To the Point for the Week of May 17, 2026
To the Point for the Week of May 17, 2026
A group of Ontario Liberals propose a constitutional amendment in the aftermath of the Scarborough Southwest nomination. A headache emerges for Prime Minister Carney.
ONTARIO
The Pitfalls of Inclusivity and List Building
The fallout from the Ontario Liberal Party’s nomination race in Scarborough Southwest has extended beyond the composition of the party’s leadership race. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s loss to Ashanul Hafiz has brought to the forefront the question of “Who should be allowed to participate in internal party elections?,” an issue with significant political implications.
Political party nomination races are prime opportunities to harvest data, recruit volunteers, and fundraise, the standard mechanics of running a competitive campaign, at least in ridings that are in play. They’re also a means of shaping the ideological direction of a riding association, determining the composition of its board, and establishing relationships with community power brokers. It’s that last function where the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference found the greatest vulnerability and where the rules governing who can participate matter most.
Earlier this week, a group calling themselves “Section 31 Liberals” launched a campaign to change who can participate in the Ontario Liberal Party’s nomination races and leadership elections. The group’s name is in reference to Recommendation 31 in Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue’s final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, which recommended only Canadian citizens and permanent residents be allowed to vote in internal party elections. It’s the exact intent of the group’s proposed constitutional amendment and would only permit Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and those with status under the Indian Act to participate in these democratic processes.
The Section 31 Liberals’ pursuit of a constitutional change stems from the Liberal Party of Canada’s decision in 2011 to rewrite its own constitution. After suffering a crushing defeat to the Harper Conservatives, the party began the arduous task of rebuilding from a third-place finish, including a consequential change to how it defined who counts as an eligible member. From 2011 on, eligible members could be either a “qualified elector” under the Canada Elections Act — a Canadian citizen over the age of 18 — or an individual “who ordinarily lives in Canada.” The idea was to make participation in internal party elections easier and more inclusive, and to build a far larger pool of contacts in the process. The federal Liberals went even further in 2016 by replacing paid memberships with free registration and by broadening leadership eligibility to “every registered Liberal who ordinarily resides in Canada.”
Under intense partisan pressure, the federal Liberals changed the rules ahead of the 2025 leadership race by adopting Hogue’s recommendation around citizenship, permanent residency, and Indian Act status holders. The Conservatives, NDP, and Greens largely had these provisions in place on paper prior to the foreign interference inquiry.
In contrast to the Section 31 Liberals’ proposal, the Ontario Liberal Party has not tightened its definition of an eligible member. Section 31 Liberals argue these lax rules are highly susceptible to outside interference. The timing of the group’s proposed amendment is tied, although not explicitly, to Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s notice of appeal that alleges the May 9 nomination was fraught with “serious” and “significant” irregularities, including unexplained extra ballots, pressure tactics on voters, compromised ballot secrecy along with possible vote-buying, improper or inconsistent ID to confirm eligibility, and the party’s loss of control over the process.
NES’s complaint and the proposed constitutional amendment are best understood as a response to how effectively the Bangladeshi-Canadian community organized in Scarborough Southwest, and to the leverage that kind of diaspora mobilization can create inside a riding association. It ties directly to power broking by diaspora groups within ridings. This is where the eligibility rules may have allowed a significant diasporic influence over the outcome of the election, because non-citizens and temporary residents can determine not only who becomes the candidate, but how the riding association is administered, who controls it, and the influence it has over the actions of the candidate or elected member. This produces democratic asymmetry. Non-citizens and temporary residents cannot vote in the general election but have organizing power to vote for a preferred candidate. The community power-broker relationships resulting from alleged irregularities may not align with, or be accountable to, Canadian democratic norms.
The implications in Scarborough Southwest are not unique. Similar vulnerabilities and irregularities were evident in the federal riding of Don Valley North in 2019, where large numbers of international students were organized and bussed in to vote in the Liberal nomination. Han Dong became the Liberal Party of Canada candidate, and testimony at the Hogue Commission alleges that Chinese consular officials and community intermediaries encouraged or pressured students to support Dong. The inquiry found these allegations to be credible.
To be crystal clear, diaspora organizing is legitimate political action. It is the party rules that make it almost impossible to ensure democratic organizing or to uncover, deter, and hold accountable coordinated interference. Political parties choose these rules for tactical reasons, even the Ontario PCs, who have similar language to the Ontario Liberals as it pertains to member eligibility. It grows lists of volunteers, donors, and, of course, party supporters at election time. However, the unintended consequences of data harvesting have important democratic and governance implications.
As the Ontario Liberal Party’s leadership race kicks into high gear with the current rules in place (the party will not formally review the Section 31 Liberals’ amendment until 2027), a potential air of illegitimacy may hang over the process as whoever wins will most certainly require the support of various diaspora groups.
FEDERAL
The Letter is Coming from Inside the House
One of the most challenging tasks for a Canadian political party leader is “caucus management.” It is the strategy and tactics employed by a prime minister or opposition leader to take into consideration the concerns, advice, and political issues of great importance to a member of caucus, whether it be one of personal conviction (e.g. abortion rights) or an issue that has garnered the attention of an MP’s constituents (e.g. opposition to a policy or piece of legislation). Effective caucus management can quell a caucus revolt, reinforce confidence in leadership, or prevent the rise of potential leadership challengers.
