CLC Blog

If you were to take a poll of Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) members asking what is the thing that most disturbs them about the CPC, I'll bet that the anti-democratic nomination process and staggering number of candidate appointments made in the 2025 election cycle would be right up there at the top.

Thanks to a survey of members taken between October 14 - 27 by a CPC National Council subcommittee that is tasked with reviewing the rules for nomination elections, I had the opportunity, as a member myself, to express the outrage felt by so many thousands of grassroots party members and scores of EDAs. 

The open-ended questions in the survey allowed me to go into great detail exposing the dirty tricks and unethical skullduggery that Conservative Party bureacrats use to essentially cheat local party members of their right to vote for the nomination candidate of their choice, and to disqualify excellent candidates who've been nothing but loyal and hardworking for the party. 

Very often, good candidates with excellent chances of winning the local riding are unfairly DQ'd just because they hold socially conservative views. But sometimes it's even more crass: the leader (or unelected staffers in his office) wants to appoint a preferred candidate without an election.

Although it makes for a lengthy article, I'd like to share my answers to the 11-question survey so that everyone who's interested in CPC politics gains a better understanding of the current deficiencies in the nomination process, and what sort of rule changes will be necessary to solve the problem.

With that said, here are the questions in bold, followed by my answers, indented.

---

Q1) What do you think it will take to ensure the Party attracts the best candidates to form a strong majority government under Pierre Poilievre’s leadership?

Answer: I think it will take completely banning the corrupt CPC practice of interference in nomination elections, which inadvertently results in sabotaging the CPC’s overall support base in the affected ridings. If it happens in enough ridings across the country, it translates into a national defeat for the CPC, and yet another Liberal government.

To a large degree, the CPC's consecutive election losses since 2015 can be traced back to party interference in EDA nomination contests whereby the party establishment severely damaged the local support base for each Conservative EDA where nomination election interference was committed.

Sometimes, the party appoints an out-of-town parachute candidate who lives outside the riding and possesses no local community networks, as a favour to the individual for working hard on the leader’s past campaign or for being a good fundraiser.

In the recent election cycle, the party deliberately delayed dozens of nomination contests for up to 18 months in order to wait for Carney to call an election so that the CPC leader;s office could appoint scores of candidates and hide behind the flimsy excuse that, “Sorry, the election was called, and now, darn it, we just don’t have enough time to hold nominations. Sadly we'll have to appoint a whole pile of candidates”.

For 12 to 18 months, the party stalled numerous EDAs who had up to five interested contestants who’d already sold hundreds of memberships, and whose EDA Presidents were begging the party to let them hold their nomination. It was premeditated sabotage of party democracy. And it was disgusting.

Other times, a weaker individual is appointed, and stronger candidates with better chances of winning in the riding are disqualified. Again, it’s done either as a form of patronage because the leader personally prefers that individual, or because the party doesn’t like the stronger candidates due to them having opinions on social conservative issues, immigration or economic policy, and fears the mainstream media will cause trouble. These aren’t legitimate excuses to DQ somebody. If the local grassroots members want a candidate who holds these opinions, they should be allowed to vote for them. The leader doesn’t have to agree with every opinion of every one of his candidates. We don’t live in China or North Korea, remember?

Sometimes, to avoid the party looking so corrupt and undemocratic and to avoid EDA backlash, party officials will arrange a "directed acclamation". They do so by discouraging, threatening or disqualifying excellent nomination contestants from running. Then, they gaslight hundreds of outraged local members who paid $15 for the right to vote for the blocked candidates, by saying: “Oh, look – only one person was interested in being the candidate. We’re so shocked!”. As a result, those hundreds of new members become disgusted with the CPC, and the party loses most of them as voters (they’ll stay home or vote PPC), volunteers, donours, and word-of-mouth ambassadors in their local churches, families and other social networks.

I know for a fact this “directed acclamation” tactic was widespread leading up to the 2025 general election because I personally spoke with no fewer than 20 nomination contestants in multiple ridings who experienced it first-hand. They shared with me exactly what the Regional Organizers said to them about the party having already chosen its candidate, and not wanting them to contest it.

This anti-democratic interference is routinely committed by the Leader's Office, the Executive Director, Regional Organizers (following orders from the Executive Director), the National Candidate Selection Committee (NCSC) and National Council. All of them MUST have their hands tied by the nomination rules and the constitution so they can't do it again.

The CPC should instead respect its membership, distinguish itself from the corrupt Trudeau/Carney Liberals, and allow democracy to be fully and transparently worked out in EDAs where the grassroots EDA members ALONE, and nobody else, not even the Party Leader, gets to decide who the candidate will be.

As a model for every one if its nomination elections, the CPC should do it similar to how U.S. Republican primaries are run. Every electoral district is open to the will of party members to choose who they want to represent them. No incumbents are "protected" by the establishment.

