The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy

Progressive Dialogue and Policy for a Better Canada

3 kinds of MINORITY GOVERNMENT

By

October 18, 2019

3 kinds of MINORITY GOVERNMENT

By Andrew Cardozo

Three kinds of Minority governments

At the Pearson Centre we can afford to be fans of minority government because Lester B. Pearson led two back-to-back minority governments from 1963 to 1968 in which he delivered on a long list of policies that have defined modern Canada, policies that are still in place or have been further advanced.
Think of Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Maple Leaf flag, the Canada-US Autopact (the first free trade agreement with the U.S.), the Royal Commissions on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and on the Status of Women and the Immigration point system.

When it comes to minority government there is a caution, we don’t really have the ability to vote for a minority government. We only get to vote for one Member of Parliament, and if at the end of E-day, if the numbers line up right across all 338 ridings, you get a minority government led by the party you want to see. But chances are equal that if too many people try to vote for a minority government of one kind, they may get a minority government of the other kind, or a majority of either one. With a lot of three or four way splits. the results are impossible to call in advance. All that to say, we really can’t predict that there will be a minority government.

So if we do end up with a minority government, there are a few key concepts that are being discussed and we need to be clear about them:

What is Minority government?
A government led by a party that has less than 50% of the seats, yet with the support of other MPs, gains the confidence of the House of Commons, that is a government that has at least 170 MPs willing to support it (not necessarily delighted to support it), regardless of which parties they come from.

In the May 2017 election in British Columbia, the BC Liberals won 43 seats to the NDP’s 41 seats, with the Greens having 3 seats. A government needed 44 in the 87 member legislature. With the Greens backing the NDP, the NDP had the support of 44. The Liberals tried to get the Greens support, failed and were replaced by the NDP which has been in office since then. The party which came in second ended up in government, and that is completely legal.

Keep in mind that a government does not have to win every vote. It can lose many votes and still be in office. But it does need to win three kinds of votes – the Speech from the Throne at the start of the session which sets out its intentions, any budget or money votes, and any other votes that the government declares to be confidence votes, usually for issues that are core to its mandate (or that it feels it can play some kind of political game).

By convention the incumbent prime minister is given the first chance to form a government, but that is not essential. Most recently this process was followed in B.C. and New Brunswick. In our current federal climate, in the event the incumbent has less seats than the second party, he would do well to let that party form government and then be defeated in short order, at which point he would be asked to form the government. It the difference between being seen as salvaging a mess or clinging on to power.

So what are the options when one party does not have 50% of the seats. (To be clear the popular vote – how many votes each party got is not very relevant here.) Here are the main ones.

1. Coalition government:

This is an age-old form, the first of which was the coalition government that existed in 1867. Canada was born of a coalition government, so don’t let anyone tell you it is not in the Canadian tradition. A coalition government quite specifically has members of more than one party in the cabinet, the executive branch of government, and probably has an accord on an agreed upon legislative agenda. Former Ontario Premier David Peterson referred to this as “executive cooperation”, which by the way he did not want to have back in 1985. Besides our founding government though, Canada has only had a coalition one other time, during World War II when the issue of conscription was deeply divisive within the major parties and a coalition of the major parties was needed.

Combinations of the above are possible, where the governing party may sign an accord on some issues, but yet expect the support of other parties where the accord-partners are not in agreement. Depending on the issue though, a vote with the non-signatory could cause the accord partners to pull the plug. Coalitions are usually made up of one of the major parties and other smaller parties and are common in many countries.

A “Grand Coalition” usually refers to an unusual coalition of the two major antagonists and even others, and usually is built around some major issue of the times or some kind of national crisis, or when one or more of the minor parties are seen as too toxic for ether of the larger parties to work with. Countries like Germany and Israel have had this from time to time.

In 2007, the Liberals and NDP, proposed to topple the newly elected minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper and form a coalition government, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois – which would be supportive but not in the cabinet. This was during the famed Prorogation crisis, when Prime Minister Harper sought and was allowed to prorogue the House for several week while the opposition cooled its jets – rather than face immediate defeat.

2. Minority government vote-by-vote:

(This is my term as one does not exist currently.) This is where the party with the most seats is able to get the support of other MPs, however grudging it may be, and survive on a vote-by-vote basis. In this approach, they may count on different parties for different votes. Other parties may also abstain or not vote, to allow the governing party to survive a vote, rather than cause an election, that they or no one else wants. The two Conservative governments led by Stephen Harper from 2006 to 2011 ran on this system as did the Pierre Trudeau government of 1972-74, the Joe Clark government of 1979, the Paul Martin government of 2004 to 2006 and the Pearson governments mentioned earlier.

This is usually the case if the largest party either feels very confident, or is simply not able to work with any of the smaller parties.

3. Government by Accord – or Minority Government in Alliance:

(These are also my terms as one does not exist currently.) This is a minority government of one party that signs an accord of some sort with one or more parties agreeing to a series of polices which may include legislative and other policies. There is such an accord in place in BC as there was in the 1985-1987 period in Ontario between the Liberals and NDP (led by David Peterson and Bob Rae, respectively). In the latter case, officials from the two parties met every week to ensure that the accord was being implemented, and in exchange the NDP kept supporting the Liberals for some two years. David Peterson referred to this as “legislative cooperation”. There is also an agreement in the current New Brunswick legislature, where the minority governing Progressive Conservatives have the support of the three-member People’s Alliance.

Other relevant issues

Worth mentioning that this is one of the few situations when the Governor General actually exercizes her powers, albeit dictated by rules and traditions rather than her own thoughts or preferences. Given the record of Governor General Julie Payette to eschew tradition on a lot of issues, this adds another layer of uncertainty. What if she did decide to do something unconventional? There is almost no one to challenge her power….may be the Supreme Court? Unchartered territory for sure.

Countries with the Westminster style Parliamentary systems often see majority government with the governing party getting as little as 40% of the popular vote, or even less. Countries with proportional representation usually only see minority and/or coalition governments.

Minority governments are generally characterized by instability as all parties are on the edge of an election at all times, perhaps a bit less if there is a signed accord, but still just a bit less stable.

On the positive side though, minority governments can be more creative and productive if they work well as they are supposed to. That is by cooperation. Back to Pearson, he proved minority governments can be very good for policy development.

It does take a change in culture of the parties – and the media. For the media rather than reporting positively on those that stand up to each other and vote against each other, they should report positively on those who compromise and work together. Cooperation good. Bullying and fighting bad.
One downside though is that it is harder to hold parties to account as they generally have to abandon or change some part of their platform in order to negotiate a partnership. It is the fulcrum of the cut and thrust of compromise where some issues get sacrificed on the alter of getting power or providing stable government, depending on one’s perspective.

(Andrew Cardozo of president of the Pearson Centre. He has been an adjunct professor at Carleton University.)