That_Agreement

 It has now been announced that the Speech from the Throne will be

May 27. And we will know about the composition of the cabinet before

that. For my own peace of mind, had a little chat with Perplexity AI about

what tanked the Supply and Confidence agreement with the NDP in the last 

session. Below:

Canadian government; the Liberals now find themselves 4 short of a majority in government. Are there any examples of arrangements or coalitions from other countries that might be helpful in such a situation?

International Examples of Minority Government Arrangements

When a party falls just short of a majority in a parliamentary system, as the Canadian Liberals have, several international precedents offer guidance on how to govern effectively. These arrangements generally fall into two categories: formal coalitions and less formal agreements for support.

Formal Coalitions

In many European countries, parties form formal coalitions to create a majority. For example, in Germany and the Netherlands, coalition governments are the norm, with parties negotiating a detailed policy platform and sharing cabinet positions.

In Canada, formal coalitions at the federal level are rare, but they have occurred provincially. For instance, Manitoba and British Columbia both experienced coalition governments during wartime, where parties shared cabinet roles to ensure stability.

Confidence and Supply Agreements

More common in Canada and similar systems (such as the UK and New Zealand) is a "confidence and supply" agreement. Here, a smaller party agrees to support the government on key votes (such as budgets and confidence motions) in exchange for specific policy concessions, but does not join the cabinet.

Ontario's Liberal government (1985–1987) governed with an explicit written agreement with the NDP, which was not a coalition but a formalized support arrangement.

New Zealand has frequently used confidence and supply agreements to provide stability for minority governments.

Issue-by-Issue Support ("Jumping Majorities")

In Sweden, minority governments often negotiate support on a bill-by-bill basis, sometimes with different parties for different issues. This flexible approach allows a government to remain in office by building shifting alliances, rather than relying on a single partner.

Current Canadian Context

The Liberals, with 169 seats out of 343, are three short of a majority and will need support from smaller parties such as the Bloc Québécois (22 seats) and the NDP (7 seats). Given the small gap, even informal or issue-based arrangements could be effective. Minority governments in Canada are typically short-lived, but with only a few votes needed for a majority, the Liberals may find it easier to secure support for their legislative agenda.

                                                                                       

Conclusion

For the Liberals, potential strategies include negotiating a formal coalition (rare federally in Canada), a confidence and supply agreement, or relying on informal, issue-by-issue support from smaller parties. International and Canadian provincial experience suggests that confidence and supply agreements or flexible alliances are effective and practical for a government just shy of a majority.

How did other countries handle similar political situations in the past?

How Other Countries Have Handled Similar Political Situations

When major parties fall short of a majority or face intense polarization, countries have adopted various strategies to maintain stability and effective governance. Here are some notable international approaches:

1. Coalition and Power-Sharing Agreements

Many European democracies, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, routinely form coalition governments when no party wins a majority. Parties negotiate shared policy platforms and distribute cabinet positions to ensure a stable majority.

In Bosnia, a unique ethnoreligious power-sharing agreement, supported by international actors, has allowed the country to maintain a functional democracy despite chronic polarization.

2. Confidence and Supply Arrangements

Rather than formal coalitions, some countries use "confidence and supply" agreements, where a smaller party agrees to support the government on key votes (like budgets and confidence motions) in return for specific policy concessions. This approach has been used in New Zealand, the UK, and Canadian provinces.

3. Institutional and Constitutional Reforms

Kenya addressed fierce political competition by adopting a new constitution in 2010, decentralizing power and giving regional officials greater autonomy. This helped reduce the stakes of national elections and eased polarization.

In the United States, Maine introduced ranked-choice voting to encourage centrist candidates and reduce negative campaigning.

4. Legal and Judicial Interventions

Courts have sometimes played a role in curbing polarization. For example, India's Supreme Court has intervened to defend democratic institutions and demand accountability for political violence.

In Colombia, the Constitutional Court blocked a president’s attempt to extend his term, maintaining democratic checks and balances.

5. Elite Negotiations and Political Settlements

Bolivia resolved a major regional autonomy crisis in 2008 through elite negotiations and a political settlement that led to a constitutional referendum.

In Italy during the 1970s, major parties cooperated to address political violence, resulting in depolarization and a return to stability.

6. International Mediation

In Timor-Leste (2006), international intervention helped stabilize the country after political polarization and military unrest, leading to the resignation of the prime minister and a reduction in tensions.

