The Liberals have their majority. Here's how Carney can use it

OTTAWA — Nearly one year after the spring election that led to the election of his minority government, Prime Minister Mark Carney now has his majority.

Now what?

Monday evening’s byelection results — with the Liberals retaining two Toronto-area seats   — coupled with the stunning floor-crossing of Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu to Carney’s ranks last week, pushed the Liberals solidly into majority government territory. Another byelection on Monday, in Quebec’s Terrebonne riding, could add to the Liberal margin if the party can fend of a fierce challenge from the Bloc Québécois.

The Liberals will likely spend the next few weeks fleshing out their parliamentary plans for their newfound majority. But here are some likely changes to come in the House of Commons.

Negotiating with oppositions is no longer required to pass legislation

Now, before people get a bee in their bonnet, note that we chose our words carefully. A majority government isn’t required to negotiate opposition support for legislation before passing it.

A majority gives a government a lot more control over its legislative agenda and, if it decides to resort to closure or time allocation motions, the debate calendar in the House of Commons.

But that doesn’t mean negotiating with opposition parties is not recommended or shouldn’t happen anymore. Particularly when a government has a razor thin majority, meaning less than handful of MPs either missing a vote or opposing a bill could kill it.

Furthermore, having a majority in the House of Commons doesn’t mean you have a majority in the court of public opinion, and opposition parties have all sorts of levers they can pull to pressure the government if they disagree with legislation.

Committee composition

This is likely what the Liberals look forward to changing the most: the number of seats assigned to each party in powerful Commons committees.

Committees are important to a government because they are a requisite step for most legislation, and also the place where opposition parties have the most procedural levers to delay or amend government legislation.

After an election, committees must be stood up to reflect the composition of the House of Commons (a minority Liberal government at the time) in what is called the “standing orders.” Now that the Liberals have a majority, they will likely move to amend the standing orders to reflect the new composition of the House in committee and give themselves a majority there too.

Expect a fierce fight from opposition parties though. The question might then become: do the Liberals deploy the controversial “guillotine” that is closure , a procedural tool that allows them to abruptly end debate and put a motion to a vote?

What about prorogation?

Only if the Liberals love pain. There are a number of reasons why proroguing isn’t the panacea that some commentators and media reports have suggested in recent weeks.

First of all, since committee composition was set up in the standing orders to last the entirety of this parliament (which lasts until the next election), prorogation would have no effect on them. The House of Commons would eventually resume sitting, a new parliamentary session would start, but that part of the standing orders wouldn’t change.

Second of all, it would erase the slate of legislation the Liberals still have on the table, including their criminal reform Bill C-16 and C-22, the long-awaited redux of their failed attempt last year to update the lawful access regime for law enforcement.

Third, and most importantly, it would oblige the Liberals to face a confidence vote on the new Speech from the Throne that is required upon resumption of the House of Commons. They may have a majority, but it’s a very slim one, meaning all it takes is a couple MPs to miss or be unable to vote and the government could unintentionally lose the vote and be sent back to the polls.

Basically, a lot of potential pain for an outcome that isn’t guaranteed to be better than the current situation.

Carney also seems to agree. Here’s what he said in late March when asked about a media report suggesting prorogation after Monday’s byelections.

“Absolutely not. It has never even entered my thinking, the possibility of that,” Carney told reporters on March 31.

“So, I couldn’t have been more surprised to see suggestion that that was under consideration.”

What about the senate? Does anything change there?

Absolutely not.

And since former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau kicked out senators from his caucus in 2014 and changed the appointment process to a “merit-based, non-partisan” system, keep an eye out for possible drama between the newly-majority Liberal government and the proudly-independent Senate in the coming months.

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.