In Canada, being quietly conservative often feels like navigating a tightrope in a society heavily influenced by left-leaning ideas, particularly those promoted by the mainstream media (MSM). The Liberal Party, a dominant political force since World War II, has shaped a cultural narrative that aligns with progressive values, as evidenced by their 2021 platform focusing on affordable childcare and aggressive climate action. This MSM alignment with liberal orthodoxy creates immense pressure for conservatives to conform, especially in public-facing roles like teaching or corporate environments. For many conservatives, staying silent becomes a survival tactic in a landscape where their beliefs are often viewed as out of step with the dominant ideology, forcing them to weigh the cost of speaking out against the need to maintain social harmony.
The risk to social and professional standing for voicing conservative opinions in Canada is both real and pervasive. A 2020 study found that 25% of Canadians feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions at work, with this figure rising to 31% for ethnic minorities, reflecting a broader culture of suppression. For conservatives, expressing non-liberal views—such as skepticism about rapid cultural shifts or government overreach—can lead to ostracism, career setbacks, or even job loss. In workplaces and social circles, conservatives often face the threat of being labeled as backward or intolerant, a stigma that can damage relationships and professional opportunities. This fear of repercussions creates a chilling effect, compelling many to remain silent to protect their livelihoods and social standing.
Left-leaning thinking dominates Canada’s social space, particularly in urban centers, educational institutions, and media outlets, creating an environment where conservative perspectives are frequently marginalized. The Liberal Party’s long-standing influence, especially under leaders like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entrenched a “Just Society” vision that prioritizes equality and government intervention, a legacy that continues to shape public discourse. This dominance is reinforced by cultural narratives that often frame conservative views as outdated or unacceptable, leaving little room for dissent. Educational institutions, as noted in studies, have become breeding grounds for socialist ideas, further entrenching left-leaning ideologies among younger generations. Such an environment stifles open debate, enforcing conformity and limiting the diversity of thought necessary for a balanced society.
This ideological imbalance harms Canadians by restricting the range of ideas needed to address complex societal challenges. When conservative perspectives—often rooted in fiscal restraint, cultural preservation, or skepticism of rapid change—are silenced, policies lack the nuance required to serve a diverse population. Abacus Data’s 2025 report highlights a growing segment of Canadians who are economically progressive but culturally conservative, yet their voices are often overlooked. This suppression risks alienating rural and traditional communities, particularly in regions like Alberta, where conservative values have historically been strong, deepening national divides and fostering resentment. Without a diversity of perspectives, Canada misses out on innovative solutions and balanced governance, which are critical for long-term stability.
Ultimately, the suppression of conservative voices in Canada creates a more divided and less resilient society, undermining the nation’s ability to tackle pressing issues. When a significant portion of the population feels unable to express their views, trust in institutions erodes, and political polarization intensifies, potentially fueling populist movements. This lack of open discourse prevents Canada from addressing challenges—like housing affordability or immigration policy—with the pragmatism required for sustainable solutions. For Canadians as a whole, fostering an environment where all perspectives can be voiced without fear is essential to building a cohesive society. A nation that silences half its voices risks losing the very diversity and strength it claims to champion.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
7 comments
May 1, 2025 at 7:58 am
sm
I suspect what one now means by a “quiet conservative” is in fact a Progressive Conservative. Those don’t exist at the federal level any more. For many years, the difference at the federal level between a PC and a Liberal wasn’t really that significant. Look at Diefenbaker’s work on eliminating discrimination. His antipathy toward Quebec was not that they were Quebecois, but that they posed a threat to the unity of Canada. Flora MacDonald said in an interview in her later years, that her political positions (formerly a PC), now aligned more with the NDP. The centre right has almost completely disappeared because of the Reform and Alliance parties moving much further to the right. Mulroney blew up the middle by joining the neo-liberal economic bandwagon along with Thatcher and Reagan. And the Conservative “grass roots” are what I would consider religious extremists – Evangelicals. The centre is gone, but the suppression of the old-school Progressive Conservative ideas comes from the Conservatives and their base.
LikeLike
May 1, 2025 at 10:20 am
Sumi
I’m not sure how you conclude that conservative voices are being suppressed. Currently, six provinces are governed by conservative premiers, four by liberals and two by new democrats.
Federally, Conservatives were in power for long stretches under Mulroney and Harper. The federal Conservatives under Scheer and O’Toole won the popular vote, but failed to translate that into seats thanks to the first-past-the-post electoral system that the party supports.
The highly concentrated private media leans largely conservative, notably the Postmedia/Sun chain and the Globe & Mail, who have never hidden their conservative editorial slant. It looks to me like conservative ideas are getting their fair shake, even if Poilievre failed to inspire even his own constituents.
