Front Burner - Did Carney just pass a Progressive Conservative budget?

Episode Date: November 19, 2025

Mark Carney’s Liberals survived a confidence vote on their first budget Monday night. It was a strange vote, with four members of the Conservatives and the NDP abstaining, as well as some voting chaos from two of the most powerful members of the Conservative Party.CBC’s senior Parliamentary writer Aaron Wherry breaks down how the vote went, what it tells us about Parliament right now, and whether the budget itself signals a new era of Liberal politics. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over-delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors, all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing.

Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo. This is a CBC podcast. Age 4, 170, 161. 168. Hey, everybody. I'm Jamie Poisson. So Mark Carney's liberals survived a confidence vote on the budget Monday night. That means no election. For now. at least, and also, of course, that their budget has passed. Today, my colleague, Erin Wary is here, senior parliamentary reporter. You know him well. And we're going to talk about how the vote went down, which is to say, weirdly, two conservative MPs helped the budget pass, followed by some voting chaos from two of the most powerful conservatives in the party. We're going to get to all

of this and more. And we're also going to talk about the budget itself a little bit more, including whether or not it signals a new era of liberal politics. Erin, hi. Hey, Jamie. Let's start with a quick recap of how the vote actually came in on Monday night. I know this confidence vote was more suspenseful in the lead-up than other ones that were used to because parties are usually a bit clearer in staking out their positions publicly, right? And this time around, people were keeping their cards really close to their chests kind of into the last minute. But what actually happened?

You know, I'm not used to or I don't know. think anyone really in Ottawa is used to not knowing exactly how a vote's going to go right up until the vote happens because usually, you know, there's lots of signaling in advance that the parties have taken positions or they're making demands. And if those demands aren't met, they're going to vote against the legislation or against the budget. And in this case, we knew how the liberals were going to vote, obviously. We knew how the conservatives were going to vote. We knew how the block was going to vote. But the, you know, the crucial seven NDP votes, we had no idea what they were going to do. And we weren't even really clear on what their demands were or what

their expectations were. I can tell you that new Democrats are going to take the time to study this budget. We're going to consult with stakeholders. We're going to talk to Canadians, particularly working Canadians, and review this budget to see if this budget passes our lens of whether it works for working Canadians. And so I don't think anyone in Ottawa thought there was going to be an election or that the budget was going to be defeated, but it wasn't quite clear how we were going to avoid having an election. And, you know, so in the end, the seven NDP MPs, five of them voted against the budget to abstained.

That was enough with the two abstentions on the conservative side plus Elizabeth May, the green MP voting with the budget. That was enough for this, you know, narrow victory for the liberals for the budget. But it maybe doesn't necessarily bode well going forward for how, maybe how long. this parliament's going to last. I want to get into that a little bit more with you later. And I want to talk about Elizabeth May specifically in a minute. But the MPs that abstained, have we heard anything from them about why they abstain?

Yes. So the NDP votes, you know, the NDP comes out after the vote has happened and they say, look, we didn't like this budget. This is a budget that does not address the real needs facing Canadians. It fails to meet the moment, deliver transformational change, or address the urgent needs facing Canadians. But we also heard crystal clear from Canadians that they don't want an election. The consequences of defeating this budget would not be to improve it or to help Canadians. It would be to plunge the country into an election only months after the last one,

and while we still face an existential threat from the Trump administration. And so the majority of us have voted against the budget, but we didn't do so in numbers and sufficient to defeat the budget. They sort of made this argument that they had tried discussing the situation with the government and tried, you know, making suggestions or requests and that the government hadn't been interested in meeting them halfway or making the changes they were looking for. On that basis, we engaged in conversations with the government about improvements that could strengthen the budget and earn our support. at this time the liberals have not been willing to make those changes it's a little unclear exactly what the requests were or what they were looking for so it's hard to judge exactly what happened there but their argument basically comes down to you know look they don't want to be seen to be supporting everything in this budget but at the same time they don't want to trigger an election and so this is where they've kind of landed and the conservative MPs it's a bit more complicated so one of them Shannon Stubbs is on a medical leave. You know, that could be a, you know, perfectly credible explanation for not voting. The other one is Matt Jenneroo, which is a bit more curious. He is the conservative backbencher who announced just before the budget that he was going to be resigning from the conservative

caucus and leaving politics. And there was lots of speculation that maybe he was being courted by the liberals or, you know, this was his way of kind of leaving the conservative caucus without crossing the floor, but then the explanation, the official explanation from the conservative party was, oh, no, he's actually going to stay on as an MP until the spring. But we've now had three votes where he hasn't voted. And, you know, that's a bit curious and a bit hard to understand in the context of that official explanation. You know, if he's going to stick around until the spring, is he simply not going to vote anymore? Or, you know, him not voting is that sort of an implicit message that he's, you know, essentially not standing with the conservatives anymore.

