Who do politicians owe their loyalty to, their leaders, their parties, or their constituents?

That's something Nova Scotia MP Chris D'Entremont clearly had to grapple with before crossing the floor from the federal conservatives to the Liberals last month.

>> I I didn't find I was represented there.

um that that my ideals of an eastern of of a of a of a red Tory I mean quite honestly of of of trying to find ways to to find solutions and and and help your community rather than trying to oppose everything that that that's happening.

A new book no I in team party loyalty in Canadian politics says it's getting rarer for parliamentarians to break ranks even when it comes to what they say.

I sat down with two of the authors, Alex Marland, Jeruslowski, chair in trust and political leadership at Acadia University, and Jared J. Wesley, professor of political science at the University of Alberta to talk about how party discipline is shaping democracy in Canada and silencing disscent.

Alex Jared, great to see you. How are you guys doing today?

>> Hey, great. This is good to be on this program chatting with you.

>> Great to be here.

>> Alex, I'm gonna come to you. This book spells out a system of really strict party loyalty in Canada, and I'm hoping we can get a brief history here. How did we get here?

>> Oh gosh. I mean, a lot of politicians will tell you there's no political parties in the Constitution of Canada.

These things emerged. And if you think about it, whenever you're in a big group, you inevitably are going to start finding factions in little subgroups kind of emerging.

And so it makes sense that in a legislature, uh, whether it's at the federal level or in the provinces for that matter, you're going to end up having political parties emerge because people who are like-minded and have shared goals are going to want to work together and are going to be different than people who have uh different goals.

And so what happened is over time in Canada we saw that political parties started getting more and more power over time.

Uh but really it's when you saw changes in the legislature that political parties had a lot more control over uh over candidates or sorry over um parliamentarians and then eventually over candidates uh particular when party labels started appearing on ballots in the 1970s federally.

Jared, MPs are consistent not just in how they vote, uh, not in in in how they campaign and but also how they talk to media. How has message discipline evolved over time?

>> Yeah, I think there's two uh trends that that we noticed in in our research.

The first is that um like-minded people, as Alex mentioned, start to congregate within parties, but at the same time, folks that might have shared even a slightly different opinion are simply not um uh you know, offering their names up as candidates or joining the parties in the first place.

So, it becomes a a matter of self- selection.

But really things took off uh with the advent of social media.

As MPs on one hand had uh you know more access to direct communications with their constituents, parties at the same time realized the huge risk involved in that.

parties themselves as central organizations wanted to drive one narrative and and they needed to make sure from a risk perspective that their candidates weren't messaging something that would either distract or in worst case scenarios, you know, counteract some of the things that they were trying to say to voters.

And so social media was really the time when we saw this message discipline um kick in um into high gear.

>> Can you help us understand, Jared, a little bit of sort of uh the training that kind of goes into this? like when we talk about the risks that are involved, but what what are MPs being told when it comes to message discipline?

>> Well, one of the key findings and recommendations from our book is that um MPs ought not just to hear from political parties when it comes to their orientation to parliament, right?

most of the introduction that they get to to life as an MP or at the provincial level as an MLA, M&A, MHA, and all of the other acronyms, most of that orientation um beyond, you know, where the bathrooms are and and how to hire um individuals from human resources is coming from the party.

and and as a result, these folks are are being conditioned to think of not just voting in the legislature, not just drafting of li laws and reviewing of laws, but but how they communicate with each in the House and then how they communicate with their constituents.

All of that is being conditioned by parties, training people to tow the party line.

>> All right, Alex, I want to talk about um some news that made some headlines a few weeks ago when MP Chris D'Entremont crossed the floor in November. It created a media frenzy. It was a big deal. Why?

Well, I mean, I can tell you one thing that uh you know, the the floor crossing event really for us was a key moment because it very much is what our book is about, which started as a grant to study floor crossing in in Canada.

And the reason why this attracts so much attention has there's there's a few key variables that were different about Chris D'Entremont crossing the floor compared to some others that, you know, don't get a lot of attention or they flame out after maybe a day or two.

uh one was the fact that at the federal level the uh seat count is so close between the Liberals ability to have a majority government versus minorities.

So one vote can matter especially when it's coming from the conservatives who are going who are opposed to the budget going over to the other side.