Caucus management is not a recent function of major political parties in Canada. Lester B. Pearson’s handling of what was considered a fractious minority government is remembered as an example of caucus management that still delivered major policy wins, including medicare and the Canada Pension Plan. Jean Chrétien entrenched a highly involved PMO-centric approach to managing MPs that was adopted by and intensified under Stephen Harper. Brian Mulroney, however, is considered the gold standard of caucus management, who knew his caucus on such a personal level he had memorized members’ birthdays. This, many consider, is the reason Mulroney enjoyed a high level of loyalty from his caucus.
Carney’s policy approach – so far – has been notably pragmatic, especially on the environment and resource development. “Achieving net zero will require moving away from fossil fuels to renewables,” Mark Carney writes in his book, Values, “the first priority to build a zero-carbon economy is to green the generation of electricity.” That past position appears unaligned with what Carney is now pursuing, understandably shaped by the realities of governing a G7 nation during a global resource crunch. The Prime Minister, again, for now, is operating realistically.
We predicted at the outset of Carney’s tenure as prime minister, well before the 2025 election, that his moving the party closer to the centre after the previous administration that appealed to a firmly capital “L” left-wing cohort of voters for 10 years would elicit pushback by leftover members.
It is here that potentially one of the Prime Minister’s thorniest caucus challenges has emerged.
CBC News reported this week that fourteen Liberal MPs penned a letter to the Prime Minister expressing their misgivings – in their view – about the Prime Minister’s rollback of Trudeau-era environmental policy. Although they insist their position comes from a “constructive and respectful” place (the CBC’s words), they were “deeply concerned the government’s credibility [on climate change] would be seriously compromised.” The signatories asked the CBC to keep their identities confidential, which the CBC unsurprisingly obliged.
The timing of the letter is significant for two reasons. One, it comes roughly six months after Steven Guilbeault resigned from cabinet immediately following the federal and Alberta governments’ memorandum of understanding. This shows the problem has been festering in caucus for some time. Second, in concert with the first point, it suggests that any internal attempts to convince the Prime Minister to change course, reverse his position or slow the progress of this policy have been futile, prompting them to make their grievances public.
Here’s where it can get tricky for the Prime Minister. With 174 seats, only two past the 172-seat majority threshold, a bloc of fourteen MPs merely threatening to abstain from key votes puts the government in a persistent crisis-response posture. It becomes a sort-of cost of doing business: the Prime Minister must divert resources and political capital to quell frustrations, potentially slowing policy rollouts and encouraging other disgruntled MPs to seek their share.
We’re not saying these fourteen MPs are going to completely derail the government. Prime Minister Carney was managing director of investment banking at Goldman Sachs, leading deal teams of financial professionals from executives to analysts. A few eco-MPs seems manageable.
But for a government heavily reliant on positive perceptions of the Prime Minister’s ability to manage files and people, signs of instability within caucus could make him vulnerable to criticisms of mismanagement and distraction and undermine any attempt to turn the Liberal Party of Canada into a big-tent party. One could also make the case that the letter explains why the Prime Minister and his team were so intent on finding floor-crossers. Of course, the obvious reason is to secure a majority, but one in which any internal reservations about government policy could not be stifled by more ideologically intense elements of caucus.
We anticipate the Prime Minister’s continued pragmatism will be a point of contention for a handful of caucus members that will require his attention. The Prime Minister recently announced his National Electricity Strategy, during which he said his plan will “require a willingness to use a wide range of energy – including natural gas.” Recently minted Liberal MP Marilyn Gladu was quoted in an interview with a local podcaster saying she was excited to bring her “conservative voice into the [Liberal] tent.” The environmentalists and the progressives within the Liberal ranks may find these two recent developments unsettling.
Christopher Mourtos, writing on behalf of ONpoint Strategy Group
ABOUT TO THE POINT
To the Point – ONpoint Strategy Group's weekly roundup – cuts through the noise to deliver insight and analysis of key federal, provincial, and municipal stories shaping Canada's policy and political landscape. Designed for decision-makers and thought leaders, this newsletter is your go-to resource for staying ahead. Share these trusted insights with your network to spark meaningful conversations. Simply hit forward or follow ONpoint Strategy Group on X and LinkedIn to spread these valuable perspectives."
About ONpoint Strategy Group:
ONpoint Strategy Group is all about helping clients make an impact where it counts. Specializing in government relations and strategic execution, our team—Nico Fidani-Diker, Mariana Di Rezze, David Morgado, Christopher Mourtos, Ellen Gouchman, and Brandon Falcone—works closely with clients to navigate complex political landscapes and bring their goals to life. With a practical, results-driven approach, we build strong relationships, craft winning strategies, and make sure every step brings clients closer to meaningful outcomes. We’re passionate about making sure our clients are heard, supported, and positioned for success.