LikeLike
May 1, 2025 at 12:38 pm
Carmen
Arb, it seems that a ‘quiet Conservative’ voters are the ones I am acquainted with – those who are horrified by the far-right ones (like Poilievre). Here in Atlantic Canada, our MP is the only Conservative who kept his seat in the province. We also have a Conservative Premier (I think he’s eyeing PP’s job) who is a gem. You might want to look up his latest video. I wrote and told him that, as a former teacher, I was happy he corrected the pronunciation of ‘scallop’. :). Our MLA is another progressive. . . Three men of integrity, in my opinion. I truly hope their voices (and yours) aren’t silenced.
LikeLike
May 1, 2025 at 1:58 pm
The Arbourist
@ Sumi
Thank you for your comment. You raise points about conservative representation in Canadian governance and media, but I believe the issue of suppressed voices extends beyond electoral outcomes or editorial slants. While conservative premiers govern six provinces and the federal Conservatives have had significant influence historically, political power doesn’t always equate to open discourse. The first-past-the-post system may skew seat counts, but my concern is less about vote tallies and more about the cultural climate stifling certain perspectives.
You mention the conservative lean of outlets like Postmedia and the Globe & Mail. However, media concentration doesn’t guarantee a platform for all conservative ideas, especially on contentious social issues. The past decade has seen the rise of cancel culture, where individuals face severe repercussions for expressing dissenting views, often with little recourse. This phenomenon has made certain topics—particularly those challenging progressive narratives—nearly untouchable in mainstream discourse.
For example, the CBC’s coverage of the Kamloops residential school narrative, as discussed in my blog, has been heavily one-sided. The claim of “mass graves” was widely reported, but subsequent evidence suggesting more nuanced findings received minimal attention. Questioning the initial narrative has been framed as disrespectful or revisionist, effectively silencing debate. Similarly, Jim McMurtry, a Manitoba teacher, was disciplined and publicly vilified for raising concerns about the historical accuracy of residential school claims. His case illustrates how educators face professional ruin for stepping outside approved narratives.
Another stark example is Amy Hamm, a B.C. nurse who faced professional sanctions and public harassment for her gender-critical views. Her case highlights how questioning gender ideology—particularly its impact on women’s rights or medical practices—can lead to swift punishment. The broader media, including publicly funded outlets like the CBC, rarely covers these cases or the lack of evidence supporting certain gender-affirming treatments. Stories that challenge the dominant narrative on gender ideology are consistently sidelined, leaving a void in public discussion.
While conservative ideas may appear to have a “fair shake” in some spheres, the chilling effect of cancel culture ensures that individuals self-censor to avoid social, professional, or legal consequences. This isn’t about electoral wins or media ownership—it’s about a cultural environment where dissent on specific issues is punished, and open debate is increasingly rare.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 1, 2025 at 2:03 pm
The Arbourist
@Carmen
Hi Carmen :) – Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’m glad to hear about the principled conservatives you know in Atlantic Canada—your MP, Premier, and MLA sound like individuals striving to represent their communities with integrity. It’s encouraging to see such voices in politics, and I share your hope that open, honest discourse remains vibrant.
Regarding your point about Pierre Poilievre being “far-right,” I’d like to respectfully challenge that characterization. The label often stems from mainstream media (MSM) narratives that frame Poilievre’s rhetoric—particularly his criticism of “woke” policies, government overreach, or media bias—as extreme. However, when we look beyond headlines and examine his actions and policy positions, the “far-right” label doesn’t hold up as neatly as it’s presented.
Poilievre’s platform centers on economic issues like reducing taxes, cutting government spending, and addressing housing affordability by streamlining regulations. These are traditional conservative priorities, rooted in free-market principles, not radical ideologies. His vocal opposition to the carbon tax, for instance, aligns with many Canadians’ concerns about cost-of-living pressures, especially in rural and working-class communities. His support for the 2022 Freedom Convoy has been cited as evidence of far-right ties, but this overlooks the broader context: many protesters were ordinary Canadians frustrated with vaccine mandates and lockdowns, not extremists. Poilievre’s engagement with them was more about tapping into widespread discontent than endorsing fringe ideologies.
The “far-right” accusation often hinges on guilt-by-association claims, like his supposed ties to figures like Alex Jones, who endorsed him, or his appearance on Jordan Peterson’s podcast. Yet, Poilievre has no control over who endorses him, and his response to Jones was neutral, avoiding direct condemnation but also not embracing the support. His Peterson interview focused on economic policy and critiques of government inefficiency, hardly the stuff of far-right manifestos. Critics also point to his praise for Shopify’s leadership, who have expressed right-leaning views, but supporting a successful Canadian business doesn’t equate to extremism.
What’s missing from the MSM narrative is concrete evidence of Poilievre advocating policies associated with the far-right, such as anti-immigrant xenophobia, authoritarianism, or social conservatism to the degree of, say, banning abortion or rolling back same-sex marriage. He’s pledged to reduce immigration levels to align with infrastructure capacity, but this is a practical stance shared by many moderates, not a call to close borders. His social rhetoric, like opposing “woke ideology” in institutions, resonates with those who feel cultural debates have been stifled, but it’s not a call for discriminatory laws or policies.
