It has been easy to forget, in recent years, just what democracy can deliver for citizens beyond the daily drama of tactical trench warfare. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh made a choice in March to hack that paradigm and do something both new and old school: an agreement that would trade policy power for governing power to produce for Canadians what the era of Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson did. Former NDP president and longtime strategist Brian Topp weighs the implications.

Brian Topp

Recently, this has been a good joke to tell to warm up an audience of New Democrats:

And so, after a long, honoured and successful life, former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin shuffles off this mortal coil. At the pearly gates, Saint Peter leans across his pulpit. “Are you Paul Martin? THE Paul Martin?” “Why yes, I happen to be he,” Martin responds. “Well! We have something special for YOU. We’re going to give you a tour of heaven and then of hell, and you can pick which one you’d like to settle into.”

First, Saint Peter transports Paul Martin to a vast, poorly lit and spottily ventilated hall. The floor is scuffed linoleum. The lights are ancient, buzzing fluorescents. Throngs of people sit at long tables, with thousand-page phonebooks of obscure policy resolutions in front of them. Myriad mic stands stretch out to the horizon, and at each, a lineup of people stands, waiting grumpily to make points of order. 

“Heaven is… an NDP convention?” Martin asks. “Perhaps we could inspect the other place?”

Martin and the Devil arrive in hell. It is a gentlemen’s club, wood-panelled and tastefully lit, extended to infinity. Scores of expensively dressed masters of the universe sit in oxblood leather armchairs discussing matters of consequence, served by a battalion of liveried servants. “Ok, this is more like it!” Martin observes. “I’ve decided to settle in hell, Saint Peter.” “OK Paul, enjoy!”

In short order, all the gentlemen are spontaneously combusting and being gleefully pitchforked by the service team. “Great Caesar’s Ghost!” Martin says, eyes wide. “This isn’t what I signed up for!?” 

“Ah Paul, that was the election campaign,” the Devil said, smiling. “We’ve got your vote now!”

Yes, that was the scenic route to a punchline. But it helps explain what the NDP is saying about the new Liberal-NDP confidence and supply accord. To their minds, New Democrats have done the impossible in Ottawa: they have figured out a way to make a Liberal government implement the platform it was elected on.

That is the substance of the new accord: in return for support, the NDP has negotiated a package of proposals from the 2022 Liberal platform that might actually come to pass. And so, Canadians can look forward to first steps toward a national dental plan and pharmacare; to incrementally better respect for workers in their workplaces; to a national framework for childcare; to action on housing affordability; and a number of other matters.

Liberals and New Democrats also agreed to something very unusual in a Canadian legislature. They are going to try to talk civilly to each other. A series of contact meetings is planned to ensure “no surprises”, to compare notes on coming initiatives, and to consider each other’s points of view.

That this is all a novelty reflects little credit on our legislatures. As reported in several public domain polls, Jagmeet Singh and his New Democrats are doing exactly what most of their voters want them to do. NDP voters have much to be proud of in the records of their (mostly western Canadian) provincial governments. But in the federal Parliament their accomplishments have so far been gained by playing weak poker hands in minority houses.

Taking advantage of fragments of power given by voters, Tommy Douglas negotiated Medicare and public pensions with Lester Pearson. David Lewis negotiated energy policy with Pierre Trudeau. Ed Broadbent negotiated improvements to the Charter of Rights with Pierre Trudeau. And Jack Layton even succeeded in extracting funds for housing and public transport from Paul Martin.

New Democrats are proud of all of this, and so most were pleased that Jagmeet Singh found a way to achieve more progress. It’s possible that this will work out well for the federal NDP. They will be able to go to voters in the next election and point to concrete achievements – in our system of government, not something that fourth parties usually get to do.

They will be able to say: look how much we got done with 24 MPs. Think of what we could with 50. Or 150. 

There is also an opportunity here to draw a contrast with other opposition parties. Unlike the Conservative Party, the NDP is working to get things done rather than shouting slogans borrowed from the US Republican Party. Unlike the “Bloc”, the NDP is working constructively to govern the country, rather than to divide it. In the next election, the Liberals will be looking for a fourth term. The NDP has placed a bet that many voters will instead be looking for a new and different party of government – and not for laughable mini-Trumpians, or the comatose Parti Québécois’ Ottawa farm team.

It is also possible that this will all work out badly for the federal NDP politically. As many conservative pundits have observed, the junior partner in these arrangements is usually crushed in the next election. What this misses is that many New Democrats can live with that. Making progress is why the party is in business (although power would certainly be most welcome). Nobody ever got on a postage stamp by doing Donald Trump imitations in Parliament or debating constitutional grievances as they were seen in 1974. But Tommy Douglas is on a stamp as the father of Medicare. If the progress set out in this accord is all Jagmeet Singh gets to do, which remains to be seen, he will be in excellent company.

It is also true that working with federal Liberals isn’t great politics on the prairies. The NDP has an excellent shot at winning provincial office there – possibly in all three provinces. Tories are good at vilifying, so the NDP’s provincial wings will need to speak up for their provinces. If that means criticizing federal governance under this deal from time to time, the federal NDP is going to have to live with it.

And then there are the big questions facing the country. In the next three years, the government of Canada is going to need to grapple with climate change, and with the fallout from a land war in Europe.

On climate change, Trudeau’s government has been trying to balance the blindingly obvious and increasingly urgent need for decisive action to decarbonize the world economy with Canada’s vocation as a petroleum producer. The federal government is itself heavily dependent on revenues from the energy industry, as is the Canadian economy. The government has therefore been implementing carbon pricing incrementally, while looking for ways to invest in decarbonization and diversification. Federal New Democrats from urban ridings are impatient with the incrementalism and view the investments as “oil subsidies” – perhaps a fundamental difference of opinion.

On Europe, Canada has committed itself to lead in the defense of the Baltic Republics – perhaps the most dangerous and exposed piece of real estate in Europe other than Ukraine itself. We also have NATO’s longest direct front line with Vladimir Putin’s Russia across an increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean. In ending a farcical 10-year purchasing process and buying a fleet of F-35 fighter jets, Trudeau has started Canada down the road of a substantial rearmament. Jagmeet Singh indicated in late March that the NDP supported ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the right equipment to do their jobs, and that Canada will need to respond to a “scarier world”. But he hotly disputed the idea that Canada needs to hit NATO’s
“arbitrary” 2-percent-of-GDP target. These, too, might be fundamental differences of opinion. On these and other issues, this confidence and supply accord might therefore dissolve in acrimony. It is, nonetheless, a worthy experiment. 

It is a good thing for our democracy for political parties to work together in government. Elected members of Parliament are more important when their votes matter. The PM and his team might need to listen to points of view outside of their immediate bubble. Power might be a little less centralized. There might be more discussion and debate and room for diverse viewpoints – surely a good thing. 

If it all worked out well, perhaps we could get used to it. And then more Canadians might consider experimenting with new approaches to our elections, too. New arrangements in which their votes were more equal, and all their votes mattered – instead of our current arrangement, in which 5.5 million Liberal voters are represented by 155 MPs (35,000 votes per MP), 1.3 million Bloc voters are represented by 32 MPs (40,000 votes per MP), 5.7 million Conservative voters are represented by 119 MPs (48,000 votes per MP), 3 million New Democrat voters are represented by 24 MPs (125,000 votes per MP), and 400,000 Green voters are represented by 2 MPs (200,000 votes per MP).

Critics of the confidence and supply agreement attack it as “undemocratic” – as though there is something undemocratic about MPs from different parties working together to get things done. Look at those numbers. Is co-operating in Parliament really where our democracy needs repair?   

Contributing writer Brian Topp is a partner at GT & Company, chair of the board of the Broadbent Institute, and teaches at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. He is a former national president of the NDP and was chief of staff to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley.