The confidence and supply agreement reached by the Liberal government and the New Democratic Party has both policy and political implications, the latter of which will become more obvious as we approach the next federal election, now expected in 2025 per the terms of the deal. Dalhousie School of Public Administration Director Lori Turnbull weighs the pros and cons for both parties, and for the Conservatives running against them.

Lori Turnbull

When the news broke that the Liberals and the New Democrats had formed an agreement of confidence and supply, it was clear that the Liberals were the winners – at least, that’s how it seemed at first. The agreement gives them all of the security of a majority government without having won a majority of seats.

The announcement caught Canadians by surprise because neither party had given the public any hint that they might formalize their relationship. To be honest, it’s not entirely clear why the deal was necessary to begin with, given that the NDP is keen to avoid an election and therefore could be counted on to support the Liberals until the Liberals themselves pulled the plug. The agreement has the effect of fortifying an already solid alliance, but it also carries risk for both parties – and it creates an opening and an opportunity for the new leader of the Conservative Party.

For the Liberals, the most significant benefit of this deal is time. They now have a three-year runway to achieve social policy goals while managing the inflation crisis and growing the economy at the same time. 

The recent federal budget illustrates how the government is being pulled in multiple directions at once on the fiscal front. It was a first step in pivoting from the high spending to which people have become accustomed during the COVID-19 emergency period to a more “normal” approach to budgeting, one that even includes a program review process. 

The Liberals need the next three years to get to the point where they can campaign plausibly on having delivered a robust suite of compassionate programs in a fiscally responsible manner. This is the brand that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is attempting to make for herself, and perhaps one that she will hoist in a future leadership bid. 

To some extent, the Liberal-NDP deal undermines the relevance and effectiveness of the Conservatives as the Official Opposition. Now that the Liberals and the NDP have basically pooled their votes in the House of Commons, the Conservatives will have to fight to be heard and might not be as effective at jamming things up in committee. But let’s face it: the Conservatives don’t want an early election. In September, they will choose a new leader, who will need time to unite the party (if that’s even possible) and build credibility as a prime minister-in-waiting. Depending on who wins, the new leader might also need to find a seat in the House of Commons, and the related byelection process will take time.

A benefit to the Liberals that they would never admit to is on the communications front: Jagmeet Singh can be a more effective communicator than the Liberals themselves when it comes to selling the budget to Canadians.

Singh speaks in plain language to explain the benefits that the budget brings to Canadians of all ages and income levels. In so doing, he may hamper his own ability to speak credibly against the government in the years to come. He has a fine line to walk. If he goes at the Liberals too hard, whether on matters of policy, competence or integrity, he will be the one on the defensive, pressed to explain why he continues to prop them up if they’re so bad.

Though it might not occur to them, the biggest risk to the Liberals is that the deal distances them from meaningful accountability to the public. Struck at the elite level, between the party leaders and without much consultation with party supporters or even with caucus members, the deal smacks of the sense of entitlement that the Liberals are known for.

Though agreements of confidence and supply are completely legitimate and constitutional in a parliamentary system, the Liberal-NDP agreement leaves a sour taste to the extent that Liberals are using it to obtain the majority government that eluded them by just ten seats in the 2021 election, which they called more than two years early because they thought a majority was in reach. 

While the federal budget promises measures that have broad public appeal, including dental care and federal government action on affordable housing, it is notably tone deaf in its omissions. There is nothing on long-term care, the state of which was among the most heart-breaking tragedies of the COVID-19 period. Also, there is nothing to relieve the pressures that Canadians are feeling right now when it comes to everyday costs, including soaring gas and food prices. 

The budget offers down-payment support for first-time home buyers, but the focus on home ownership leaves renters out in the cold. The Liberals risk being seen as offside with the needs and concerns of Canadians who are feeling insecure about their finances and worried about the effects of inflation on their bottom lines every month. The Prime Minister’s assurances that the government “has our backs” might start to chafe without swift action on matters that effect Canadians today.

For the NDP, the most significant benefit of the confidence and supply agreement is the opportunity for impact. But they need to sell it properly. The NDP is the more vulnerable party in the confidence and supply agreement because they are the ones who must prove it’s value-added. Their key challenge in the next election will be to convince both current and prospective supporters that they are more than the Liberals’ sidekicks and that measures such as dental care and federal support on the supply side of the affordable housing crisis would never have happened without them. Failure to persuade people of this could lead to a critical existential crisis for the party. Frankly, there is so much policy overlap between the two parties’ platforms that it is reasonable to ask whether we need both of them in the first place.

In the end, the Liberal-NDP accord creates an opportunity for the Conservatives, even if it delivers most or even all of what it promises. It is tempting to think that the deal indicates that the Liberals are pulling to the left, leaving the ideological centre open to the Conservatives for the taking, but this is not really true. The budget is nowhere near ambitious enough on the social front to suggest that such a move is happening; instead, the partnership with the NDP might offer some cover for the Liberals to lay claim to a progressive agenda while their approach is actually far more tight-fisted. 

The real opportunity for the Conservatives lies in the Liberals’ lack of responsiveness to what countless opinion polls has revealed as the chief concern across the country: the cost of living. Pierre Poilievre is packing halls talking about affordable housing and the need to relax the carbon tax to put some cash back in your pocket. While his campaign against the Bank of Canada and the national currency is questionable from an economic standpoint, and his promises to make Canada free again are Trumpesque and vague to the point of having no meaning at all, he is resonating with people who are tired of politics as usual.

Whether he wins in September or not, the success of his campaign thus far speaks to a desire among many Canadians for a change in how politicians do business. The confidence and supply agreement has the potential to deliver programs that Canadians want, but the “elite accommodation” approach to politics is quickly becoming passé.   

Contributing Writer Lori Turnbull is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University and a co-winner of the Donner Prize for political writing.