I believe that Pierre Poilievre is an incredibly well-spoken, polished, and well-groomed political figure. His ability to communicate is one of his strongest assets, delivering messages that resonate with voters in a manner that is both charismatic and inviting. There is a certain magnetism to the way he speaks—a charm that draws people in, and his smooth, radio-quality voice only enhances his appeal. He has mastered the art of saying what people want to hear, packaging his points in a way that feels accessible and relatable to a wide audience. In the current political landscape of Canada, which essentially operates as a two-party system, there is little doubt in my mind that he is on a path to victory.
The NDP and Green Party, while important voices are largely fighting for smaller, less influential roles, leaving the bulk of the political battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals. With the growing dissatisfaction toward the Liberal government, especially under Trudeau, the role of Prime Minister seems to be Poilievre’s for the taking. At this point, he would have to significantly derail his campaign to lose. The Liberals have made several missteps that have left many Canadians frustrated, making Poilievre’s path to the top much clearer.
However, despite Poilievre’s polished persona and seemingly unstoppable momentum, there are aspects of his campaign strategy that are puzzling and, quite frankly, concerning. While his communication skills are undeniable, his recent rhetoric has shifted towards fearmongering rather than offering meaningful solutions to the pressing issues Canada faces. His messaging seems to be built around creating anxiety rather than addressing policy challenges with concrete answers. For example, Poilievre has made statements suggesting that individuals in British Columbia hospitals should fear for their lives due to rampant crime, and he has consistently used rising crime rates across Canada as a central talking point. While crime is certainly an important issue, his approach seems reactionary, focusing more on stoking fear than on presenting detailed strategies to address the root causes of these problems.
This shift in tone suggests that Poilievre is more interested in capitalizing on the anxieties of the moment rather than offering a clear, consistent vision for the country’s future. His slogans, while catchy, seem to change based on the political winds, lacking coherence or depth. It often feels as if he is jumping from one issue to the next, depending on what will gain the most traction in the news cycle, rather than sticking to a focused, long-term platform. This kind of opportunistic campaigning raises questions about his leadership—whether he is truly committed to solving Canada’s complex challenges or if he is more focused on winning at any cost by tapping into fear and frustration.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the situation you will get with Kim Schwenker for Conservative Party MP. Now, this is nothing against Mrs. Schwenker personally—she seems like a genuinely friendly individual who, like myself, cares deeply about St. Catharines. However, because she is tied to the Conservative Party, her hands are bound. Unlike myself, as an independent candidate, she does not have the freedom to think and act independently. She must tow the party line, whether she agrees with every aspect of it or not. Mrs. Schwenker is constrained by the limits and policies of the party, and if she wishes to remain in its good graces, she cannot deviate from their agenda.
This is the same problem we faced with Chris Bittle. He did nothing for the riding because his party did not prioritize him or his concerns and he could not be bothered to fight for us. Mrs. Schwenker risks falling into the same trap, becoming just another face of the party rather than a true representative for the people. Unless she has significant pull within the party, her pleas for St. Catharines will go unanswered. Like so many others before her, she will be lost in the shuffle, relegated to the background while the party veterans take priority. She will get the scraps when it comes to decisions that matter to us.
As an independent, and promoting Direct Democracy, I have far more room to maneuver. I can form alliances, and propose ideas that align with the needs and priorities of all parties. My focus is on ideas that work for everyone, regardless of party affiliation. I am not here to hoard good ideas for myself or a party. I want to share those ideas openly, so others can take them and run with them if they see the merit. That folks is what politics should be about—working together, sharing solutions, and collaborating as a unit. It is not about keeping ideas to yourself or shaming the other side for not thinking of it first. We need to focus on what is best for the people, not just for the party.
And again, unfortunately, I have to critique Mrs. Schwenker because, in the end, she is my opponent. But what I will promise is that I will always remain respectful to her and her family. I will only discuss her views professionally and respectfully. She has shown absolutely no personal traits of being a bully or a racist, and for that, she has my respect. Mrs. Schwenker, I again wish you the best of luck, and I want to sincerely thank you for stepping up to this challenge.