Where does Pierre Poilievre go from here?
The Conservative Party of Canada is once again the Official Opposition.
Now, the Tories are grappling with the disappointing results of Monday's election. They lost to the Liberals after leading in the polls mere months ago and their party leader, Pierre Poilievre, failed to win in his own riding.
But it wasn't a total loss. The Conservatives won 41 per cent of the popular vote, and picked up more seats than any other party, flipping both red and orange seats to blue.
Top Conservative strategist, Kory Teneycke, joins the show to talk about the path forward – what the results mean for Poilievre and what kinds of challenges he will face, if he stays on as leader, in uniting Conservatives and expanding their base.
For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts
Subscribe to Front Burner on your favourite podcast app.
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Spotify
Listen on YouTube
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
an hour ago
- Canada News.Net
Access to Nature Shouldn't Be a Privilege
In Canadian politics, few ideas cut across party lines as cleanly as how much we love nature. Policies on protecting our environment-and opinions about what harms it-vary widely. But you can bet that any campaign ad, throne speech or holiday message is likely to include a reference to the Maple Leaf along with the Rocky Mountains, our prairies and forests, the Great Lakes, our coastlines or the High Arctic. Nature is used as a kind of shorthand for who we are and what we value, writes Mathieu Roy for Policy Options. But, he adds, when a new government puts that belief as a core item in its agenda, as Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals appear to have done, we must ask: What does it mean to say nature is central to Canadian identity and what would it take to translate that into reality? This is not just a philosophical question. It's a call to action. If we take the claim seriously-and we should-it carries at least three practical obligations: expanding access to nature for all Canadians, protecting more of the land that defines us, and building natural infrastructure, like parks and trails, to connect us to nature-and each other. Most Canadians agree that nature is part of who we are, as evidenced in a recent poll by EKOS, a public-opinion research firm. But for many, being able to enjoy nature daily is limited or out of reach. Urbanization, neighbourhoods with few parks, trails that can only be reached easily with a car and the rising cost of living make it harder for people to experience the physical and mental benefits of time spent outdoors. If nature is a core part of our identity, access to it shouldn't be a privilege. It should be a right. That means investing in public spaces that bring nature closer to where people live, including more green spaces, trails and community-led outdoor programming. Such funding is fundamental to fostering a deeper connection with nature, promoting belonging, improving health and supporting local culture. To protect nature-a pillar of the Liberal campaign platform in the April election-we need more than regulations. Under a global biodiversity framework agreed to in 2022 at the COP15 conference in Montreal, Canada has committed to increasing access to green spaces (forests, parks and agricultural land) and blue spaces (lakes, rivers and wetlands), especially in urban areas. It has also promised to integrate nature into how we live plan and build. This target recognizes that people need to care about nature to protect it and are more likely to do so when nature is a part of their everyday lives. No government can achieve this goal alone. Partnerships with Indigenous communities, non-profit organizations and local experts play an important role in supporting a connection to nature and making conservation a mainstream, dinner-table subject. We need to build natural infrastructure that reflects who we are and what we care about. Prioritizing the country's network of trails is a strong example. They support low-carbon transportation, protect green spaces, act as firebreaks during climate emergencies, provide corridors for wildlife and stimulate local economies. These aren't soft benefits. They are measurable returns on public investment and serve to anchor nature in our daily lives. The ecological benefits of the Trans Canada Trail are valued at an estimated $82 million annually. On top of that are the health benefits for the 2.6 million Canadian adults who use it, estimated to save $1.7 billion in health-care costs. Too often treated as an afterthought, this kind of infrastructure unites a country and reflects public values. It deserves centre stage in our national vision. National parks systems, trail networks or innovative public transportation routes all illustrate how shared infrastructure can transcend utility and become a source of collective pride. The Carney government has an opportunity to lead on this front by championing projects that not only connect Canadians but embody our shared values and reflect our deep connection to the land. Investing in the relationship between people and nature is one of the most powerful and unifying choices the new government can make if it wants to fulfil its promise to protect the environment, grow our economy and embrace our national identity. That means going beyond a mention of the Maple Leaf during question period. It means working to embed nature into the lives of Canadians through improved access, robust protection and sustainable development.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
From lacrosse myths to kilts: 5 things you may not know about Canadian symbols
