How will Carney contend with a minority — and what kind of Parliament do MPs want?
In his first news conference since Monday's election, Prime Minister Mark Carney did not shy away from some of the rhetoric and ambition that carried him through the campaign.
Canada would be embarking, he said, "on the biggest transformation of our economy since the end of the Second World War." This country's "old relationship" with the United States was "over." The government would address the failures of the housing market by "unleashing the power of public-private co-operation at a scale not seen in generations."
"Now is the time for ambition, to be bold, to meet this crisis with the overwhelming, positive force of a united Canada," Carney concluded.
But Carney will soon have to contend with a minority Parliament — and one of the biggest questions now is how the new prime minister and the new House of Commons deal with each other.
On election night, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, hoping perhaps to sell a disappointing election result to his own supporters, argued that Carney's Liberals had been held to a "razor-thin minority government."
But by the time the count was completed, the Liberals had won 169 of the 343 seats in the House. Pending a recount or two that would actually be the second-biggest minority in federal history — only narrowly surpassed by Lester B. Pearson's in 1965. Carney's Liberals currently hold 49.3 per cent of seats, Pearson's Liberals won 49.4 per cent.
(An actual "razor-thin" minority might have been Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2006, which won 40.3 per cent of seats.)
As a result, Liberals might tell themselves they won nearly as many seats as a party can without actually winning a majority. But it also still matters that they didn't win a majority — because there is a world of difference between a minority and a majority, regardless of how many or how few seats a party fell short.
With a majority in the House, the Liberals could have counted on governing for four years — with merely a plurality of seats, they might assume they'll only have a couple years before the next election. And the Liberals would have had an easier time overcoming opposition attempts to obstruct legislation.
For a reminder of how deeply bogged down Parliament can become, the Liberals only have to think back to the ugly stalemate that tied up the House for two-and-a-half months last fall. In April, the Toronto Star also revealed details of how Conservatives had planned to turn House committees into "torture chambers" for the government.
Where can the Liberals turn for support?It does not appear Carney is interested in pursuing anything like the confidence-and-supply agreement the Liberals and New Democrats signed in 2022. That deal kept the government afloat and ensured Parliament functioned relatively smoothly until the NDP abandoned the agreement last summer. But when Carney was asked on Friday about pursuing a governing pact, he responded with a succinct "no."
Even in the absence of a formal agreement, the seven NDP MPs in the House might well find parts of the Liberal agenda they are willing to support. The Liberals also might be able to assume that the New Democrats, lacking a leader and needing to rebuild their party, will be in no position to force a new election, at least for a while.
But as Joe Clark's short-lived government learned in 1979, too casually assuming that the opposition parties can't or won't trigger an election is a quick way to lose your grip on power.
Given how close the Liberals came to winning a majority, they at least have multiple routes to the votes necessary to pass legislation.
On Friday, Carney said he has had constructive conversations with Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and Poilievre. And Blanchet has already said he does "not see any other scenario than collaboration for at least a year." Would the Conservatives also be willing to vote with the government on some measures?
Given the way the last Parliament ended and the vociferousness of Poilievre's attacks on Carney during the campaign, it might seem unlikely. But at least one Conservative MP hasn't rejected the idea.
"Canadians have sent us back to the House of Commons in a minority situation, and … looking at the threats that we have coming towards us, we're going to have to find some common ground on some things," Chris d'Entremont, the MP for West Nova, told CBC Radio's The Current this week.
"I'm not going to say it's going to happen on everything, but I'm sure when it comes to Donald Trump and trade and trying to make Canada stronger, I think we'll all agree on those things."
D'Entremont was deputy speaker in the last session of Parliament, so he might be less naturally inclined toward parliamentary warfare. But it's also possible that there is a moment here where even the Conservatives might want to be seen working constructively with the government.
Carney sees Parliament responding to a crisisCarney's pledge to trigger a byelection as soon as possible to allow Poilievre to regain a seat could be seen as a goodwill gesture to the Official Opposition. It could be framed as a reflection of Carney's desire to be seen as a serious leader. It could also be viewed as an extension of a larger argument Carney is making about this moment and how it should be approached.
"No games," Carney said on Friday to explain why he wouldn't delay a byelection call.
Carney's strongest argument for all parties finding a way to make Parliament work is an extension of the idea that he put front and centre in the election campaign — that Canada is in the midst of a "once-in-a-lifetime crisis" and that requires a sufficient response.
On Friday, Carney likened the current situation to players from different NHL teams coming together to represent Canada at an international tournament (it's not really a proper Carney speech until a hockey analogy is proffered). The legislation to be brought forward in the days ahead, he said, would be both in line with the Liberal platform and "consistent with the requirements of the time."
Last fall was a reminder that even if a minority government has the votes to pass certain legislation, the government's agenda and Parliament can quickly become bogged down if the Official Opposition is determined to get in the way and if the government doesn't have the votes to break that obstruction.
But Carney's argument might be aimed as much at the electorate as it is at opposition MPs — based presumably in the belief that, when a crisis occurs, the public is more interested in seeing political leaders working together and is less likely to tolerate excessive partisanship and gamesmanship.
Reasonable minds can disagree about how much members of different political parties can ever — or even should — work together in a parliamentary system. Opposition is, after all, built into the system. And collaboration, where possible, is a two-way street — there is some onus on Carney's government to act and work in good faith.
Most minority parliaments eventually come to an abrupt and early end. But given the stakes — with not only this country's sovereignty, but the very idea of democracy, under attack — the country might benefit from not seeing the House of Commons slip into dysfunction too easily or quickly.
Carney has laid out his hopes and intentions — what he thinks is necessary in this moment. Now it is down to 343 MPs to decide what kind of Parliament they want to show Canadians.
cbc.ca
