Mainstream media disingenuously called the vote to keep the rage-farming Trump mimic, Pierre Poilievre, on as CPC leader “a resounding endorsement.” Global News claimed “Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have overwhelmingly voted to keep Pierre Poilievre on as their leader,” without clarifying that it was only a very small percentage of CPC members who were allowed to vote, who paid to attend, and who did not represent every riding in Canada.

In fact, only a small number of selected members pre-approved by the local riding association could attend and vote; ordinary members of the CPC — about 679,000 across Canada — could not do so without that approval. And a maximum of 12 members per riding could attend, regardless of how many members that riding association had. So roughly 0.38 percent of party members — less than even one percent — made the decision for everyone. The rest were shut out of the process and never consulted about how they felt about PoiLIEvre.

I can find no mainstream media story explaining how those delegates were chosen and by whom. Was it a democratic vote by riding members? Or were they handpicked by the association chair or committee? If so, on what basis were they chosen? And why has no reporter asked about it?*

I can find no mainstream media report on how the delegates voted, with that report listed by riding or even by province. Why has no reporter asked about it?

Nor did mainstream media mention why the event was being held in the Conservative stronghold of Alberta (source of many participants in the insurrectionist convoy that PoiLIEvre supported) with no online component for members in other parts of Canada to participate. Alberta is the heart of the treasonous pro-MAGA separatist movement that is trying to break up Canada to aid the dictator Trump’s economic goal to get Canada’s oil reserves. It’s also the province where PoiLIEvre scuttled to find a safe riding to run in a byelection after he lost his own seat in Ottawa-Carleton during the last federal election. And that winter storms that weekend would have prevented some delegates from other provinces from attending.**

Nor did mainstream media point out that there was no competition in the event; no contenders for the position, no challengers from within the party; only Poilievre himself spoke and no one else was allowed to speak for an alternative or against him. As Global added, “The party opted instead to forego a vote on whether to hold a review and simply asked delegates whether they support Poilievre remaining as leader.” CBC’s headline said he “sails through leadership review,” although there was no actual review involved, just a loyalty vote. And it wasn’t “the party” that made the choice, but rather a small handful of select (elite) members.

Nor can I find any reference in mainstream media to the cost of participation: delegates had to pay a cover charge of $800 to $1,000 apiece to attend ($999 according to The Conversation), plus travel, hotel, and meal costs for their stay. This was not an open process for the whole party: it was a gated clique event for those who could afford it. It showed how much the party really cares about its low-income members. As one poster on Facebook wrote in a comment under Democracy’ Inc.’s post about the event:

About three thousand party insiders (3000) voted at a convention that cost roughly one thousand dollars ($1000) per person to gain access to voter . That is not an open test of confidence. That is a “gated” room. When participation is tied to money you are not measuring public support. You are pre-selecting members for loyalty and access.
Think about who that excludes. People living paycheque to paycheque. People choosing between groceries and rent. Single parents. Senior citizens ,Young workers. Indigenous families. The people who feel policy decisions the hardest are the least able to buy a seat to vote inside that building. Their voices do not disappear because they are unimportant.

Nor can I find many mainstream media comments or interviews from the minority who did not support Poilievre at the event. Almost 13 percent of delegates didn’t vote in his favour, and a number of delegates in attendance (more than 100) did not even cast a vote. Yet PoiLIEvre and the CONservatives always push the conspiracy that the media is biased against them. Not even the CBC — hated by CONservatives since the troglodytic Stephen Harper turned his evil eye on the Crown Corporation — gave his dissenters a voice.