If we define “far-right” as aligning with groups like Diagolon or policies that undermine democratic norms, the proof is thin. Poilievre has met with a wide range of Canadians, but there’s no documented evidence of him endorsing extremist groups’ agendas. His combative style and media skepticism, often compared to Trump’s, are more about disrupting the status quo than dismantling democratic institutions. Unlike Trump, Poilievre has a long history within the Conservative Party, serving under Stephen Harper, and his policies don’t deviate significantly from that mainstream conservative tradition.
The “far-right” label seems to rely heavily on his tone and selective associations rather than substantive policy positions. I’d be curious to hear what specific actions or statements make you see him as far-right—perhaps we can dig deeper there. Meanwhile, I agree that voices like your MP’s, your Premier’s, and even those of “quiet conservatives” like myself must keep pushing for open debate. Silence isn’t an option when narratives can so easily overshadow reality.
LikeLike
May 1, 2025 at 2:03 pm
The Arbourist
@Carmen
Hi Carmen :) – Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’m glad to hear about the principled conservatives you know in Atlantic Canada—your MP, Premier, and MLA sound like individuals striving to represent their communities with integrity. It’s encouraging to see such voices in politics, and I share your hope that open, honest discourse remains vibrant.
Regarding your point about Pierre Poilievre being “far-right,” I’d like to respectfully challenge that characterization. The label often stems from mainstream media (MSM) narratives that frame Poilievre’s rhetoric—particularly his criticism of “woke” policies, government overreach, or media bias—as extreme. However, when we look beyond headlines and examine his actions and policy positions, the “far-right” label doesn’t hold up as neatly as it’s presented.
Poilievre’s platform centers on economic issues like reducing taxes, cutting government spending, and addressing housing affordability by streamlining regulations. These are traditional conservative priorities, rooted in free-market principles, not radical ideologies. His vocal opposition to the carbon tax, for instance, aligns with many Canadians’ concerns about cost-of-living pressures, especially in rural and working-class communities. His support for the 2022 Freedom Convoy has been cited as evidence of far-right ties, but this overlooks the broader context: many protesters were ordinary Canadians frustrated with vaccine mandates and lockdowns, not extremists. Poilievre’s engagement with them was more about tapping into widespread discontent than endorsing fringe ideologies.
The “far-right” accusation often hinges on guilt-by-association claims, like his supposed ties to figures like Alex Jones, who endorsed him, or his appearance on Jordan Peterson’s podcast. Yet, Poilievre has no control over who endorses him, and his response to Jones was neutral, avoiding direct condemnation but also not embracing the support. His Peterson interview focused on economic policy and critiques of government inefficiency, hardly the stuff of far-right manifestos. Critics also point to his praise for Shopify’s leadership, who have expressed right-leaning views, but supporting a successful Canadian business doesn’t equate to extremism.
What’s missing from the MSM narrative is concrete evidence of Poilievre advocating policies associated with the far-right, such as anti-immigrant xenophobia, authoritarianism, or social conservatism to the degree of, say, banning abortion or rolling back same-sex marriage. He’s pledged to reduce immigration levels to align with infrastructure capacity, but this is a practical stance shared by many moderates, not a call to close borders. His social rhetoric, like opposing “woke ideology” in institutions, resonates with those who feel cultural debates have been stifled, but it’s not a call for discriminatory laws or policies.
If we define “far-right” as aligning with groups like Diagolon or policies that undermine democratic norms, the proof is thin. Poilievre has met with a wide range of Canadians, but there’s no documented evidence of him endorsing extremist groups’ agendas. His combative style and media skepticism, often compared to Trump’s, are more about disrupting the status quo than dismantling democratic institutions. Unlike Trump, Poilievre has a long history within the Conservative Party, serving under Stephen Harper, and his policies don’t deviate significantly from that mainstream conservative tradition.
The “far-right” label seems to rely heavily on his tone and selective associations rather than substantive policy positions. I’d be curious to hear what specific actions or statements make you see him as far-right—perhaps we can dig deeper there. Meanwhile, I agree that voices like your MP’s, your Premier’s, and even those of “quiet conservatives” like myself must keep pushing for open debate. Silence isn’t an option when narratives can so easily overshadow reality.
LikeLike
May 1, 2025 at 3:45 pm
Sumi
Arb, had you said that conservative views were being suppressed in the CBC, I would have agreed with you. The CBC is failing in its mandate to “provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern and to directly participate in public dialogue on those matters.” In fact, I wrote to the CBC ombudsman to complain about its one-sided coverage of the Iman Khalif boxing controversy.
But your complaint was broader than that, and that’s where I disagree. As a regular NatPo reader, I can assure you that the indigenous graves issue was well covered. As for Amy Hamm, her columns feature regularly in papers across the country. https://nationalpost.com/author/amy-hamm/
I read the Star for its liberal slant and the NatPo for its conservative slant. The CBC is not a very good news source, and well, the Globe & Mail has long been fish wrap.
LikeLike