Who is Pierre Poilievre, the Canadian conservative aiming to end Liberal era?

27 April 2025 Share Save Nadine Yousif BBC News, Toronto Share Save

Watch: Pierre Poilievre’s leadership: four key moments in opposition

At 20 years old, Pierre Poilievre already had a roadmap for Canada. Canada’s Conservative Party leader – now 45 – laid out a low-tax, small government vision for the country in an essay contest on what he would do as prime minister. “A dollar left in the hands of consumers and investors is more productive than a dollar spent by a politician,” he stated. Poilievre is now one step closer to making his vision a reality, and even gave a nod to the essay in a recent interview with conservative psychologist and commentator Jordan Peterson. For Canadians frustrated with a sluggish economy and a housing and affordability crisis, Poilievre has promised a return to “common sense politics”, and offered an alternative to what he labelled as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “authoritarian socialism”. He now finds himself facing a different political foe, new Liberal leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney. While Poilievre’s Conservatives have enjoyed a large lead over the struggling Trudeau Liberals in national surveys for months, support for the Liberals has shot up following Trudeau’s resignation. Now the outcome of the general election is a significantly tighter race. Still, Poilievre’s message is resonating in parts of Canadian society, as his campaign continues to draw large crowds across the country. Critics have painted him as a sort of Donald Trump “light” – a parallel that has become a liability amid Trump’s trade war and musings about a “51st state”. Poilievre has sought to distance himself from the US president, positioning himself as a “tough guy” who can take on Trump, and has pointed to his modest upbringing as one of the differences.

A Calgarian with his eyes set on Ottawa

Poilievre was born in Canada’s western province of Alberta to a 16-year-old mother who put him up for adoption. He was taken in by two school teachers, who raised him in suburban Calgary. “I have always believed that it is voluntary generosity among family and community that are the greatest social safety net that we can ever have,” he told Maclean’s Magazine in 2022, reflecting on his early life. “That’s kind of my starting point.” As a teenager, Poilievre showed an early interest in politics, and canvassed for local conservatives. Poilievre was studying international relations at the University of Calgary when he met Stockwell Day, who served as a cabinet minister under former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. At the time, Day was seeking the leadership of the Canadian Alliance – a right-wing party with Alberta roots that became part of the modern-day Conservatives in a 2003 merger – and he tapped Poilievre to help with campus outreach. “He impressed me from the start,” Day told the BBC in an interview. “He seemed to be a level-headed guy, but full of energy and able to catch people’s attention.” Day’s leadership bid was successful, and he set out for Ottawa with Poilievre as his assistant. Some time after, Poilievre walked into his office on a cold winter night to ask his opinion about potentially running for office. Poilievre went on to win a seat in Ottawa in 2004 at the age of 25, making him one of the youngest elected Conservatives at the time. He has held that seat since.

From “Skippy” to party leader

Reuters

In Ottawa, Poilievre was given the nickname Skippy by peers and foes alike due to to his youthful enthusiasm and sharp tongue. He built a reputation for being “highly combative and partisan”, said Randy Besco, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto. Behind the closed doors of Conservative caucus meetings, Poilievre showed his diplomatic side, Day said. “Pierre was always good at saying, ‘Okay, you know what? I hadn’t thought of that,’ or he would listen and say: ‘Have you thought of this?'” said Day. Still, confrontational politics became a cornerstone of Poilievre’s public persona. After becoming Conservative leader in 2022, he would target Trudeau with biting remarks as a way to connect with disaffected voters. It has landed him in trouble at times. In April, he was expelled from the House of Commons for calling the former prime minister a “wacko”. Poilievre told the Montreal Gazette in June that he is a fan of “straight talk”. “I think when politesse is in conflict with the truth, I choose the truth,” he said. “I think we’ve been too polite for too long with our political class.” His combative style has also been divisive, and he has been criticised for oversimplifying complex issues for political gain. While Canadians have been open to the opposition leader’s message as a change from Trudeau’s brand of progressive politics, just under half of them hold an unfavourable opinion of him, according to a recent poll. Poilievre has also had to shift his sights since Trudeau’s resignation to get ahead of the inevitable match-up between him and Carney.

