Opposition’s budget demand delivers a wake-up call to Ottawa

The Commons showed it still holds the purse strings, pushing back against executive overreach in a parliamentary defeat for the Carney government

Interview requests

If you rely on mainstream media, you probably missed what really happened on June 2 in the House of Commons. Opposition parties forced Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to commit to delivering a budget or economic update—an action that matters far more than the government’s tariff slogans or the pomp surrounding the recent Throne Speech.

A Throne Speech is how the government lays out its priorities at the start of a new parliamentary session. Delivered by the monarch or their representative, it sets the government’s agenda. After that, the House of Commons responds, and sometimes it amends that response to hold the government accountable or push for specific actions.

Led by the Conservatives, the opposition voted to amend the House’s reply to pressure the government to provide a budget or economic update before the session ends in June. A budget is a detailed plan of government spending, taxation, and economic policy that affects every Canadian’s daily life. Carney had claimed such a budget or update was unnecessary, but the House exercised its right and duty to require it.

Though not a confidence vote, this was the first substantive test of Carney’s leadership in Parliament. He failed.

Using a sports analogy, it was like the Stanley Cup favourite losing game one of the final. While Carney may be skilled at designing policies, he showed poor management of his caucus. Like a coach who can’t get players on the ice on time, clever plans alone won’t win the game. The amendment passed by a narrow two-vote margin, helped by the absence of four Liberal members, including Carney himself, who was attending the first ministers’ conference in Saskatoon. His absence was akin to a coach missing the opening game of the championship.

Political scientist and former Stephen Harper chief of staff Ian Brodie likens responsible government to a team sport.

The parties are the teams, and the parliamentary agenda is the puck. Losing this vote revealed the Carney government’s weak control over its own agenda, a problem compounded by Andrew Scheer, the interim Conservative leader and former speaker of the House, who expertly managed the parliamentary process. This contrast between poor caucus management and skilled opposition leadership underscores that the government does not hold unchecked power over Parliament’s calendar.

This amendment is more than political point-scoring. It is a vital defence of Canada’s democratic institutions and a reminder that the House of Commons—not the prime minister or the monarch—is the centre of our political system. Responsible government means the cabinet must maintain the confidence of the elected House, which keeps government accountable for public spending.

Sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, enshrine this principle by obliging governments to subject their spending plans to parliamentary review. This tradition dates back to medieval England, when kings had to seek permission from parliaments before levying taxes for war. By requiring governments to secure consent from the people’s representatives, this mechanism protects citizens from unchecked executive power.

Yet Canadians have grown accustomed to sidelining the House of Commons, partly because power has become increasingly centralized in the prime minister’s office. Political scientist Donald Savoie’s book Governing from the Centre captures this trend, and Carney’s refusal to provide a budget or update is a clear example of this executive overreach. His attempt to wield authority akin to presidential executive orders—something a Canadian prime minister constitutionally lacks—ignores these limits. Ironically, his absence at this crucial Commons vote highlights the dangers of assuming unchecked executive power.

Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution, a major influence on Canada’s founding fathers, described the monarchy as the “dignified” part of the constitution, meant to inspire loyalty through ceremony and emotion. For Bagehot, real, or “efficient,” power lies with the cabinet and the House of Commons. The truth of his claim about the dignified monarchy lies in Donald Trump repeating his 51st state rhetoric immediately after the Throne Speech.

By amending the response to the King’s speech and forcing the Carney government to meet its constitutional obligations, the House of Commons asserted its essential role. Citizens should acknowledge and commend the opposition parties for upholding parliamentary rights, rights that indirectly belong to every Canadian.

Technocratic executive overreach has not yet destroyed responsible government. The June 2 vote was a timely reminder that Canada’s democratic traditions remain alive and well.

John von Heyking is a professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge. This commentary was submitted by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.