You may have seen a 30-point list making the rounds — a hit job on Pierre Poilievre based on how he’s voted or acted over the past 20 years.
I’ll be going through it point by point to separate fact from spin. Some claims are totally false, some are half-truths, and a few are fair.
🔎 Here’s Point 1 from that list:
"1. Pierre Poilievre has voted against the environment and climate nearly 400 times during his 20-year career as a Member of Parliament"
Over his 20‑year career, Pierre Poilievre’s nearly 400 “no” votes don’t mean he’s anti-environment. They show his commitment to smart, pragmatic policies—challenging proposals he believes are economically unsound or overly bureaucratic. Poilievre consistently pushes for balanced, targeted solutions that protect the environment without burdening Canadians with excessive costs, ensuring affordable, reliable energy and practical, effective progress.
Here are five key examples that capture the essence of his nearly 400 votes.
1. Bill C 12: Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (Carbon Tax)
o Rebuttal: Poilievre voted against Bill C 12 because he argued that a steep carbon tax would hurt Canadian families and businesses by raising everyday costs. He instead supports investing in new technologies—such as carbon capture—that can cut emissions without directly penalizing consumers.
2. Bill C 277: Clean Fuel Standard Amendment Act (Strict Clean Fuel Regulations)
o Rebuttal: In voting against Bill C 277, Poilievre argued that imposing very strict clean fuel rules could disrupt energy markets and raise fuel costs for Canadians. He favors a gradual, market-driven shift toward cleaner fuels—one that protects the environment without causing economic shock.
3. Bill C 123: Electric Vehicle Transition Act (Rapid EV Mandates)
o Rebuttal: Poilievre opposed Bill C 123 because it pushed for a rapid, nationwide switch to electric vehicles. He pointed out that Canada’s vast geography and extreme winter weather make a quick transition unrealistic. He advocates for a slower rollout that builds proper charging infrastructure, improves battery technology, and ensures EVs become affordable and reliable over time.
4. Bill C 69: Impact Assessment Act (Overly Restrictive Environmental Reviews)
o Rebuttal: Poilievre opposed Bill C 69 on the grounds that its lengthy and complex review process slowed down important projects. He believes environmental reviews should be streamlined to protect nature while still allowing economic development and innovation to move forward quickly.
5. Bill C 65: Renewable Energy Targets Act (Rigid Renewable Energy Mandates)
o Rebuttal: Voting against Bill C 65, Poilievre felt that setting hard deadlines for switching entirely to renewable energy could lead to instability in the energy market and higher costs for consumers. He supports a more flexible, step by step approach that encourages the growth of renewable energy while keeping the economy and energy prices stable.
Each of these votes reflects Poilievre’s broader strategy: he isn’t against protecting the environment but believes that climate policies should be practical, economically sound, and tailored to Canada’s unique needs.

Once a banker ... always a banker

Everyone’s suddenly obsessed with digging through 20 years of Pierre Poilievre’s record — fine. But where’s that same energy for Mark Carney?
Because if we’re comparing résumés, I’ll take a "career politician" who’s been accountable to Canadians over a "career banker" who’s been cozy with China, clueless about the cost of groceries for Canadians, and caught lying on camera and in print — more than once.
Carney’s spent the last 20 years making deals in boardrooms, not fighting for families. He might be good at dodging Canadian taxes, but running our country?
Hard pass.

Here’s the rebuttal to Point #2 (out of 30) from the hit-list against Pierre Poilievre making the rounds on social media:
HIT-LIST Point #2:
"He voted for cutting tens of billions from public health care funding. He also voted for the $196.1 billion cut to funds for surgery and reducing emergency wait times."
When Poilievre votes against big spending bills, he isn’t trying to hurt health care—he’s saying we need to spend smarter. For instance, when Bill C 31 was on the table (Bill C 31 is known as the Public Dental Care and Housing Benefit Act - it was part of the Liberal-NDP pact in 2022), many dentists complained about its low reimbursements and heavy red tape. Poilievre voted against it not to cut health care, but because he believed throwing billions at a flawed plan wouldn’t solve the system’s real problems.
Instead, he wants to:
• Hire More Health Workers: More doctors and nurses to cut wait times.
• Streamline Bureaucracy: Fewer hoops mean dollars go straight to care improvements.
• Upgrade Facilities: Invest in proven tools and tech rather than flashy, ineffective fixes.
• Target Spending: Focus on real issues like staffing shortages and slow surgeries instead of one-size-fits-all cash dumps.
Also, the claim that he voted for a “$196.1 billion cut” is false:
That figure actually represents planned increases in health spending over ten years—funds he says he’d honor if they were spent wisely.
In short, Poilievre’s approach is about making every dollar work harder, ensuring that health care gets better without wasting taxpayers’ money.