Liberals did NOT win the federal election, Conservatives lost it-again!

“Common Sense”? Not so much!

Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada [File: Dave Chan/AFP Photo]

Woke Watch Canada is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

By Natasha Willowdale

(This piece originally appeared on Natasha’s Substack).

A letter to the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Dear Mr. Poilievre

This is not the first time I’m writing to you, even though I never received a response to the letter I sent on April 4, 2024—coincidentally, one year before the 2025 election. In that letter, I expressed my concerns about the very real possibility of losing the election, specifically in GTA and Willowdale—an outcome that, ironically, has now come to pass and no wonder!

Over the past two years of campaigning for the nomination in my riding, I made many meaningful connections, forged lasting friendships, listened to people’s stories, and devoted myself to learning—through conversations, reading, research, and personal reflection. An unbelievable and invaluable journey, which was equally painful as I heard the perception of people and came close to the ins and outs of the flawed- even destructive- nomination process.

This also means that my hope in the CPC to stop the reckless train of tyranny, the sinking ship of socialism, the crashing car of communism, and to get Canada back on track has significantly diminished. The Liberals did not win the election—the Conservatives lost it, again. If we truly believe in upholding conservative values, then we must also take full responsibility, rather than congratulating ourselves on what is being portrayed as an excellent campaign, as some, including Mr. Andrew Scheer, suggested. It was not.

While I am a conservative person by nature, my trust and hope in the Conservative Party of Canada have faded. Even if you are a well-intentioned individual and may claim to have been unaware of what transpired within the EDAs, the National Council, and those who planned and strategized, you are the leader of the Party—and in my books, that means the responsibility ultimately rests with you.

Yes, there may have been instances of interference, misconduct, malfeasance, and the exploitation of legal loopholes to weaken the CPC’s chances of winning. While these actions are not excusable, they are, unfortunately, to be expected when facing an opponent in what increasingly resembled a political war. The truth is we cannot control the actions of our adversaries—but we do, or at least should have had, control over our own. Don’t you agree?

The LPC did not win the 2021 federal election; the CPC lost it—a story that repeated itself in 2025. This is a well-known tactic used in many countries: call an election during a time of crisis or manufacture an external threat, and people will choose the devil they know. They cling to the familiar, become more patriotic, and are quick to forget—or forgive—everything that has transpired. Even though the CPC should have known better, the 2021 loss could be seen as excusable—perhaps attributed to being blindsided. But the second loss, 2025, cannot be justified, especially considering that I warned you—it was a clear “I told you so” moment.

If there is any hope for our country to be governed by common sense, I suggest the CPC start by reflecting on the need to actually use some, as follows:

1-Plan ahead!

Mr. Poilievre, you implicitly called for an election back in February 2022 by announcing your intention to run for Prime Minister. Over the next three years, you repeatedly and explicitly called for an election—more specifically, a carbon tax election. Yet when the March 2025 election was finally called, the CPC had not even finalized many of its candidates. Simply put, you didn’t have your duds in order—so how did you expect to, as the Canadian song goes, Heave Away?

It doesn't make any sense to call for an election when you were not prepared, not even close. If you had gone to war, the consequence would have been death, not just defeat. Besides, how do you expect to be trusted to run a government when you were not even ready for an election that you were calling? Was that all huff and puff? This is not a game; this is my country, my children’s future, take it seriously.

2-Don’t destroy your means of communication

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has certainly played its part in biased reporting and is well known for its left-leaning stance. However, it also produces and provides access to many valuable programs, employs a significant number of Canadians and their families, and serves as a primary source of information for a large portion of the population—people who, for various reasons, choose to tune in.

By openly declaring war on the CBC, you not only pushed the organization into survival mode of self-preservation and handed it the ammunition to fight back against the CPC, but you also overlooked the quality content it offers and dismissed the interests of those Canadians who genuinely find value in its programming. This is an unnecessary heavy handed approach on Canadians, it leans toward “my way or the high way”. Therefore, once the ground began to shake, the CBC not only worked to sway the voting population against you by drawing parallels between you and Mr. Trump, but the CPC also found itself unable to use the CBC network to communicate its campaign messages—doing so would have appeared hypocritical after publicly denouncing it.

Furthermore, I heard Mr. Harper’s campaign message on the CBC, and it went along the lines of stating that both you and Mr. Carney had worked for him, and that he prefers you. But that framing essentially suggests that even the CPC acknowledges and validates Mr. Carney—a message that, if I may say so, wasn’t particularly strategic - not even sensible - in the context of a competitive election to say the least!