Uh then of course there's just simply the nature of budget day.

Uh so there's a lot of drama around that particular day and then we get these images of Chris D'Entremont walking into the caucus room uh with the prime minister.

And so all of these things really combine for everybody to start talking about this.

And part of it is also because this is so shocking. This is seen as the ultimate treachery.

I mean we, you know, the liberals and the conservatives are positioned as almost mortal en enemies even though we know that they actually have an awful lot in common.

>> Jared, what does it do to our democracy when everything happens on such a strict party line?

Yeah, it it feeds into what political scientists call a effective polarization.

So that that's not just simply uh groups of people diverging when it comes to policy solutions or seeing themselves as being on the left and right. That that has always happened.

But what it what this hyperartisanship feeds into is a sense that the folks on the other side are not just uh adversaries to be defeated uh during elections, but they're actually enemies that need to be vanquished from from the the field of competition entirely.

And that that enemy mindset, that strong uh outgroup uh animosity creates a situation where folks that are within parties are more willing to forgive their leaders for any kind of of democratic sins and misgivings if it means keeping the other side out of power.

And so we've seen some of that on display particularly here in Alberta lately where um you know the United Conservatives have been uh I would say stretching the bounds of of liberal democracy with some of their with some of their most uh recent measures.

and the interviews when when UCP MLAs give the interviews itself because they've been they've been coached not to provide interviews or talk to constituents it's almost always uh you know their response is almost always well it's better to do this then allow the New Democrats to be in power.

And so that that's really the the dark side of hyperartisanship.

In the book, we talk about how partisansship itself is is not necessarily a bad thing for democracy. It helps to organize votes and campaigns and make things a little easier for voters to understand, but when it tips across that line into affective polarization, I think that's when we start to see warning signs.

>> Alex, uh let's get your take on that as well.

I I think that really what we're looking at is uh you know a bigger picture question for me and that is that why why is it like this in Canada? Why do we have this situation? Why do we accept it?

Why is it that if somebody does something that is you know speaking up on behalf of the people who elected them or something that's a matter of their own convictions or frankly they just see something and they think it's wrong. Why is it such a big deal?

And why is it so awful if an elected representative comes out and says something that goes against the team or goes against their leader?

You know, they're they're celebrated in some quarters as um somebody who is authentic and somebody who's a good representative and then in other ways they're treated as a maverick, as an anomaly, as somebody who absolutely has to be tamped down.

And so, you know, the broader question I would have for Canadians and uh Ontarians generally is why why do we accept this? Why does it have to be this way?

>> Alex, can you help pull the curtain back a little bit in terms of what's happening behind the scenes uh within a caucus, trying to keep everything in line?

I'm trying to when you when Jared was talking, I the first visual I got was kind of like a football team uh prepping before a game, getting everyone together, getting everyone hyp.

But in in terms of, you know, in times of conflict, uh what is what is happening in a caucus?

Well, maybe I can explain two things and they're both driven by technology that a lot of people would not know happens behind the scenes that really conditions things.

So, the first thing we hear about every now and then is the candidate vetting process that goes on uh surrounding elections and the amount of scrutiny that goes in to look into the background of people uh to get a sense of, you know, has anybody done anything that could cause embarrassment or be a distraction during the election campaign.

I I completely understand why political parties do that. They need to manage their brands and they need to control the narrative.

But at the same time, what that does is is that means that anybody who is, you know, got a reputation of being outspoken or a bit of a maverick or a bit controversial might get screened out.

And so you end up bringing in people who are told always repeat what the me uh the message of the day is, what the leader is doing. Don't cause a distraction.

Now you get elected. Now, you go into the legislature and what happens often is uh in the mornings you will get uh messages that are sent to you uh on your phone and you're checking your phone and what it says is okay here are the hot issues.

Um here are the here's the key message and here it is who's the spokesperson and you need to make sure that you are repeating those messages and if the media has anything they want to talk to you about or a constituent or whoever it might be direct them over that way.

So the whole thing is about making sure that you have a team uh united construct when it comes to messaging but that also takes away individual voice.

Want to pick up actually on the media there uh the media's role really uh Jared when an MP expresses a different opinion from their party leader. It creates this frenzy. We see the microphones. We see the scrums. Is that part of the problem?

