Roundup: Heavy-handed caucus management

The Ways and Means motion on the budget survived its second confidence vote, on the Bloc’s amendment, as no other party supported it (unsurprisingly). But outside of that, the drama inside the Conservative caucus room continues to spill out into the open as the party tries to deflect scrutiny. Leaks are talking about ten to fifteen very unhappy members, though nothing to indicate they’re going to cross the floor or leave caucus. At least not in the immediate future. Nevertheless, it is probably not lost on anyone that Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin storming into Chris d’Entremont’s office to yell at him when he let it be known he was contemplating crossing the floor is probably not great caucus management.

To that end, Scheer huffed and puffed his way out to the Foyer after Question Period yesterday to claim that it’s the Liberals who are harassing Conservatives, and it was that “harassment” that drove Matt Jeneroux to tender his resignation when there are accounts about how he was meeting with senior Liberals and was allegedly “eighty percent there” in terms of being convinced to cross over before this all blew up. Of course, nothing Scheer says is remotely believable, and his trying to claim that the Liberals are manufacturing this to “distract” from their budget is beyond risible considering just how complete and total their sales job on said budget is. The fact that Scheer is resorting to that kind of a dismissal is a sign of just how completely out of his depth he is here.

Scheer says Liberals are trying to “undemocratically” get a majority through backroom deals and accuse Liberals of harassing Conservatives to cross the floor. (Sure, Jan)

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:16:03.099Z

Scheer claims Jeneroux was pressured into resigning because Liberals were harassing him. He’s actually claiming that.

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:18:59.423Z

What gets me is that no one in that caucus seems to have learned a single gods damned lesson after Erin O’Toole’s final days. For those of you who memory-holed the whole incident in trying to rehabilitate O’Toole’s image while trying to turn him into a statesman, in the dying days of his leadership, he weaponized the (garbage) Reform Act to kick out any member of caucus who dared to question him, and that member of caucus was Senator Batters, which was a big mistake because she has some pretty deep networks. Within days, the vote in caucus on O’Toole’s leadership was organised and he lost decisively. And despite this object lesson, Poilievre and Scheer are trying to use a heavy-hand and threats to enforce loyalty? Seriously? The other thing that seems to be emerging is a rift between the eastern and western flanks of the party, as eastern Tories are much more progressive and even-tempered than the Reform-rooted Conservatives, who are increasingly turning MAGA, and Poilievre needs to get a handle on this and start mending some fences before this blows up in his face.

Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-07T14:24:04.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in Pokrovsk, while Ukrainian forces are stepping up their assault on Russian forces in Dobropillia to ease the pressure on Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers fighting with drones are being rewarded with points for confirmed hits and kills, leading to ethical concerns about the gamification of war. Ukraine says that 1400 Africans from dozens of countries have signed up to fight for Russia as mercenaries, but mostly are just used in “meat assaults.”

Good reads:

  • After his speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mark Carney pushed back against claims that the emissions cap is preventing new energy projects.
  • Apparently the federal and Alberta governments are negotiating an accord to “reset” the relationship. (Reset how? Give Danielle Smith everything she wants?)
  • Gary Anandasangaree still doesn’t have a date for when the foreign interference commissioner will be named, other than “soon.”
  • Canada and the UK intercepted communications with high-level Indian officials in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. (How does Anand not bring this up?)
  • Members of the legal community are concerned about the bad faith outrage being stoked over last week’s Supreme Court of Canada decision.
  • The Duke of Montecito is visiting Toronto, largely visiting with veterans.
  • Mark Miller gives his thoughts on new immigration targets, some of which are below what he was pushing toward when he was minister.
  • Pierre Poilievre’s speech to the Economic Club in Toronto was yet more of his trickle-down economics promises that created the mess we’re in.
  • RCMP in Nova Scotia are investigating online threats made against Chris d’Entremont after his floor-crossing.
  • Danielle Smith conflates populism with liberal democracy as she defends her invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to impose a contract on teachers.
  • Matt Gurney muses about Carney not meeting the bar that he set for himself.
  • Stephen Maher talks about how East Coast Tories differ in temperament from Poilievre, and why that matters in why Chris d’Entremont crossed the floor.
  • Emmett Macfarlane calls out the wilful blindness to the real causes of so many of our problems—federalism, and premiers not doing their jobs.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Heavy-handed caucus management

  1. Why’s Andrew Scheer in front of the press gallery? I mean that’s an evergreen question since he sucks, but I thought PP’s schtick was this fearless slayer-of-the-mainstream-media yet nowhere to be seen?

    Ed Fast’s replacement in Abbotsford got a lot of attention, but didn’t something like that happen like 80 or 90 times where PP or I guess the people in his leadership office dropped their own preferred candidate into a riding and these candidates were novices who were the type to all agree the last PM should be in jail in that very American buzzword “Clinton Foundation” or “Hunter Biden’s laptop” way where unsure what’s at issue and why the person should be a hail. Those now MPs own their seats directly to PP. Mention because PP set it up to have the least amount of caucus problems yet it is still happening. The media coverage seems similar to election night where it wasn’t just a wait and see approach on him losing Carleton (despite major warning signs it might happen), but during that night kept hearing PP losing Carleton wasn’t going to happen.

  2. I admit I haven’t even read through the summation of the inquiry, but wasn’t there a kerfuffle over whether David Emerson was actually incentivize to floor cross with a guarantee he’d go straight into the front benches as a minister and ,if so, was that illegal? It seems kind of erased from the press gallery’s collection memory. In the end it didn’t seem end up anywhere.

    Seeing some people questioning whether “blackmailing” MPs to not floor cross is illegal or not? I get Chris d’Entremont and Matt Jeneroux have said to press nothing like that happened to them, but it’s not a crime to be dishonest to the press unlike statements to the RCMP or testifying at a parliamentary inquiry. What’s politically metaphoric sausage making or actually illegal acts seems hard to gasp for me at least.

Comments are closed.