary model where power is centralized in the ruling party—a majority government can do almost anything. The courts are among the few checks on political overreach. When Conservatives attack judicial independence, they chip away at the foundations of our democracy.

Despite their strength in core “blue no matter who” ridings, Poilievre’s relentless “Canada is broken” message hasn’t convinced the broader public. In the last federal election, the party failed to unseat the Liberals, and Poilievre himself remains a polarizing figure. That wasn’t just about personality. It was a rejection of the hard-edged direction his party is taking, and a vote of confidence in a centre-left alternative.

I remember when Conservatives like Wilson led with compassion and compromise. Poilievre has stripped those values away. Without them, his party won’t just alienate voters—it will risk further dividing Canadians and weakening the very democracy it claims to defend.

Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.