Right, right. And of course, we do know that he met with Prime Minister Mark Hardy at one point. And also there were all these rumors falling around that he was subject to this pressure campaign to not cross the floor to the liberals, though he has denied those. I am dying to talk to you about this moment. So the NDP vote comes in. It's clear that the budget is going to pass. Then what happens? Yeah. So there's sort of two ways to vote now in the House of Commons.

There is the traditional way of standing up in your spot and being counted. But there's also now, since the pandemic, MPs are able to vote virtually through their phones. And at the end of sort of the voting period, the speaker will say, You know, if there's any MPs who experience technical difficulties and want to register their votes now, please do so. And at this moment in the vote, two MPs to experience conservative MPs, Scott Reed and Andrew Shearer, suddenly appear in the House. Official opposition house leader has a point. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulty. I would like to vote no. Mr. Reed?

Who? Mr. Reed. You can just recognize. Mr. Reid, yes, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't able to use my app. I would like to vote. And this is so kind of odd and kind of unusual that people immediately raise questions of, oh, we're conservative, you know, were the conservatives holding back a couple of votes, essentially, to see how the vote would go before they went forward. And, you know, essentially, were the conservatives trying to, uh,

essentially avoid triggering an election. And this leads to today, you know, internet sleuths are going over video footage and thinking that maybe they see Scott Reed and Andrew Shear behind the curtains in the House of Commons. And there's all sorts of intrigue about what exactly happened in this moment. Yeah, and I guess Shear's chief of staff has added like a bit more information to this mystery. Am I right to say that?

Yeah. So there's an official denial that Scott Reed and Andrew Shear were behind the curtain. And Andrew Shear's chief of staff has said that he was tied up with a committee meeting across the street from where the House of Commons now is. So that, you know, that may solve that mystery, I guess. It does, you know, there is still this kind of conversation about, you know, did conservatives really want an election? Did they really want to trigger an election? Because I think regardless of what happened with Scott Reed and Andrew Shear, you know, it's fair to point out that while the conservatives opposed the budget, they didn't, they weren't loudly calling for an election. And if you, you know, sort of look at public polling, if you sort of look at what the situation is politically across the country, you wouldn't say that the conservatives would be in a particularly advantageous position to go into an election right now.

So it's possible that, you know, again, whatever happened with these votes, the conservatives weren't really, you know, we're kind of hoping that the government wouldn't fall this week. an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors, all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo.cairbo.ca. Is your home ready for the next big snowstorm?

You can take action to help protect your home from extreme weather. Discover prevention tips that can help you be climate-ready at keep it intact.ca. Let's talk about Elizabeth May a little bit more now. So on Sunday, she said that she was planning to vote no, like vote against the budget. So I'm in a dilemma, obviously, and I'm still talking to ministers and representatives from the prime minister's office and others to see what could we do before tomorrow afternoon to affect my vote? because right now I'm a no. But as you mentioned, she ultimately became the only member of the opposition to vote with the liberals. Why did she pull that 180?

Did she get anything from it? Yeah, so her argument is that she essentially got the liberals to commit, the prime minister himself, to commit to pursuing or meeting Canada's international greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, which they had not, Mark Carney himself had never sort of explicitly said he was still committed to. meeting those targets. And there was another, again, kind of an odd moment in question period shortly before the vote where Elizabeth May got up during question period seemingly in a spot that would normally go to a liberal backbencher to ask this question and get Mark Carney to state on the record, you know, in the House of Commons that they were committed to this target. Can the Prime Minister agree that it is a deficiency in the budget that our legally binding Paris commitments are not mentioned? Can he confirm here on the

the floor of this House that in passing this budget the government is committed to holding to as far below two degrees as possible to funding climate adaptation to delivering on the nature strategy and continuing to engage in meaningful indigenous reconciliation and that's seemingly what she got out of it mr speaker this budget puts us on the path for real results for climate for nature, for reconciliation, I can confirm to this House that we will respect our Paris commitments for climate change and we're determined to achieve them. I can confirm with... Again, I think, you know, if you listen to her answer after question period, part of the problem was that she knew no one wanted an election. And so how much leverage she really had, I think,

is debatable. And so she at least got this out of it. Against what I had expected to say to you today, I'm going to vote yes. For the country, for the planet and for my hope in the future. The liberals can't count on me voting confidence in the government again without delivering on the words I heard. You know, it's not nothing, but I don't know that it's a sort of groundbreaking moment necessarily. Right.

