Poilievre says he lost Ottawa riding for being 'honest' about plan to cut public sector jobs
Poilievre had held the Ottawa riding of Carleton for two decades until the April 28 election, when he was defeated by Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy by 4,500 votes.
The loss was a major setback for the leader, who before the new year had been favoured to become prime minister.
Poilievre no longer has a seat in the House of Commons, but he's hoping to regain one in the rural Alberta riding of Battle River–Crowfoot on Aug. 18 — after former Conservative MP Damien Kurek offered up his spot in what is one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.
In an interview with CBC's The House that airs on Saturday, Poilievre said his campaign was transparent about his intention to cut public service jobs if his party won the election.
"And it's an Ottawa riding with a lot of federal public servants who disagreed with that approach," Poilievre said. "They ran a very aggressive campaign, particularly the public sector unions did, to defeat me on that basis."
The leader said his voice as a representative for Canadians across the country took precedence over pleasing the 124,000 or so people in the riding — which happens to border Prime Minister Mark Carney's riding of Nepean.
But Poilievre continues to want to highlight his party's successes in the election under his leadership, including the two and a half million more votes it garnered than in the 2021 federal election, as well as adding 25 seats in Parliament.
He will be undergoing a mandatory leadership review in January, which the Conservative Party's constitution calls for if a leader does not resign following an election loss.
"Some people might say, 'Well, it wasn't the best idea to run on a smaller federal public service when you're an Ottawa MP,' but I had an entire country to represent," Poilievre said. "I had to be honest with people."
He said the Liberals didn't do the same.
"I guess I could've done what the Liberals did, which is hide their plans," Poilievre said.
WATCH | Why Pierre Poilievre thinks he lost his riding of 2 decades:
Last week, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne asked fellow cabinet ministers to come up with "ambitious savings proposals" to get a handle on public sector spending.
During the election campaign, Carney did share his intention to rein in federal operational spending, saying he would "spend less, so Canada can invest more."
At the time, he said he would cap the size of the public service and try to make government operations more efficient by "leveraging AI and machine learning."
"The voice that I bring represents those eight million-plus people who believed in my message of fighting inflation, of getting affordable homes built, of locking up criminals, defeating drugs, unleashing our resources," Poilievre told Catherine Cullen, host of The House.
When it comes to cutting the federal public service, he said, "that's the only way you bring down taxes and deficits, and I was honest about that, and the people in that particular constituency voted accordingly."Poilievre is running against Liberal candidate Darcy Spady in Battle River–Crowfoot. Kurek first won the riding's seat in 2019 and was re-elected in April with almost 82 per cent of the vote. The young Conservative has said he plans to run in the riding again in the next federal election.
The Conservative leader said he wants to continue challenging the government in the House of Commons, as he's well known for doing during question period.
