On February 8, the Liberal MNA for Louis-Hébert, Joël Lightbound, created quite a surprise by summoning the media to criticize his own government for having instrumentalized the management of the pandemic for partisan ends.
Posted yesterday at 9:00 a.m.
Rather than creating a broad consensus around health measures, the Liberal government would, according to him, have used them to attack the Conservatives, thus dividing the population. If the exit of the dissident MP is surprising, it is that it does not fit with the contemporary standards of Canadian parliamentarism, where there is strong party discipline (or “party line”).
In his mind, on the other hand, this exit is not at all opposed to a certain ideal of parliamentarism.
The Golden Age of Canadian Parliamentarism
It is common among experts to see in the first decades of existence of the Canadian federation a certain golden age of Canadian parliamentarianism, whether in the House of Commons or in the provincial legislative assemblies. On the one hand, this moment is associated with a particularly active role of the “ordinary” MP in the progress of legislative work. In fact, the very qualifier of “simple” deputy was not part of the political grammar of the time: the governments were moreover generally composed of a handful of ministers only.
On the other hand, the normative and practical force of the party line – which constrains the action of deputies within an ideological perimeter circumscribed by their political party – was much weaker than it is. became in the second half of the twentiethand century. The political forces of the day hardly aimed at offering the people a coherent program. Patronage – that is, the use of public resources to reward individuals and organizations for their financial support in elections – was much more important.
Similarly, the absence of a mass telecommunications network allowed the political elites to adjust their discourse according to the different electoral clienteles, without having to be confronted with their contradictions and without concern for consistency.
In this context, precisely, we regularly witnessed episodes where deputies did not hesitate to break with the party line, where they often criticized the action of their own government during question periods or in front of journalists. For many, this practice somehow symbolizes the golden age of parliamentarism. Because far from being subservient to a program, an ideology and the decisions taken by the leadership of their party, the deputies sought more to reconcile their partisan loyalty with their own conception of the common good, while taking into account the specific interests of citizens. to whom they owed their election as representative.
The new parliamentary standards
Any reference to a certain “golden age” contains its share of romanticism in order to criticize the “excesses” of the present. But the resulting ideal nevertheless makes it possible to operate an effective contrast with current norms and practices.
Today, the party line is an extremely powerful mechanism for managing deputies within the parliamentary contest.
Barring a rare exception, where the leader of a party will publicly announce that its MPs are “free” to vote according to their conscience on a specific issue (such as gay marriage, in 2005, or medical assistance in dying, in 2016), MPs consistently support their party’s official position.
A government based on an absolute majority of seats is thus guaranteed to win all its votes in the Commons.
Questionable in many respects, the effects of party discipline are not all negative: it does allow greater stability and predictability within our political system and, in turn, it allows voters to better distinguish political offers from different parties represent.
A simple flash or a clap of thunder?
I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that the exit of Joel Lightbound will not succeed in shaking the columns of the temple of the party line in Canada. On the other hand, this courageous gesture, especially since it was carried out according to the rules of the art and with the necessary nuances in the context of such a divisive debate, has something to reassure many about the health of our parliamentary life. This outing by the MNA for Louis-Hébert does appear to be a breath of fresh air that calls for an honest consideration of opposing political positions, without trying to demonize them. This elevates the debate, enhances the image of Parliament and counters the deleterious effects of polarization.
Unlike Joël Lightbound, Justin Trudeau certainly does not play his political future directly by “reacting” (timidly) to this dissent. With a leadership race that promises to be very divisive and destabilizing among the Conservatives, a few seasons will have to pass before it is in the interest of the opposition to seek to beat the government on a vote of confidence to trigger new general elections. But the fact remains that this is a very good opportunity for Justin Trudeau to rise above petty partisanship and, who knows, work to improve his weak historical legacy as prime minister. After all, a fortiori in the context where we invoke the Emergency Measures Acthe must not forget that he does not only govern for his militant base… but for all Canadians.