So let’s talk about the federal NDP’s recent moves in Parliament, and leader Jagmeet Singh recent “tearing up” of the two-year-old Supply and Confidence Agreement.

Let’s begin with a few opening principles, since you’re reading a piece written by a “Dipper” and that’s what we do. You have been warned.

A principle: If you can take power, you should.

That includes by winning a majority mandate in an election; or by joining a coalition government; or by negotiating a supply and confidence accord; or by attending case-by-case negotiations, with serious intent, during periods of minority government.

All of these are what former NDP leader Jack Layton would call “tools in the toolbox” to get things done—all are perfectly democratic, legitimate, and in keeping with the spirit and letter of parliamentary government.

Winning a majority in an election is the best, no doubt about it—mindful though that in our system, these are almost always “false majorities” assigning the winner far more seats than their popular vote arguably justifies. A majority helpfully puts this “efficiency” to work—in the cause of building social democracy. New Democrats know this, having governed in the Yukon, B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia.

But when you don’t have that luxury, then coalitions, accords, and serial parliamentary agreements are equally legitimate ways to make progress.

All of these are examples of our elected MPs doing the job they were elected to do—working together to get things done.

They are what parliamentary government is about—a majority of MPs acting together to govern, while those who don’t support their efforts  question and oppose them.

As I write, the Conservative Official Opposition complains about this. But in office, in times of need, they’d accept support from other parties after a negotiation. They did so with the Bloc Québécois for much of their last run in office, and for a time (bizarrely) worked with the Ignatieff Liberals.

So, all that said, here is my take on what the federal NDP did in the current Parliament.

They took power, because that’s what they should do.

To be more specific, they fully exercised the sliver of power the people of Canada assigned to them in two back-to-back federal elections (2019 and 2021), which involved the expenditure of hundreds of millions to persuade Prime Minister Trudeau and his minority government that if he wanted to get much done in Parliament he was going to need to talk to another party.

The result was a parliamentary accord that traded confidence and supply for policies the NDP wanted implemented.

Those included a well-functioning national dental care program that addressed a serious gap in health care, to the benefit of more than two million Canadians; an Early Learning and Child Care Act modelled on the Canada Health Act; a stronger federal labour code and better sick leave rules; an increasingly serious commitment to publicly-funded housing; a Sustainable Jobs Act angling to help workers transition to a decarbonized economy; and a $4 billion Indigenous housing program. Still percolating in Parliament was an aspirational (let’s say) tiptoe towards pharmacare; and some incrementally helpful tweaks to how elections are held to make them more accessible to more voters.

Was it worth it?

Yes it was.

These steps forward were (as Elwood Cowley, a wonderfully brilliant and sadly recently-deceased former NDP deputy premier of Saskatchewan would have put it) the “good shit we’re here to do.”

Was it the best way to do it?

We could debate that. Personally, I think the way many European parliaments do these things works better for political parties there—parties working together meet regularly throughout the term to review the “to-do” list and  keep it current, rather than expecting a negotiation to answer all questions for four years.

Then last week, it was time for the dismount. Pressure was definitely mounting on this accord.

Specifically, I can think of four pressures:

First: most of the to-do list had been done. From a governance perspective, this might have been a bit of a lost opportunity (arguably the NDP had the leverage to put even more on the table). But in the world we are in, it meant there wasn’t much left to keep the federal NDP interested in the accord.

Second: four electoral contests pressed against the accord—a provincial election in B.C.; a provincial election in Saskatchewan; a federal by-election in Winnipeg (Elmwood–Transcona); and a federal by-election in Montreal (Lasalle-Emard).

In principle, most New Democrats (and most Canadians) support the idea that MPs should work together to get things done. A recent Nanos poll showed that in principle a majority of Canadians supported this accord in particular (reported in the Globe September 5th—54 percent support, 42 percent oppose).

But voters in swing seats in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Montreal are at least equally of a mind that it is time for a change in Ottawa.

Third: a caucus retreat was a week away.