It wasn’t a leadership vote: it was a coronation by the faithful few who could afford to attend.***

Poilievre opened the event with a 45-minute speech in which he basically said that, under his renewed leadership it would be business as usual. In other words, still flogging the Trump playbook: lies, gaslighting, disinformation, indulgences, rage-baiting, deflection, vapid sloganeering, and no substantial policies, platform, or even alternatives, while pretending only he can stick up for Canada against the threats from the very man he emulates. There were no questions, no challenges, no delegate stood up to ask how he could justify staying on after losing both his own seat and the federal election where he began 20 points up in the polls. No one asked about his low and falling popularity and credibility ratings in nationwide polls.****

It was less a leadership “review” than a North-Korea-style celebration of The Great Leader. All clapping in unison…

As The National Observer wrote:

What Poilievre made clear is that he’s sticking to his version of Conservatism, and will continue marching in the same direction that won his party 2.5 million more votes, and 25 more seats, than they’d had going into the election… What Poilievre made clear in his speech is that he will continue to … fan the flames of separatism, while presenting his party as the only cure for it.

Just as a comparison, at the Liberal leadership convention in March 2025, voting was open to all party members and 151,899 cast their ballot. The CPC event included only 1.7 percent of that number. There were no riding association handpicked delegates for the Liberal vote; no paywall to attend, no fees were required to vote (there was no fee to register as a party member).  No barriers at all to participation, aside from party membership.

There were four candidates openly running for the Liberal leadership, and the members had a chance to hear from every one, to read their platforms, and assess their strengths even before voting began. The party website even provided links to the candidates’ websites and donation platforms. Mark Carney won that vote, garnering 29,456.91 votes, or 85.9 percent of ballots cast. The party even released detailled riding-by-riding results the same night as the election was held. Those details are still available online. I can find nothing even vaguely comparable about the recent CPC leadership results.

See the difference? You might not like the Liberals or their leader, but at least their process was open and fair.

Notes:

* Each of the 343 ridings in Canada could send 12 voting delegates, which means potentially more than 4,100 attendees, so the 2,600 at the event is only 62% of the possible total who could attend. I cannot find a breakdown of which delegates attended and what ridings they came from, but I expect the 37 ridings in Alberta likely sent many simply because of proximity (potentially as many as 444). Nor can I find out whether the costs to attend (and travel) were paid for by the riding associations or by the individuals. That stacks the deck heavily towards those ridings or individuals who could afford the cost (minimum three days in a hotel plus meals and incidentals, plus air or other travel costs). I can’t find any mainstream media story on why roughly 1,400 delegates did not attend. The CPC itself raked in roughly $2.8 million from the event.

I have read on social media that delegates had to sign a pledge of loyalty to PoiLIEvre before they were allowed to attend, but I have yet to find independent corroboration of that claim. I don’t expect the sycophantic mainstream media to confirm or deny it.

** Poilievre quickly decided to shuck his responsibility to Battle River-Crowfoot, the riding that helped him get back into Parliament. CBC: “Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre will run in a different riding next federal election: party.” The hapless Damien Kurek, the previous CPC winner of the riding who gave up his seat for Poilievre, will run in the Alberta riding next election. I can find no mainstream media report on how the residents of Battle River-Crowfoot feel about being abandoned so quickly and easily (aka conned…).

*** In a flaccid CBC story about the convention, it included this:

Steve Outhouse, Poilievre’s new campaign manager, told CBC News that the result is better than some Conservatives had expected and that it sends a strong signal about the direction of the party.
“That’s a really clear mandate from our membership, and now we can focus on getting ready for the election, whenever that will be,” Outhouse said. “It’s a big boost to his leadership. It’s very gratifying.”

Disappointing, I suspect that, due to the lack of editorial quality and oversight that bedevils the CBC these days, the reporter did not question Outhouse about his statement or challenge it. It was not a mandate from the membership, but from less than one percent of it. The CBC, like the rest of mainstream media, did a shallow job of coverage.

**** A Leger poll in December, 2025, found that “Nationally, 49% of Canadians believe Pierre Poilievre should step down, while 32% say he should remain as leader.” PoiLIEvre’s “satisfaction” rating was a mere 31%. When asked, “Who would make the best prime minister?”, Canadians responded: Mark Carney: 40%; Pierre Poilievre: 28%. A late January 2026 Leger poll found “47% of respondents say they would likely vote Liberal if a federal election were held today — a four-point increase compared with early December” and that “Carney’s popularity has risen eight points to 59%.” None of which was raised in the CPC leadership “review.”

Words: 1,661