OTTAWA – Parliamentarians likely will get a chance later this year to debate whether to adopt a livestock brand as an official national symbol. A bill to create the brand was introduced earlier in June by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Steven Bonk. If the bill passes, the brand will become Canada's 10th national symbol — joining O Canada, the coat of arms and the maple tree. Here are five things you may not know about the official symbols that say 'Canada.' 1. The beaver does not stand alone Everyone knows the beaver stands for ingenuity, craftsmanship and hard work. For 50 years, the beaver has been an official national symbol of Canada. These bucktoothed builders have long been associated with Canadian history. They were the foundation of the 17th century fur trade and have appeared on totem poles. The beaver even predates the Maple Leaf as a Canadian symbol. The animal appeared on the first Canadian postage stamp issued in 1851. But the beaver isn't the only animal on the list. While the loon that graces the dollar coin and the Canada geese that can be found hissing at joggers near almost every body of water in the country never made it to the official list, one breed of horse did. In 2002, the National Horse Act became law, making the breed known as the 'Canadian horse' a national symbol of equine excellence. The breed dates back to 1665, when King Louis XIV sent mares and stallions from the royal stables to New France. The Canadian horse emerged as a distinct breed about a century later, through the mixing of Norman, Breton, Arabian and other breeds. They're well adapted to Canada's harsh winter conditions. The Canadian horse typically has a dark coat and is relatively small. The versatile breed has been used in agriculture and logging and some were used as cavalry horses in the American Civil War. 2. This tartan is not just for Scots Canada's newest national symbol is the Maple Leaf Tartan, adopted through a ministerial decree in 2011. The tartan was first designed by Toronto businessman David Weiser in 1964, ahead of Canada's centennial in 1967. Weiser's design uses green, gold, red and brown to represent a maple leaf's life cycle. Canadian Forces pipers and drummers who don't belong to a specific military regiment wear the tartan when performing. The design is also officially recognized by Scotland in The Scottish Register of Tartans. 3. Red and white slight? What's more Canadian than red and white? The colours adorn the flag, athletes wear them proudly at international tournaments and many people will be wearing red and white face paint on Canada Day. But Canada has never formally adopted national colours. The belief that red and white are Canada's national colours comes from the Dec. 17, 1921 edition of the Canada Gazette, in which King George V issued a proclamation describing Canada's first national symbol — the coat of arms. The heraldic description of the shield talks about a wreath of maple leaves in 'argent and gules' — heraldic language used to describe white or silver and red respectively. The federal government says that while it was 'long believed' that this declaration made red and white Canada's national colours, the proclamation does not contain that language. While several countries do adopt their flag's colours as an official symbol, Canada never took that step. 4. National sport history obscured by Beers Contrary to popular belief, lacrosse was not Canada's national sport before hockey. In fact, both of them became national sports on the same day in 1994. For decades, many Canadians were convinced that lacrosse was the sole national sport — mainly because the father of modern lacrosse kept saying it was. William George Beers drafted the first known written rules for lacrosse in 1860, adapting them from games played by the Algonquin and Mohawk nations. Beers also established in 1867 the National Lacrosse Association of Canada — the country's first national sports governing body — and lobbied Parliament to adopt lacrosse as the national sport. The Canadian Encyclopedia says Beers began to claim lacrosse received this distinction but there is no evidence Parliament formally recognized the game as a national symbol. Almost 100 years later, a bill was introduced in April 1965 to make lacrosse Canada's national game. The text of that bill says 'there is an attempt' to appoint 'a lesser game' as Canada's national pastime. It does not identify that 'lesser game.' 'The purpose of this Bill is to rectify what was probably an oversight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation,' the bill reads. MPs debating the bill at the time noted the widely held belief that lacrosse was already the national sport, with sports publications and encyclopedias stating it as fact. The bill did not become law before Parliament was dissolved for an election later that year. It wasn't until 1994 that Parliament passed a bill making lacrosse Canada's national summer sport and hockey its official winter sport. 5. A Canadian icon doesn't make the cut Not all attempts to establish a new national symbol are immediately successful. Five versions of the National Horse Act went to the legislative glue factory between 1995 and 2002 before it finally became law. A bill to make the Maple Leaf Tartan a symbol was first introduced in the Senate in 2010 but did not make it past first reading. The tartan had to wait for the ministerial decree a year later. Two other national symbol bills never made it past first reading and it doesn't appear there was ever an attempt to revive them. A 1998 bill to adopt a 'symbol for the promotion of national unity' never passed. This apparently original symbol design, titled 'Canadian Unity Pledge,' shows two concentric circles, with the outer ring saying 'Canada' and 'strong free' in both English and French. The inner circle bears a maple leaf along with 'from sea to sea' in the official languages. Underneath the circles, a message reads 'Canada is Our Country, One Country, Strong and Free, From Sea to Sea.' A PDF version of the bill provided by the Library of Parliament only shows the symbol in black and white. There is no written description of what the colours were supposed to be, but the leaf was likely meant to be red. A legislative attempt to make the iconic dress uniform of the RCMP a national symbol also failed. A bill to make the red serge a 'symbol of Canadian sovereignty' was introduced in February 1990, but the Library of Parliament said it does not to appear to have progressed past first reading. While a Mountie wearing the red serge is an instantly recognizable Canadian image, the uniform is not in the roster of national symbols. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 30, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Canada cancelled its digital services tax. What was it and why did the U.S. hate it?
