Prime Minister Mark Carney thanks his supporters after winning the federal election on April 28, in Ottawa.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
The gods of irony were hard at work the day that Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia explained to reporters, in the wake of the 2021 election, why his party’s caucus saw no need to assume powers under the Reform Act.
That legislation allows the MPs of each official party to give themselves the ability to determine who sits in caucus, to elect a chair, to select an interim leader and, most significantly, to trigger an official leadership review.
The Liberals had not needed such things, said Mr. Scarpaleggia, who was the caucus chair for more than a decade: “... things get sorted out when they have to be sorted out, and so, we didn’t really see a need to adopt any of those provisions.”
Fast forward to 2024, when the things that needed to get sorted out – such as who should lead the Liberal Party and the country – took quite some time to get finally sorted. Nearly seven months of growing uncertainty and chaos, to be more precise, as the Liberal caucus hinted, then muttered and finally grumbled audibly about Justin Trudeau stepping aside as the party eyed electoral catastrophe. It took the dramatic December resignation/firing of then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland to precipitate Mr. Trudeau’s departure.
Events could have unfolded much differently if the Liberal caucus had chosen to make use of the Reform Act, rather than voting unanimously against such a move.
Under the act, a leadership review is triggered when at least 20 per cent of the caucus signs a notice and gives it to the chair. Then, a secret ballot is held. That tool would have come in handy last year, as the Liberals were beset by plummeting poll numbers and byelection defeats.
To be fair to the Liberal caucus of 2021, they have company in their disdain for the Reform Act: the Liberal caucuses of 2015 and 2019. (NDP MPs have also consistently voted against using Reform Act powers, as did the Bloc Québécois in 2021.)
The Conservatives have the best track record on making use of the Reform Act, although not a perfect one. In 2015 and 2019, the Tory caucus opted against taking up the power of leadership review. They did vote for that power in 2021 – and then used it in 2022, to oust Erin O‘Toole.
At least the Liberals held a vote in 2021. In 2015, the party simply ignored the law (this after Liberal MPs, including Mr. Trudeau, voted overwhelmingly in favour of passing the Reform Act). That casual disregard for the law, and reinforcing of the power of the Prime Minister’s Office, was a taste of what was to come in the following nine years.
Now the Liberals have a new mandate, a new leader, and another decision to make about whether to take a (small) step to constrain the power of the executive. That might seem like an odd step to take, given that Mark Carney saved the Liberals from an electoral wipeout, delivering a strong minority government and a fourth term instead. But as Mr. Scarpaleggia has discovered, the future is a mystery.
The Liberal caucus should not view a vote in favour of the Reform Act provisions as a vote against their leader. It is rather a vote for a more adult Parliament. (The same logic extends to the Conservative caucus, which meets Tuesday.)
Basic principles of democratic accountability should be reason enough for a yes vote. The grip of party leaders on caucus distorts federal politics, diminishing the influence of MPs and muting their voices.
Caucus should not be fretting about the leader’s support; the leader should be fretting about caucus support. The powers of the Reform Act are a start in redressing that imbalance. And for a governing party, the powers of the Reform Act would have the additional benefit of constraining the influence of the PMO.
Ideally, principle would carry the day. But if Liberal or Conservative MPs find that doing the right thing is an insufficient rationale, they might consider the politics of the matter.
The Conservatives could, once again, underscore their commitment to a more robust role for MPs and leadership that is accountable to caucus rather than the reverse. And there would be the always attractive possibility of making the Liberals look bad.
For their part, Liberal MPs should avoid providing that contrast and assume the powers that their caucus so enthusiastically supported in theory, but never in practice.
Such a vote would mark a conspicuous break with the Trudeau years and signal to Canadians that the Liberals are, at long last, serious about democratic reform.