Why I No Longer Identify As Conservative

MAY 1ST, 2026 | RYAN TYLER

The Americans have a Declaration Of Independence and a Constitution that is as old as their country. They have a heritage, both political and cultural, to conserve. Canada's Charter Of Rights is as recent as 1982 and contains a flawed clause that can negate the entire document with a single political whim. As Canadians, there is not much to conserve as a conservative. Unlike our neighbours, we don't really have any static protections for freedom and liberty. To be a conservative in the United States has a particular meaning—in Canada it entails supporting and “conserving” a bunch of things that do not work.

Being a conservative in Canada means conserving the Westminster parliamentary system, the Monarchy, British loyalism, and a set of relativist principles that can be overturned and rewritten at any time by a political majority. It turns out, I'm not interested in conserving any of that garbage.

So what am I? I would call myself a Revolutionist, or just a small R republican. Some might say something else. There are much deeper and philosophical reasons for my departure from conservatism, but I will leave those for another day. Today I'm going to explain only the surface layer of the onion. 

The truth is, Canada either needs to be torn apart and scattered in the wind, or entirely overhauled. This system doesn't work and it needs to be completely destroyed or reconstructed from the bottom up. I'm not interested in renovating a few bathrooms and maybe changing the kitchen counters, I'm talking about ripping it all down and building a new infill.

Since the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre have no intention of doing any of that, I won't be able to vote for them.

Now before any of the imbeciles chime in, let me clarify something important: I am not, and will never, advocate for any of this to be done with violence. We already have a bloodless democratic system in place to accomplish these goals. With even a small change in the collective mindset, massive revolutionary changes can happen via democracy.

Canada as a country and an idea won't survive another 100 years, but the people will still be here. If we don't do it, future generations will carve out new identities and new ideas—many of which might not be conducive to freedom or individual liberty. Regardless, in a few generations, Canada will succumb to economic and social collapse. Throughout most of human history, societies have collapsed and remerged as something different. Canada is no exception.

First, we need to abandon whatever we think Canadian identity is. History will do it for us eventually, but if we start now, we may be able to create a sustainable and durable political system designed to preserve and conserve personal freedoms, free markets, and real progress far into the future.

The Westminster System

Every political party with elected seats supports this system—including the Conservatives. Pierre Poilievre has boasted about the system on several podcasts and reaffirmed the “greatness” of the system multiple times. Why? Because he is a product of it.

Pierre Poilievre's entire career is rooted in the Westminster parliamentary system. As a career politician, he has no other roots, no other experiences, and no other loyalties.

The current Westminster system breeds career politicians like Pierre Poilievre. In fact, there have been only four prime ministers who came from outside the system. Mark Carney is the most recent. Overall, systems like the Canadian and British systems favour “experienced” and elected politicians to become party leaders and—eventually—prime ministers.

The system doesn't favour revolutionary or controversial ideas. The Westminster system is almost purposely designed to maintain the status quo forever. Only in the odd circumstance does someone come from outside the system, generally during times of deep uncertainty, insecurity, or upheaval. In most of those cases, the hive mind of party politics keeps them in check.

However, none of this is the real problem. These things, like in any democracy, can be defeated by a change in the collective mindset. A more awful example would be Germany in the 1930s. In a similar system, during near economic and social collapse, the collective mindset changed enough to bring in Adolf Hitler and fascism.

So, keep that in mind. The similar parliamentary systems of Europe, with their minimal checks and balances, allowed fascism to enter through the front door. The more republican systems, like France and America, have shown stability through times of ideological and economic upheaval. In fact, those systems, by design, make it nearly impossible for a majority party to single-handedly overhaul the entire system.

If you need modern examples, look at Donald Trump. Many of you might like to call him a fascist, but he has been tempered and kneecapped multiple times by the Supreme Court and other branches of government. After the mid-terms, he will likely become a lame duck and get impeached—depending on how much of Congress Democrats end up controlling.