7. Opposition Unity

In Turkey, opposition parties have sometimes united to challenge dominant leaders, as seen in the 2019 Istanbul mayoral election, where a broad coalition emphasized overcoming divisions and achieved electoral success.

Key Takeaways

Coalitions and power-sharing are common solutions in parliamentary systems lacking a clear majority.

Institutional reforms (like decentralization or electoral changes) can reduce polarization and lower the stakes of national politics.

Judicial oversight and elite negotiations can provide checks and resolve crises.

International intervention may be necessary in extreme cases of polarization or instability.

Opposition unity and cross-party cooperation can help depolarize and stabilize governance.

These strategies show that while no single approach fits all situations, flexible arrangements, reforms, and dialogue are often crucial for managing minority governments and polarized democracies.

Tell me about Confidence and Supply agreements. I was really surprised when the NDP turned on the Trudeau government and announced it would be voting with the opposition going forward. Is that reasonable behavior?

Confidence and Supply Agreements: Overview

A confidence and supply agreement is a common arrangement in parliamentary systems-especially those modeled after the Westminster system-where a minority government secures the support of another party (or parties) to remain in power. The supporting party agrees to back the government on key votes: specifically, confidence motions (which determine whether the government can continue to govern) and supply bills (which are necessary to fund government operations).

Outside of these critical votes, the supporting party is not obligated to support the government on other legislation, and both parties remain free to pursue their own policy agendas on non-agreed issues.

Key Features

Not a coalition: Unlike a coalition, the supporting party does not take cabinet positions or share executive power.

Policy concessions: The government often makes policy or procedural concessions to the supporting party in exchange for their support on confidence and supply.

Stability: These agreements provide stability to minority governments, allowing them to govern without the constant threat of losing a confidence vote.

The Liberal–NDP Agreement in Canada

From March 2022 to June 2025, the Liberal and NDP parties entered into a confidence and supply agreement. The NDP agreed to support the Liberals on confidence votes and budgetary matters, while both parties retained the freedom to disagree and vote independently on other issues. The agreement explicitly stated that it was not about compromising core beliefs or denying differences, and that both parties would continue to hold each other accountable.

Is It Reasonable for the NDP to Withdraw Support?

Yes, it is entirely reasonable and within the norms of parliamentary democracy for a party to withdraw its support from a confidence and supply agreement. These agreements are not binding contracts; they are political arrangements based on mutual trust and shared objectives. If the supporting party feels the government is not upholding its end of the agreement, or if political priorities change, it can announce that it will no longer support the government on confidence or supply votes.

"Nothing in this agreement will undermine that critical function. The parties will not always agree. The government will pursue elements of its agenda that the NDP may oppose and nothing in this agreement prevents either party from doing that."

When the NDP announced it would vote with the opposition going forward, it was exercising its right to end the agreement-something explicitly anticipated in the structure of confidence and supply arrangements. This move may lead to legislative slowdowns or even trigger an election if the government loses a confidence vote, but it is a legitimate and expected part of parliamentary politics.

                                                                                

In conclusion: Confidence and supply agreements are designed to be flexible and allow for withdrawal of support. The NDP's decision is a reasonable and democratic action within this framework.

Is it reasonable because the NDP did it and got away with it, or was there precedent for them to do it in the first place?

The NDP's decision to end its confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals is not "reasonable" simply because they did it and faced no immediate penalty; rather, there is clear precedent for such actions in parliamentary democracies using the Westminster system.

Confidence and supply agreements are, by design, political arrangements-not binding contracts. They exist to provide a minority government with the stability needed to govern, in exchange for advancing some of the supporting party's priorities. However, these agreements can be ended by either party if they believe the arrangement no longer serves their interests or if key promises are not being met.

International and Canadian Precedent

Australia: Multiple examples exist at both federal and state levels where confidence and supply agreements have been entered into and later ended when political circumstances changed or when the supporting party felt their priorities were not being addressed.

Canada: The 2022–2025 Liberal–NDP agreement was the first formal confidence and supply deal at the federal level, but similar arrangements have occurred in Canadian provinces and other Westminster-style parliaments. In all cases, the supporting party has retained the right to withdraw support if dissatisfied with the government's performance or direction.

