It was another interesting and back-biting week in Canadian politics, with plenty of signs that we can look forward to more. Having watched much of it, I feel comfortable making two predictions.
First, there will not be an early national election. The Liberals will win every non-confidence vote in Parliament related to the Carney Budget. Second, if Pierre Poilievre wants to hang on to the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, he has a lot of work to do, especially with disaffected Tories who decamped to Mark Carney. I say this in spite of one poll a few days ago, which may give Poilievre some wiggle room and some hope.
The Carney Budget was not a slam dunk for the Liberal Party. Frankly, it was not all that clear to follow; long-term thinking related to rebuilding a strong economy and short-term thinking as it relates to massive new spending. There was no clear path to an endgame. Nor was there room for any instant gratification in terms of what the government offered in the immediate future.
But the budget will pass, and the government will have its game plan for moving forward. That is more likely now that two members have left the Conservative Caucus, one of whom has crossed the floor to the Liberals and the other who has openly challenged Poilievre’s leadership. That leaves the Liberal Government one or two seats short of a majority, with rumblings that there may be more to come.
I have to say that I have little respect for people who cross the floor in any political party. They effectively have a contract with their constituents to support the party for which they are elected. People vote for them on that basis, offer financial support for that reason, and expect them to represent those interests, but the member (who, in this instance, is at least Chris d’Entremont) thinks he knows better than the people who elected him. One seldom changes political parties unless it is self-serving, with something in it for them. We shall wait and see.
Even if there was no support from disaffected Tories, the Liberals would still get their budget passed. No one in the House of Commons wants an immediate election in spite of their antics, with the possible exception of disgruntled Conservatives who may think it would be the death knell for Pierre Poilievre.
If there were to be an election now, the Liberals would win a majority. Certainly, both parties are relatively tied in current public support, but their leaders are not. Mark Carney is 20 points ahead of Pierre Poilievre when it comes to who people want to be prime minister. Like it or not, that makes a difference.
As well, the New Democrats cannot face an election without catastrophic consequences. If push comes to shove, they will find a way to duck a no-confidence vote.
Last week was certainly a bad one for Pierre Poilievre. If there was any doubt that there is turmoil and unhappiness within the Conservative caucus, that doubt should now vanish. It should not be surprising however, because this Tory Party is an amalgam of right-wing Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives as a result of a formal merger in 2003. The two have never completely melded.
Stephen Harper knew how to manage that. Erin O’Toole knew how to do that as well in the short opportunity he was given. Andrew Scheer had no empathy for Progressive Conservatives, and Pierre Poilievre chased far too many of them away, straight into the waiting hands of Mark Carney. His caucus is well aware of that. Some find joy in it, others do not.
With that background, Pierre Poilievre is on shaky ground. For one thing, the caucus alone, without party consultation or agreement, can force a leadership race. They did that to Erin O’Toole, and although unlikely, they could do it again to Pierre Poilievre.
Conservative leaders like Brian Mulroney and, yes, Stephen Harper, managed their respective caucuses as colleagues and with inclusiveness, not always with agreement, but with a genuine thirst for unity. With Poilievre, many feel that he and his advisors manage by fiat and a lack of meaningful consultation. There should be no belief that this Conservative Caucus is united. There is trouble brewing.
My sense is, however, that unless he sees the writing on the wall and resigns before he is told to, Pierre Poilievre will survive at least until the leadership review in January. But will he survive that?
If one were to have read an article in the Toronto Star last week one might think he will. A new Abacus poll out recently, and conducted before the defection to the Liberals of one Tory MP and the surprise resignation of another, Poilievre tested better than any other potential (Conservative) leader, including Premier Doug Ford.
We must remember however that prior to Justin Trudeau being shown the door, the Conservatives had more than 20 points on the Liberals. It is far too early to take the Abacus Poll as gospel.
Anything can happen in politics as we all know, and by January, it could be a whole new ball game. Poilievre may find a way to narrow the gap between his popularity and Carney’s. Mark Carney could fail miserably and have nowhere to go, leaving Poilievre as a likely standard-bearer. It is all possible, but in real terms, not likely.
Formal leadership reviews can be fickle and unpredictable. This one will be a full membership vote for all members of the Party who have been members for (likely) at least 21days.
It will also be a secret ballot. There will be debate in every riding in the country prior to the vote. Some ridings may try to direct voters, and some voters will be influenced by their MP, if they have one.