Just a few days before the deal’s dissolution, NDP caucus was set to meet in Montreal. They would have been looking for a compelling political case to remain in the accord, given the points above. By ending the accord when they did, the federal NDP’s leadership team was instead able to lay out a plan to focus on the next election.

Which takes us to the fourth pressure: the need to focus on the next election.

Yesterday, the NDP quietly announced that Jagmeet Singh’s chief of staff, Jennifer Howard, was taking a leave from her job and would move over to the party side to get to work as national campaign director.

The next election will likely be a change election—a campaign that will require the federal NDP’s full attention, starting now.

My bet is that we’re now in for a noisier, more disorderly Parliament, and a federal election after the introduction of the Trudeau government’s next budget, this coming spring.

The clock-springs of politics will continue to turn. We’ll see what kind of government the people of Canada want next. Maybe they will be in the mood for a Tory prime minister who has never had a job outside of politics, speaks in angry nursery rhymes, and has dreamed about dismantling their public services since he was a schoolboy. Or maybe, they will prove to be in the mood for a better progressive government than they have now.

One way or another, it is never wrong to show up to Parliament looking for ways to get the good stuff done.

Last week several Canadian cities released August home sales results and, to little surprise, buyers have greeted the Bank of Canada’s initial rate cuts with a collective shrug.

Sales remain subdued, inventory continues to rise, and prices are mostly flat to lower. At best, lower rates have provided limited stability, without sparking a recovery. Sales in Canada’s priciest region, Greater Vancouver, plunged 17 percent from a year ago and remain 26 percent below the decade norm for the month. Active listings shot up 37 percent year-over-year and are 21 percent above normal. Accordingly, benchmark prices slipped in the month and are down 0.9 percent year-over-year. The super-expensive detached homes market favours buyers—if only they could afford them. The only reason prices haven’t fallen faster is that sellers aren’t desperate and believe lower rates will eventually harden demand.

In the nation’s second-priciest region, Greater Toronto, sales rose modestly in August, but remained 5.3 percent below year-ago levels, after falling in five of the prior six months. Active listings jumped 46 percent year-over-year, sending benchmark prices down 4.6 percent, though they have steadied recently. Condo prices are even weaker due to a glut of small investor-owned units that few people wish to squeeze into. Driving west along the 401 highway in search of more affordable options, sales remain soft in the London/St. Thomas region (-6.0 percent year-over-year) while active listings have shot up 19 percent, creating an ample five-month supply and sending median prices down 3.2 percent year-over-year. Travelling further west, sales in Windsor remain well below normal, but have firmed in the past year, bringing growth in median prices to 1.9 percent year-over-year.

Outside B.C. and Ontario, the less expensive regions of the country have cooled a bit, possibly due to a decrease in international students. Calgary’s sales are down 20 percent from last year’s record high, but remain 17 percent above long-run norms. Sellers, though still calling the shots given the tight 2.1-month supply, have ceded some pricing power as inventories jumped 37 percent in the past year. Benchmark price gains have moderated to 6.3 percent year-over-year from double-digit gains earlier this year. Edmonton’s robust market has also piped down, with sales off 12 percent in the month though still up 16 percent in the past year, and benchmark prices are up 7.6 percent year-over-year.

The affordable pockets of the country should benefit more from further rate reductions. Meanwhile, the still-expensive regions are unlikely to make much headway until the central bank has chopped rates further (we see another 125 basis points by June 2025). With the five-year Canada rate at a 16-month low of 2.8 percent, a sub-four percent fixed mortgage rate could be in the offing.  However, barring an even larger drop, poor affordability will likely remain an issue in B.C. and Ontario. Given ample supply and soft prices, buyers are in no rush to jump into the market, while sellers (and notably investors) are likely to take advantage of any upturn in prices to add to supply. The recovery is coming, but it won’t be V-shaped. That’s good news for buyers and borrowers, as the central bank likely won’t need to worry about a resurgence in shelter costs fanning inflation.

This article was originally published at BMO.