When you're talking about the words that have basically defined Canadian politics these last few years, pipeline has to be near the top.

And it's back in the headlines big time because Ottawa just signed a deal with Alberta that clears the way for an oil pipeline to the Pacific.

I'm sure you won't be too surprised to hear there has been some fallout. BC isn't thrilled. West Coast First Nations have raised some serious concerns. Alberta separatists are making noise again.

And then there was Liberal Minister Steven Gilbo. He resigned from cabinet calling this deal the last straw.

So it raises a couple of questions. Could the prime minister be handling this better? And politically, was this deal actually a smart move for Mark Carney?

Then how common is it for politicians to quit cabinet like Gilbo did or switch parties entirely like Nova Scotia MP Chris Dantramont?

He left the federal conservatives for the Liberals last month.

Is it hard now for MPs even just to speak off message? We dig into what party loyalty means in Canadian politics and why too much of it could be a problem for democracy.

This is the rundown.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith were all smiles as they signed a new energy agreement late last month.

The deal involves a new bumen pipeline to the BC coast.

But not everyone is happy. The plan is facing questions and criticism from British Columbia, First Nations environmentalists, and more.

I asked Stephanie Levitz, senior reporter for the Glob and Mail's Ottawa Bureau, about who stands to gain, who stands to lose, and what it will actually take to get this thing built.

My pleasure. I'm glad to be here.

So, the memorandum of understanding, you can almost take it in two parts.

So you can look at it and say, you know, the biggest part, the headline narrative was this idea, a commitment by both sides that there will be a new bumen pipeline that runs from Alberta to somewhere on British Columbia's north coast.

And in concert with that um the billing was you know this pipeline and the potential economic sorry the deal in providing for a pipeline also sought to address the obvious environmental concerns around a pipeline and the production of more oil the the sending and shipping of more oil.

And so in tandem the province of Alberta also agreed to a more stringent industrial carbon pricing program.

and both sides said they're going to find a way to build what they're building as the largest cap carbon capture and storage program in the world which would be in northern Alberta.

So that's the headline. There's a secondary piece of thisou which isn't getting as much attention and probably because it's less politically um complicated or you know dynamic.

and it's about computing centers for AI. It's about more electricity. They're called interties between various provinces.

And sort of other uh things that both Ottawa and Alberta have agreed to work on together.

But really the big headline grabber, the thing that's causing all sorts of political constrnation is this notion of a pipeline and what goes into that.

Sure. I mean, you know, when Justin Trudeau became prime minister, Liberal Prime Minister in 2015, and he came in to office with a very direct commitment that he was going to do more to combat climate change.

And one of the ways the Trudeau Liberal government chose to do that over the years was enacting a series of laws uh to do everything.

For example, to legislate a restriction on oil tanker traffic off the coast of British Columbia, putting in place measures like a consumer carbon price, which we all recall, an industrial carbon pricing program, regulations on electricity, regulations on oil and gas emissions.

And these were all measures really designed to drive down Canada's emissions, protect its environment in other ways. is in the case of the oil tanker ban with a long-term goal getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Enter Alberta. Enter the election of Danielle Smith. um who you know not unlike her predecessor Rachel Notley but Alberta Premier Daniel Smith really believed and argued and won government on the idea that everything the Trudeau Liberal government was doing was strangling the Alberta economy to death.

that it was irresponsible um in some cases flatout unconstitutional for the government to step in like it was stepping in because you know one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions in this country is the Alberta oil and gas industry and when you're regulating it when you're increasing the pricing when you're doing all of these things the industry recoils the industry contracts it maybe it doesn't want to invest as much it doesn't want to do other things and so that has a choking effect on the Alberta economy so that sort the stage um where things were it was a lot of of combat like you know arm-to-arm combat between Alberta and Ottawa for years

then enter Mark Carney and Mr. Carney took over from Justin Trudeau uh you know in January sorry Mr. Carney took over from Justin Trudeau earlier this year.

He promised a new approach to all sorts of things. And one of them was, you know, rebuilding relationships with Alberta by trying to find a way to support more development in the oil and gas industry while at the same time meeting Canada's climate goals.

And I mean, never have we probably seen in recent history such a 180 in political tone uh between two leaders.

I mean, every every provincial leader in this country, frankly, was was just smitten with Mr. Carney and his new approach to doing things, but none more so than Daniel Smith, who if we take, you know, from their first meeting all the way until when this memorandum of understanding was signed a week ago.