Recent NDP Action: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh announced the end of the agreement, citing fundamental policy differences and a loss of trust in the Liberals to deliver on key promises. The NDP made clear they would now vote on a "case-by-case" basis, which is a standard and expected outcome when such agreements end.

Parliamentary Norms

Withdrawing from a confidence and supply agreement is a well-established and legitimate course of action. It does not automatically trigger an election, but it does mean the minority government must seek support from other parties-or risk defeat on a confidence vote. This flexibility is a feature, not a flaw, of the system.

In summary:

There is ample precedent for a party to withdraw from a confidence and supply agreement when it feels the arrangement no longer serves its interests or those of its constituents. The NDP's move aligns with established parliamentary practice in Canada and other Westminster democracies.

What were the key terms of the original agreement between the Liberals and NDP?

Key Terms of the Original Liberal–NDP Confidence and Supply Agreement

The Liberal–NDP Confidence and Supply Agreement, titled Delivering for Canadians Now, was announced on March 22, 2022, and was intended to last until Parliament rose in June 2025. Here are its central terms and commitments:

1. Duration and Scope

The agreement was set to last from March 22, 2022, until June 2025, covering up to four federal budgets.

2. Confidence and Supply Commitments

The NDP agreed to support the Liberal government on all confidence and budgetary matters, including:

Budgetary policy

Budget implementation bills

Estimates and supply bills

The NDP committed not to move or support any votes of non-confidence during the agreement’s term.

The Liberals committed to governing for the duration of the agreement.

3. Communication and Coordination

Both parties adopted a “no surprises” principle, committing to advance notice and discussion if a vote was to be declared a matter of confidence.

The NDP would inform the Liberals of their voting intentions before making them public in such cases, allowing for discussions around confidence.

4. Policy Focus Areas

The agreement identified several shared policy priorities, including:

Growing the economy with green jobs and climate action

Making life more affordable (housing and childcare)

Expanding and protecting healthcare

Advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Both parties agreed to collaborate on these areas for the benefit of Canadians.

5. Parliamentary Function and Oversight

The agreement emphasized the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and committee work.

Both parties agreed to communicate to avoid unnecessary obstructions in committee work and legislative review.

6. Regular Meetings and Oversight

Minimum standing meetings were established to maintain coordination:

Leaders to meet at least once per quarter

Regular House Leader and Whip meetings

Monthly oversight group meetings to review progress.

7. Independence and Accountability

The agreement was explicit that it was not a formal coalition; the NDP did not join the cabinet.

Both parties retained the right to pursue their own agendas and disagree on issues outside the agreement’s scope.

The agreement stated that nothing would undermine Parliament’s role in holding the government to account.

                                                                                          

This framework allowed the Liberals to govern with stability while advancing shared priorities, without merging the parties or requiring the NDP to support all government legislation.

Was there a particular point of contention that motivated the NDP to essentially force a - not by much - election call?

The main point of contention that motivated the NDP to end its confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberals was a fundamental and growing disagreement over the government's approach to "corporate greed" and the perception that the Liberals were failing to deliver on key progressive priorities, particularly those related to affordability and social programs.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh repeatedly criticized the Liberals for being "too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people," citing recent government actions such as ordering binding arbitration in rail and airline labor disputes as evidence of siding with corporations over workers. Singh also accused the Liberals of not standing up to corporate interests and letting Canadians down on issues like inflation and the housing affordability crisis, which have been major sources of public dissatisfaction.

While there was no single triggering event, several factors converged:

Policy Disagreements: The NDP felt the Liberals were not delivering on agreed-upon priorities like dental care, pharmacare, and broader affordability measures.

Labor Relations: The government's intervention in labor disputes was seen as favoring corporate interests, further straining relations with the NDP's traditional base.

Political Strategy: With the Liberals' popularity plummeting and the Conservatives surging in the polls, the NDP faced internal and external pressure to distance itself from an unpopular government to preserve its own electoral prospects.

The timing of the NDP's decision was also influenced by political calculations: with the Liberals trailing the Conservatives by a wide margin in the polls, the NDP wanted to position itself as a distinct alternative and not be "pulled down by Trudeau's terrible national numbers". Singh's messaging emphasized that the NDP would now vote on a case-by-case basis and focus on stopping Conservative cuts, making clear the party was preparing for an election fight.

In summary, the NDP's move was motivated by a combination of substantive policy disputes-especially around corporate influence and affordability-and strategic considerations about the party's future electoral viability.