Why a one-seat majority might be the worst-case scenario for federal Liberals
OTTAWA — During the Liberals’ Dec. 11 Christmas party just hours after Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to the government, soirée hosts James Maloney and Mona Fortier joked to ecstatic attendees that their favourite number was “172”.
That’s the minimum number of MPs a party needs to get a simple majority in the House of Commons. With Ma’s crossing, the Liberals suddenly find themselves one seat away from their favourite number.
With rumours swirling of more opposition MPs considering defecting to Liberal ranks, the question becomes: what happens in the House of Commons if a minority government suddenly becomes a majority government?
For most Liberal operatives, the most enticing part of becoming a majority government is to obtain a majority on Parliamentary committees, where opposition MPs have far more latitude to slow the government’s legislative agenda.
As of now, 11 of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government’s 20 bills are currently stuck at second reading or committee consideration, a mandatory step for legislation.
Because you, dear reader, are not paid to ponder these hypothetical questions, National Post reached out to two Parliamentary specialists to flesh out a roadmap of the various procedural moves the Liberals could take if they were to become a majority government.
So, 172 is the magic majority government number?
Technically, yes. But in reality, 172 caucus members, or a one-MP majority, is not the panacea for the Liberals that many imagine it to be.
In fact, in many ways, it’s the worst-case scenario for a majority government, says Lyle Skinner, a constitutional lawyer specializing in parliamentary law.
That’s because the Speaker of the House of Commons, who does not vote unless needed to break a tie, is Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia. Since the Liberals are without Scarpaleggia’s vote, that means they have 171 votes against a combined opposition vote of… 171.
The government could always try to sway opposition votes their way, but it hasn’t shown much inclination to do so this Parliamentary session.
In other words, despite technically having a majority of MPs, a Liberal government with 172 MPs would still be deadlocked with the opposition.
It would then put the Speaker in the awkward position of constantly needing to break the tie.
But then the Speaker, a Liberal, would break the tie for the Liberals, no?
In a purely partisan world, sure. But the Speaker’s role is non-partisan. That means that, per convention, he would be expected to vote to preserve the status quo . That thinking was entrenched by Speaker Peter Milliken, who cast a record five votes throughout his tenure from 2001 to 2011.
Since current committee composition (five Liberals including the non-voting chair, four Conservatives and one Bloc for most committees) was adopted unanimously by Parliament after the last election, the Liberals would likely have to introduce another motion to change committees to reflect their majority in the House of Commons.
But if the Liberals and the opposition vote along party lines and are tied at 171, the Speaker will have to break the tie. And since he’s expected to maintain the status quo… the government is likely to lose that vote.
“You need to have a majority votes in order to change the committee composition. The Speaker, based on practice, will vote to preserve the status quo… so it would be incredibly challenging” for the Liberals with a 172 MP majority, Skinner said.
So, the Liberals’ favourite number should probably be 173 or higher?
If they want to be able to act like a majority government, then definitely.
At 173 MPs, the Liberals could maintain the speakership and a razor-thin margin over opposition MPs during votes (172 to 171).
But even then, governing will be far from simple for a Liberal government with 173 MPs, say Skinner and Steve Chaplin, former senior parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons.
With a majority of just one or two MPs, there is no margin for error for the government and its caucus to miss out on a vote.
Furthermore, it would give each Liberal MP extraordinary leverage over their government, allowing them to threaten to withhold their vote or even vote against a bill unless granted certain concessions.
A government MP resigning or even losing a seat in a byelection could see the Liberals “bounce around” between a majority and minority government, says Chaplin.
“Over the next two or three years, the likelihood of byelections occurring is fairly high, historically. And government, generally… don’t do well in byelections historically,” he noted.
What could happen if the Liberals do get a majority?
There are lots of possible scenarios, but a near certainty is they will move a motion to change the standing orders guiding committee composition to give themselves a majority there as well.
There also a possibility that the Liberals try to amend other “Standing Orders” of the House to either set time limits on certain debates or limit the number of dilatory motions that can be tabled, though either move would be controversial.
“Even in a majority government situation, lots of things are open to negotiation by the parties, because everybody has the role to play in the Commons,” Skinner said. “Having an agreement on a solution is generally more preferable than trying to put something through.”
What about prorogation if the Liberals get a majority?
It’s certainly a possibility! It could be appealing to a new majority government to want to hit the Parliamentary “reset button” and start a new session with a fresh throne speech.
But, Skinner and Chaplin warn, there are also significant risks that come with prorogation.
The first is that all existing government bills would die with no guarantee that the Liberals will be able to vote them back to their current stage in a new session. That includes the Liberals’ Budget Implementation Act for the 2025 budget.
The second is that the government would automatically face a confidence vote following the new throne speech, something it may not be eager to do with a razor-thin majority.
“There’s lots of risk in prorogation,” Chaplain said. “If you’re only one vote one way or another, the risk to confidence is probably too high. Why would you create a scenario where you’re constantly testing the confidence of the House?”
National Post
cnardi@postmedia.com
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.