The Bloc Québécois has already signalled its intention to oppose the budget unless its six demands are met. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives have drawn a line in the sand with seemingly incompatible conditions: a deficit below $42 billion, sweeping tax cuts, and an end to industrial carbon pricing. The New Democrats remain the most likely source of relief, though they may see an election as a path back to official party status. Interim leader Don Davies has made it clear that his seven-member caucus will not support an austerity budget, a stance flexible enough to leave room for a deal, likely through abstentions or strategic absences.

In theory, this could allow the Liberals to survive the budget vote with a plurality, if not a majority. Yet narrowly surviving may be hollow, as the Government needs much more than a one-time mathematical win to implement the transformative economic vision outlined in Carney’s pre-budget address.

With no other party actively supporting its fiscal blueprint, the Government risks its policies being taken hostage in a parliamentary hurt locker.

The vote on the Budget is just the first of many. Carney must also introduce and pass an omnibus budget bill through both chambers of Parliament, a further test of confidence. With no budget legislation passed in the last 18 months and a fast-moving global economic environment, he will justifiably expect his House and Senate teams to deliver before the Christmas recess. Without at least one reliable partner in the House, and with a Senate the Liberals do not control, that task could prove daunting.

The Bloc and Conservatives now hold the balance of power in House committees, effectively locking the government’s agenda in legislative confinement. They could rewrite core sections of the budget, potentially forcing the Government to treat votes on amendments at report stage as matters of confidence—a messy and politically risky process.

Carney does not control the legislative clock. House Leader Steven MacKinnon will recall that time-allocation motions were required at nearly every legislative stage to advance the 2023 and 2024 budget bills, made possible only by the former Liberal–NDP confidence and supply agreement. Without a willing partner, the Government cannot break procedural gridlock. With just four weeks of House time after next week’s budget debate, Carney’s first budget bill could languish well into the new year.

In the past decade, I have had a hand in stickhandling a dozen Trudeau-era budget bills through Parliament, in both majority and minority contexts. The instructions to strategists are always the same: get it done as quickly and as painlessly as possible, ideally with no amendments. There are always bumps in the road — but rarely did we face procedural dynamics as challenging as those that would confront Carney’s parliamentary team. In the long run, Carney’s crack team in the House may deliver the goods.

But in the meantime, the Government may survive the budget vote only to lose control over the content and timing of the legislation required to put it into place.

If no opposition party publicly backs Carney’s plan on November 4, the Government could reasonably conclude it effectively lacks the confidence of the House. The writing will be on the wall. Carney will face a choice: cobble together a plan to survive and muddle through a paralyzed Parliament, or visit Rideau Hall, make the case that Parliament is no longer functional, and seek a strong mandate from Canadians.

The Carney Liberals have a simple, tested message: to navigate a period of economic and geopolitical turbulence, Canada needs a steady hand at the tiller. It is a message that resonates when anxious voters grow weary of partisan brinkmanship.

Following two minority parliaments mired in gridlock and gamesmanship, voters in 2011 handed Stephen Harper the “strong, stable, national majority Conservative government” that had twice eluded him. Likewise, faced with the economic headwinds of the 2008 global financial crisis, Quebecers gave Jean Charest “both hands on the wheel,” upgrading his minority to a stable majority.

Carney may never face more favourable conditions: a leaderless NDP in search of a political identity, a weakened Poilievre trailing badly in approval ratings, an electorate in Quebec increasingly fatigued by divisive politics and hungry for stability, and an opposition unwilling to act constructively in a time of existential crisis for Canada.

An election may not be what voters want. But if their aversion stems from a desire for stability, an election may be exactly what is needed.