Poilievre on populism, immigration and Trump

The Conservative leader has been described as a “soft” populist for his direct appeals to everyday Canadians and criticism of establishment elites, including corporate Canada. It has been pointed out as a weakness by his critics, as the bulk of Canadians have become angry and frustrated with another well-known, nearby populist – Donald Trump. Canadians priorities have shifted since the Trump administration launched a trade war against Canada, with the relationship between the two countries now the top of mind for voters. It has forced Poilievre, who had not stepped much into foreign policy prior, to pivot. He has since pushed back at Trump’s comments suggesting Canada become a 51st US state, vowing to “put Canada first”. A simple guide to Canada’s federal election

A stunning reversal of fortunes in Canada’s historic election

Who is Mark Carney, the political newcomer who hopes to stay Canada’s PM? “While Canadians are slow to anger and quick to forgive, once provoked, we fight back. And we will fight back,” Poilievre has said in an address directed at Trump. Trump has disparaged the Conservative leader in response, telling the UK magazine The Spectator that he is not “MAGA enough.” In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that Poilievre is “stupidly no friend of mine”. On domestic issues, Poilievre has pledged to deliver “the biggest crackdown on crime in Canadian history”, promising to keep repeat offenders behind bars. He also came out in support of those who protested vaccine mandates during the 2021 “Freedom Convoy” demonstrations that gridlocked Ottawa for weeks. On social matters, he has rarely weighed in – something Prof Besco said is typical of senior Conservatives, who see these topics as “a losing issue”. While Poilievre voted against legalising gay marriage in the early 2000s, he has recently said it will remain legal “full stop” if he is elected. The Conservatives also do not support legislation to regulate abortion, though they allow MPs to vote freely on the issue. “There will be no laws or other restrictions imposed on a woman’s right to decide to do with her body as she wishes,” Poilievre said in April. “And that is something that I am guaranteeing to you and to all Canadians.”

Getty Images Poilievre has promised Canadians a return to “common sense politics” and “small government”

President Trump spoke warmly about German Chancellor Friedrich Merz during their meeting last week. Photo: Michael Kappeler/DPA/ZUMA Press

European leaders rattled by President Trump’s tariffs, tongue-lashings and threats to seize Greenland are now getting their heads around the latest twist from the White House: praise.

Over the past week or so, while Trump’s break with right-hand-man Elon Musk was brewing, the U.S. president and some of his senior officials repeatedly spoke positively about actions Europe is taking. Surprised European officials are enjoying the moment but know it could pass quickly.

Will Musk’s explosive row with Trump help or harm his businesses?

2 days ago Share Save Lily Jamali North America technology correspondent Share Save

Getty Images

When Elon Musk recently announced that he was stepping back from politics, investors hoped that would mean he would step up his involvement in the many tech firms he runs. His explosive row with US President Donald Trump – and the very public airing of his dirty White House laundry – suggests Musk’s changing priorities might not quite be the salve they had been hoping for. Instead of Musk retreating somewhat from the public eye and focusing on boosting the fortunes of Tesla and his other enterprises, he now finds himself being threatened with a boycott from one of his main customers – Trump’s federal government.

Tesla shares were sent into freefall on Thursday – falling 14% – as he sounded off about Trump on social media. They rebounded a little on Friday following some indications tempers were cooling. Even so, for the investors and analysts who, for months, had made clear they wanted Musk off his phone and back at work, the situation is far from ideal.

Watch: Did Elon Musk really win the election for Trump?

‘They’re way behind’

Some argue, though, that the problems for Musk’s businesses run much deeper than this spat – and the controversial role in the Trump administration it has brought a spectacular end to. For veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher, this is especially so for Tesla. “Tesla’s finished,” she told the BBC on the sidelines of the San Francisco Media Summit early this week. “It was a great car company. They could compete in the autonomous taxi space but they’re way behind.”