If a Conservative Party member has enough support from the local community to put up a challenge, that should be allowed. It should never be blocked. Having to defend their title can only make MPs and Candidates of Record stronger and more accountable to their base.

Individuals should never be awarded a candidacy via appointment or "directed acclamation" just because they were big fundraisers for the Leader. That kind of interference is diametrically-opposed to the principles of democracy.

If you count up all the “directed acclamations” and outright appointments, a whopping nearly 1/3 of the CPC’s 2025 general election candidates were appointed. That’s not only shameful, it’s a major reason for the Conservative election loss.

Think of the hundreds of engaged new members signed up by the nomination contestants who were subsequently blocked or DQ’d. I guarantee most of them didn’t end up working hard toward a Conservative victory once they learned of the DQ. Many didn’t vote (or else voted PPC), didn’t recruit their friends, relatives and members of their church to go vote for the CPC candidate.

If not for this voter suppression committed by the CPC against its own base, the "Trump/Elbows Up" effect might’ve been overcome. At the very least, more seats would’ve gone CPC and the Libs kept to a slim minority that could be more easily toppled.

In conclusion, what it will take to ensure the Party attracts the best candidates to form a strong majority government under Pierre Poilievre’s leadership, is to ban party establishment interference in nomination elections, and allow the grassroots CPC members in each riding to elect the candidate of their choice.

Q2) Are there any CPC candidates you are particularly proud to support?

Answer: Leslyn Lewis, Arnold Viersen, Cathay Wagantall, Garnett Genuis, Marc Dalton, Tamara Jansen, Andrew Lawton, Jacob Mantle and Rachael Thomas come to mind as strong Conservative candidates who articulate themselves well, and are not afraid to tackle issues that voters - and especially the conservative voters who elected them - really care about. It is probably not a coincidence that all of these had to work hard to win their original nomination elections, and were not awarded with an appointment.

Q3) What could the Party do, if anything, to improve the nomination process?

Please comment on any of the following parts of our Rules: the Application and Process, Candidate Nomination Committees (CNCs), Issuing of Closing Notices, Eligibility Requirements, Membership Lists, Candidate Nomination Meetings, Abridgment of the Rules, Appeals and Dispute Resolution etc.

Answer: In addition to what I wrote in answer #1, I recommend the following improvements to the rules:

i) Delete from section 2c the wording: "the NCSC has the absolute discretion to disallow an Applicant, Nomination Contestant, or Candidate" and from section 3t the wording: "The NCSC has authority to disallow an Applicant, a Nomination Contestant or a Candidate at any time on any grounds the NCSC sees fit.". Delete that wording also from the Constitution. These are powers unbecoming of a party that believes in democracy, and more in line with top-down authoritarianism.

Replace that wording with an EDA VETO clause that gives grassroots members in that riding the power to override CPC HQ's disqualification. Here is some sample wording that would work:

“A majority of the EDA board or its membership may veto any decision by National Council and/or the Leader preventing a candidate from running in a nomination contest or election”.

This new wording provides an appropriate check and balance on the power of National Council and the Leader’s office. It protects the right of local party members to select the candidate of their choice. At the same time, the NCSC or National Council’s disqualification is not totally without effect because EDA boards and members will take that disallowance by the party into consideration.

ii) Currently, certain CPC bureaucrats and staffers skew nomination contests in favour of “preferred candidates” by giving them party membership lists way in advance of their opponents. This needs to be made illegal in the rules. An explicit rule should be spelled out, without any wiggle room or ambiguity, which requires, on pain of the staffer being fired and stripped of party membership, that every nomination contestant is given the exact same membership list at the exact same time.

iii) To implement truly open and transparent nominations that are fully democratic, similar to the U.S. Primaries, please amend the rules to state that there will be NO protected seats and that the party doesn’t have the power to block nominations from taking place. Have the rules state explicitly that paid-up members of an EDA can choose to hold a nomination election if they desire. Here’s some good, proposed wording to that effect:

“In every minority parliament, for every electoral district where an incumbent Conservative Member of Parliament wishes to seek re-election for the next general federal election by a certain date as determined by National Council, party members shall be sent a ballot asking if they want a nomination vote. If more than 50% of all the members eligible to vote in the Electoral District vote in favour of holding a nomination, a nomination shall be held. This vote must occur no more than 90 days after a date established by a simple majority vote of National Council. Only current party members who held memberships at the date of the final voting day in the previous general election and still reside in the riding shall be eligible to vote.