Um, you know, they're basically besties at this point. a role that you know uh Ontario Premier Doug Ford always used to say that Christopher Freeland the former finance minister deputy prime minister was his best friend was his therapist and now feels like there's some kind of romance going on between Alberta Premier Daniel Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney because he has agreed bottom line to get rid of lift suspend temporarily adjust many of the regulations that she said were poisonous to her province's economy and therefore the national economy

I want to actually talk about another relationship ship uh the assembly of first nation chiefs uh they had adopted a resolution on Wednesday to uh withdraw theou what is required of this government in terms of indigenous consultation going forward

you know it's tricky you know in the justice system and other places you know we often use the expression three strikes and you're out right and I wonder with the liberal government right now um whether they've not hit two strikes which is to say the Building Canada Act, which was the thing that legislatively lays the groundwork for something like this major Alberta pipeline, was rushed through over the objections of many indigenous communities who felt there wasn't adequate consultation that it came it was sprung on them out of nowhere.

Fast forward to this memorandum of understanding which although in the text requires consultation and a degree of buyin from the province of British Columbia from the coastal first nations or any other first nations or indigenous communities whose territories might be affected by this project.

It is baked into theou but they weren't brought along in a in a substantive way when thisou was being negotiated.

And so I guess it's by happen stance that the Assembly of First Nations is having, you know, a big meeting this week. This is very much on their agenda.

And you know, whereas theou does not I'm trying to to come up with the language. Theou doesn't lay out a okay, in order to get, you know, the consent and approval of coastal first nations or other First Nations, we are going to do X, Y, Zed, and we're going to do it over this amount of time.

It just says, "Yes, this will be done in respect of indigenous rights. Yes, there will be consultation and collaboration with First Nations.

It's worth noting that this new pipeline is also allegedly going to be co-owned by indigenous communities. I don't know who or when or how that's going to work."

So, there's elements of it built in. The problem is is you know the horse had already left the barn to borrow yet another metaphor and many first nations are saying you can't tell us how you're going to consult us later like we should have been at the table to draw this up in the first place.

Another headline of of course is that Prime Minister Mark Carney lost a a cabinet minister over this. uh help us understand what else do we know is happening uh behind closed doors in the caucus right now with with the Liberal Party.

It's interesting, you know, when Mr. Carney came in and his reputation and that of some of the folks he brought with him, namely and relevant in this instance is natural resources minister Tim Hodgson was that they were pragmatic businessmen who just wanted to get deals done, juice the economy, get things moving faster.

There was a lot of support from that from the business sector from even from within the liberal own the liberals own caucus and begrudgingly I think even from among certain opposition parties.

Fast forward to now and we see a situation where there is a tension and a clash brewing within the liberal caucus between the get it done get it done fast attitude at the top Mr. Carney Mr. Hodgson to two different parts of the Liberal caucus.

one wondering why they're not being brought along for the ride and you have a bunch of Liberal members of parliament you know elected in British Columbia as a for example in the last election who are read into thisou quite late and in a matter in a manner rather that many of them say was dismissive rude arrogant that they weren't being treated very nicely by the center or by Mr. Hodgson.

Then you have the environmentalists within this caucus, a significant enough portion of them who've now banded together to create their own environmental caucus, something they started at the outset of this parliament over concerns that Mr. Carney's commitment to previous liberal ambition on climate change wasn't there.

And you know, as witnessed by the fact on on day one, he signs away and and removes the consumer price on carbon, which many people say, you know, was going to be a very effective means at bringing down emissions.

But the point is is that within the Liberal caucus right now, I do think there are a significant number of people for whom Steve Steven Gilbo is is now the the personification of that, looking at their record, looking at what's been done so far and wondering, are we really committed to climate change, combating climate change, and what are we going to do about that? because it doesn't feel like we're doing very much.

We have about 30 seconds left. I have one last question for you. So far, we have just the framework and uh Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that the private sector will need to be involved for this project and pipeline to go forward. That's one of the things that he says, but help us understand what would it actually take to get this built.

I guess the very first important thing is that someone's got to be willing to build it.

And right now while the Alberta government is absolutely a champion of this pipeline there, there is no formal what is known now the word everyone is using is proponent.

There is not a company coming forward and saying I propose a pipeline. Here's how it's going to be built. Here is where it is going to go. Here is where it is going to you know the bumenumen in it. It will exit here. It can be shipped there. That does not exist.

This is a theoretical concept at the moment.

And that proposal has to check a number of boxes in including and again um collaboration a and a degree of consent from the government of British Columbia and absolutely some degree of support and consent from the first nations whose territories are affected by this.

Stephanie, we are definitely going to continue following this. Thank you so much and thank you for your insights.

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

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

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 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 Eye in Team: Party Loyalty in Canadian Politics says it's getting rare 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.

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

Great to be 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 in 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 how they campaign and but also how they talk to media. How has message discipline evolved over time?

Yeah, there 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 uh 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 risks 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 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 u 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 Donol 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 Donal 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 Donal walking into the caucus room uh with the prime minister.

And so all of these things really combined 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 share 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?

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 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 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 Donmont 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 Erskin 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.

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. their their 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 legislators 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 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

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