Tariffs and a Leadership Crisis: How Weak Intra-Party Democracy Has Left Canada Exposed

With the first line of the Canadian Constitution stating that it must be “similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom,” it is no secret that Great Britain greatly inspired Canada’s constitutional setup. As a Westminster parliamentary democracy, Canada shares key features with its Commonwealth peers such as a bicameral legislature and an unelected upper house. However, one significant flaw of Canadian democracy has come to the forefront recently: the absence of robust internal intra-party democracy, which limits lawmakers’ ability to remove party leaders early.

While the Westminster system privileges party solidarity to ensure stability in a system of government in which the prime minister derives their authority from Parliament, Canada faces remarkably low levels of intra-party democracy. In contrast, other Commonwealth democracies, such as the United Kingdom, have clearly established procedures to oust leaders internally within a party as needed. The British Conservative Party, for example, has stipulated rules for removing a party leader, even if that party leader is the sitting prime minister. This system, adopted in 1998, requires the support of just 15 per cent of sitting Tory MPs to issue an internal vote of no confidence and bring forth a leadership challenge. Subsequently, if the leader fails to secure a simple majority of votes, they are removed. In Britain, this is not unique to just one party—a similar procedure is in place for removing a sitting Labour leader.

Canadian conventions contrast sharply with those of the United Kingdom. While the UK’s system enables intra-party accountability, Canada rarely sees party leaders and prime ministers ousted ahead of a general election. Though the flexibility of the British model presents certain risks—such as a lettuce head outlasting former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss’s tenure, which only lasted 49 days— having such a system ultimately empowers legislators to respond to public sentiment and enhances intra-party democracy. By contrast, Canadian lawmakers face substantial institutional barriers and prolonged political stagnation when attempting to challenge an unpopular leader.

The consequences of this rigid structure are not merely theoretical. Canada’s recent leadership crisis illustrates the impact of inadequate intra-party democracy. The extreme lack of intra-party accountability mechanisms to remove Canadian leaders has led to political anchoring around a widely unpopular prime minister. For months before Justin Trudeau’s shock resignation in January, the prime minister’s approval ratings plummeted to some of the lowest in Canadian history. Yet, only a few members of parliament publicly called for his departure, had Canada followed the UK model, Trudeau have more likely faced a leadership challenge sooner. Only when Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s finance minister and deputy prime minister, withdrew her support for Trudeau did he resign.

The lack of internal mechanisms to remove an unpopular prime minister has real implications. Trudeau’s resignation, while ultimately inevitable, was drawn out to the detriment of legislative efficiency. With extensive powers reserved for the prime minister to prorogue or recess parliament, Trudeau’s resignation has allowed for the Liberal party to finally choose a more popular leader without a critical sense of urgency. Choosing to prorogue Parliament until March 24, 2025, almost four months after his resignation, Justin Trudeau has given the Liberal Party ample time to pick his successor. While this strategic move may benefit the Liberal Party, it leaves Canada without an active legislative body during a period of economic and political uncertainty. Due to the pause in parliamentary proceedings, Canadian lawmakers cannot introduce new bills, and any old bills under debate die. In regular times, this is inconsequential as Parliament’s business returns to order following the end of prorogation. However, it just takes one to look south of the border to realize that current times are anything but normal.

In just one month, Donald Trump has reshaped U.S.-Canada relations, frequently dismissing Prime Minister Trudeau as a “governor” and suggesting Canada could become the 51st state. More concretely, his presidency has also escalated economic tensions, proposing a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, including a 10 percent hike on Canadian energy resources. While Canada secured a temporary delay by offering border security concessions, Trump insists that tariffs will take effect in March. In response, Trudeau announced a $155 billion response plan, but without parliamentary authority his ability to enact industry-specific protections remains limited, leaving Canada vulnerable as it lacks strong, unified leadership.

This leadership vacuum highlights the broader issue: Canada’s rigid party structures undermine its ability to respond effectively to crises. The absence of clear intra-party accountability, exemplified by a lame duck prime minister who lacks legislative weight to respond productively to incoming tariffs has left the country in a weakened negotiating position against the United States. Even with Mark Carney taking over as prime minister, the legislative runway appears limited, with a looming vote of no confidence or early election on the horizon.

Unlike other Westminster systems that empower lawmakers to bring down party bosses between elections, Canada’s system fosters inertia. The implications extend beyond internal party politics and are only furthered during times of crisis. President Trump’s looming tariffs reinforce the disadvantages of a prolonged prorogation of parliament caused by a lack of legislative accountability. The prolonged prorogation of Parliament has significantly reduced the capacity of Parliament to be responsive to public opinion by causing an inability to remove unpopular leaders.  In an increasingly volatile global landscape, having a better-defined, more transparent process for internal leadership challenges is not only essential for strengthening Canadian democracy but also vital in addressing today’s crises.

Edited By Parham Haghnegahdar

Featured Image: Canada’s House of Commons Main Clock Tower. “Parliament of Canada, Ottawa 20.jpg” by Fabian Roudra, licensed under CC Share-alike 4.0.