Jason Cherniak

There’s lots of talk about what the Gladu floor crossing means. In my view, it means that even somebody like her who disagrees strongly with many Liberal policies recognizes that this government is good for Canada.

As long as the Liberal Party is not changing its policies to accommodate her, there is no reason to question where we stand on the issues on which she disagrees. Any Canadian willing to support the Liberals despite holding some views that the Liberal Party opposes should be welcome as long as they do not try to change what we stand for or make statements that would sow division.

What does it mean to have a big tent in politics? Sometimes, like during World War I, it can mean a national unity government. Other times, like during and following World War II, it can mean one party representing big business and the common person. Another example would be the big blue Ontario PC machine where you had to be a party member to get a job at the LCBO. Yet another example would be expanding the party so widely that there are too many priorities. Which version is Mark Carney building now?

Following a time in Canada when it seemed that the political culture was moving further toward extremes, Mark Carney‘s ability to solicit long-time Conservatives to his government - including social conservatives - seems incredible. However, it was not so long ago that “Liberals for Life” elected several MPs. They remained in the government for over a decade and it did not hinder the Liberal Party’s success. Legalizing non-heterosexual marriage also had its detractors in the Liberal Party. That did not stop the policy from being implemented, or those MPs from remaining in caucus (one for so long that many forgot).

The Liberal Party’s ability to become a big tent often makes the NDP and Conservatives accuse us of having no principle. I do not agree, because pragmatism can also be a form of principle.

To be clear, pragmatism does not mean picking and choosing policies based on what is popular. It means having an open mind, considering different sides and making a decision based on the current circumstances. CERB might have been necessary during COVID, but I would not support it today. Maybe I am enough of a partisan that I am fooling myself, but I don’t think so. I was one of those Liberals who felt that the federal party had abandoned me after Covid and I am glad I never had to make a choice between Justin Trudeau and Jean Charest. The disadvantage of a pragmatic political base is that voters - and even members - are open to changing their support.

What version of a big tent is Mark Carney building? My instinct is that it follows the World War II Liberal model. There is little doubt in my mind that CD Howe, Paul Martin Sr. and a young Paul Hellyer would have all been quite comfortable in a Carney cabinet. It could also be compared to the Martin Jr. years, but I think that’s a false comparison because there is no apparent national scandal eating up government credibility. Carney has also been good at using core issues to build his tent.

I do wonder what would happen if the Conservatives were to elect a new moderate leader. Would some of the floor crossers move back and make this look more like a brief coalition government? That is likely a hypothetical that will never come to be, because the Conservative base is more like that of 1950 than 2006. Despite the trend that we have become accustomed to, with governments ending after about a decade, I think it is possible and even likely for the Carney government to win another election.

The only way big tent Liberal Parties have been defeated in the last century without a scandal is when up against a big tent alternative. There is no reason to believe it will exist any time soon.