3-Address main issues clearly and concisely, be and act as a Conservative!

Throughout your leadership, you have consistently avoided directly addressing certain issues—presumably as a strategic effort to maintain a moderate tone. While I understand the reasoning behind this approach, I respectfully disagree with it. It took you a long time to finally speak out on mass immigration and to confirm that you do not hold "biophobic" views—that is, to acknowledge the existence of men and women. Although these have turned into sensitive and controversial topics in today’s climate, a strong leader should have the conviction to address them openly, respectfully, and truthfully, and to clearly articulate his/her own position as well as that of the CPC.

You might be amazed at how much simply taking a clear, honest stance could have defused the hysteria surrounding these topics. When leaders speak with conviction and transparency, it often brings calm and clarity—even to the most heated debates. Silence or ambiguity, on the other hand, tends to fuel division and suspicion. People generally want to hear the truth and look to their leaders to speak it clearly and honestly. Avoiding direct answers or skirting around difficult topics is not a sign of strength—it often comes across as evasive or uncertain.

4-Tell people the truth!

You had many winning cards at your disposal—from speaking about the Bank of Canada Act, the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ( CETA), Trade In Service Agreement (TISA), the bail-in bank rules and the role of Mr. Carney, to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the history behind the idea “ the merge of the century”. Or simply providing a percentage breakdown of how taxes are being used- and how they should be used.

Yet, you chose not to mention any of these critical issues that have had—and continue to have—a profound impact on Canada’s economy. There is no doubt that you are aware of them, so I can only infer that either you are unable to address them due to pressure from those above, or you are aligned with these policies yourself. Neither possibility is reassuring.

5-Do not be selective about Canadian’s freedom of expression

Upholding this fundamental right means allowing all voices to be heard—even those that challenge the prevailing narrative or make others uncomfortable. A truly democratic and principled leadership does not pick and choose whose opinions are valid; it defends the right of every Canadian to speak freely and respectfully.

In 2023, you publicly denounced three members of the Conservative Party who met with Christine Anderson, a member of the European Parliament representing the Alternative für Deutschland party. I believe you actually agree with her remark when she said, “Mr. Trudeau, you are a disgrace for any democracy. Please spare us your presence.”

To be clear, I am not taking any position on Ms. Anderson’s alleged “vile” views, as your spokesperson described them. My point is about the restriction—both implied and direct—on people, including members of the CPC, from engaging in dialogue with individuals whose views you may or may not agree with. This approach not only limits open political discourse but also raises legitimate questions about where you truly stand and whether differing perspectives are genuinely welcome within the CPC party.

In addition, when on February 15/2025, a group of Canadians and CPC supporters travelled to Ottawa to attend your National Flag Day rally and voice their concerns about mass immigration, they were removed from the venue. Were you aware of this? What was the point of the rally then? Is the CPC truly distinct from the LPC, or is it merely choosing which Canadians are permitted to express their opinions?

6-Stop building your platform on the flaws of the left! Focus on Conservative values instead.

The reality is that the CPC’s high polling numbers in December 2024, while partly influenced by your independent media campaign, were largely the result of the federal Liberal government’s continuous failures, which pushed the country to the edge of a cliff. By building your platform around their wrongdoings, you inadvertently gave them the power to undermine your message simply by appearing to correct course. All they had to do was mimic your positions—like axing the tax or pledging to reduce the size of government—to appear as though they were responding, thereby weakening the distinctiveness and impact of your platform.

Conservative values have much more to offer our country and its future. While you eloquently addressed many of these principles through your debates and messaging, the slogans and narrative presented to the public focused primarily on the shallow, short-term goal of fixing the flaws of the Liberal Party.

An ancient war advice says don’t start war on the ground prepared by your enemy, that is what you did.

7-Enlist and counsel qualified people.

A capable leader recognizes the limits of their own expertise and actively seeks out those with the knowledge and experience needed to inform sound policy. Surrounding yourself with individuals who are leaders in their respective fields—whether in economics, science, law, healthcare, housing, or national security—not only strengthens your decision-making but also builds public confidence in your ability to govern effectively. Leadership is not a solo act; it requires the wisdom to listen, the discipline to learn, and the strength to delegate.

