Pierre Poilievre wins Alberta byelection, regains seat in House of Commons
He was leading with about 80 per cent of votes as results came in throughout the night.
"Getting to know the people in this region has been the privilege of my life," Poilievre told a crowd at a victory party in Camrose, Alta.
"In fact, I've had a hell of a lot of fun."
The riding was left vacant shortly after the spring general election, when Conservative Damien Kurek stepped down to make way for the party leader.
Poilievre had been elected in the Ottawa-area riding of Carleton seven straight times but lost in April to Liberal Bruce Fanjoy.
Poilievre thanked Kurek on Monday for his "gracious sacrifice" and promised to be a "humble servant" for those in Alberta.
"I really love the people of Battle River—Crowfoot," Poilievre said, reminiscing about his time during the byelection campaign at rodeos and once being offered a bag of beef jerky from a stranger in a parking lot.
"They're the kind of what you see is what you get, give you the shirt off their back, tell it like it is, common sense people."
Poilievre got teary-eyed during his speech and said people in the community also reminded him that "the road to success is never a straight line."
"Most of all, you should never give up in hard times," Poilievre said before stepping offstage, as Journey's rock anthem "Don't Stop Believin'" played in the room.
Kurek introduced Poilievre at the celebration as "the guy who will be Canada's next prime minister."
Kurek said the Liberals' federal election win was heartbreaking and he thought giving up his seat so Poilievre could represent the region would be a gift.
"Our issues will be raised on the national stage, because we have a national leader representing us whose fierce dedication and commitment to bringing a megaphone to this region is unmatched," Kurek said.
"We have a fighter in Pierre Poilievre."
A record 214 people were on the ballot, most of whom were part of a protest movement called the Longest Ballot Committee, which is pushing for electoral reform to replace the first-past-the-post system.
The group also targeted the Carleton riding in the general election, when there were 91 candidates on the ballot with Poilievre.
Because there were so many more candidates for Battle River—Crowfoot, voters were required for the first time ever to write the name of their preferred candidate on a blank ballot. Thick, coil-bound booklets listing the candidates were available at voting stations.
Stacey Martin, who lives in Camrose, lined up to cast her ballot in the final hours of voting. She said she voted for Poilievre because he's "the best one to represent us."
"I think it's going to come out Pierre, because I think that's what everybody wanted to start with," Martin said, adding that Western Canada has "no say" and needs someone to represent their beliefs and values in Ottawa.
The sprawling eastern Alberta riding, stretching from Edmonton to Calgary, is considered one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. The Tory leader was expected to win by a large margin.
Conservatives have won the riding in every election since 2004 with at least 80 per cent of the vote, said Julie Simmons, an associate professor with the University of Guelph in Ontario. The one exception was Kurek, who got 71 per cent of the vote in 2021 but won in April with 83 per cent.
Lori Williams, a political science professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said Poilievre needed to win the riding "decisively," as he faces a party leadership review in January.
Poilievre was up against a few vocal challengers, including Independent candidate Bonnie Critchley, who trailed a distant second in voting results.
The military veteran described Poilievre as a parachute candidate who only wants to represent the riding for his political career. Poilievre was born and raised in Calgary but has lived in Ottawa for the last two decades.
Delphine Doerksen said she voted for Critchley because she's an "awesome" candidate who lives in the area.
"I don't think Poilievre is going to represent this riding. He is just here to get a seat in Parliament, basically. And I don't think we'll see him again," she said.
Other candidates included Darcy Spady, from the energy sector, for the Liberals and Katherine Swampy, a former band councillor for Samson Cree Nation, who ran for the NDP.
Also running was Libertarian Party candidate Michael Harris, who ran on a promise to push for a referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 18, 2025.
-- With files from Catherine Morrison in Ottawa
Fakiha Baig, The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
John Roberts Joins All Liberal Justices in Supreme Court Dissent
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can move forward with slashing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding as part of its effort to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the justices lifted a lower court order that had blocked $783 million in cuts made by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The majority's unsigned order frees the administration to proceed with canceling grants already targeted for elimination, while leaving in place restrictions on the administration's guidance for future funding decisions. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's three liberals in dissent, warning that the funding freeze should have remained in effect while litigation continues. The ruling is the latest legal victory for President Donald Trump, allowing his administration to accelerate its plan to cancel hundreds of existing grants while a broader lawsuit plays out in the lower courts. Plaintiffs—including a coalition of 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups—warned that the cuts would inflict "incalculable losses in public health and human life." They argue that many of the canceled studies address urgent issues like cancer treatments, infectious diseases, and maternal health. The Justice Department countered that research funding decisions fall squarely within the executive branch's discretion and should not be "subject to judicial second-guessing." Lawyers for the administration also claimed that programs marketed under the DEI label may "conceal insidious racial discrimination," echoing a broader push by Republicans to dismantle DEI programs across federal agencies, schools, and corporations. At issue in the case is only a portion of the $12 billion in NIH research funding already cut under Trump's orders. In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, however, the administration also challenged nearly two dozen other judicial orders that have blocked similar funding cuts in related cases. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal judges should not be hearing these disputes at all, insisting that claims belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed cuts to a teacher-training program. But the plaintiffs insist that research grants are categorically different from contracts like those in the teacher-training case. They contend that grants cannot simply be canceled midway without catastrophic consequences—disrupting careers, wasting years of work, and undermining data integrity in scientific studies. "Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs," they told the court. Earlier this summer, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts sided with the challengers, calling the abrupt NIH cancellations arbitrary and discriminatory. Young, a Reagan appointee, expressed shock at the administration's approach. "I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," he said during a June hearing, later adding: "Have we no shame." An appeals court left his order intact before the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. While Thursday's ruling represents a major procedural win for the administration, the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of federal authority over scientific research funding—and determine whether longstanding DEI-related initiatives in public health survive the administration's aggressive rollback. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