Tesla has long attempted to play catch-up against rival Waymo, owned by Google’s parent, Alphabet, whose driverless taxis have traversed the streets of San Francisco for years – and now operate in several more cities. This month, Musk is supposed to be overseeing Tesla’s launch of a batch of autonomous robo-taxis in Austin, Texas. He posted on X last week that the electric vehicle maker had been testing the Model Y with no drivers on board. “I believe 90% of the future value of Tesla is going to be autonomous and robotics,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told the BBC this week, adding that the Austin launch would be “a watershed moment”. “The first task at hand is ensuring the autonomous vision gets off to a phenomenal start,” he added. Who is Elon Musk?

How the Trump-Musk feud erupted But with Musk’s attention divided, the project’s odds of success would appear to have lengthened. And there’s something else to factor in too: Musk’s own motivation. The talk in Silicon Valley lately centres less on whether Musk can turn things around and more on whether he even cares. “He’s a really powerful person when he’s focused on something,” said Ross Gerber, President and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. “Before, it was about proving to the world that he would make EVs – the tech that nobody else could do. It was about proving he could make rockets. He had a lot to prove.” A longtime Tesla investor, Mr Gerber has soured on the stock and has been paring back his holdings since Musk’s foray into right-wing politics. He called Thursday an “extremely painful day”. “It’s the dumbest thing you could possibly do to think that you have more power than the president of the United States,” Mr Gerber said, referring to Musk’s social media tirade against Trump. The BBC contacted X, Tesla, and SpaceX seeking comment but did not receive a response.

Watch: What’s happening with Trump’s Tesla parked at White House?

The Tesla takedown

A particular problem for Musk is that, before he seemingly created an enemy in Trump, he already had one in the grassroots social media campaign against his car-maker. Protests, collectively dubbed #TeslaTakedown, have played out across the country every weekend since Trump took office. In April, Tesla reported a 20% drop in car sales for the first three months of the year. Profits plunged more than 70%, and the share price went down with it. “He should not be deciding the fate of our democracy by disassembling our government piece by piece. It’s not right,” protestor Linda Koistinen told me at a demonstration outside a Berkeley, California Tesla dealership in February. Ms Koistinen said she wanted to make a “visible stand” against Musk personally. “Ultimately it’s not about the tech or the Tesla corporation,” said Joan Donovan, a prominent disinformation researcher who co-organised the #TeslaTakedown protests on social media. “It’s about the way in which the stock of Tesla has been able to be weaponised against the people and it has put Musk in such a position to have an incredible amount of power with no transparency.” Another aspect of Musk’s empire that has raised the ire of his detractors is X, the social media platform once known as Twitter. “He bought Twitter so that he had clout and would be able to – at the drop of a hat – reach hundreds of millions of people,” Ms Donovan said.

Getty Images An anti-Musk protest in London

The personal brand

There is another possibility here though. Could Musk’s high-profile falling out with Trump help rehabilitate him in the eyes of people who turned against him because of his previous closeness to the president? Patrick Moorhead, chief analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, thinks it could. “We’re a very forgiving country,” he said. “These things take time,” Mr Moorhead acknowledged, but “it’s not unprecedented”. Ms Swisher likened Musk’s personal brand to that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates more than two decades ago. She said Gates was once regarded as “the Darth Vader of Silicon Valley” because of his “arrogant and rude” personality. Today, despite his flaws, Gates has largely rehabilitated his image. “He learned. He grew up. People can change,” Ms Swisher said, even though Musk is “clearly troubled”.

