Written By David Gomez
In this column, unlike what I have focused on in recent months, I want to turn my attention to the federal budget that was just approved on November 17 in Ottawa. The events surrounding its approval unfolded with an intensity rarely seen in a minority Parliament. What should have been a standard vote on fiscal planning became a political test of survival for the government and a broader question about the country’s need for stability during a period marked by uncertainty at home and abroad.
The day began with tension. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals were two votes short of what they needed to secure passage, and both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois had already stated they would vote against the budget. In any minority government, that alone would be enough to unsettle the chamber. But this was also a confidence vote, meaning the defeat of the budget would have triggered an election almost immediately—just months after Canadians had already gone to the polls. With concerns about affordability, global instability, and economic pressure weighing heavily on people, few had the appetite to head into another campaign.
Despite the uncertainty, government members projected steady confidence. Carney dismissed concerns about the numbers, suggesting that more MPs would vote in favour than against. It seemed like a bold claim at the time, but behind the scenes, a delicate balance of absences, abstentions, and one pivotal opposition vote was taking shape.
Two NDP MPs abstained, signalling that although their party opposed the budget’s contents, they were not prepared to send Canadians back into an election. Two Conservative MPs also did not vote—one due to medical leave and another after announcing he intended to resign his seat. The decisive moment came from the Green Party’s Elizabeth May, who had expressed hesitation for weeks because the budget made no reference to Canada’s Paris climate commitments. Only after receiving a clear, public reassurance from the Prime Minister that those targets would be respected did she decide to support the budget. With those elements aligned, the budget passed by the narrowest possible margin: 170 votes to 168.
The significance of this result is difficult to overstate. First, it confirmed that the government was able to navigate a fractured Parliament without rewriting the framework of its fiscal plan. Second, it showed that even within a divided House, a majority of MPs recognized that forcing an election in the current climate would likely have done more harm than good. And third, it revealed just how precarious the government’s position is. A single unexpected absence or change of heart could have reversed the outcome entirely.
The budget itself has drawn both praise and criticism, and it is important to acknowledge both sides. On the positive side, it is built around a long-term vision aimed at addressing some of the country’s most urgent structural challenges. Housing is at the centre of this effort. With affordability issues affecting communities across Canada, the government committed to accelerating construction, supporting municipalities, and investing in infrastructure intended to increase supply. These measures will not provide instant relief, but they represent a move toward correcting long-standing imbalances in the housing market.
Another noteworthy element is the reaffirmed commitment to climate action. Although the written budget did not mention the Paris targets, the government’s explicit pledge in the House restored confidence among those who feared environmental issues were being sidelined. For many Canadians, this assurance carries significant weight, especially given the growing global scrutiny of climate policy.
The budget also places emphasis on productivity, innovation, and economic resilience. With geopolitical tensions shaping supply chains and trade flows, investments in modern infrastructure and key sectors such as defence and advanced industries reflect an attempt to prepare the country for emerging realities.
Still, several concerns have been raised and deserve consideration. Critics argue that the budget increases spending at a moment when many Canadians are struggling with high living costs. The Conservative claim that the government is treating public finances like an unlimited credit card resonates with some households facing inflation and tighter budgets. While the government has positioned its spending as strategic investment, the short-term strain is difficult to ignore.
Finally, the political fragility surrounding the vote cannot be dismissed. Relying on abstentions and a single cross-party vote underscores how unstable the current Parliament remains. Future confidence votes may not unfold as favourably for the government.
Despite these challenges, the approval of this budget preserves stability at a time when Canada needs it. The country avoids a disruptive election, and the government retains the ability to carry forward its agenda. The narrow passage of this budget keeps the country on a defined—though imperfect—path forward.
