Front Burner (CBC)

Episode: Did Carney just pass a Progressive Conservative budget?

Date: November 19, 2025

Host: Jamie Poisson
Guest: Aaron Wherry (Senior Parliamentary Reporter)
Main Theme:
A deeply reported breakdown of the dramatic confidence vote on Mark Carney’s first Liberal budget, the surprising maneuvers in the House of Commons, and what the budget says about the evolving identity of the Liberal Party—has it, as some suggest, become "Progressive Conservative"?

Main Episode Overview

Jamie Poisson and Aaron Wherry unpack the narrowly-passed Liberal budget and the political moves that made it possible. They analyze the unusual parliamentary vote, discuss the motivations of key players (including abstentions and last-minute changes), and dig into the ideological heart of Mark Carney's budget to explore whether it marks a turn for the Liberal Party. Along the way, they touch on key moments of political intrigue, including Elizabeth May’s pivotal vote and ongoing rumors about floor-crossing MPs.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Suspenseful Confidence Vote and Its Fallout

(01:19–06:44)

• Uncommon Uncertainty: Unlike most confidence votes, this one was unusually suspenseful. Party intentions, especially those of the NDP, were kept secret until the last moment, leaving Ottawa genuinely unsure of the outcome.

  • “Not used to, or I don't think anyone really in Ottawa is used to not knowing exactly how a vote's going to go right up until the vote happens.” — Aaron Wherry [02:23]

• NDP’s Calculated Ambiguity: The seven NDP MPs—five voting against, two abstaining—effectively let the budget pass without being seen as fully endorsing it. Their stated reasoning: avoiding an election most Canadians don’t want, yet not supporting a budget they found lacking.

  • “This is a budget that does not address the real needs facing Canadians... But we also heard crystal clear from Canadians that they don't want an election.” — NDP Representative [04:10 & 04:28]

• Conservative Abstentions and the Matt Genierou Mystery: Two Conservative MPs also abstained—one (Shannon Stubbs) is on medical leave; the other (Matt Genierou), under speculation for possibly being wooed by the Liberals, hasn’t participated in several votes, raising questions about allegiance.

  • “Is he simply not going to vote anymore or... is that sort of an implicit message that he's...not standing with the Conservatives anymore?” — Aaron Wherry [06:20]

2. The Chaos on Vote Night and Conservative Intrigue

(06:44–10:26)

• Voting Technology and Suspense: Two senior Conservative MPs, Scott Reid and Andrew Scheer, appeared late to manually cast their votes, claiming technical issues with the virtual system. This reignited rumors of Conservative tactical maneuvering to allow the budget to pass without triggering an election.

  • “People immediately raise questions... were the Conservatives holding back a couple votes essentially, to see how the vote would go before they went forward?” — Aaron Wherry [08:08]

• Official Explanations and Political Calculation: Despite denials, the episode underscores internal Conservative hesitancy about forcing an election, consistent with polling that shows no clear advantage for them at this moment.

  • “You wouldn't say that the Conservatives would be in a particularly advantageous position to go into an election right now.” — Aaron Wherry [09:38]

3. Elizabeth May’s Decisive Role

(11:29–14:13)

• A Last-Minute Change of Heart: Despite signaling she would oppose the budget, Elizabeth May ultimately supported it after securing a public commitment from PM Mark Carney to honor Canada's climate commitments—though her actual leverage was limited.

  • “Can he confirm here... that in passing this budget, the government is committed to holding to as far below 2 degrees as possible, to funding climate adaptation...?” — Elizabeth May [12:41]
  • “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.” — Elizabeth May [13:43]

• Is May a Kingmaker?: The episode reflects on whether a lone MP can be a true power broker in such a finely-divided parliament. Though important, May’s influence is, in practice, relatively constrained.

4. Speculation on Floor Crossing and Leverage of Individual MPs

(14:13–16:34)

• With Parliament so closely divided, speculation runs high on whether more MPs—NDP or Conservative—might switch allegiances or act independently for greater influence. While plausible, Aaron Wherry notes that the real leverage of independents remains limited—for now.

5. The Budget’s Substance: Progressive Conservative, Liberal, or Pragmatic?

(16:34–23:59)

• Budget Character: Mark Carney's budget shifts focus—less on direct new programs, more on infrastructure and business growth. Critiques are varied: described as investment-heavy, austere, even "reckless"—sometimes all at once.

  • “Can it be all of those things at once?...here's a rundown of what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly from Budget 2025.” — Aaron Wherry (quoting Nathaniel Erskine-Smith) [17:09]
  • “I joked that it was a pretty good progressive conservative budget.” — Erskine-Smith, via Aaron Wherry [17:09]

• Ideological Analysis: The hosts discuss whether "Progressive Conservative" is a fair label. Carney’s approach echoes the flexible Liberal tradition, blending fiscal restraint and deficit spending with the maintenance of key social programs.

  • “The Liberal Party in its long history has always been a bit...flexible in its politics. It's been at times very progressive...very business oriented and focused on reducing the deficit.” — Aaron Wherry [19:22]

• Pragmatism over Ideology: Jamie suggests the budget may simply be pragmatic—designed to hold a broad coalition together, rather than strictly ideological. It aimed to be palatable enough for a few Conservatives and NDP MPs to abstain or cross the floor, enabling survival.

  • “Would another way to look at the budget be to not really look at it as ideological, but...pragmatic more than anything else?” — Jamie Poisson [21:57]
  • “I suspect it's something that Mark Carney would kind of be happy to...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.” — Aaron Wherry [22:28]

6. A Lighthearted Postscript: Richard Gere on the Hill

(24:09–24:56)

• Amidst all the parliamentary drama, actor Richard Gere appeared on Parliament Hill to lobby for Tibet, adding a surreal twist to a high-stakes political day.
  • “You picked a heck of a day to come up Parliament Hill with all the drama...” — Jamie Poisson [24:30]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I'm not used to...not knowing exactly how a vote's going to go right up until the vote happens.”
  — Aaron Wherry [02:23]

• “This is a budget that does not address the real needs...but also heard crystal clear from Canadians that they don't want an election.”
  — NDP Representative [04:10, 04:28]

• “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.”
  — Elizabeth May [13:43]

• “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.”
  — Nathaniel Erskine Smith, via Aaron Wherry [17:09]

• “I suspect it's something that Mark Carney would...be happy to...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.”
  — Aaron Wherry [22:28]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:19–02:58: The lead-up and suspense prior to the vote
• 04:10–04:46: NDP's reasoning for abstention/voting against
• 06:44–08:58: Conservative voting intrigue
• 11:29–13:43: Elizabeth May's flip and Carney's climate commitment
• 17:09–20:22: Budget's ideological identity ("Progressive Conservative" debate)
• 21:57–23:59: Pragmatism vs. ideology in budget design
• 24:09–24:56: Richard Gere's appearance on Parliament Hill

Conclusion

This episode masterfully unpacks both the tactical drama and the broader ideological significance of Carney’s first budget. It highlights a divided Parliament where survival depends on shifting allegiances and pragmatic dealmaking, and where the government's identity may be less about fixed ideology than adaptive coalition-building—all set against a backdrop of real-time suspense, internet rumor-mongering, and even a celebrity cameo.