Unlike the United States, Canada does not have any of these rock solid checks and balances. Ironically, that makes the kind of revolution we need possible—but it also leaves the door wide open for future assaults on personal freedoms. The objective is to overhaul the system into a solid, sustainable, protected republican system that will conserve personal freedoms and liberty through unbreakable checks and balances.

As an example, to change the US Constitution, three-fourths of the 50 states must ratify the proposed changes—before or after two-thirds of Congress has approved them. So, a strong majority of Congress (both houses) and 38 states must agree to any amendments or changes to the Constitution. Each state must first have any changes successfully approved by their own legislatures.

Yeah, good luck with all that.

Look up at Canada, though, and you see something different. Here you see a prime minister who can suspend parliament and—therefore—shut down committees, investigations, and reset any and all pending legislation whenever a negative political crisis arises. In Canada, you have a so-called Charter Of Rights that can be suspended by a majority vote in parliament.

In Canada, you have a prime minister and cabinet that can act unilaterally while parliament is suspended.

Domestically, a Canadian prime minister has more executive power under a majority government than a United States president. If you don't believe me, look it up. This isn't my opinion, it is a fact agreed upon and written about by political scientists and scholars. It is a privilege granted to prime ministers by the Westminster system.

Do you remember anyone stopping Justin Trudeau's emergency powers during the convoy in Ottawa? Didn't think so. But there is a Supreme Court in the United States that reversed Trump's tariffs, reversed his asylum bans, and halted nearly 200 of his policies and initiatives since he took office. At the moment, there are 650 lawsuits against the Trump Administration that could halt even more of his policies.

Come November, Republicans could face obliteration in the mid-term elections, which would effectively end Trump's presidency and make him a powerless figurehead for his remaining two years.

These things don't happen in Canada.

In Canada, prime ministers can halt legislative proceedings and take executive actions with little to no oversight. They can call elections when it's most convenient. They can appoint senators and supreme court justices without any confirmation hearings in parliament and without any grilling from opposition MPs. They can invoke emergency powers without consequences, take dark money during elections without consequences, escape deep and potentially illegal conflicts of interest without consequences, and retire into the sunset to date washed up pop stars—without ever facing any consequences.

This is the Canada conservatives are trying to conserve. This is the Westminster system Pierre Poilievre loves so much.

With Conservatives, Or Without Conservatives

It's unlikely that the Conservative Party will ever stand against Toryism and the Westminster system. The only viable way to transform the party would be to upend the party establishment and to then elect a “radical” leader with a set of brass balls. Unfortunately, the system itself makes this difficult. That's why we may need a whole new political party.

In the UK, Reform (Brexit) led by Nigel Farrage is picking up steam and supplanting the Tories as the new option to defeat Labour.

In most similar parliamentary systems, building a whole new party from scratch is the fastest, most efficient way to invoke real changes. In some cases, smaller existing parties can be overtaken and reformed from within. We have seen both happen on the provincial levels across Canada, often with great success.

The reason this works better than hijacking one of the bigger mainstream parties is due to established networks, donors, and “old boys” clubs that are deeply entrenched within the framework of every major party. Then we have the party's voting base, which is often stubborn, ideological, and narrow-minded. To overcome these obstacles, we are better served by going directly to the Canadian electorate with something fresh.

Last year, I talked about our need for a Federal Western Bloc. Perhaps something similar to the Bloc in Quebec could adopt republican and reformist ideals on their quest to seek independence within, and possibly without, Canada.

In any case, Canada needs a replacement for the Conservative Party. I know many of you will immediately jump to Maxime Bernier and the PPC, but I haven't seen anything inside that party's platform that fits what I have discussed here. Like the other parties, the PPC works within the Westminster framework and offers nothing in the form of real, revolutionary change. If they ever do, let me know.

If Nigel Farrage was able to do it in the UK, there is no reason we can't do it right here in Canada—inside the exact same system.