Space exit

Trump’s breakneck start is fraught with political risk

29 April 2025 Share Save Sarah Smith North America editor Share Save

Watch: Trump’s first 100 days… in just 2 minutes

Within hours of taking his second oath of office, Donald Trump signed a flurry of executive orders and declarations, and fired the starting gun on what has been a rapid and radical programme of change in his first 100 days. So far, he has shown no sign of taking his foot off the pedal. The sheer quantity of his news-generating actions over the past few months could be seen as a carefully considered strategy. It is one that Steve Bannon, the right-wing podcast host who advised Trump during his first term, first floated as long ago as 2018. “The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon told the writer Michael Lewis at the time. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone.” So seven years on, with Trump back in the Oval Office and the zone not just flooded but virtually submerged, does Bannon think the strategy has worked? “Flooding the Zone’ is an overwhelming success,” he tells me via text. “The biggest victory is a broken globalist media that finds itself too frayed to cover our assault on the institutions of America’s oppression.” It is a typically bombastic response. A wide variety of opinion polls, however, suggest the public is less enthusiastic. Trump’s overall approval rating at this stage of his presidency, for example, is the lowest of any president in the past 80 years, according to a joint ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll released on the weekend.

In his usual fashion, Trump hit out at “fake polls from fake news organisations”. But do they suggest ailing support that could pose a problem for him down the line? It is still early, of course, and Trump’s base remains fully committed. Even so, the best laid plans of even the most cautious politicians can go awry. So after 100 days of action, is there anything that could derail Trump’s promised agenda in the coming months? Here are three potential scenarios.

Tariff dream turns to recession nightmare

Trump has spent many years talking about the good that tariffs could do for America’s economy – and now he is trying to make it a reality. But staking your presidency on a policy of global economic disruption comes with significant risks. Trump has already reacted to tanking global markets by announcing tariff pauses, and he has signalled he is ready to make a deal with China by recently making warmer comments than the earlier angry barbs aimed at Beijing. But in July, steep tariffs on imports from any countries that do not have a trade deal with the US are set to come into force. Can the administration really agree 90 trade deals in 90 days as Trump has promised? If not, the president may find that his tariff regime and the potential for more market chaos begins to further shake his standing with voters. Voters who backed the president in November, at least many I have spoken to, appreciate the White House message that he is standing up to countries that have for decades taken advantage of the US and seeking to inject fresh life into American manufacturing. But there is a tension between this message and what plays out on the ground – not in diplomatic talks between leaders, but on main streets and in supermarkets as Americans go about their daily lives. Trump’s tariff plans have driven a stock market sell-off and raised fears of economic recession. And a poll by CBS News on Monday indicated there is a growing belief among voters that the administration is focused too much on tariffs and not enough on lowering prices. This feels key to the success of the Trump administration in coming months. Ambitions to reset the global trading order are one thing – and a popular one among the president’s supporters at that – but handing the cost of this to the average American consumer by increasing taxes on virtually all imports is dangerous politically, even more so if the country were to tip into recession.

A constitutional crisis

Immigration has always been Trump’s signature issue. He enjoys higher approval ratings on it than any other policy area, with polls suggesting a significant number of voters support his swift actions to deport thousands of undocumented migrants. As the administration pursues this immigration crackdown, it may not be the views of voters that hamper Trump, but rulings from the nation’s courts. Judges are repeatedly telling the White House that its actions may be in breach of the law. The case of one man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has already made it to the Supreme Court. The administration has admitted it made a mistake when deporting him to a notorious prison in El Salvador, but appears unwilling to follow a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” his return to the US. So far, the White House has avoided the kind of clash with judges that could prompt a full-blown constitutional crisis, even as it has maneuvered around court rulings aimed at limiting some of its most radical policy moves. But a showdown may happen soon. The ultimate confrontation, of course, would come if Trump chose to ignore an order from the Supreme Court. Until now the administration has been happy to argue about deportations in the court of public opinion, convinced that voters are much more concerned about removing illegal immigrants from the country than they are about due process. Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant, agrees. He told me that, in his view, many people do not believe undocumented migrants deserve legal rights. “If you frame it between giving them due process and getting terrorist gang members… Republicans are going to side with getting MS-13 members off the streets,” he said. Still, public support for Trump’s immigration moves could be slipping. A poll published late last week indicated his approval rating on the issue had fallen by 10 points in recent weeks. Even if voters are prepared to accept the White House ignoring court rulings, any such move could pose a significant challenge to many Republican members of Congress who feel squeamish about it. So far, the party’s senators and representatives have virtually given Trump free rein to do whatever he likes. But could they remain silent when faced with a president defying the law?

