In a Calgary ballroom last Friday night, roughly 2,500 Conservative delegates handed Pierre Poilievre an 87.4 percent endorsement in his mandatory leadership review. The number sounds decisive. But the machinery that produced it reveals more about how the Conservative Party consolidates power than about Poilievre’s political future.
The research I have done indicates that delegates could have paid as much as 800 to 1,000 dollars to attend the leadership convention, traveled to Calgary in January, and were selected months earlier by their local electoral district associations. When participation costs money and requires advance commitment, you are not measuring broad support. You are counting the party’s most committed believers.
Compare that to the Liberal leadership race that chose Mark Carney. Over 150,000 registered Liberals voted, casting ranked-choice ballots over two weeks in late February and early March. No delegate fees. No travel required. No membership fee. Carney won with over 85 percent of the points on the first ballot. The scale of participation was much, much larger, and the barrier to voting was essentially zero.
Both processes have democratic legitimacy. Leadership reviews after election losses are common across parties. But the structural differences matter when evaluating what these numbers actually mean. An 87 percent result from 2,500 screened partisans who paid to participate tells us the Conservative base remains loyal to Poilievre. It does not tell us whether he can expand beyond that base to win a general election. The Calgary convention was held in January, requiring winter travel and accommodation costs that naturally filter participation. The location itself, Alberta, is Poilievre’s political home base, further shaping who could reasonably attend.
The Safe Seat Strategy After Election Defeat
Poilievre lost the April 2025 federal election despite the Conservatives winning the popular vote. More painfully, he lost his own seat in Carleton, which he had held for over two decades. The solution was straightforward: Conservative MP Damien Kurek resigned from Battle River-Crowfoot, a safe Alberta riding, allowing Poilievre to run in a by-election and return to the House of Commons by August.
When a party leader loses both an election and his own seat, then regains a seat through a choreographed resignation, that party has decided to protect its leader rather than test whether he should continue. In light of this, the 87 percent result at the leadership convention is not a surprise.
Financial Muscle, Fracturing Caucus, and Manufactured “Independence”
The Conservatives maintain formidable advantages heading into whatever comes next. They raised nearly $48 million in 2025 compared to the Liberals’ $29 million. That gap is important because it allows them to shape narratives through advertising, while other parties struggle to respond. Money buys message control, and the Conservatives have demonstrated skill at maintaining a steady fundraising operation even through electoral defeat. This financial advantage allows them to play the long game, sustaining opposition messaging and party infrastructure while waiting for the next electoral opportunity.
But the money flow reveals something more troubling about Conservative methods. This morning, I received a fundraising email from the Canada Strong & Free Network, an organization that presents itself as “independent media” while functioning as a Conservative advocacy operation. The email, signed by “lead content creator” Elie Cantin-Nantel, claims to “confront politicians and legacy journalists on camera” and “publish the unedited truth” for “hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are hungry for something other than government-approved talking points.”
The pitch is explicit: they want to “multiply that impact by identifying, training, and funding the next wave of independent conservative creators in every region of the country.” They frame this as building an “independent media army Canada desperately needs.”
This is not independent media. The Canada Strong & Free Network, formerly the Manning Centre, was founded in 2005 by Preston Manning explicitly to “support Canada’s conservative movement.” Its mission statement, available on its own website, is “to strengthen Canada’s conservative movement by nurturing, supporting, and facilitating exchanges and stronger relationships amongst the movement’s various components.” During the 2019 election, the organization provided over $300,000 to fund anti-Trudeau Facebook advertising through networks of provincial “Proud” pages. This is partisan infrastructure with deep oil and gas industry funding, not journalism.
The casual dishonesty is striking. Calling partisan Conservative advocacy “independent media” while soliciting donations to train “conservative creators” reveals a broader pattern: the willingness to misrepresent institutional purpose when it serves political goals. When a well-funded movement systematically blurs the line between journalism and propaganda, it is not engaged in democratic discourse. It is engaged in manipulation.
Yet cracks are visible elsewhere in the Conservative operation. Two Conservative MPs crossed the floor to the Liberals in recent months. Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont left in November, citing Poilievre’s leadership style. Ontario MP Michael Ma followed in December, bringing the Liberals to within one seat of a majority. A third MP, Matt Jeneroux, resigned from caucus entirely. D’Entremont later described being confronted and yelled at by Conservative leadership when they learned he was considering leaving.
Three departures in two months, heading into a leadership convention, signals internal tensions the 87 percent vote cannot erase.
What Comes Next: Leadership Convention as Prelude
Carney’s minority government means another election could come at any time. During the Trudeau years, particularly after 2019, Conservatives deployed extensive procedural warfare. They staged marathon voting sessions to delete hundreds of items line by line in spending estimates, forcing all-night votes with little chance of changing outcomes. They filibustered even bills with broad cross-party support, including budget implementation and legislation on conversion therapy and climate commitments.
The tactics satisfied a base eager to see aggressive resistance. But they did not produce electoral victory in April 2025.
The leadership convention result suggests the party will continue this path. Delegates who voted 87 percent in favor are not demanding moderation. They are rewarding the existing approach. Poilievre has his mandate from the base. Whether that mandate extends to the broader electorate remains unanswered.
I view this leadership convention with concern because the pattern feels familiar. A gated endorsement from paying delegates. A leader insulated by a safe seat maneuver after electoral defeat. A well-funded opposition that mistakes procedural warfare for persuasion, while building partisan infrastructure disguised as independent media. These are strategies for consolidating institutional power, not for building broader support. The 87 percent tells us the Conservative base is locked in. It tells us little about what comes next, except that the methods will likely remain the same.
About The Author