In every majority parliament, without any exceptions, there shall be a nomination in every electoral district every Parliament for every general federal election, except for electoral districts where the incumbent Member of Parliament sits in the Conservative Caucus and was elected in a by-election during the Parliament.”

iv) Too often, the Executive Director, in consultation with the leader’s office, schemes to disqualify excellent nomination contestants for illegitimate reasons, such as preferring someone else, or because the person holds strong opinions on issues that are well within the norm for the conservative party base, but which the Leader’s office would prefer never be discussed due to fear of the media. To discourage party officials from engaging in this sort of unethical, discriminatory disqualification of loyal Conservative members, the rules should force National Council to provide the disallowed nomination candidate with the reason for the disqualification. Here’s some wording that would do that in a way that should be acceptable to the party:

“Upon signing a non-disclosure agreement and release of any liability to the Conservative Party and its members, the Committee must provide to the candidate all detailed information used for the disallowance of a candidate within 48 hours of the disqualification. Any candidate can appeal a disallowance decision to a meeting of National Council in which the candidate shall have the opportunity to provide a live appeal in the same format as the meeting.”

v) To prevent the kind of sneaky stalling tactic that was committed by the CPC in 2025 to enable the party to appoint scores of preferred candidates while hiding behind a “surprise” writ-drop as the excuse, a rule must be added mandating the selection of candidates shortly after the conclusion of a general election. This is also a key to winning general elections because it gives the new candidate of record more time to get his or her name known in the community, to build a team of volunteers, etc.

Here is sample wording for such a rule:

“Where an electoral district does not have an elected Conservative MP, or a Conservative MP elected in a by-election, in the case of a majority government, the candidate shall be selected not later than nine (9) months prior to the next scheduled election. In the case of a minority government, the candidate shall be selected as soon as is feasible but not later than nine (9) months following the date of the last general election. Only in extenuating circumstances and with mutual agreement of the National Candidate Selection Committee (NCSC) and the Candidate Nomination Committee (CNC) can these timelines be amended.”

vi) A new rule should be added to remove the Executive Director’s ability to “sit on” applications as a means of blocking contestants that he or the leader’s office doesn’t like. Very often, the Executive Director will sit on applications for 12+ months so that the police records check and other documents expire, or so that the CPC memberships lapse for enough of the people who signed the candidate’s nomination petition to render the candidate with insufficient signatures. Then, in premeditated coordination, the Executive Director or Regional Organizer informs the candidate a day or two before the nomination closing date: “Sorry but your application was incomplete, so you won’t be allowed to contest the nomination”. Furthermore, they refuse to give the candidate any specifics about what exactly rendered their application incomplete, just to ensure they don’t have enough time to fix the deficiency before the nomination closing.

Here is sample wording for such a rule:

“Candidate applications submitted prior to the closing notice shall be reviewed by the Executive Director or their designate for completeness within seven (7) days after receipt of the candidate’s application. The Candidate shall be notified within fourteen (14) days from the submission date if any omissions are found. The candidate shall then be given fourteen (14) days to correct omissions and resubmit the application. This process of correction by the potential candidate may only be acted upon a maximum of two (2) times during any candidate application submission cycle. Should the party fail to notify the applicant of any omissions within the prescribed timeline the application shall be considered complete.”

Q4) Currently, CPC Members of Parliament are protected from facing a nomination if they:

● Raise $15,000/year.

*It is also a requirement to make a maximum yearly donation to either the Party OR an EDA. This is not currently tied to nominations.

Should incumbent CPC Members of Parliament continue to be protected from facing nominations?

Q5) Should there be alternate requirements in place for incumbent MPs to be protected?

Q7) Would you be in favour of setting an “election ready date” where the Party would have a full slate of candidates (for example, one year from now)?

Q8) Do you believe the deposit ( A good behavior bond of a $1,000 ) required under the Rules is set at a reasonable level?

If no, what should it be?

Answer: $150

Q9) Would you be comfortable with virtual nomination votes being held in ridings where there is no candidate when a general election is called?

Q10) Do you have any final thoughts on revising our Rules?

Answer: Yes. Refer to my answers to questions #1 and #3.

Q11) What other ideas do you have that will help us win the next general election?

Answer:  Become known as the only major party which truly respects democracy and which has the only nomination process that is 100% democratic, and free of top-down, authoritarian control.

Stop fearing the mainstream media. Be unapologetically conservative. Embrace the large social conservative wing of the party instead of continually suppressing and insulting it. They're a key ingredient to a majority Conservative government, if you treat them with respect.,

Stop apologizing for holding conservative and populist views. Stop looking scared in front of hostile Liberal journalists. In fact, ignore the bought-and-paid-for, state-run, mainstream media outlets, and instead, spend your time talking to the new media like Rebel News, Western Standard, Juno News, Epoch Times, Black Locks Reporter, The Bureau, LifeSiteNews, popular conservative podcasters and others in the burgeoning new media industry.

---

I sincerely hope that the seven-member ad hoc Committee assigned to refresh the Rules and Procedures for Candidate Nominations in advance of the next federal election takes these recommendations to heart.