Some history keeps repeating itself.
In 1926, J.S. Woodsworth was leader of the “Ginger Group,” a number of disgruntled MPs who would go on to help form the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), predecessor to the New Democratic Party. In exchange for long-term support to stay in power, the prime minister at the time, William Lyon Mackenzie King, offered Woodsworth a cabinet position and some progress towards creation of public pensions.
Case-by-case support helped shape Canada’s social programs
Woodsworth refused the offer. He preferred to negotiate whether to prop up King’s minority Liberal government on a case-by-case basis as bills came forward in the House of Commons. Using this strategy, Woodsworth was able to secure the introduction of public pensions as well as more generous unemployment insurance for workers.
The New Democrats who will sit in the next Parliament should heed the lessons of their party’s history. The NDP, reduced to a handful of seats in the April 28 federal election, must put some distance between itself and the Liberals to regain its identity in the minds of voters.
The best way to do that is to reject any offers to form a coalition government or enter into a second confidence-and-supply agreement. Supporting the Liberals on a case-by-case basis, as Woodsworth did, is the most prudent course of action.
The federal NDP has been here many times since Woodsworth’s day. Liberal prime ministers have sought support to keep their minority governments afloat many times in Canadian history. To secure the votes of CCF-NDP MPs, there have been offers of cabinet positions and promises to improve social programs dear to every New Democrat’s heart. Until recently, CCF-NDP leaders always refused to enter into long-term arrangements with a minority government.
The thinking was that the party would lose its identity as a political movement, which could encourage its supporters to vote Liberal in the next election.
Singh’s deal brought results—but at a political cost
Jagmeet Singh and his team were, no doubt, aware of this history when he met with then-prime minister Justin Trudeau not long after the 2021 federal election that ended in a second minority government for Trudeau. The prime minister held most of the cards, but Singh had some room to manoeuvre.
Singh made a bold and unconventional move. He agreed to a supply-and-confidence agreement in exchange for the Liberals agreeing to policies relating to social democratic priorities such as pharmacare, dental care and child care.
The results of the most recent election indicate that the instinct of former CCF-NDP leaders to be wary of Liberal prime ministers bearing gifts may be the right one. Singh’s criticism of the Liberals during the recent election campaign rang hollow given that he had held to the agreement for 2.5 years before backing out. That implicitly gave NDP supporters permission to vote Liberal. Voters’ thinking may have been that the Liberals could not be that scary if the NDP had supported them.
The pact may have indeed turbocharged strategic voting that hurt Singh’s NDP so badly on election night. Additionally, it appears the NDP received little credit from voters for successfully forcing the Liberals to move ahead on pharmacare, dental care and child-care programs.
The agreement meant that the NDP also shouldered some blame for the Trudeau government’s unpopular policies such as carbon pricing. When Trudeau stepped down, the Liberals were able to make a fresh start by selecting a new leader and reversing themselves on several issues. In a political paradox, the agreement Singh had had with the Liberals led him to be more associated in the minds of voters with Trudeau and his government than new Liberal Leader Mark Carney.
Did Singh play his cards right in the lead-up to the federal election? There is no simple answer. Average Canadians are now benefiting from better child care, dental care and pharmacare because of the supply-and-confidence deal.
None of the programs went as far as New Democrats wanted them to, but we should not underestimate the positive effect they are having on the lives of many. On the other hand, the NDP’s worst election showing in party history can almost certainly be attributed, at least in part, to its decision to enter into the agreement.
Reclaiming independence is key to the NDP’s future
The NDP now faces a familiar dilemma: how to interact with a Liberal minority government. The players have changed, but the card game stays the same. Prime Minister Carney has said that he does not want to enter into another agreement with the NDP.
But there is nothing stopping him from reversing this position in the future. Liberal prime ministers facing defeat of their minority governments have made all sorts of offers to opposition MPs to get their support. For example, former prime minister Paul Martin enticed Conservative MP Belinda Stronach to cross the floor in 2005 by giving her a cabinet post.
How Carney can use policy to unite the country
The lesson from the recent election and the history of the CCF-NDP over the last 100 years is that New Democrats must clearly differentiate themselves from Liberals. Should the NDP support the Liberals in some arrangement during the next Parliament, the party risks losing its identity and relevance entirely in the minds of voters.
It could fare even worse in the next federal election if it is no longer considered a viable electoral choice. Its remnants would then almost certainly be subsumed into the Liberal party, and the political force that has always pressured the Liberals from the left to adopt public social programs could be lost forever.
Remaining NDP MPs should maximize their influence in Canadian politics by making the Liberals work to get the party’s support on every single bill they want passed. The NDP must maintain the freedom to vote against the government at any time. This will show voters that New Democrats have their own political identity and will oppose the Liberals on issues that could hurt average Canadians.
This is the safest way for the NDP, fighting for its very existence, to ensure its survival.
Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission, or a letter to the editor.
