Room in politics for diversity of thought

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 11/12/2020 (1954 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canada has one of the highest rates of party discipline in the democratic world. In most other countries, backbench MPs can be regularly spotted voting against their own parties or even staging outright rebellions against their leaders. But, in Canada, MPs are remarkably restrained, so much so that even the slightest stepping-out-of-line is considered newsworthy.

Why is party discipline so much more severe in Canada than elsewhere? Since there are relatively few MPs in the Canadian House of Commons, all backbenchers hold on to the hope that they could join cabinet,and so they self-discipline, thinking they’ll eventually get a call from the prime minister. In the U.K., in contrast, where there are no fewer than 650 MPs, most backbenchers know they will be backbenchers for life and so are less concerned about angering the party leader.

Another answer is that Canadian MPs discipline themselves because the consequences of not doing so are so steep. The most drastic sanction is for leaders to kick MPs out of the caucus and refuse to allow them to run for re-election under the party banner. Since the vast majority of MPs throughout Canadian history have been elected as party-nominated candidates, taking this away allows leaders to effectively destroy MPs’ political careers if the leaders so choose.

Canadians also seem strangely intolerant of differences in opinion within parties. When MPs voice views that seem to be at odds with the leader or the mainstream, people respond by wondering how quickly discipline will come. There is party discipline in Canada, but also a culture of party discipline.

This culture affords party leaders enormous power. And it is at odds with the nature of Canadian parties, which are enormous, complex organizations full of different types of people doing different things. It is ridiculous to expect uniformity of thought amongst them. Further, it is democratically dubious to think MPs, who are supposed to represent their constituents and bring their consciences to bear on legislation, would all fall in line and think alike on every issue.

People in the media and who write opinion columns like this one are often guilty of contributing to this culture of discipline. It takes about five seconds on Google to find many opinion columns decrying the severity of party discipline in Canada and calling on party leaders to take a chill pill. But when an MP steps out of lines or says something not in keeping with current sensibilities, these opinion columnists are often the first to call for the party leader to yank the MP’s leash.

Consider the case of Conservative MP and failed leadership contender Derek Sloan. Last week, Sloan came under fire for sponsoring an e-petition to the House of Commons calling on the government to, among other things, ensure that the coming COVID-19 vaccine will be voluntary rather than mandatory. In its preamble, the petition claims that “bypassing proper safety protocols means COVID-19 vaccination is effectively human experimentation.”

Liberal MPs, cabinet ministers, columnists, Twitteristas and scores of others heaped contempt on Sloan for sponsoring this petition, claiming that it was an attempt to fuel online disinformation about vaccines. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam seemed to join in days later, without mentioning Sloan by name.

But some things should be kept in mind. Anyone who wants to file an e-petition must find an MP to sponsor it before it can move forward. When Sloan was grilled over the content of the e-petition, he obfuscated, saying that he had read it some months earlier but couldn’t remember whether he agreed with every single point made in it.

He rightly pointed out that MPs regularly sponsor petitions they personally disagree with, since Canadians have a right to have their viewpoints represented to government even if MPs are not personally on board. It’s quite possible that Sloan is not himself a skeptic of vaccines but rather that, as something of a maverick in the Conservative party, he is more willing to sponsor controversial petitions than some of his more cautious colleagues might be.

Despite this, the calls soon came for Conservative leader Erin O’Toole to fire the right-wing MP, or at the very least accompany him on a trip to the woodshed. O’Toole hasn’t done so yet, but Sloan must surely be on his leader’s naughty list.

But why? Why should every MP with views we disagree with or which we find distasteful be banished from Parliament? After all, the actual policy consequences of a backbench opposition MP with some exotic views are close to nil. Our democratic institutions are sufficiently robust to withstand the presence of one MP who apparently plays footsie with the anti-vaccine crowd.

From a democratic perspective, it would be far preferable for the voters of Hastings-Lennox and Addington to decide, in the next election, whether or not to show Sloan the door.

Royce Koop is head of the political studies department at the University of Manitoba.