OTTAWA – Tech giants such as Amazon and Google will not have to shell out close to $2 billion as expected today, as Canada moved to cancel the controversial digital services tax on Sunday, just one day before the first payment was due. The announcement from Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne came late Sunday evening, following a phone call between Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump. That call concluded a flurry of discussion between the two countries since Trump suddenly announced on Friday afternoon that he was ending all trade talks with Canada and threatened new tariffs. But the standoff had really been building for years. Here's a brief look at what the tax was about and why Trump made such a drastic move to try and kill it. What is the digital services tax? The tax was announced in 2020, but the legislation to enact it didn't pass until last year. While it has been in effect for a year, the first payment, retroactive to 2022, was to be submitted on June 30. The government intended it to overcome what Canada saw as a tax loophole, with big tech companies operating in Canada digitally, making money off Canadian users and data, but not paying tax on it in Canada. The tax was to apply to companies that operate online marketplaces, online advertising services and social media platforms, and those that earn revenue from some sales of user data. It meant companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb, would pay a three-per-cent levy on revenue from Canadian users. The tax was only to cover large companies, those that have worldwide annual revenues greater than 750 million euros per year and Canadian digital services revenue greater than $20 million per year. The parliamentary budget officer had estimated it would bring in $7.2 billion over five years. Because the first payment was retroactive to cover three years, the expectation was the companies collectively could be on the hook for an initial payment of around US$2 billion. Why did Canada impose it? Work has been underway for years at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to set up a multilateral tax approach meant to replace digital service taxes imposed by individual countries. But after that work stalled, Canada went ahead with its own tax. Other countries, including France and the United Kingdom, also have digital taxes. The Liberals had long maintained Canada would go ahead on its own if the OECD deal fell through. In a 2024 release, the government said while 'Canada's priority and preference has always been a multilateral agreement,' many of Canada's allies have digital services taxes in place. 'Canada has been at a disadvantage relative to these countries which have continued collecting revenue under their pre-existing digital services taxes,' it said. Why do some oppose it? Critics of the tax took issue with Canada's refusal to wait for a global deal. They also opposed the retroactive application of the tax, which means companies will have to pay several years' worth of taxes at once. U.S. businesses and politicians argued the tax targets U.S. companies. The tax applied to all large tech companies no matter where they were based, but because so many of those companies are American, U.S. firms would have paid the bulk of the money. In a letter earlier this month, 21 members of Congress said U.S. companies will pay 90 per cent of the revenue Canada will collect from the tax, and that first payment will cost U.S. companies US$2 billion. That opposition isn't new. The Biden administration also pushed back against the tax, and the stance isn't isolated to Canada, with the U.S. also opposing digital service taxes imposed by other countries. Before the tax was rescinded on Sunday, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada said its 'members have been warning for years that this tax would become a flashpoint in the Canada-U.S. relationship. That moment has arrived.' The tax is 'retroactive, one-sided, and deeply damaging to cross-border trade,' Rick Tachuk said in an emailed statement, which encouraged Canada to cancel its tax. Michael Geist, Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, wrote in a blog post Saturday the current conflict shouldn't come as a surprise. 'Canada pushed ahead despite efforts at an international agreement on the issue and later dismissed the increasing friction over the issue with the U.S., which has been signalling its opposition to the DST for many years,' he said. Geist said once Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne confirmed on June 19 Canada would be going ahead with the tax, the government 'virtually guaranteed the U.S. would respond as it did.' Where does Trump come in? While opposition to the tax has been brewing south of the border for years, Trump escalated it abruptly Friday afternoon with an online post. He wrote he was 'terminating all discussions on trade with Canada' because of the tax and called it a 'direct and blatant attack on our country.' He also complained about Canada's dairy-sector protections that include high tariffs on imports of American milk and cheese. Canada and the U.S. have been in a trade war for months, triggered by Trump's imposition of tariffs. At the G7 summit in Alberta earlier this month, Carney and Trump agreed to work on reaching a deal by mid-July — work that Trump said was halted Friday. Friday afternoon, shortly after Trump's post went live, Carney told reporters he hadn't spoken to Trump that day but that 'we'll continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians.' So what happened on Sunday? Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. A flurry of activity followed Trump's post on Friday, culminating Sunday night in the call between Trump and Carney. The decision opened the door for trade talks to restart, and Carney said in a statement, the overall results of those talks were paramount. 'In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses,' he said. 'Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 30, 2025.
