A series of letters to the editor published on December 31, 2025, in the Toronto Sun has sparked conversation, with one writer expressing bewilderment over the perceived lack of support for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre compared to Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Questioning Poilievre's Poll Numbers
In a letter from Larry Poulin of Dunsford, Ontario, the author directly challenges readers who favor Carney. "It’s beyond my comprehension why more than 50% of Canadians still think that Mark Carney is better suited for prime minister," the letter states. Poulin poses pointed questions about whether Canadians feel better off since Carney's election in April or since the Liberals initially took power in 2015.
The letter notes that only 37% of Canadians believe Poilievre would make a good prime minister, speculating that his direct communication style may be a factor compared to Carney's "smooth talking." Poulin suggests some opposition may stem from a fear of policy changes, concluding by asking critics if Poilievre could possibly perform worse than the current leader.
Scrutiny of a Proposed Civilian Force
A second letter, from J. Dougherty in Toronto, responds to a previous column by Robert Smol titled "Ad hoc army a poor plan" from December 21. Dougherty raises practical and logistical concerns about a proposed government initiative to recruit civil servants into a civilian response force.
The letter questions how unionized public servants would be trained, whether it would constitute overtime, and the health and safety implications of outdoor training in severe winter weather. A major point of contention is the safe storage of an estimated 300,000 firearms and ammunition for this proposed militia. Dougherty's letter ends with a skeptical tone, asking, "Are we laughing yet?"
Reflecting Public Sentiment and Policy Debate
These letters, curated by Postmedia News, offer a snapshot of public opinion and policy critique as 2025 came to a close. The first engages directly with the national political landscape and leadership perceptions, while the second drills down into the practicalities of a specific, controversial government proposal. Together, they highlight ongoing debates about leadership character and the feasibility of large-scale government programs, continuing a tradition of reader dialogue in Canadian media.
