Guilbeault s’en va-t-en guerre

One of the greatest and most realistic movies about Canadian politics is Guibord s’en va-t-en-guerre, a comedy about an indepedent rural Quebec MP who must cast the deciding vote in a minority parliament over whether the country goes to war. It is a reminder of the relevance and importance of local representation, and of personal conviction in public life in a system that favours partisan group think.

Career environmentalist Steven Guilbeault resigned from federal cabinet on Friday in protest of an agreement between his government and the Maple MAGA government of Danielle Smith in Alberta. In a razor-thin minority, this could be a dramatic power play. If electoral reformers had their way, elected representative could not stand against their party on principle in this manner and retain legitimacy.

While Guilbeault has chosen to stay in the Liberal caucus, it is his Guibord moment, dramatically asserting his role as a Member of Parliament over those of being a Liberal or a Cabinet minister. That there is no great push from caucus to eject him suggests that his views are quietly shared by many Liberals. Like the fictional hockey player-turned-politician Guibord, Guilbeault made his name outside of national politics before making his run for office, famously scaling the CN tower as a Greenpeace activist in 2001.

Pierre Poilievre spent 20 years as an MP arguing on the national stage instead of taking care of his Ottawa riding, losing it to Liberal Bruce Fanjoy earlier this year. Though his party enjoyed what would have been enough support to win a majority in almost any other election, the locals turfed the leader, forcing him to find another place to run.

When Pierre Poilievre won the Battle River—Crowfoot byelection on August 18th, he took the riding with over 80% of the vote, using it to regain a seat in the House — before disappearing again to the annoyance of some locals. One is trying to get a letter campaign going calling on him to move to the riding.

But Poilievre did receive 80% of the vote in a riding where the majority of the people knew exactly why he was there. It very obviously was not to spend his time in his adoptive rural Alberta riding. Nor does anyone seriously expect him to run in the same riding next election. His legitimacy to be an absentee MP for that riding is complete; there was no false premise. The voters voted with their eyes open, even having to hand-write his name on each of their ballots.

Recently, too, was the floor crossing of Nova Scotia MP Chris D’Entremont from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party on the eve of the federal budget vote just a few weeks ago.

Floor Crossing Is Part Of Democracy

And who can forget Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith whose audaciously independent style has made him a magnet for controversy. The Walrus this week published an article entitled “Is Nate Erskine-Smith Too Honest for His Own Good?”

The answer to that question is: only in a world where blind partisanship matters more than actual representation. In each of these cases, the political legitimacy of the MP in question immediately comes to the fore in public debate:

How can Steven Guilbeault quit cabinet on a fundamental question of principle that underpins his entire political career, yet stay in caucus?

How can Pierre Poilievre run in a by-election some 3,300km from his home in Ottawa in a riding he is barely aware exists, and be considered their legitimate Member of Parliament?

How can Chris D’Entremont cross the floor away from the party in which he was elected?

How can Nate Erskine-Smith remain a Liberal MP in good standing when he sometimes openly disagrees with his government?

A little self-reflection never hurt anyone

For those who believe in reforms such as proportional representation and the supremacy of political parties over the individual, each of these questions comes has a negative answer: they can’t, or at least shouldn’t. Guilbeault and Erskine-Smith disagree with their party, therefore they don’t belong because it was the party that was elected. D’Entremont was elected as a Conservative, therefore he has no legitimacy in any other role. Poilievre should never have lost in the first place — as the party leader, his seat should have been guaranteed at the top of the party list.

Steven Guilbeault, in resigning from cabinet, forces us to confront the legitimacy question from another angle. If the party diverges from the stated principles of a locally elected representative, can that representative remain a member of the party in the House?

In our current system, the answer is a resounding yes. A party’s caucus is a collection of independently thinking people who have generally common goals and values; that’s why they are in the same party. There is no obligation to agree on everything; I stood in my place and voted against my own party’s position on more than one occasion and, while I still am generally supportive of the Liberals six years after my electoral defeat, I am not shy to say that there are still issues on which I actively disagree with the current Liberal government.

It is important that we keep it this way, and strengthen rather than undermine the role of Members of Parliament as MPs first and partisans … well, at most, second.

When we vote for our representatives, we are voting for them, as individuals, to bring their experience and judgement to Parliament. If they do not effectively exercise their judgement in our judgement, the next election is where we can take that up with them.

As Conservative MP Michael Chong once said to me when I was still a parliamentary assistant during the Harper years: “like you, my job is to hold the government to account. The difference is, I have confidence in the government.”

For those advocating reform, the most common demand is to emphasise the role and selection of parties over individuals. But for what “proportionality” brings to the table, it takes away from “representation” in what becomes a sum-zero equation. In nearly all forms of PR if someone is elected as a party member, whether in a riding or off a list, their divergence from the party platform is a cardinal sin, their departure from their caucus no longer legitimate because the parties’ over-all standings are quotaed on election day. They are selected as partians rather than as representatives.

When Steven Guilbeault next rises in the House as a former minister who gave up his role at the cabinet table on principle, but chose to stay and continue to advocate for those principles, remember what it is that those reformers are asking us to give up.

When Canada has to make a critical decision through the House of Commons, I want the representatives voting on our behalf to possess consciences and principles on which to base those votes, not be mere tools of the latest whims of their parties.