"If you look at how the debate has changed in Canada as a result of the arguments and the causes that I've taken on, that voice has been very important to countless people, and it's a voice I want to amplify," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Britain's self-inflicted Afghanistan data leak disaster
When a news story bursts into the headlines in the U.K. and consumes all the oxygen for several days, it can be difficult to know whether it is a domestic uproar or something that is reaching an international audience. For all the fevered debate here, it seems that what we are calling 'the Afghan data leak scandal' has not attracted much notice in America. Perhaps we should be grateful. To sum up, in February 2022, a Royal Marine at U.K. Special Forces headquarters emailed a spreadsheet that he thought contained the names of around 150 Afghan nationals who had applied to come to Britain, having assisted U.K. forces in Afghanistan. In fact, it had the details of 18,714 Afghans, as well as some Special Forces personnel, senior defense officials, members of Parliament and intelligence officers. In the wrong hands, it could have been a pre-prepared Taliban kill list. This was a catastrophic breach of data security. The Ministry of Defence was unaware of this loss of data for 18 months, until some of the information appeared in a Facebook group in August 2023. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace applied to the High Court for a temporary injunction on reporting the leak so that the security implications could be assessed and appropriate measures put in place to protect those at risk. Wallace was, however, standing down. His successor, Grant Shapps, who took on responsibility for the issue. Astonishingly, the High Court judge who considered the Ministry of Defence's application, Justice Robin Knowles, went even further: He granted what is referred to as a 'super-injunction,' which not only prevents reporting of the issue covered by the injunction, but disclosure of the existence of the injunction itself. The use of this kind of measure by the government is unprecedented, and it meant that there was no public or parliamentary scrutiny of the data loss, because very few people even knew it had occurred. Those who knew the full extent of the situation were extremely few: Shapps as defence secretary and the armed forces minister, James Heappey; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his deputy, Oliver Dowden; Labour's defense spokesman, John Healey, who is now defence secretary; the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle; the media organizations whom it silenced; precious few others. The current prime minister, Keir Starmer, was not informed at that point. Under the cloak of secrecy — the super-injunction's duration was extended twice in 2024 — a new resettlement scheme was hastily introduced which extended to 900 individuals affected, along with 3,600 family members. When Starmer's Labour government took office in July 2024, only Healey, the incoming defence secretary, knew the full situation. Although he told the House of Commons when the super-injunction was lifted that 'it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House,' it was in place for slightly longer under Labour than it had been under the previous Conservative government. A review was conducted by Paul Rimmer, a former deputy chief of defence intelligence, which concluded that 'there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against' those who assisted U.K. and coalition forces. The various resettlement schemes for Afghan nationals have now been closed down. Inevitably, the current government is seeking to blame its predecessor. But that will not wash. Not only did Starmer and Healey have a year to rescind the injunction, but the prime minister's office will not rule out seeking such an instrument in the future. The government did not inform the Intelligence and Security Committee, the independent oversight body of these kinds of issues, and it has not been frank with the National Audit Office, the U.K.'s public spending watchdog. The Ministry of Defence is a secretive organization by instinct. It parts with even the most harmless information under duress. Many will find it hard to avoid the conclusion that when a judge offered such a wide-ranging court order to prevent scrutiny or comment, it was as if Christmas had come early. Not only could challenging questions be avoided, they would never even be asked, because most legislators were unaware there was anything to ask questions about. The eventual cost of the debacle is not clear, but it will be billions of pounds. That it touches on the ultra-sensitive subject of immigration compounds the damage done. Some have called it the worst data breach in British history; sadly it is part of a pattern at the Ministry of Defence, which reported 569 incidents of data loss in 2023 to 2024. The most damaging aspect, however, is the corrosive effect on public trust, already at a historic low. Those inclined to believe overblown tales of 'the deep state' have been provided with fresh ammunition — the government using the courts to prevent parliamentary scrutiny and media reporting of an issue for two years. It should not have happened. It cannot happen again. But the government will struggle to make voters believe that. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
Trump's trade war victory is already under siege
