PM must listen to his MPS

Cabinet shuffles rarely save governments from the noose, but the one currently being contemplated by the Prime Minister may be the exception.

Senior figures in the Conservative movement are warning that unless Stephen Harper moves his House Leader, Peter Van Loan, and the Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor, more MPs will follow the unlikely rebel, Brent rathgeber, out the caucus door.

The changes must be accompanied by reforms to the way the Prime Minister’s Office treats backbenchers, according to one former Cabinet minister. And the Prime Minister needs to draw into his inner circle people who are prepared to tell him things he may not want to hear. The departure of Nigel Wright removed the last person sitting around the PMO morning meeting table who remembers the first Quebec referendum, the Cold War and disco.

People who were involved in building the present-day Conservative Party say they have watched in horror as that coalition threatens to unravel.

This is not a battle over ideology or policy. rather, according to both current and former members of caucus, the backbench is a cauldron of seething resentment because of sheer, bloody mismanagement — “a growing, dictatorial ‘ PMO knows best’ attitude.”

Mr. rathgeber has always been his own man and has previously butted heads with “the centre.” But, according to his own version of events, on this occasion he tried to play nice by compromising on the salary disclosure benchmark level in his private members’ bill, which proposed to make public a “sunshine list” of top earners in the public service.

His departure from caucus was prompted by the Conservative-dominated Ethics Committee’s decision to unilaterally raise that disclosure level once more, to a level that would have captured all but a few Crown corporation heads.

Party veterans say this crosses a line. Very few private members’ bills become votable, far less receive royal Asset. Between 2004-11, only 1.3% made it into law — between 19451993, just 127 privately sponsored bills became law, and just 31 of those did not deal with name changes to constituencies.

Eight private bills have passed into law since the Conservatives won their majority two years ago, including one to increase public awareness about epilepsy from Liberal Geoff regan, which suggests the government is aware of their capacity as a safety valve for members.

But they have an importance beyond their success rate, because they help push the public agenda — they sometimes find their way into subsequent government legislation; they can encourage government departments to adjust their behaviour; and they offer the oxygen of publicity for interest groups.

As such they are guarded jealously by MPs. It is considered “unparliamentary” for the House, far less the MP’s own party, to amend legislation without the approval of the sponsoring MP.

Members can be told before caucus that their party doesn’t support the proposed legislation and, if they persist, that the leadership will urge its backbenchers to vote against it. But a number of Conservative MPs say they are mortified at the unprecedented step of malleable Conser vatives on the Ethics Committee amending Mr. rathgeber’s bill against his wishes.

The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Mr. O’Connor, a former brigadier-general used to his orders being obeyed without question, and Mr. Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.” But they are merely the enablers of a command and control structure where the word is written by the Great Helmsman and interpreted by the cadre of youthful Blue Guards in his office.

For Conservatives who joined a party founded on “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions,” recent developments have proven shocking.

There is a legitimate sense of disillusionment — particularly since a good number of backbenchers feel the party’s recent travails such as the Senate scandal have common roots with the rathgeber defection.

The caucus is not feeling the love from the Prime Minister, who now seems to believe a good number of his MPs are on his enemies list because they won’t give him their unconditional support in all circumstances.

Mr. Harper has indicated he will shuffle his Cabinet this summer. If he moves his Chief Whip and House Leader, it will be grasped as an olive branch by the backbench, most of whom appear to have no desire to either leave caucus or replace the Prime Minister.

But if he leaves Messrs. O’Connor and Van Loan in situ, and for good measure replaces his popular Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, who has indicated he would like to stay in his job until the next election, it suggests things may not end happily for the Conservatives.

Mr. Harper doesn’t like being pushed into anything, but such a course of action would send the message that if the party is going to go over the cliff, he intends to be in the driver’s seat, Thelma and Louise-style.