Philpott paid price for her political conscience

Independent’s defeat reveals voters shunning integrity, Brian Bird argues.

It has always been incredibly difficult to be elected in Canada without party affiliation. But when Jane Philpott quit Justin Trudeau’s cabinet over the Snc-lavalin affair and then chose, after being ejected from the Liberal caucus, to seek re-election as an independent, many held out hope that this time would be different.

Well-liked, competent and respected, Philpott stood as good a chance as anyone — apart from her colleague Jody Wilson-raybould, who also left the Liberal fold over Snc-lavalin — to buck the electoral trend for independent parliamentarians.

On Oct. 21, those hopes did not materialize. Philpott lost her race in Markhamstouffville, just north of Toronto. She came third, behind the Conservative candidate and victorious Liberal candidate Helena Jaczek.

Philpott’s defeat is, as she put it, heartbreaking. It distressingly reveals that, in Canadian politics, unwavering loyalty to party is more valuable than acts inspired by a sense of duty and integrity. Politicians are routinely criticized for self-serving behaviour, yet the result in Markham-stouffville seems to reward the kind of behaviour by politicians so often derided by voters.

Agree or disagree with Trudeau’s approach in the Snc-lavalin affair, there is little debate that Philpott’s rejection of it was borne of a genuine and grave concern for the public interest. It is not every day that a rising star in politics voluntarily steps off the ladder supporting her meteoric ascent.

Philpott had no apparent skin in the game when it came to Snc-lavalin.

For her, it boiled down to a matter of conscience — a question of right and wrong. Her actions evoked the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said there “comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”

Philpott’s tale exposes how party politics mutes the consciences of MPS and demands that they robotically toe the party line. This brand of politics extends to the floor of the House of Commons, where strict party discipline largely bars freedom of conscience. The rarity of conscience votes in Canada, and the shrinking number of issues on which conscience votes are granted, should be cause for concern. Governance is itself a matter of conscience insofar as, we can all agree, it is about enacting laws that facilitate a just and equitable society.

For conscience to become commonplace in Canadian politics, much will have to change in our political culture. The starting point is for party leaders to grant MPS freedom of conscience without fear of partisan reprisal. MPS will continue to vote with party more often than not, but there is more to be gained than lost if our representatives are truly free to act in accordance with what they believe is the best interests of their constituents and country.

There is, amid the disappointment over Philpott, a ray of hope. Jody Wilson-raybould, the protagonist of the Snc-lavalin affair, won re-election in Vancouver-granville as an independent. It is a shame that Philpott will not return with her to Ottawa, but there is reason to believe that Wilson-raybould — who by all accounts also acted on conscience during the Snc-lavalin affair — will advocate in the next Parliament for doing politics as Philpott did in the previous one.

There can be a price to pay for acting on conscience. Jane Philpott paid a heavy price last week. When she resigned from cabinet months ago, she said there “can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.”

If ejection from public life is the usual cost of doing what one sincerely believes to be in the public interest — if our democracy is allergic to that kind of politician — the way we do politics in Canada is woefully missing the mark.