During your conversation with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson in Episode 511, Canada’s Next Prime Minister, posted about five months ago, Dr. Peterson asked a critical question about your team of experts across various fields—individuals who could offer informed advice and support your decision-making once you become Prime Minister. You had no such team to point to. Instead, you named Members of Parliament such as Mr. Sheer and Ms. Lantsman, who, like yourself, are career politicians.

This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that you are surrounding yourself with diverse, experienced voices beyond the political sphere—people who bring practical expertise and independent thought to complex national issues and are not necessarily wealthy donors who fundraise for the party. Leadership requires more than political acumen; it demands not only the humility to consult those who know what you don’t, but also the foresight, preparedness, and organizational strength to have already recruited those individuals. I was looking for a leader who is not just reactive, but proactively building a team capable of governing with depth, competence, and vision, a sensible approach!

8- Do not attack character, battle issues!

Although you’ve done a commendable job reaching out to working-class Canadians and producing informative media that highlight the issues affecting them, your tenure as Leader of the Opposition has often been overshadowed by your focus on, for example, attacking Mr. Trudeau’s character. The use of catchy name-calling—while effective for gaining attention online—has come across as immature and undiplomatic.

Historically and generally speaking, those who focus on attacking the character of their opponent often reveal that they have little else to offer. Once that individual is out of the picture, their entire argument collapses—because it was never about policy, it was about personality. In doing so, you handed the LPC a winning card. They simply removed the character in question and replaced him with a new face—problem solved in the eyes of many. Without a strong, consistent focus on policy, principle, and vision, the opportunity to hold the government accountable and present a compelling alternative is lost.

While these tactics may generate viral moments, likes, and clicks, they do little to sway committed LPC voters. In fact, they may have had the opposite effect—reinforcing partisan divisions and alienating some long-time CPC supporters who are looking for substance, statesmanship, and a higher standard of political discourse. If your goal is to unite Canadians and present a credible alternative, a shift in tone may be just as important as a shift in policy.

9-Be prepared!

It was no secret that there would be an election in the United States, and it was equally clear that the outcome would result in either a Democrat or Republican administration. As the Leader of the Opposition with ambitions to become Prime Minister, it is entirely reasonable to expect that you would have developed a clear strategy—and a contingency plan—for either scenario. You did not! Or at the very least, you did not reveal any plan or response until weeks later.

This absence of timely communication gave the impression of being unprepared or hesitant at a critical geopolitical moment. For someone seeking to lead a G7 nation, that delay raises concerns—not just about planning, but about transparency and responsiveness. Being prepared for either outcome is not just a matter of political foresight—it’s a matter of responsible leadership.

10- Drop the Show!

The CPC campaign rallies increasingly resembled celebrity-style events—grand productions that brought together like-minded and often desperate Canadians who already supported your message. Some that I know of were poorly organized, with people being turned away or plans for the bus trip changing at the last minute. While they generated enthusiasm and media attention, they largely amounted to preaching to the choir. In the critical moments leading up to an election, that kind of approach has limited impact.

Photo ops with supporters and $1,700-a-plate private fundraising events did little to shift the needle, particularly in key battlegrounds like the Greater Toronto Area. These tactics may energize the base, but they don’t broaden it. If the Conservative Party continues to rely on the same strategies, it’s unrealistic to expect a different electoral outcome. Winning requires more than spectacle—it requires connection, credibility, and meaningful engagement with undecided and moderate voters who aren’t already in the room.

11-Know what is happening within the CPC’s NC & EDAs

The nomination process within the CPC has been flawed, to say the least—and there is no excuse for that. Nominations are fundamental to a healthy democratic party, and when that process is undermined, it damages not only the credibility of the candidates but also the integrity of the party as a whole. While the National Council of the CPC and/or the EDAs may not have technically broken any rules or regulations, their conduct demonstrated a troubling lack of respect for individuals and the communities they claim to represent.

If you are unaware of what has transpired in several ridings, that in itself is deeply concerning. It suggests a lack of oversight, accountability, or worse—an indication of organizational incompetence. There were reports of such instances in the news and on social media; therefore, your office staff must be aware. On March 30/2025, I spoke with Ms. Lantsman and am aware of individuals who have written to her; therefore, I am confident that she is aware of what has taken place in Willowdale; however, I am not convinced that she cares. It seems to me that the CPC was inclined to play party politics at the expense of the people! What a shame!