The economy was supposed to crumble. The trade war was expected to escalate out of control. Markets were forecast to plunge. None of that happened – at least, not yet. President Donald Trump has pulled off what few outside the White House predicted: A trade war victory of sorts that sets America's taxes on imported goods higher than the infamous Smoot-Hawley era, without any of the damaging fallout so far. Customs revenue has increased sharply while inflation remains reasonably low. And America's trading partners, for the most part, have been willing to accept the higher tariffs without significant retaliation. Multiple framework agreements between the United States and other trading partners have jacked up tariffs on foreign goods imported to America while setting levies on US exports at or near zero. Overseas trading partners have agreed to open previously closed markets to some US goods, pledged increased investments in the United States and dropped some of what the Trump administration has lambasted as non-trade barriers, like taxes on digital services. But Trump's early trade victory may be short-lived. In fact, it is already showing signs that it may not last. The European Union, fresh off its 11th-hour compromise to get a trade agreement done before Trump's self-imposed August 1 deadline, is already in revolt. French Prime Minister François Bayrou called Sunday a 'dark day.' Hungarian Prime Minister and Trump ally Viktor Orban said Trump steamrolled the EU. Belgium's Prime Minister Bart De Wever lambasted the Trump administration's 'delusion of protectionism.' And Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, said the deal is 'not satisfactory.' The 27-member bloc has to hammer out key aspects of its framework, and the fragile trade truce between two of the world's largest economies could quickly break apart if sentiment turns against the arrangement. The Trump administration's trade talks with its northern neighbor and one of its largest trading partners have been effectively shut down. Despite Canada relenting on its digital services tax that the president has lambasted, Trump continued to threaten higher tariffs on some Canadian goods, including lumber. Although many goods imported from Canada continue to be tariff-free because of the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, the USMCA only covers just about half of Canadian goods. So higher tariffs on Canada could raise some costs for American consumers down the road. And the fact that America is even embroiled in a trade spat with Canada in the first place is a sign that the recent cooling off in the trade war may not last: Trump negotiated and signed the United States' current trade agreement with Canada during his first term. At any time, even after an agreement is inked, Trump could turn around and decide to raise tariffs again. A third round of talks between China and the United States' trade negotiators is expected to result in a continued pause of their historically high tariffs on one another. But it's unclear what else might come from the discussions, and the Trump administration has grown frustrated by what it has described as China's slow-walking of its previous agreements. Both sides have aimed to reduce more regulatory barriers on shipments of key technologies. China has sought more access to critical semiconductors, and the United States wants the flow of rare earth magnets to increase further. But the Trump administration has tried repeatedly to speed up China's slow progress, claiming the country has failed to live up to its agreement to approve the critical materials for crucial electronics. Trump has also said he wants China to open up its market to more US goods – a desire that Chinese Premier Xi Jinping is unlikely to give in to significantly. Trump's rhetoric against China has cooled in recent months, but the truce appears to be on a knife's edge. A crucial appeals court hearing Thursday could determine whether most of Trump's tariffs are legal at all. For most of his tariffs, Trump has cited powers listed in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But a federal court in May ruled that Trump overstepped his authority to levy tariffs on that basis. An appeals court paused that ruling from taking effect and will hear oral arguments Thursday. It's not clear when the court will rule, and the White House would likely appeal to the Supreme Court if it loses. If Trump ultimately loses his ability to levy tariffs using emergency powers, he has plenty of other options – but legal experts have said those alternatives could limit his ability to set tariffs without Congress. For example, Trump may be able to impose some tariffs as high as just 15% but only for 150 days, potentially taking some of the bite out of his tariff regime. Although the US economy remains strong, with rebounding retail sales, a still-robust labor market and rising consumer confidence, there is some evidence that inflation in key areas is starting to creep higher – slowly – because of tariffs. That's a potential warning sign as the tariffs take full effect. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index earlier this month showed that some tariff-affected goods have started to gain in price. Clothing, appliances, computers, sporting goods, toys, video equipment, hardware and tools prices have been on the rise. And it's starting to become a trend – in many of those categories, the rise has been happening for a few months. Many major retailers, including Walmart, have said they will raise prices because of tariffs. And GM, Volkswagen and Stellantis all reported tariff charges of $1 billion or more over the past quarter. Economists widely expect inflation to pick up in the late summer and throughout the rest of the year as retailers work through the inventories of goods they had stockpiled before tariffs went into effect. No one expects anything close to the inflation crisis of a few years ago. But with consumers still dealing with price-hike PTSD, that won't be a welcome change from the return to healthy inflation levels over the past year.
Epoch Times
4 hours ago
- Epoch Times
21 States Sue to Block USDA from Collecting SNAP Data
A coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its efforts to make states hand over personal data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries, according to a July 28 lawsuit filed at the District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The lawsuit stems from a March 20 executive order signed by President Donald Trump asking agency heads to take actions to ensure the federal government has 'unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive Federal funding.'
