Opinion: Reform Act snub bad for Liberals — and for democracy

Montreal Gazette

3 days ago

Op Eds
At a caucus meeting on Sunday afternoon, the Liberal Party of Canada opted not to adopt the Reform Act.
Brought in as an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2014, the Reform Act allows MPs in a parliamentary group that hold official party status (holding 12 or more seats) to vote on a series of measures at the beginning of a parliamentary session regarding internal caucus management. If adopted, the measures last the duration of the session.
The most notable of the measures involves the power to initiate a leadership review. The Conservative caucus used this part of the act to remove then-leader Erin O'Toole in 2022.
Given the tumult that rocked the Liberals in the closing period of Justin Trudeau's reign, the party's decision not to adopt this provision is notable. Indeed, most agree that Trudeau only stayed in power throughout the byelection losses in Liberal strongholds and declining polls of 2024 because no formal mechanism existed to force his removal, despite growing discontent within the Liberal caucus.
It took the extraordinary events of Dec. 16, 2024 to force the longtime Liberal leader to consider his position. On that morning, with the fall economic statement to be tabled, then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland published a bombshell resignation letter criticizing the 'costly political gimmicks' it contained. With no finance minister in situ and therefore no one in a position to deliver the important fiscal update, Ottawa fell into chaos and Trudeau scrambled to shore up his position.
It was the beginning of the end for a leader who had lost the confidence not just of Freeland, his closest political confidante, but also his caucus, many of whom feared their re-election was unlikely with Trudeau in charge.
Trudeau finally announced his resignation on Jan. 6. Thus began the process that led to Mark Carney becoming prime minister and the saviour of the Liberals' electoral fortunes.
It seems now — with a successful election in the rear-view mirror, Parliament resuming and a raft of problems to get to grips with — the newly elected Liberal government has forgotten about one major driver of the party's near-death experience before the unexpected alchemy of Donald Trump, tariffs and Carney resuscitated it.
In the aftermath of Trudeau's resignation, Freeland campaigned to replace him partially on a policy of mandatory leadership reviews. 'We can never again be in a position where the leader is the only person who decides who the leader is,' she told the National Post.
Why then have Liberal MPs now declined the opportunity to adopt the power to review the position of the leader?
The Liberal caucus has apparently grown accustomed to being dominated by a strong leader. More broadly, party discipline in Canada is arguably the most rigid among comparable parliamentary democracies. Despite the Conservatives' adoption and use of the Reform Act in the past, the party remains under tight discipline.
One reason for this is fear that the diverse array of regional and ideological concerns that populate Canada's big-tent parties will spill over into a dissonant and incoherent message that may dilute or undermine the party's core brand. Party leaders exert huge influence over MPs, utilizing the carrot and stick of speaking time, committee positions and — on the government side — cabinet portfolios to compel unity.
Although this drive toward party unity is understandable, when applied as it is in Canada, the result contributes to a profound democratic deficit. MPs are habitually whipped, and not just to vote in party blocks for or against legislation. Increasingly, overbearing conformity of political communication dominates individual members' capacity to authentically advocate on behalf of their constituents both inside and outside the House of Commons. This serves to undermine the democratic mandate received by each MP by virtue of winning their riding.
Politics remains the greasy pole described by the 19th century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli — hard to get to the top, and all too easy to plummet back down. Party leaders ought not be facilitated in using this fact to excessively control their parliamentary caucuses.
The Liberal party recently learned what can happen when a sitting PM views the caucus as subject to his pleasure, rather than his position being tenable only based on his maintenance of their confidence.
It is a shame that they have opted to forget this lesson.