On testing principles

It's obviously tempting for opposition parties to turn the recent spate of stories about difference of opinion within the Cons into a simple matter of "they're not united". But it's well worth emphasizing the substance of the issues - and particularly questioning whether the MPs who are challenging their partymates on specific issues are willing to apply the same principles elsewhere.

Most obviously, Jim Flaherty is absolutely right to recognize that income splitting represents a costly and gratuitous giveaway to a few wealthy Canadians which is aimed purely at winning votes rather than serving valid public policy goals. But the same critique applies to many of the boutique tax baubles he's introduced as finance minister.

So in addition to testing whether other Cons share Flaherty's concerns, it's also worth questioning whether Flaherty himself is prepared to apply the same standard to, say, tax-free savings accounts or politically-oriented tax expenditures. And if not, then Flaherty's standard can be applied to demonstrate his (and his party's) general fiscal irresponsibility.

And perhaps even more interesting is Deepak Obhrai's critique of Michael Chong's Reform Act. If Obhrai's experience in seeking a nomination has taught him the dangers of allowing self-interested actors to impose needless restrictions on voting in order to secure their desired outcome, then surely he should oppose the Cons' legislation which creates exactly that problem in general elections.

In both areas, there's a strong case to be made that the perceived dissenters within the Cons have arguments which deserve to be heard on the merits (and indeed which undercut some of the Cons' worst policy positions). And we'd be well served to amplify and further apply those arguments in cases where even their proponents haven't yet commented publicly - rather than implying that there would be no story if a couple of vocal MPs would shut up and get in line.

Whipped

For those who haven't yet seen Whipped, Sean Holman's documentary on party discipline in the B.C. legislature is now available through CPAC's website. And it's well worth a watch (particularly on a stormy Saturday).

But I will point out that there may be an important distinction between an elected representative speaking up about issues in a way which differs from a party's position, and actually voting against a party position on a specific bill. And we may be best served if parties and the media alike offer more leeway on the former in order to better determine when it is or isn't appropriate to limit the latter.

As Holman shows, political journalists may only serve to reinforce the perceived helplessness of individual legislators by always taking a public statement of disagreement with one's party as a sign of weak leadership.

Ideally, that could be addressed in part by a leader explicitly encouraging differences of opinion: after all, it's much harder to make the case that an action constitutes a challenge to the authority of a leader who's explicitly approved of it in advance. But either way, the media would seem to have an important role to play in treating independent thought as an expected attribute for an elected representative - not an opportunity for a gotcha moment.

Once it's time to vote on legislation, though, I can see the case for a different standard. In that respect, I have plenty of sympathy for Mike Harcourt's comments which are used as a foil to Holman's message - even if the need for solidarity on the points required to keep a party and a government functioning should be paired with a presumption of free votes on matters which aren't classified as core party policy issues or confidence votes.

In addition, I'd also see reason to address the relationship between a party's leadership and its membership - which surely has some valid role to play in setting the direction of a caucus elected under a party banner.

Ultimately, though, it's tough to disagree with Holman's conclusion that the line between party discipline and MLA independence has been drawn in the wrong place in British Columbia (among other legislative assemblies across Canada). And it'll take a shift in focus by the media, constituents and party membership alike to challenge the amount of power that's currently wielded by party leaders.

Hyer Ground

When Lise St. Denis decided last year to leave the Official Opposition to move down the opposition back benches, I noted that the most important issue was likely less her individual choice than whether it would lead to more MPs following suit. (Which of course it didn't.)

And to a large extent, the same goes for Bruce Hyer's decision to sit as an independent: the long-term effects will likely be minimal if other members facing similar choices keep working within the NDP. But it is worth noting one key background point in Hyer's decision.

It's been well noted that the one issue of caucus discipline involving Hyer took place under Nycole Turmel's interim leadership last fall. So Hyer's timing may have been less a matter of seeing anything change to his dissatisfaction under Thomas Mulcair, and more an issue of disappointment that the NDP's new leader didn't restore the party's previous stance allowing MPs to vote their conscience on the gun registry.

But it's still true that a change has indeed taken place since the last election, as MPs who campaigned on a position which was seen as consistent with party policy have found themselves facing discipline for exactly that stance. And that may be particularly important in light of Mulcair's primary leadership campaign proposal to allow for diversity of voices within the NDP.

Remember that Mulcair has (rightly) promised to encourage regional campaigns working within the party's existing policy framework in order to better address local concerns. And the leading example as to how that idea has worked in the past is...the NDP's base in Northern Ontario, which helped Hyer and a number of other MPs to get elected - in part by enabling candidates to put aside the gun registry as an issue.

Now, it could be that party members will make a decision on the gun registry that would take Hyer's stance outside the realm of party policy by 2015. But for now, Hyer's departure again highlights a question as to whether the candidates working within regional campaigns can count on the same flexibility in voting on issues after an election that they've been offered while campaigning. And Mulcair may need to clarify that point in order to encourage more regions to follow Northern Ontario's successful model.