So I guess it's not fair to describe her necessarily as some kind of kingmaker, as some kind of power broker. No, I mean, she, you know, she certainly has some power because the, you know, the gap between what the liberals have and a majority is so small, there are scenarios where her vote comes into play. But again, it's, you know, fairly limited because she, again, is just one vote. You know, I have been thinking about this idea a little bit more. So we have been talking about these floor crossings recently, conservatives going to the liberals, but also we've kicked around the idea that perhaps an NDP MP could also cross to the liberals. And I'm just wondering if you were an

MP in that parliament right now? Do you look at Elizabeth May and think, like, maybe their move for me is to just sit as an independent. Maybe I could just be this lone kind of power broker, some MP, kind of anywhere in the country. I mean, I think it's an interesting idea. I think you could make an argument that MPs in this parliament could have real power to use and could have real influence over things. In this particular, moment, it might be hard to use that leverage because, again, I think the prime minister gives all indications that he understands that Canadians don't want an election and that there's no reason to believe that the liberals would suffer for an election happening right now. So I don't know that you can necessarily say to the PM, as an independent MP, as anybody, do what I want or I'll vote against this budget, because I think his response would be, go ahead. I'll happily go into an election.

But I think there are scenarios maybe six months from now, maybe a year from now, where individual MPs could have a bit more power and could have a bit more leverage to say, hey, I'm willing to vote for this budget if you do X, Y, and Z. And there may be more of a reason for the Prime Minister to look at those considerations. But it does, you know, the entire conversation about floor crossers and the liberals may be, you know, trying to bring people over. I mean, that really is animated by the fact that it's, it's, it's, they're just so close to a majority. that just one or two MPs moving or voting with the government, conceivably could be enough to really advance things. So you and I and David Coletto did a pod right after the budget the other week. And we talked about some of the highlights in it, generally, how this was a budget that focuses is a lot more on building things, not necessarily directly investing in people with new programs. Just as one illustration that I think is telling the cover of Justin Trudeau's budgets

were, I think, often stuff like smiling people and their children. And Mark Carney's is like a literal icebreaker, like a boat. What else have you been thinking about when it comes to the budget, which is now passed since we last spoke about it? I think the budget produced some pretty divergent reactions, you know, in terms of some people saying it's too much, some people saying it's not enough. I think the most, maybe the most interesting critique we've seen so far came from this liberal backbencher, Nathaniel Erskine Smith, who's built up a reputation for being very independent-minded and willing to offer criticism of his own side or offer his own thoughts on what the government is doing. And he put out this, you know, blog post, I guess, and said, I've seen the budget described as investment focused, as austerity, as reckless.

Can it be all of those things at once? Look, I won't go through all 493 pages. I will spare you from that. But here's a rundown of what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly from budget 2025. Raise some interesting points about where it, you know, maybe comes up short, but then also had this kind of joke at the end where he said that he had joked a colleague that... I joked that it was a pretty good progressive conservative budget. I joked.

I'll get flack for that. It's a joke. But, hey, some conservatives agree. And, you know, he kind of pointed to Chris Dantremont, crossing the aisle from the aisle from the conservatives to liberals to kind of underline that joke. And I think as much as maybe he was joking, I think it is an interesting idea that this is, you know, it's still a liberal budget, but it's maybe more of a progressive conservative budget than we have seen in the past 10 years. How? Tell me more about how. The entire idea of this sort of progressive conservative kind of

comes from the old, it still exists in some of the, in many of the provinces, the old idea of a progressive conservative party, which has come to be regarded as, you know, someone who's economically conservative but socially liberal, you know, still, you know, believes in smaller government or believes in not overly expanding government, but is still sort of progressive in their social values, still willing to kind of use government in some cases, not necessarily wedded to a very, very strict understanding of conservative ideology. And that party essentially ceased to exist after Brian Mulroney's government, it sort of limps along for a while and then gets subsumed into the modern conservative party. And this throwaway joke that Erskine Smith made,

