The meaning of the Liberal-NDP Agreement

TORONTO—There is both more and less to the Liberal-NDP confidence-and-supply deal than meets the eye. Referring to the deal as “NDP-Liberal government” as interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen has done or a “Liberal-NDP government” as Esprit de Corps magazine editor Scott Taylor does in The Hill Times is ridiculous, as ridiculous as calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy's government a “Ukraine-U.S. government.” Coalition governments in other countries have cabinet ministers from more than one party and are generally formed after an election fails to produce a majority for any one party. In contrast, the Liberal-NDP agreement provides further evidence of the institutionalization of a distinctly Canadian arrangement, underscoring the fact that coalition governments are foreign to the Canadian political tradition. The agreement, unique at the federal level, has provincial precedents. And such agreements are taking firm root: Ontario’s Liberals and NDP unseated the governing Conservatives with a similar deal in 1985; British Columbia’s NDP and Greens signed a confidence-and-supply arrangement to dislodge the ruling Liberals in 2017; Yukon’s Liberals and NDP announced their deal last year. The federal agreement is different from the provincial ones and similar to Yukon’s in reinforcing rather than dislodging a governing party. The dominant narrative about the agreement is that the Liberals will be secure in office until 2025, and, in exchange, the NDP will get action on some of its priorities. This story line is shaky. “The Liberal Party commits to govern for the duration of the agreement,” reads the deal, but Justin Trudeau made it without consulting his party or his caucus; if the caucus decides to break the agreement, he will have no choice but to do so. If Trudeau believes as he did last year that a new election will translate into a Liberal majority government, there is little to keep him from asking the Governor General once again to dissolve Parliament. He could argue, as British Columbia’s John Horgan did last year, that the deal is impeding his government’s other legislative plans. As for the fixed election date law which their parties voted for, both Trudeau and Stephen Harper have demonstrated that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Furthermore, if Trudeau decides to exit politics before 2025, there is nothing to prevent a new prime minister from reneging on the deal; not having authored it, the new PM could not be expected to be bound by it. The NDP can easily exit the deal in the event of a major government scandal like the shameful 2005 sponsorship and 2019 SNC-Lavalin affairs. The NDP could argue, as they did in those cases, that the public demands the Liberals be held to account for their corruption in an election. Or Jagmeet Singh could indict Trudeau for dragging his feet in delivering on his promises. An interesting element of the deal’s content is that the government will permit public servants to brief the NDP on budgetary and other legislative matters. Although the NDP committed to supporting the recent budget, it is not clear that they were fully briefed on it before it was tabled. The NDP has consistently insisted on terminating all subsidies for the oil and gas industries, yet the budget subsidizes their pursuit of carbon capture technology, a policy the NDP dismisses as impractical. Launching a new dental care program this year for low-income Canadians with young children, as the deal provides, is feasible and likely. As with the child care tax credit, the government can use the federal tax system to manoeuvre around provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces—Quebec has already taken the lead—may argue that Ottawa is improperly intruding on their jurisdiction. On pharmacare the deal promises “continuing progress,” a plastic term as is much else in the deal. It is as if the 2019 federally funded pharmacare report by former Ontario health minister Eric Hoskins never happened. The deal claims that it will make housing more affordable. This is a hope, not a deliverable promise; provinces and municipalities exercise the major regulatory levers, such as zoning and land use, in housing policy. Ottawa can’t change that. With rising interest rates, housing prices may very well become more affordable but not because of the budget’s housing provisions. If house prices do fall, most households will be upset; homes owners benefit from high real estate prices. The NDP signed the deal, but they were not prepared to bring down the government in any event absent a major scandal. And if they were to vote against a government measure, the Conservatives or the Bloc would prop up the Liberals. They did so in the past and would do so again because, as was the case between 2019 and 2021, only Trudeau wanted an election. Critics of the agreement need to be reminded: Jagmeet Singh is not running the government. Nelson Wiseman, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, is the author of Partisan Odysseys: Canada’s Political Parties. The Hill Times

The meaning of the Liberal-NDP Agreement

Critics of the agreement need to be reminded: Jagmeet Singh is not running the government.

The future of emissions trading: can Canada come up with a business case for a ‘businessman-president’?

From coast to core: why Canada’s cities hold the answer to economic stability

It’s time for Canada to embrace its true identity as a North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic power

We need a Team Canada approach to safeguarding our vital interests during the Trump presidency

A missed opportunity in the U.S. election

Liberals’ fortunes hinge on Holland’s pharmacare: coalition director

The play of politics: elections and leaders

The regional and federal threads in Alberta’s election

Why the NDP is sticking with the deal

Are Canadians happy or glum about their democracy?

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

The meaning of the Liberal-NDP Agreement

Critics of the agreement need to be reminded: Jagmeet Singh is not running the government.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter