cabinet minister is less that of policy maker and administrator than party loyalist and front-line communications messenger. To the list of ministerial monikers (Minister, Honourable, Privy Councillor) should also be added the rapidly developing predominant role of “Communister.”
6.
Party Discipline: You are there to Support the Team
In one of my favourite episodes of my favourite sitcom Seinfeld, Jerry comes into possession of four playoff hockey tickets for a game between the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils. With George taking a pass on the game to impress a new girlfriend, Elaine asks her Devils fan boyfriend, David Putty, to attend. However, when they are getting ready to leave, Elaine discovers that her enthusiastic hockey fan date has painted his face in the colours of the Devils — bright red and green.
When she asks the face painter why he looks as he does, Putty replies with eyes squinted, “You gotta support the team.”
An incredulous Elaine exclaims, “Well you can’t go out looking like that.”
Undeterred and unfazed, Putty inquires,“Why not?”
Exasperated, Elaine replies, “Because it’s insane!”
David Putty would make a great and valued member of the Conservative Party of Canada, or any other House of Commons caucus. Indeed, for modern Canadian caucuses, loyalty to the team and a desire to impress teammates and leaders are not only valued qualities, they are qualities that are seemingly valued above all others. Blind loyalty is valued over constructive criticism, and certainly over the ability to speak truth to power. These realities are certainly beneficial for promoting team and caucus solidarity. They have a negative effect, however, on an individual MP’s self-esteem and are ultimately detrimental to both democracy and to good decision-making.
I have previously stated, somewhat famously, that backbenchers of the governing party like to think of themselves as part of the government. They are not.[1] Under our constitutional convention of responsible government, the executive is accountable to the legislature. But the executive is not the legislative caucus of the governing party. The executive is the prime minister and his handpicked ministers of the Crown. Each minister heads, and is responsible for, a department of the permanent government bureaucracy. Since parliamentary secretaries answer questions in the House when their minister is absent and are frequently dispatched to the cable political news shows to defend the government, PSs must, by extension, be deemed to be part of the executive/government. However, the rest of the legislative caucus of the governing party is not part of the government. As MPs, their role should be to serve their constituents by holding the government to account. In theory this could involve occasionally voting against the government.
The government (ministers and parliamentary secretaries) are bound by two-line whips (instructions from party leadership) during votes. However, backbenchers, at least theoretically, are supposed to be allowed to vote independently on all but three-line whips. The convention of cabinet solidarity requires that a minister (or parliamentary secretary) must always support the government position when voting, or in public, or resign from his or her position. No similar doctrine of caucus solidarity exists, although an imposed one has been rapidly evolving.
I am always amused when Conservative backbenchers refer to “our government.” Again, backbenchers are not part of the government. However, sitting in the Commons, one frequently hears a member’s statement that begins, “Mr. Speaker, our government’s number one priority is job creation,” or something similar. Equally common are planted questions, delivered during Question Period, that begin with the same premise. A question such as, “Can the Minister of Finance comment on our government’s recent positive employment statistics?” is founded on the same false premise: that a backbench MP from the governing party is part of the government.
Even more troubling than these statements and questions, though, is the practice of Conservative backbenchers attending photo opportunities that are masquerading as government funding announcements, occasionally with novelty oversized cheques. “Our government is pleased to support the community through this important investment in infrastructure,” the backbencher will proclaim. The necessary implication, conveyed to the local media, is that the local MP was somehow responsible for obtaining the investment for his constituents. The reality is that the decision was made by a bureaucrat and then approved by a regional minister, both of whom are part of the government, which the announcing MP is not.
An interesting aside: I am no longer involved in making government funding announcements, even within the boundaries of my riding, Edmonton-St. Albert. It has been deemed more “appropriate” that a Conservative MP from a neighbouring constituency make the announcement. This is a blatant attempt by the government to indulge in partisan advertising using public tax dollars; the appreciative recipients of the funding announcement are supposed to believe that the grant came from the Conservative government (or the Harper government, as it is more often termed), when the reality is that the funds are courtesy of the Canadian government.
Two very odd and symbiotic sociological trends help to foster the belief in the desirability and necessity of this “team player-ship.” The first is the desire, sometimes the need, to belong. I cannot adequately explain why members of caucus place such emphasis on the importance of being part of the team. Perhaps it is the isolation and loneliness of being marooned in Ottawa and away from family and friends for half of the calendar year. Maybe it is the constant reminders from party leadership that politicians win as a team and they lose as a team. Ralph Klein frequently would borrow a hockey analogy and remind his caucus that you play for the logo on the front of the sweater and not the name on the back. Whatever the reason or combination of factors at play, there is great emphasis on the notion that “you gotta support the team.”
The second factor is that the party leadership unequivocally encourages all members and supporters of the government to think of themselves as members of the team. You would think that ego and arrogance would result in leaders and ministers regarding their governmental club with some sense of exclusivity. However, just the opposite is true. Why?
It serves the interests of the leadership to have all caucus members, and, in fact, all party members, think of themselves as part of, and contributing to, the team. Caucus members are more likely to defend the government’s record and party messaging, and donors are more likely to send the party financial support if they are made to feel that they are a part of it all.
The feeling of being part of a team is particularly stressed at weekly caucus meetings. Every caucus meeting begins and ends with an address by the leader. The opening comments are generally mundane: a summary of relevant events which occurred since the caucus last met and/or the plans regarding the week(s) ahead. However, the closing comments, which are akin to a half-time pep talk, would make a college football coach proud. After summarizing the government’s record, Prime Minister Harper will close a Wednesday caucus meeting with a Knute Rockne-esque speech including platitudes, such as: “Now let’s go back to our ridings this weekend and remind Canadians that we are the only ones they trust to manage the economy; and that we are the only party with ideas for the economic growth and crime prevention that Canadians want and deserve.” “And now let’s go win one for the Gipper,” would not seem out of place!
So pervasive is this emphasis on the team and players that in the spring of 2013, during the so-called “backbench spring,” Chief Government Whip Gordon O’Conner took the team analogy to new and disturbing limits. Langley MP Mark Warawa wished to deliver a statement in the House of Commons, expressing his disappointment that his private member’s motion condemning gendercide would not be allowed to proceed to a debate. O’Connor justified denying Warawa the opportunity to speak in the House by