>> Yeah. And I I don't blame uh the media, right?

I mean it it's it's part of uh you know Canadian political culture to expect parties to be cohesive and when somebody steps out of line it's seen as being um you know seen as being a a story in and of itself because it's because it's so rare.

I think um you know media outlets with the D'Entremont crossing I think honestly was a bit was a bit different in in terms of the framing um from from previous episodes.

um the media's framing around Nate Erskine-Smith's um frequent disagreements with with his party leadership uh within the Liberal caucus.

I think um the media has gotten a little bit more nuanced over time and our book actually we looked at over 3,000 different news articles related to to party defection since 1980.

And I think we have seen a shift where people are starting to appreciate the value of of independence of MPs.

Now, whe whether that translates into uh you know, the way that that people or Canadians expect their um their their parliamentarians to behave or the way that leaders and partisans do is is quite another story.

>> Alex, party leaders describe their party like a family, which also means that there are disagreements that happen uh at the dinner table, but at the end of the day, we still we still love each other. Is it a really is that a real is that really a good appropriate um description?

>> Uh it is for I mean it's not just the leaders who say it. It's a lot of parliamentarians will say it and they feel a sense of attachment like you often do when you're you're part of a tight group uh whether it's at your place of work or whether you've joined a sports team or whatever the case.

And so people who are involved in party politics from a very young age, particularly if their parents were involved or they got involved in uh you know university setting or something to that effect, it it becomes part of their identity and so they feel that they have this community that they can be part of.

Now equally it's interesting that there are a lot of people who when they leave the party because of some blow up or something they don't agree with uh they will sometimes liken it to a divorce and they will and it helps us to understand that what what's happening is in the leadup to them choosing to leave they are increasingly feeling I don't I don't belong here I'm not getting along with these people there's a period of you know you're not talking to each other the way you used to you're feeling isolated and marginalized are you definitely not getting along with the leader and you start questioning why am not even here anymore and you start thinking life is better elsewhere or you just simply have to get out of it.

So there are definitely a lot of uh family comparisons and sports comes up a lot too in terms of sports teams but the family one is probably a little stronger.

All right we have a few minutes left.

I want to get to some of these solutions and recommendations.

Uh Jared in the book you propose some of those solutions to break down the hyperartisan system.

You you mentioned one there but uh can you share a few?

Yeah, I think uh the the one that I touched on earlier I I think is is the lowhanging fruit, which is to to change the way that we orient uh parliamentarians to their jobs.

And I know uh anybody that's been to new to a job uh you know it's like drinking from a fire hose in the in the opening days and weeks.

So I I don't think this happens on day one, but I think it happens over the course of their first few years um in office.

And that that's to actually just go back to basics and tell them yes, parties are an important part of Canadian democracy, but there are bigger principles at play, right?

We we have a system of responsible government where the government of the day uh is accountable to the legislature and that means folks on both sides of the house are are responsible for holding the government to account and that means maybe sometimes uh stepping out either in caucus or in public to to call the government uh to to order, right?

Um, I think also talking to them a bit more about their role as representatives, as we talk about in the book, is is also important.

So, they don't they're not just partisan representatives.

They have to wear a bunch of different hats.

They're they're delegates on behalf of their constituents, but particularly in times of national crisis where things that happen that are unanticipated, they have to be trustees of the public good.

They have to go and deliberate as a group of parliamentarians to come to the best, you know, best outcome for all Canadians.

and wearing that delegate trustee and and partisan hat at the same time can be challenging, but it's something that that we recommend uh parliament's legislatores across the country consider.

>> Alex, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. Well, one thing we need to do is somehow find a way for political parties to agree to make it easier for independents to uh get elected and easier for independents to have access to uh their responsibilities in the legislature.

Um I think you know off top of my head there's there's four independents who have been elected as independents in provincial legislatores right now including in Ontario and Bobby uh Brady and we need more Bobby and Brady's and other independents not too many of them mind you but we just need a few in every legislature to be able to say things that political parties won't say you know one of the things that independents will say is that members of other political parties will come over to them and say can you raise this issue in the legislature because I can't

that says a

All right, gentlemen. We are going to leave it here. Fascinating Reed. Really appreciate your time and your insights.

>> Thanks for having a pleasure.

>> Thanks.