it does come after some people have suggested, you know, Mark Carney, yes, he's a liberal, but he's really kind of an old school progressive conservative in certain ways. And I think that's interesting in the sense that, you know, the liberal party in its long history has always been a bit, I guess, flexible in its politics. It's been at times very progressive. You know, if you think about the Justin Trudeau government, it's been more kind of, you know, what people refer to as blue liberals, kind of very business oriented and focused on reducing the deficit. So you think of like Paul Martin's government. And I think putting Mark Carney within that kind of tradition of progressive conservatism is an interesting statement on maybe where the liberal party is at and also kind

of where the political conversation in Canada has gotten because as much as you could say Mark Carney is a progressive conservative, I think it would be hard to say he's a conservative in the kind of Pierre-Polyev model of conservatism. Right. But let me even push back on the idea that it's a progressive conservative government because it's running a $78 billion deficit. It maintains all the social programs, the Trudeau, the big ones, introduced. Can a child benefit, $10 day child care, dental care, pharma care. It's also minimizing cuts to the departments for Crown Indigenous relations, indigenous

services and women and gender equality. Like all these other departments have been told to cut 15% and these guys haven't, right? So, I mean, how would you respond to that? I mean, the conservatives certainly are not talking about it. Like, it's a progressive conservative budget. Right. Yeah, it's definitely hard to say this is a, particularly conservative budget because of that big deficit number because, you know, he's not necessarily going out and slashing taxes. He's not full-scale pulling back on some of the social programs that Justin Trudeau's government brought in.

But it also kind of gets at sort of the dueling messages of this budget, which is, you know, yes, as you say on the one hand, it's running a big deficit. You know, there is some conservatism, I guess, in this budget insofar as there's cost cutting. it's very business oriented. It's very focused on sort of economic growth and macroeconomics. But it's also very progressive insofar as, you know, all the social programs, the deficit spending, things like that that, you know, aren't even necessarily a departure from what Justin Trudeau did. Yeah. I just, I wonder what another way to look at the budget be to not really look at it as ideological, but to look at it as something that's more. pragmatic than anything else, right?

Something that allowed two conservatives to abstain, one, to cross the floor, and then two NDP's abstain, and also Elizabeth May vote for it. Yeah, I think that's an interesting way to look at it. And it, you know, I suspect it's something that Mark Carney would kind of be happy to, you know, have people think of it that way to say, look, I'm just being pragmatic. I'm not wedded to ideology. I'm looking at what works and what I think will work. And I think he sort of has presented himself in that way in kind of, you know, talking about I'm an economist. I'm a business person. I'm not interested in, you know, necessarily politics. I'm interested in what works. I think that responds to probably what some Canadians are looking for right now. I mean, I think the danger is, and I think we talked about this when we did the budget episode, I think always the danger, of course, is that the conservatives will say, this isn't a conservative enough budget, and progressives will say, well, this isn't a progressive enough budget, and you end up getting kind of pulled apart. But I think it, if there is sort of a center that exists somewhere in Canadian politics, you can see Carney trying to kind of hit it and to sort of hold together the broader coalition that he's built of both the progressives that Justin Trudeau brought together, the progressives who may fear. a Pierre Polly of government

and the kind of middle of the road moderate centrist's progressive conservative voters who want a prime minister who's focused on the economy and focused on housing and you know want someone who's going to deal with Trump and those kinds of

things and this budget kind of tries I guess in a way to hold that coalition together. Yeah. I would normally end the episode here but I have to ask you why Richard Gere, the actor Richard Gere, was on Parliament Hill yesterday. You had to add to all of yesterday's drama, People Magazine's sexiest man of the year in 1999, and the star of Pretty Woman, was also on Parliament Hill.

You picked a heck of a day to come up Parliament Hill with all the drama behind. Yeah, I didn't realize it, all the drama going on. Are you getting time in reception to talk about the issue of Tibet with Canadian parliamentarians? Everybody seems very interested. Sadly, not offering his services as prime minister, but advocating on behalf of Tibet, which is a long-term cause for him. It was a lobbying day on the hill for people who are concerned about Tibet, and this is a long-standing issue of his. And so that's why he was there. But yes, in the middle of everyone waiting around to see whether we were about to be plunged into an election, Richard Gere was walking around.

I love it. Aaron, thank you. Anytime. All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Plesson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you guys tomorrow.