Getty Images Musk’s attempts to convince Wisconsin voters to back his candidate in a state race failed earlier this month

DOGE spins out of control

Judge says Trump officials could be found in contempt. What happens next?

17 April 2025 Share Save Brandon Drenon BBC News Share Save

Getty Images Judge James Boasberg has clashed with Trump’s team over recent deportations

A US federal judge has given President Donald Trump’s officials a one-week deadline to comply with his court order or risk being found in contempt of court – potentially setting up a historic clash between two equally powerful branches of government. Judge James Boasberg said the “most obvious way” for the officials to avoid contempt was to “assert custody” over a group of more than 200 people who they deported to El Salvador last month – after he told them not to do so. But the Trump administration has shown no sign of a desire to adhere, criticising Wednesday’s request and saying it would appeal. The White House denies any wrongdoing, and has depicted the group as “terrorists and criminal illegal migrants” who threaten American society. Experts have told the BBC that a showdown between the judicial and executive branch appears all but inevitable. So, what might happen if the government does not comply with Judge Boasberg’s deadline of 23 April?

Tracing responsibility

The first step to hold any Trump officials in contempt of court would be to determine who was responsible for the non-compliance, an expert told the BBC. At the moment, it remains unclear who took the specific actions against Judge’s Boasberg’s initial order to not deport people to El Salvador, said Robert Tsai, a Boston University constitutional law professor. Lawyers would use a process called discovery to decide who was responsible, by seeking documents and questioning government officials under oath. “You want to be able to nail someone down and pinpoint who it is that’s basically saying, ‘We’re getting the planes up in the air, and just stonewall the judge,'” Prof Tsai said. Government lawyers have said the planes were already en route by the time Judge Boasberg’s written order was issued, and that his subsequent verbal order for the planes to return happened when they were no longer in US airspace. If he felt government lawyers were not playing ball, Judge Boasberg could fine both the lawyers and other government officials until they complied, Prof Tsai said. The sanctions or penalties would apply until the government met the terms of the judge’s order. All of this falls under the umbrella of civil contempt.

Civil or criminal contempt?

There is also the possibility of Trump administration officials being found in criminal contempt – for which the punishment could include jail time. “That’s considered one of the most serious things, and usually the last resort,” Prof Tsai said. In the case of criminal contempt, Prof Tsai said the normal course of events would be to refer the issue for prosecution by the justice department, which is run by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Judge Boasberg also has the power to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue criminal contempt charges and to sidestep Bondi, a Trump loyalist who was appointed by the president. “With this administration, it is very possible that the justice department refuses to prosecute,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin explained to the BBC. Even if the justice department does take the case, Trump has the power to pardon a criminal offence. But the president does not have the power to issue pardons for civil liability (civil contempt).

Avoiding contempt proceedings

The ruling from US District Judge James E Boasberg on Wednesday said the government showed “wilful disregard” for his order when it sent planes carrying alleged criminals to El Salvador – after he had barred the government from using a wartime law for the deportations. That law, the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, gave the Trump administration power to expedite its deportation of those it said were gang members without providing any evidence. The US Supreme Court later ruled that Trump was able to use the wartime law, Judge Boasberg said on Wednesday that “does not excuse the government’s violation” of his earlier request. To avoid contempt proceedings, the judge gave the administration two options – to “purge” itself of contempt, or to remedy its noncompliance. “The most obvious way”, he said, was for the administration to “assert custody” of the hundreds deported to El Salvador’s mega-prison, so they could “challenge their removability”. Judge Boasberg said the government would not need to release any of those deported – a number of whom have not been convicted of any crimes – nor fly them back to the US. The judge said the administration could also “propose other methods of coming into compliance”.