12-Choose your team wisely!

The members of the EDAs, the nomination contestants, campaign managers and the candidates form your team. It is essential that you know them, just as an employer must be familiar with their employees or a captain his/her crew. This should have been a critical aspect of your campaign, especially in regions, such as the GTA, where the CPC needed to shift the momentum and make a change.

Understanding your team, their strengths, and their connections would have been key to strategically targeting these areas. For example, to my knowledge, the Willowdale EDA's last meeting was in October 2023 - which took place in part because of my persistence in asking for one! Don’t you find the level of inactivity concerning?

Another example of questionable judgment: in November 2024, the campaign manager for the CPC candidate in Willowdale posted a picture with—and gave a shout-out to— Ms. Chrystia Freeland! Were there truly no other competent alternatives available? Need I say more?

I can dedicate a letter focused on Willowdale, an offer that Ms. Lantsman has implicitly declined.

13-People are not disposable, don’t treat them like trash!

During my campaign, several people expressed concerns about the attitude the members of CPC have shown toward them. Some perceived the party as racist and shared specific examples of their encounters with CPC members in previous years. That said, many of these individuals still chose to join the CPC to support me in my nomination—because they trusted the person, not the party. For many, faith in politics and politicians has eroded, and it’s no surprise why.

Although I did not share their views, I personally experienced how the CPC—both the National Council and the EDA—underestimated the power of the grassroots, disregarded the wishes of the community, and disrespected individuals. This is a recurring theme, not isolated to just one riding. If you treat your own people- your supporters- like trash, how can you expect others to perceive you any differently? Many nomination contestants spent nearly two years campaigning, investing their time, energy, and resources —with no clear plan or end in sight.

It is said that becoming a nominee is not a right, but a privilege—and we would have accepted the CPC’s decision on who would be the candidate if that was done sensibly. However, in Willowdale, we- the contestant for nomination- weren’t even informed that the campaign had ended; it was community members who told us that an unknown candidate had been appointed, “supposedly” out of nowhere. While not necessarily illegal, it was certainly discourteous—and that’s putting it mildly. We were treated as disposable, played as pawns, as were the imposed candidates who were parachuted in - but are also guilty of choosing to play along the scheme and be part of betraying communities. By doing so, the CPC only reinforced what the communities had already felt. The CPC failed to recognize the value and role of ordinary people—at the very least, in my community—and we have paid the price for it.

The House of Commons is supposed to be the house of common people. Doesn’t the last-minute, top-down, heavy-handed appointment of candidates—people with no connection to the community, shuffled around on a whim—strike you as fundamentally wrong? And if these were not last minute decisions, how do you justify the lack of transparency and communication?

I will go further and state that the very livelihood of political parties depends on the people, and as such, respect for individuals and their communities should take precedence. The role of political parties is to serve the people—not the other way around.

If you truly respect Canadians and are committed to serving them, I urge you to take the time to meet with those who have been doing the groundwork, as well as with the communities who feel betrayed and disappointed. I strongly encourage you to speak with all the nomination contestants from these ridings—especially those where the CPC lost—and listen to what they have to say. You may find the conversation both informative and enlightening.

I advise you to apologize, make amends, and demonstrate that you’re truly willing to walk the talk. Uphold Conservative values and take responsibility for your party’s actions. After all, it’s Canadians who are bearing the consequences and literally paying the price of your- the CPC’s -shortcomings.

Treating people with respect is not only courteous, it is common sense.

Sincerely

—

Post notes: Why do I bother?

A friend of mine, J, commented:

“I agree with virtually everything you said, but I believe you are searching for the type of leaders from a bygone era (sticking to the issues, avoiding personal attacks, giving the public credit in terms of understanding complicated policy issues, etc). Politics has changed dramatically over the last few decades - so much so that, although I haven't been paying that much attention until recently, even I can tell. It's devolved into catchy slogans, repeatable bite-size phrases and messages that appeal to the lowest common denominator, as you suggested. Not unlike our education system, and social media.

I also think, as I said before, if you're writing this for it to be read (and truly considered) by someone of influence, you're likely wasting your time.”

I responded:

“ I, too, agree with virtually everything you said :), but till there is life, there is hope.”

---

Thanks for reading. For more on this topic, read An Unfortunate Outcome For Canadians

Follow Woke Watch Canada on X - @WokeWatchCanada

Or, by contributing to our Donor Box: