Reflecting on the end of the NDP-Liberal confidence agreement

An era of Canadian federal politics may very well be over as of Sept. 4, the date NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh officially announced the end of the supply-and-confidence agreement that has been propping up the Liberal minority government since the previous federal election.

The timing could not have been worse for Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau, with polls predicting a Conservative Party majority as the 2025 election looms.

Should a confidence vote take place and the government be defeated, then the writ will be dropped early. However, the Bloc Québécois says it won’t back a Conservative non-confidence motion, making an early election unlikely.

Putting that aside, an examination of what led the NDP to rip up the deal has to be detailed before any Liberal starts blaming Singh for “handing” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a mandate.

When the agreement was first announced in 2022, I wrote in The Runner that cooperation between the Liberals and New Democrats is “welcomed as it has the potential to get substantive policy through Parliament. However, folks must be wary of the degree to which the Liberal Party will fulfil those key policy areas.”

That seems to have been what happened. Plans on ending the deal began as early as this June and were being discussed by the caucus throughout August, according to unnamed NDP insiders who spoke to CBC News.

“It’s fair to say, members of caucus understood we’ve kind of hit this limit in what the Liberals are prepared to do,” NDP House Leader Peter Julian said in a CBC News interview.

Evidence of this policy ceiling can be observed via the policy passed by the NDP-backed Liberal government.

Whether it be the painfully slow rollout of a national dental care plan, not doing much about homelessness, or the intertwined mess that is Canadian health care and medical assistance in dying (MAID), among others, it is plain to see that the Liberals’ interest in solving pressing issues exists — to an extent.

That extent is however much they can accomplish that will minimally satisfy the electorate, while still entertaining their more important corporate interests.

With Singh’s relatively more critical stance on big-money interests, a break was inevitable. The NDP wanted — and still wants — more, and the Liberals cannot — or do not want to — give more.

As lacklustre polls for Trudeau indicate, he has not been performing this balancing act well. When the heat turns up, the government fails to match that intensity. Their attempts at appearing to have a cool-headed governing style instead comes across as a cold-shouldered approach. 

This kind of performance from the Liberals has benefitted Poilievre more than Singh ending the supply-and-confidence agreement could. Poilievre’s strategy of appealing to the disillusioned and frustrated masses has been doing well after all.

Liberal-progressivism, if one wishes to call the Liberals “progressive,” always has a hard limit from which it rarely tries to push. When campaigning, Liberals present themselves just as or more progressive than the NDP. When governing, they moderate right away. Left wing in speech, right wing in actions.

So, what now? The Bloc Québécois has shown interest in trying to fill the NDP-shaped void in exchange for concessions favouring Québec.

Trudeau declared he will stay on as prime minister and Liberal Party leader even after losing a “litmus test” by-election of a long-held Montreal seat, likely further forecasting the end of a political era.

Whether or not the Liberals do find a new supply-and-confidence partner, they are doomed to lose. Almost half of Canadians want an election, a poll following the death of the Liberal-NDP deal suggested.

Change is in demand. It does not matter if the election is next month or next year, it will be the Conservative Party’s to lose. Trudeau’s only majority was his first government. Signals of dissatisfaction have been flashing since.

The Liberals have only themselves to blame, but they likely won’t do it.