There is another dynamic with leadership reviews. What happens in public will not necessarily happen in private. Too many politicians will have their own agendas or ambitions. They will show their support and loyalty to Pierre Poilievre in public, but when it comes to a secret ballot, they may vote for change.
For example, both Melissa Lantsnam, who is the MPP for Thornhill, and our own MP Scott Aitchison are pretty likely to want to be prime minister, and first they must become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly, Scott Aitchison has made no secret of it, as he ran for leadership last time around.
Publicly, as probably they have to, they will remain lapdogs to Pierre Poilievre. They will pledge to support him, they will stand by him, but in a secret ballot, they will not vote for him if they retain any ambitions for leadership. At least for Scott Aitchison, that will not be the first time.
I believe that with so many other ambitions, political realities, and consequences in play, Pierre Poilievre is not guaranteed to win enough votes in a leadership review to hang on to his current position. Whether that is him, or whether it is someone else in a subsequent leadership race, it needs to be an individual, in my view, who can lure back to the Conservative Party fold the millions of progressive conservatives that Pierre Poilievre has chased away.
Without that, I believe it will be a chilly day in Hell before conservatives form another federal government in Canada.
Hugh Mackenzie.
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
I hope there are some out there who believe that our politicians today have a snowballs chance in hell of having any idea of what’s up. You wondered in the past but we couldn’t really know. That’s not within our vision or purview. But now, even thinking that you have an idea of what might be happening, maybe, is a bit of a reach.
I’ve spent my life planning so that I don’t have debt. Yet the government of the day tells us we should be able to get by with digging the biggest financial hole the country ever imagined. What the hell! All my systems twitch. I don’t feel reassured. And yet the opposition suggests no option. We’re told the PC will always fight for us (the people) but without a known plan, what can we expect?
I read Hugh Mackenzie’s commentary and it’s pretty boilerplate ’til he comments on the actions(?) of our MP. I’d like to hear our man speak up but it seems that deep seated ‘klingon’ attitude is pretty strong. National awareness would help, but why would the CBC, who can get you country wide notoriety, suck up to someone who says he wants it (the CBC) gone. Looks like you’ll have to speak for yourself Scott. We’re waiting.
But the part of the commentary that is most telling for me is the statement: “They will pledge to support him, they will stand by him, but in a secret ballot, they will not vote for him if they retain any ambition for leadership.” Knowing that the people around you are working at that level must make you a bit mean. Maybe that’s why our PP is such an unpleasant man. And then “At least for Scott Aitchison, that will not be the first time.” Say what! But, maybe we already knew politicians aren’t to be trusted.
I am to the point of having no real feel for what’s down the road. It seems we’re damned no matter which way we go. One path leads to crushing debt while the other is the ‘great unknown.’ I do wish there was another choice.
Politics and religion. I guess you gotta have faith.
With all due respect Hugh, you need an editor and preferably, one from the old school. Leaving the long-winded rambling aside, your characterization of BOTH resignations from the Conservatives as “decamped to Mark Carney” is misleading at best and speaks to your bias. I’m not sure where you get that Jeneroux “openly challenged Poilievre’s leadership.” In his resignation announcement on November 6, 2025, and subsequent statements, Jeneroux explicitly emphasized positive aspects of his time in the Conservative Party and his interactions with Poilievre, while citing family priorities as the sole reason for his exit.
As for the “millions of progressive conservatives that Pierre Poilievre has chased away,” the last election saw the Conservative Party,, under Poilievre, increase its vote number from 5,747,281 in 2021 to 8,182,794 in 2025, increasing the Conservative seat count in the House of Commons from 119 to 144 while the Liberals went from 160 seats to 169.
Please stop pushing narratives over facts. It damages your credibility.
If I could dream big for the Progressive Conservatives; Rona Ambrose PM and Scott as a high ranking minister.
Good analysis Hugh, and excellent insights Lisa Brooks! Our MP, Scott Aitchison, doesn’t necessarily have to ‘cross the floor’ and sit as a Liberal in the House of Commons to make his point as a disgruntled member of the Conservative caucus under the present leadership of Pierre Poilievre.
