Is there anyone inside the House of Commons who thinks what the country wants or needs right now is another federal election?
And if not, why was there such suspense and drama around this week’s vote on the Liberal government’s budget policy?
As much as those who work in and around Parliament Hill might appreciate anything that enlivens a dark, frigid November night in Ottawa, it’s at least not obvious that this week’s intrigue was, strictly speaking, necessary.
Some of the excitement can be put down to the fact that seemingly no one outside the NDP caucus knew how the seven New Democrats in the House were going to vote — or not vote, as it were — until the House clerks started calling the rolls. It’s unusual for a party to maintain such an air of mystery for so long.
Elizabeth May, the lone Green MP, had theatrically stomped on the budget document a week ago, but decided a few hours before the vote to support the government.
And then there is whatever happened with certain members of the Conservative caucus — two of whom didn’t vote and two of whom claim to have encountered technical difficulties.
All the while, the Liberals seemed, at least outwardly, rather serene about the fate of their budget and not particularly desperate to broker some kind of bipartisan agreement.
All that made for an oddly suspenseful vote. But taken together this week’s events might simply underline that MPs — and Canada’s political culture writ large — are still figuring out this whole minority Parliament thing.
After the vote, the NDP’s explanation was relatively straightforward, if also nuanced. They did not like the budget. But they also do not believe that Canadians want another federal election right now.
“The consequences of defeating this budget would not be to improve it or to help Canadians,” interim NDP Leader Don Davies explained. “It would be to plunge the country into an election only months after the last one. And while we still face an existential threat from the Trump administration.”
And so, five NDP MPs voted against the budget and two abstained, essentially assuring that an election wouldn’t be triggered.
Of course, political nature abhors a nuance. Modern political fundraising and social media incentivize unequivocal positions and the demonization of one’s opponents. In this atmosphere, votes in Parliament become measures of how principled or tough you are.
But minority parliaments more or less require nuance, at least if they are to stay intact for more than a month or two.
Oftentimes when politicians say “Canadians” don’t want elections, what they mean is that they themselves don’t want an election. And it was quickly suggested that the New Democrats might have been acting in their own self-interest. They are a party without a permanent leader and, generally speaking, parties like to have leaders when contesting elections.
NDP leader says ‘no doubt’ Conservatives held back budget votes to avoid election
But even if the NDP was currently in possession of a leader, it’s unlikely that Canadians would be clamouring for another election just seven months removed from the last one. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that when Canadians cast a ballot in April, the vast majority of them were hoping to avoid doing so again for another full four years (some of the sticklers in the electorate would even be aware that, constitutionally, Parliament can actually go five years between elections).
The baseline assumption around Parliament Hill might fairly be that a minority Parliament won’t last that long. But the view that a minority Parliament is a mere prelude to another federal election was easier to accept before federal elections were so often resulting in minority parliaments.
Over the last 21 years, there have been eight federal elections. Six of them have resulted in a minority Parliament. Each of the last four prime ministers has, at some point, faced a minority Parliament.
And while it can be foolish to assume that any recent trend will hold into the future, it continues to seem like minority parliaments might be the new norm in Ottawa. In that case, either Canadians will have to get used to having more frequent elections or parties will have to get better at making minority parliaments work.
In the current circumstance, the Liberals may have assumed — reasonably — that the opposition parties weren’t really in any position to trigger an election. Even the Conservatives were not openly agitating for one.
Over time, it will likely become harder for the Carney government to count on the opposition blinking. And at that point the new prime minister’s ability to manage the House will be tested.
“They exploited the momentary weaknesses of everybody and this is not how policy should be done. So I believe it will come bite their ass,” Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet warned this week.
Why did opposition MPs help prop up the government despite budget concerns?
The last prime minister found one way to keep Parliament functioning, but Carney’s chances of repeating that feat might be limited by the easy assumption that the confidence-and-supply agreement that Justin Trudeau signed with former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh ended up biting Singh in the posterior.
But before it becomes the received wisdom that confidence-and-supply agreements are politically poisonous, it’s worth considering whether the NDP’s election result had as much to do with broader failures by the party and its leader or the unique context of last spring’s vote. In politics, correlation is too often confused with causation.
(Forty years ago, the Ontario NDP signed a confidence-and-supply agreement to support an Ontario Liberal government. Two elections later, the Ontario NDP formed government itself. The leader of that NDP government went on to have an OK career in public service.)
In March 2023, a plurality of Canadians thought the Liberal-NDP deal was a good thing. And it’s possible that a different NDP leader would have led the party to a different result or handled a confidence-and-supply agreement differently.
It is not that lengthening the normal lifespan of minority Parliament — or changing Canadian political culture — would be easy or simple. But it might be necessary.
