Prospects for the Next Parliament

As the 2021 federal election campaign winds down, we seem to be heading for a “hung Parliament” -- a Parliament in which no single party can form a stable and sustainable government on its own or, put another way, without the cooperation of members from other parties.

The poll aggregate sites show a slight (16%) chance that the Liberals will end up with a majority of at least 170 seats in the House of Commons. The Conservatives’ chances of gaining a majority are now down to 1%. Far more likely (83%) is that no party will have a majority.

What happens then?

Under our constitution the sitting government (the Liberal Party in this case) may have fewer seats than the Conservatives who themselves fall short of a majority. In these circumstances,Trudeau would still be entitled to meet Parliament and try to win a “vote of confidence”. They could win that vote if one or more of the other parties agreed to support a Liberal Prime Minister, the present one or someone new either within the new Liberal caucus or from outside.

Contrary to a widespread but erroneous view, the party with the most seats (a “plurality” of seats) cannot claim the right to form a “minority government”. Stephen Harper and Paul Martin cooked up this false doctrine for their own purposes in 2004. Under their theory, if the Conservatives win 150 seats and the Liberals 145, both short of a majority, Conservatives automatically replace the Liberals. This is simply not correct.

It doesn’t matter which party wins the most seats in a minority Parliament. It matters only what group of parties can work out an arrangement that will win majority support in Parliament. Even if the Liberals fall behind the Conservatives in seats in Parliament on Election Night, Trudeau as the incumbent Prime Minister has the right to try to put together a majority with the aid of the other parties in Parliament. If he isn’t able to, he can advise the Governor-General to call on someone else, another Liberal who might do better in securing the support of another party or parties. Or, the Leader of another party, Erin O’Toole or Jagmeet Singh, for example. Or offer no advice, leaving it up to the Governor-General to invite whomever she thinks can form a viable government. 

The most obvious grouping on present projections would be the Liberals and the NDP with the support of the Greens, if they are close enough for their MPs to make a difference. The agreement might include the formation of a coalition with representatives of more than one party actually being in the cabinet. Or the agreement might be focused on a set of legislative and policy issues without providing for a multi-party cabinet.

The underlying principle of parliamentary democracy is that the duly-elected House of Commons has the authority given it by the voters, the only institution of government with such authority. In the circumstances the House of Commons should decide who is to govern us, not a defeated leader who wins no more than a third of the electorate in an election called to get him a single party majority.

History provides a number of precedents in support of this proposition:

• In the 1925 federal election the Liberal government of the day was defeated. The Conservatives won the most seats but were short of a majority. A group of Progressives, Farmers and Independent Labour MPs offered to support whichever of the two larger parties would create a public Old Age pension program. The Conservatives refused. The Liberals agreed, won the vote of confidence that followed and remained in government. And Canada won Old Age pensions.

• In 1940, facing the grave threat to its very existence posed by Hitler, Germany and their Allies, the Conservative MPs forced its Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to resign, to be replaced by a national unity coalition headed by a then-backbench Conservative MP Winston Churchill. Labour leader Clement Attlee was installed as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal leader was assigned a cabinet post as well.

• Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals lost their majority in the 2017 BC provincial election. The Liberals “won” more seats in the Legislature and more votes across the Province, but were short of a majority in both cases. The NDP was a close second with the Greens holding the “balance of power” i.e. their three votes in the Legislature would determine who had the confidence of the House. The Liberals had 43 seats, the NDP 41 and the Greens had three. In the discussions that followed, the NDP under John Horgan and the Greens worked out a written agreement on legislation and other policies. The NDP and the Greens advised the Lieutenant-Governor of the arrangement under which Greens pledged to support an NDP government provided the Government kept its side of the bargain on policy. Clark insisted on meeting the Legislature to try to win a confidence vote and she was given the opportunity to do so. Clark proved unsuccessful in talking the Greens out of the deal or persuading individual NDP members to “cross the floor” to keep her in office. On losing the confidence vote, Clark advised the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the Legislature and issue a writ for a run-off election. After much discussion the Queen’s representative rejected Clark’s advice and called on Horgan to become Premier on the understanding that he immediately put a confidence motion to the House. The motion passed and Horgan was confirmed as Premier.

• In Ontario in the 1985 election the Progressive Conservatives lost their majority though they did win the most seats and were very narrowly ahead for the most votes across the province. The Premier asserted his right to meet the House. He lost the confidence vote and stepped down.  The Liberals and leader David Peterson took over as Government, under a formal agreement with the NDP then led by Bob Rae, promising that in the following two years, he would advance a number of key policies, programs and reforms proposed by the NDP.

• In 2008 immediately after a federal election that year, Stephen Harper who had previously governed with a minority government was re-elected with another minority. He went on to win a confidence vote in the House. Within a few weeks, ironically encouraged by now-Liberal MP Bob Rae, Liberal leader Stephane Dion reached an agreement with Jack Layton and the NDP to defeat the government and seek to form a Liberal-NDP coalition that would have had a majority in the House. Harper advised the Governor-General to end the session of Parliament before the Dion-Layton no-confidence vote could be held. Based on the fact that Harper had already won a confidence vote, the Governor-General felt that constitutionally she had to accept his advice. In a new session, Dion having been forced out of the Liberal leadership in the meantime, the Liberals now led by Michael Ignatieff, chose to support Harper, giving the country seven more years of Harper Conservative government. It was clear that the result would have been different if Harper had not won the initial confidence vote immediately after the election. In those circumstances, the Governor-General. would not have dissolved the first session of that Parliament and would have later given Dion the opportunity to win a confidence vote in the House. History would have been very different.

• A footnote and a possible precedent: in 2005 Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberal minority government lost a key vote in Parliament. An election ensued. In a previous 2004 election Martin and Harper pledged that, in the case neither of them elected a majority, the party that won the most seats would become Prime Minister. Accordingly on Election Night 2006, when Harper ended up with the most seats in Parliament but short of a majority, Martin chose to resign the morning rather than seek to form a government with the support of other parties in Parliament. It was Martin’s choice, a choice he did not have to make under the constitutional convention.

If the Liberals do not succeed in winning a majority in the current election, Trudeau will have suffered a blow to his own political standing. He called the election for the express purpose of getting a majority mandate. The voters will have refused to give it to him. Arguably he should resign, asking his own party to appoint an interim leader who would in turn be asked to try to put together a progressive government. Or he himself could seek to put together an agreement with one or more of the other parties. The basis exists for a progressive program around which a majority can be built. If Trudeau himself does not have the personal support for or interest in reaching such an agreement, before advising the Governor-General to turn over the government to O’Toole, Trudeau and/or his caucus should try to find someone else who can. That would be his constitutional duty to the overwhelming majority of the country.

If Trudeau thinks he might need guidance on how to form a coalition around a progressive plan of action on the key issues including dealing with climate change he should send a team of observers to Norway. The newly elected Norwegian Labour Party is now sitting down with the Centre and the Socialist Left parties to work out the details of a social democratic/liberal, democratic socialist, Green government that together now has a majority in the Norwegian Parliament.

Canada faces the existential threat of climate change, already proclaimed by Parliament to be a national emergency. We have reached the crossroads of how to move forward -- one directed to more deregulation and “relief” for the wealthy or a pathway towards a more equitable society. The devastating pandemic and other fundamental challenges, including deep reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, point to the need for a significant change. Perhaps the fact that no single party will likely have the support of a Parliamentary majority will force a new attitude and approach to governing.

But I mustn't get too far ahead. First, we must go to the polls and vote to elect the Parliament we want. I’m encouraged by the numbers that turned out for the advance polls and am excited to cast my vote on September 20th -- something I’ve always considered a sacramental act. To everyone who is working on Election Day to get the vote out or to make sure our election process runs fairly and smoothly, thank you. Democracy must never be taken for granted and always practiced with utmost respect.