PM Henry

Retired

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@Concern70732755 Absolutely

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@Concern70732755 3

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@saskatchewan_in I agree. These cowards should be ashamed of themselves. If I find out my MP has participated in this behavior, I will encourage him to resign.

[Melanie In Saskatchewan @saskatchewan_in]

🧵 1/2

On the off-chance any of this CTV bullshit is true, I sent this email to 140 Conservative MPs today.

I had to send them in batches of 10 from two different email accounts. Feel free to copy and paste it to your local Conservative MP, or every Conservative MP in your province, or tag them in the comments below with a statement of support for the message. I've included an email list in the next post.

Believe it or not, these types of emails actually do make a difference behind the scenes. And since Steve Outhouse doesnt have a listed email address, I'll tag him here.
-------------------------------

Dear Conservative Members of Parliament,

I am writing as a Conservative supporter who has had enough of unnamed caucus members privately expressing doubts about Pierre Poilievre to the media. I am far from alone on this issue. 

This behaviour must stop.

If members sincerely believe there is a leadership issue, raise it through the appropriate internal process. Speaking anonymously to journalists is not principled dissent or service to your constituents. It is political sabotage without the integrity of a signature.

Pierre received 87.4 per cent support in the party’s leadership review only six months ago. That was an unmistakable mandate from the members who volunteer, donate, organize and vote. Your personal grievances do not override it.

Remember why you became MPs. You say it was to serve your communities. Secretly feeding stories of division to the media serves nobody. It fractures the movement your constituents entrusted you to advance.

Every anonymous complaint creates another news cycle about Conservative infighting instead of Liberal failures, economic decline, affordability and government accountability. You are handing the Liberals ammunition they did not even have to manufacture.

Let me be clear:

• You were not elected to indulge private rivalries.
• You were not elected to undermine your team.
• You were not elected to help the Liberals win again.

Canadians are struggling. Families are falling behind, businesses are leaving and more people are questioning whether they have a future in this country. Against that reality, anonymous caucus gossip is not merely childish. It is profoundly selfish. Canadian conservative supporters and members are putting their fervent hope and prayers into the Conservatives. Stop disappointing them. 

If your concerns cannot be placed under your own name in your constituency newsletter, or main strem media reporting they should not be whispered into a journalist’s recorder.

Resolve disagreements internally. Respect the mandate delivered by party members. Remember the people who sent you to Ottawa and the responsibility they placed in your hands.

Get back to work, act like a team and stop handing the Liberals their next election victory. 

Sincerely, from an ardent supporter, donor and concerned conservative.

Melanie in Saskatchewan

#cdnpoli @steveouthouse @CPC_HQ

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@saskatchewan_in This is an excellent synopsis of what is happening in Canada. I encounter this on a regular basis and no amount of pointing out what you have so succinctly written changes the hatred. They have already made up their minds and not even facts change their stance.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@SirBylHolte So true. 1961 as well. Great times.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@govt_corrupt ✋️

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@brianlilley "How's that for an honest answer ?"
This is a tell tale sign of someone covering up lies. This guy is a failure as well as a blatant liar.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@GSD_Fan_Club @zephryus47 Clutch. Looking at the paw on the console.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@MarcNixon24 Honour, integrity, credibility and economics

[David Sims-🇨🇦 @DavidSI58]

If you ever had a shred of doubt in your decision to vote for Pierre Poilievre to right this ship we call Canada, watch this 5 minute video and kiss any doubts goodbye.
This could be our last chance. This is the guy we need.
Please vote. 🌊🌊

[Dan Knight @DanKnightMMA]

OP-ED : The Notwithstanding Clause Is How We Save Canada—from the People Who Broke It

If you listen to the Canadian media—most of whom could be replaced by cardboard cutouts of Mark Carney—you’d think Pierre Poilievre is preparing to burn the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the front steps of Parliament. He’s been accused of authoritarianism, of threatening democracy, even of “undermining the rule of law.” What’s his crime?

He wants to use a constitutional tool—the Notwithstanding Clause—to stop mass murderers from gaming the parole system and walking free.

Let’s back up, because this isn’t hysteria. This is strategy. And it starts with a court decision.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R v. Bissonnette that judges can no longer impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on people convicted of multiple murders. Their logic? It violated Section 12 of the Charter—protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Under this ruling, someone who murders six people can apply for parole after 25 years, the same as someone who murdered one.

Let’s be clear: that wasn’t a fluke. It wasn’t a clerical error. It was a judicial statement that mass murder should not carry a heavier penalty than single homicide.

It’s insane. And it’s now the law.

Poilievre has said plainly what most Canadians are thinking: no more. His platform includes restoring consecutive parole ineligibility for multiple murderers—using Section 33 of the Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, to override the Supreme Court's ruling. That clause, by the way, wasn’t invented by some right-wing populist—it was authored during the patriation of the Constitution by Allan Blakeney, Peter Lougheed, and, yes, Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself. It was written to give elected governments the final word when courts lose the plot.

So when Liberal insiders like Mark Carney call Poilievre’s move “dangerous,” let’s be honest about what they’re really saying.

They're not worried about your rights. They're worried about their power.

Let’s talk about Carney.

Carney is the Liberal establishment personified. A man who has never been elected to anything, but acts like the nation owes him its premiership. A former central banker, an unelected global bureaucrat, a Davos man through and through. And now, the man parachuted in by the Liberal Party to rescue it from the wreckage of Justin Trudeau.

Mark Carney says the use of the Notwithstanding Clause in this case is a “threat to democracy.”

This is the same Mark Carney who, in 2022, wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail calling the Freedom Convoy “sedition.” He supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors. He said, “You can’t have liberty without order,” as Trudeau’s government froze bank accounts without charges or trials, targeted working-class Canadians, and abused financial institutions to silence dissent.

You want to talk about civil liberties? That was the real violation.

Carney didn’t object to that. He didn’t call it “dangerous.” He supported it.

And he supports Bills C-11 and C-18, which hand the federal government the power to control what Canadians see, post, and share online. These are the Trudeau government’s censorship bills—sold as “support for Canadian content,” but in reality, giving the CRTC the authority to prioritize or bury content based on government-set criteria.

Censorship? Government-controlled financial punishment? Total silence when bail laws are gutted and criminals walk free?

Mark Carney has no problem with any of that.

But when Pierre Poilievre wants to keep Paul Bernardo—a man who raped, tortured, and murdered teenage girls—from applying for parole every two years, now it’s a civil liberties emergency?

Let’s be clear: Paul Bernardo is not some abstract example. He’s not theoretical. He’s a real person, a real monster. His crimes are so depraved they defy description. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, and he was behind the “Scarborough Rapist” attacks on at least 14 other women.

And yet, under Canada’s current law, he gets to apply for parole every two years. The families of his victims are forced to prepare victim impact statements and re-live the trauma again and again.

That’s the system the Liberals built. That’s the legacy Poilievre wants to overturn.

And they’re terrified, because with one constitutional stroke—one Notwithstanding Clause—he can.

He can restore sentences that reflect justice. He can return power from unelected judges to elected lawmakers. He can protect victims instead of appeasing criminals. And most dangerously—for them—he can show Canadians that this decaying, dysfunctional, upside-down system can actually be fixed.

That’s why they’re panicking.

Because Poilievre isn’t threatening the rule of law. He’s threatening the rule of them.

The Notwithstanding Clause doesn’t destroy democracy. It saves it. It gives voice to the people when institutions lose sight of the public interest. It exists for moments like this—when killers get a second chance and victims don’t.

So when Carney and his media allies start foaming at the mouth over “tyranny,” remember this: it’s not about rights. It’s about the swamp defending itself. Because once Canadians realize the Notwithstanding Clause can be used to take back their streets, their justice system, and their country from people like Mark Carney, they’ll wonder why it wasn’t used sooner.

This election, Canadians are being handed a rare opportunity—not just to vote for a different government, but to reclaim the country from the institutions and elites who hollowed it out.

For years, the Liberals have ruled through back channels: unelected judges, unaccountable regulators, international bankers like Mark Carney. They’ve told you crime is compassion, censorship is safety, and freedom is dangerous. And if you dared to disagree, they froze your bank account and silenced your voice.

Now, with the Notwithstanding Clause, Pierre Poilievre is threatening to unwind it all. Not with riots. Not with chaos. With a legal tool, written into the Constitution by the very people now pretending it’s a threat.

He’s not dismantling democracy.
He’s using it.

He’s not a danger to the country.
He’s the first serious chance to save it.

Because if we don’t have the right to keep mass murderers in prison…
If we don’t have the right to protect our kids, our streets, and our speech…
Then what do we really have left?

Canada is at a crossroads.

One path leads to more decay, more lies, and more of the same.
The other leads out of the swamp.

You know the path.
You know who’s on it.
And you know exactly who to vote for.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@RosieBarton Disappointed with the replies indicating this only benefits the rich. Most of us won't be able to take advantage of the top up. However, if the rich are encouraged to invest in Canadian companies, this benefits all Canadians.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@Martyupnorth_2 Yes

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@FringedCanuck Are these guys auditioning for Star Trek?

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@mark_slapinski @X I see u

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@elonmuskADO No, it is missing (33)

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@Humanlty1o1 Hello

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@ElonMuskAOC A.

[PM Henry @PMHenry7]

@elonmuskADO Yes