If Scott is truly serious about national leadership and the possibility of becoming the Prime Minister of Canada to ‘defend the Canadian values of freedom and democracy’ – and wishes to make a substantial statement with immediate consequences on the present state of the CPC under the present leadership – he could simply withdraw from the present Conservative caucus and sit as an Independent Conservative in the Commons! It has happened many times before in the history of Canadian parliamentary democracy going all the way back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald (1867-73, 1878-91) – who initially was a ‘Liberal-Conservative’! – when there were many ‘loose fish’ willing to make risky statements of discontent within their political party.
I remember Scott as a smart, popular student who took risks, and became Student Council President at Huntsville High School in the early 1990s; yes, somewhat like a young paperboy, John Diefenbaker, meeting then Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier at an early morning train stop in Saskatoon in July 1910, and telling the impressed Laurier that he was going to be prime minister of Canada some day – go for it Scott, don’t wait until January!
When Trudeau stepped down, we couldn’t have an election while there was a Liberal leadership race. This was a strategic move to stem the Conservative momentum, and give lots of exposure to Carney. It worked for them. Can the Conservatives do the same? I’m not sure if the same rules apply if the leadership election is not the governing party. If they do, Poilievre should resign before Carney calls an election. It may have the same effect – stem the Carney momentum and give a new Conservative leader more exposure.
So Kathryn, where in the budget has it sent YOUR tax dollars overseas ? Tell us what PP’s plans are. I don’t think you can because he doesn’t have a plan. He is a 20 year career politician that has never worked outside of government.
The Carney budget is a joke. Carney has done nothing for Canadians or Canada. Pierre has plans. Solid common sense plans. Like keeping taxpayers money in Canada for Canadians
This is all good fun speculating, but what’s also fun is waiting to see when Carney will rid his government of the many poor ministers he inherited from Trudeau. When will we see Guilbeault, Hadju, Anandasangaree, Miller and so many others get sent packing? The more stale Trudeau failures that leave, replaced by conservative members, the sooner Canada will see the competent leadership that’s been lacking since 2015. The time to move on important matters like the economy and military is now, especially while the NDP remains decimated and leaderless
I found one comment very interesting. As a long-time PC, I naively thought out MP would be prepared to tell his/her constituents how he:she would vote. Your comment that Scott would publically follow the party line but could vote differently on a secret vote. I guess that is politics but I find it is very much like our current PC leader. “Vote for my benefits “ If the PC cannot support a new leader in January I will not support them on the next election. I think a strong opposition is important but supporting the country has its role. Sick of snappy slogans and personal attracts. Guess I am getting old and impatient
Conservatives need a new face and leader!
Poilievre is unbelievable as PM and I agree will never form a government.
There is NOBODY in the current caucus that is suitable, nor is Doug Ford or Scott Aichison , nor Melissa Lantsman broadly appealing.
The Conservatives need to find a strong, capable person with a leader-like presence from outside!
Scott would never cross. We have been PC for how long and that will never change. He would not get re elected being a Liberal.
And please don’t even suggest Melissa Lantsnam running for PM. That would be worse than PP.. I watch the parliamentary channel often and she can’t even get up and comment without reading her comments. Ouch. And all PP does is be little people and say Canada is broken. Well PP. How about working to make it better then. We are not broken. We live in one of the best countries on the planet.
It’s telling, isn’t it Nancy Long? A lot of good Conservatives still believe in service and decency — values worth returning to, whichever road they take to get there. Scott once embodied that as a mayor and community builder, and I admired that. But since entering federal politics, that sense of respect has slipped. When constituents who disagree with him are blocked from his official pages — including government updates — it sends a troubling signal. In what I’d call his “less than stallard” moment, he once told me that speaking up wouldn’t matter — that no one would listen. That stayed with me as a measure of how far our political tone has fallen, and how much work there is ahead to rebuild both trust and decency in our democracy.
I sincerely hope — 110% — that Scott could cross over, even temporarily, for the sake of pragmatic leadership at a time when Canada needs it most. But I understand his ambition too; he’s been told by many in his party that he “looks like a prime minister,” and perhaps that makes it hard to imagine such a step as a Liberal. Maybe the real question is whether he, and others like him, could one day return to help rebuild a more moderate, principled Conservative Party — once the noise has passed.
Thank you, Hugh, for a grounded look at what’s really going on beneath the daily noise of federal politics.
I think you’ve captured something important: Pierre Poilievre’s fight isn’t just about hanging onto the leadership — it’s about the soul of a party that once stood for thoughtful conservatism, decency, and national unity — a tradition of Red Tory pragmatism that many Canadians still respect, even if they’ve drifted away. And a populist is not that kind of conservative — not when the engine of his politics is a negative rage machine, fully divisive instead of visionary, and far removed from any uniting plan to rebuild Canada.
What we’re seeing now is not just political turbulence, but a reset. Mark Carney’s budget may be complex, but it reflects something Canadians have been craving: seriousness, steadiness, and a sense of long-term purpose after too many years of outrage politics.
If this next chapter of our national story is about rebuilding — our economy, our trust in one another, and even our political parties — then perhaps the real question isn’t whether Pierre Poilievre survives, but whether Canada has outgrown the kind of politics he represents.
That would be a good thing for all of us — including Conservatives who still believe in the country they helped build.
Voters in Mr. Poilievre’s own riding rejected his brand of politics, and I feel confident that the leadership review in January will do the same. It’s time for the CPC to do what must be done to reclaim the traditional conservative values that bring people together rather than drive them apart.
The alternative is grim: a once-proud party, no longer the legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald, reduced to a shabby echo of the chaotic populism of Donald Trump.
I agree with much of what you wrote, Hugh, but as to your opinion on floor-crossers, I’m as divided as is the rest of Canada. I can see how constituents who voted for a party or a party leader, rather than the local candidate, will react angrily when their MP chooses to cross the floor. On the other hand, it seems like Chris d’Entremont won his riding based on his character and judgment rather than being a mandate for either the CPC or PP. And unlike some who cross for purely self-serving reasons, I think that he’s a good guy who genuinely struggled with his decision.
Back to the CPC leadership review…..I’m positive Mr. Poilievre will not survive it. But then again, I was positive that Hillary Clinton would be the U.S. president. It’s a topsy turvy world right ow.
Nothing wrong with the Conservative Party that a new Leader won’t fix !
Scott for leader .
My world is shaking. A real hearty guffaw. Our local member crossing the floor! A member of the PC shadow cabinet. What are you thinking? Here in Parry Sound/Muskoka: that has been Blue since all the gods were little? Well. At least since 2006. But a floor crosser? No way. At such a thought I can imagine the smell of warming tar and hear chickens squawking.
Can’t imagine it would ever happen. The best we can hope for is the man will speak up. But the backlash from the PC handlers and PP would be harsh and immediate. You’d need intestinal fortitude to face that lot. And a constituency solidly behind you. Stuff a leader in todays political arena is in need of. But we have that local member who, at one time, mused upon being leader. What an opportunity!
I vote for someone to end the reign of PP. Get him a job elsewhere. These are not conservatives as I remember the genre. We sing to a different sort of tune.
In particular, I would like democracy back.
Nancy Long, I wonder how many MPs hang on with their party, thinking they can make a difference?
I watch sadly the GOP in the US, who continue to support a party, administration, and leadership that has seemly morphed into ?MAGA. How many in the first Trump administration stayed on thinking they could impose guard rails to the malignant narcissist impulses of Trump?
His second administration seems to have dumped any who would advise Trump against lawlessness. They (caucus, leadership, representatives) get into line with the leader’s whims.
So, my question remains, how many MPs hang on with their party, thinking somehow “this will pass”, “I can make a difference”. What will be the newest iteration of the Conservative “unite the right” party?
The “Progressive Conservative” party- from my viewpoint no longer exists and hasn’t since Preston Manning led the charge of unification.
As is pointed out in the commentary, representation, personal ambition, leadership style, the ability to vote on issues by conscience – all these seem to be facets of ‘crossing the floor’. (Can’t help think of the Edmonton Alberta MP Brent Rathgeber who left Harper’s caucus, feeling that he was just one of their clapping seals, and not taken seriously. Rathgeber was a lawyer and wrote: “Irresponsible Government; The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada”, (2014) Foreword written by Andrew Coyne.
I too would love to imagine SA crossing the floor, but doubt it will happen – if he hangs in with ambitions to what? bring the party to a more progressive shift? ?Have a chance at the Conservative leadership? who knows?
I am in agreement on all points Hugh. You are a credible and trusted voice for constituents of the Progressive Conservative voters here and they would do well to consider your comments..all of them; before the next Federal election.
I completely disagree. I wish Scott would cross over. And send a clear message to Conservative Party that they are on the wrong road.