Canadian party leaders and their teams are known for demanding strong message discipline from caucus members. But when a transition occurs, as in a leadership race, members of Parliament have much more freedom to voice their own positions. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s impending resignation offers a rare opportunity for Liberal MPs to openly champion the interests of their constituents.

Speaking in Ottawa in 2013, after he won the leadership, Trudeau emphasized the importance of unity within the Liberal party. One of the defining characteristics of Liberal MPs ever since has been a timidness to openly challenge his authority. This culture of deference meant that by the time a growing number of MPs were convinced a change at the top was needed, few of them wanted to be publicly identified with demands for Trudeau to step down. One columnist described it as a “slow-motion knife fight.”

Over the past decade there have certainly been instances of Liberal caucus members voting against the Trudeau government and openly speaking their minds. Some practised respectful advocacy and some succeeded in getting the government to change its policy. But most agitators backed off under pressure. Some left the party, voluntarily or not.

The current Liberal leadership campaign presents an opportunity for caucus members to openly debate policy, to distance themselves from past government decisions and to reveal insider drama under the outgoing leader. This is because the iron grip of party discipline relaxes when a leader makes way for a yet-to-be chosen successor. It opens a brief window for MPs to speak up before the next leader slams it shut.

Party discipline has its purpose

Discipline is an important way to make sure all elected officials speak with one voice behind their leader. It also helps the party avoid distraction by controversies erupting from disagreements. When parties are united internally, they are more likely to govern effectively, and more likely to advance their own political agendas. If they are marked by turmoil, or perceptions of weak leadership, it is much harder to do either or to win an election. Internal dissent can also cost leaders their job.

Authority and leadership are formidable aspects of party discipline. Rules and messaging come from the leader, and party unity can boil down to an MP’s loyalty to that leader. Team players who publicly support the boss and the party’s message track can be rewarded with plums ranging from cabinet posts to being excused from duty to travel home to their ridings. Those who are disobedient can be weeded out through a leader’s chief of staff or the party whip. These carrots and sticks vanish during a leadership contest, all the more so when Parliament is prorogued, as it is now.

Recent Conservative party leadership races show how MPs can use the opportunity to openly critique a rigid grip on party discipline. In late 2019, shortly after Andrew Scheer announced his resignation as leader, Conservative MP Scott Reid revealed on his blog that his departure from the shadow cabinet the year before had not been due to increased responsibilities in his family’s business, as had been reported. Instead, Reid wrote that he had been removed from his position after breaking party ranks to vote in favour of the Liberal government’s bill to legalize recreational marijuana.

In 2022, during the leadership contest won by Pierre Poilievre, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner spoke out about “abusive behaviour inside political parties.” Her comments followed the Toronto Star’s reporting that some Conservatives had been threatening her with removal from caucus. In a personal blog post, she referred to her being unable to “break through to the central leadership establishment” and having faced toxic work environments in her role as MP.

The tight grip of the PMO

The Canadian parliamentary system is believed to afford its party leaders more power than any other modern democracy. Under Justin Trudeau, the Liberal party has been further reshaped into a top-down institution centred on its leader. This was successful because of Trudeau’s charisma and popularity as a public figure. It certainly contrasts with the party’s 2015 election promise of empowering Liberals MPs to be voices for their constituents.

Message discipline emanating from the Prime Minister’s Office was a hallmark of the Stephen Harper era, and not much seems to have changed since then. Sources from within the Conservative party have told the CBC that Poilievre maintains tight control over what his MPs do and say in public.

Voters respect politicians who follow their conscience

The stifling conformity of party discipline

There is nothing in the Liberal party’s constitution that deals explicitly with how disciplined messaging ought to work. The same goes for the Conservatives. There are therefore bound to be inconsistencies in enforcement — and with that more chances to speak out— during a transition period between leaders.

As the Liberal leadership race grinds on toward March 9, will MPs feel comfortable openly criticizing the government? Will they publicly advocate for policies and resources that will help their constituents? Will anyone reveal caucus secrets from the Trudeau era?

There are excellent strategic reasons for tight messaging within our major political parties. Unity of voice makes for a more publicly cohesive party, one that’s able to communicate to Canadians clearly and with more certainty. But such discipline can choke off effective representation by elected officials or alienate backbenchers and their constituents.

A good start towards levelling the playing field is for parties and their caucuses to adopt clear, codified guidelines for advocacy. It should be clearer to MPs that they should speak up to represent constituents, not just in caucus meetings but in public forums. Guidelines are needed for how they can do so in a constructive way that helps them, voters and the caucus as a whole. That way, Canadian MPs won’t have to wait until a leader resigns to share opinions without fear of getting in trouble.