Singh did the right thing forgiving Christopherson

Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s wrong-headed discipline of Hamilton MP David Christopherson has been set right. That’s a good thing.

But the fairly quick resolution of the bad decision will have the side-effect of making the underlying issue here — the lack of independence allowed to MPs in Parliament — fade quickly. That’s not such a good thing as it’s worth a robust discussion.

This all started when the highly-respected Hamilton MP voted against the rest of his party and in support of a Conservative motion condemning Liberal government’s controversial change to its Canada Summer Jobs grants requiring all groups seeking funding to sign an attestation saying that their core mandate respects rights and freedoms, including reproductive rights.

The NDP had directed all its members to vote against the bill, along with Liberal MPs. Most did that, but Christopherson argues the attestation change is exclusionary because it prevents many organizations from even applying for funding. He’s in good company. Advocacy groups, religious organizations and media pundits — including in this space — have pointed out the draconian change is unnecessarily broad and unfair, and may even violate the rights of individuals and organizations.

The Liberals have not backed down and are not likely to. Christopherson felt by voting against the motion he and his colleagues were implicitly endorsing the government’s position. He considered it a matter of conscience, even though he acknowledges he is personally

Christopherson felt by voting against the motion he and his colleagues were implicitly endorsing the government’s position.

pro-choice.

No doubt he warned the party whip — that’s the political equivalent of the town sheriff — of his intention, and he probably knew breaking ranks would land him in some degree of trouble. But Singh’s reaction was to suspend Christopherson from an important committee. Singh got serious blowback from his caucus and ultimately recognized his mistake. Good for him.

But let’s discuss the bigger picture. Christopherson was ostensibly punished for voting against his party, or at least not voting with them. In Parliament, these are referred to as “whipped votes”. That means the party whip tells members how to vote. There is often broad discussion and debate, but ultimately once the whip has ruled, the caucus is meant to fall in line.

This isn’t unique to any one party. The governing Liberals are very inflexible about whipped votes. The previous government was infamous for its intolerance of internal dissent.

Much as it would be nice to think that whipped votes are an anachronism that could be tossed aside, the reality is less rosy. They are a central part of our political system. Parties need to be able to pull their caucuses together and vote as one, exerting critical mass to make the strongest statement possible.

On the other hand, we do a great disservice to the men and women we elect to represent us when we disallow them expressing their conscience, as Christopherson did. We elect them to lead, to think, debate, express their views and the views they hear from their constituents.

They’re not machines that exist solely to service the partisan machine. And they shouldn’t face an iron fist for expressing their conscience.