New Regulatory Reform Initiative Could Bolster Trade Negotiations
The Trump White House and the Justice Department announced on August 15 'an effort to identify State laws that significantly and adversely impact the national economy or interstate economic activity and to solicit solutions to address such effects.' This project complements President Trump's April 9 executive order directing the identification and elimination of anticompetitive federal regulations that distort markets and reduce economic growth. The latest initiative, boosted by new 'hot off the press' scholarly research, could lend further support to U.S. trade negotiations directed at dismantling anticompetitive market distortions (ACMDs) around the world. The ACMD Problem As the August 15 announcement explained: 'President Trump and his Administration have prioritized eliminating the 'crushing regulatory burden' that has 'made necessary goods and services scarce.' Deregulatory efforts will boost the American economy, relieve Americans of undue burdens, and make America affordable and energy dominant again. President Trump issued multiple Executive Orders to advance his deregulatory agenda and requiring the Executive Branch to put that policy into action. . . . Federal regulatory burdens are only part of the story. As President Trump has also recognized, in Executive Order 14260, State-level practices can drive up nationwide costs and undermine American safety and 'Federalism by projecting the regulatory preferences of a few States into all States.' Anecdotal evidence and the experience of countless Americans across the country strongly suggest that State laws and regulations can significantly burden commerce in other States, raising costs unnecessarily and harming markets nationwide. For example, last month, the Department sued the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and other State officials over California laws that impose costly requirements on the production of eggs and poultry products, raising prices for American consumers in and outside of California.' The August 15 announcement described a strategy to root out state regulatory excesses, centered on identifying: The announcement is a bold step forward. The Administration is now committed to undo anticompetitive market distortions (ACMDs) at both the federal and state levels. This commitment strengthens the Administration's leverage in international trade negotiations to get U.S. trading partners to scale back their regulatory distortions that harm American firms (and the trading partners' economies). This would be a 'win-win' for all nations concerned. Estimating ACMD Burdens Scholarly studies show that the costs of ACMDs are enormous, running into the thousands of dollars per American family per year. Furthermore, reducing those distortions has far-reaching global economic consequences, as the non-partisan scholarly Growth Commission's August 2025 report on ACMDs and trade explains: 'The benefits of reducing ACMDs are not marginal. Gains in GDP per capita translate into higher wages, broader market access, increased consumer choice, and fiscal space to address pressing domestic needs. For the United States, sustained growth through ACMD reduction offers the most viable strategy for reversing the rising debt-to-GDP trajectory without sacrificing public investment. For trading partners, reform unlocks latent economic energy and mitigates the political risks associated with stagnation, inequality, and capital misallocation. For developing countries, the reduction of ACMDs directly supports poverty alleviation and inclusive growth.' The Growth Commission report also lists specific major U.S. and foreign regulations having ACMD characteristics. Moreover, it develops an econometric model that provides a basis for a tariff on ACMDs based upon potential loss to economic wealth measured in GDP per capita. A more extensive analysis of ACMDs is presented in an August 2025 book by trade expert and Growth Commission Chairman Shanker Singham. 'Drawing on techniques from probabilistic methods and quantum mechanics, the book examines the possibility of a probabilistic model to assess the real impact of Anti-Competitive Market Distortions on GDP per capita growth around the world in a far more dynamic and real-time sense than has been possible thus far.' Next Steps Implementing ACMD reform will be a challenging task. ACMDs typically stem from 'rent seeking' by firms that successfully lobby government for discriminatory regulations that disfavor existing or potential competitors. The costs of ACMDs are widely spread and may not be visible to the general public. ACMD beneficiaries have every incentive to fight the dismantling of their special privileges, while broadly dispersed harmed parties (including consumers, workers, and businesses) may be hard to organize in favor of reform. The Administration, nevertheless, may act directly to eliminate certain federal and state ACMDs, by: The Administration's ultimate strategy may reflect an evaluation of relative resource constraints, likelihood of success, and timing associated with pursuing the four options. By being seen as seriously pursuing domestic reform, the Administration may be able to garner deals for the phasing out of particularly pernicious ACMDs. ACMD phase-outs might perhaps be incorporated into the language of bilateral or plurilateral agreements. The elimination of ACMDs might support mutually agreed-upon tariff reductions as well. Newly released Growth Commission research could assist in this effort. Successful ACMD reform would redound to the benefit of all trading nations.
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court allows Trump to block $783 million in National Institutes of Health grants for now
A heavily fractured Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to halt nearly $800 million in research grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health that officials say touch on race and gender issues, but a majority of the court also signaled that the president's overall effort to crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion may be in trouble. The court declined to force President Donald Trump to spend the grant money for the moment, but it also didn't block a lower court ruling that had tossed guidance from the administration that was at the heart of the effort to cut the funding. The grantees, the court said, could still seek the money but would have to do so in a different court. The decision on the grants divided the court 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's three liberals on that point. They would have denied the Trump administration entirely. Four of the court's conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – said they would have sided with Trump entirely. This story is breaking and will be updated.
