Loyal to What?

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Loyalty—or the lack of it—is a crucial factor in assessing the floor-crossing of Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont to the Liberal caucus, as well as rumours of further defections in both of Canada’s two biggest political parties. While switching parties can be consequential, especially when the move affects a minority government’s ability to hang on to power, they are hardly unprecedented; more than 300 federal MPs have crossed the floor in Canada’s Parliament since 1867. The sense of betrayal among Conservatives today mirrors what Liberals expressed when David Emerson joined the Harper cabinet in 2006 immediately after being elected as a Liberal, or when Leona Alleslev left the Trudeau Liberals in 2018.

Loyalty is not just a civic virtue; it is a relational and emotional concept. Its technical opposite is disloyalty, but in real life, its opposite is betrayal. Public reactions reflect the emotional weight of feeling betrayed. This week, critics described Mr. d’Entremont as a “turncoat” and “snake,” adding a layer of moral condemnation to their reactions. Some folks even booed Mr. d’Entremont as he participated in a Remembrance Day ceremony in his riding.

But valuing loyalty in politics isn’t as simple as it might first appear. Loyal to whom, or to what? Mr. d’Entremont argues that he owed more loyalty to his constituents, his conscience, and his judgment of the Liberals’ recent budget and the Conservative leadership than to the Tories. Politics is a team sport. Mr. d’Entremont justified his party switch by arguing that the Conservatives of today weren’t the same team he originally joined as an MP in 2019 when Andrew Scheer was the leader. His critics suggest that it was driven by personal ambition and sour grapes about not securing a position he had sought. Political decisions are always complicated by multiple factors. Add to that the inevitable tension that exists between individual conviction and partisan alignment. That tension is heightened today as parties undergo major leadership shifts—Scheer to O’Toole to Poilievre, or Trudeau to Carney—which can leave MPs elected under one set of convictions and policy platform serving under very different terms. In the United States, Republicans once considered mainstream are now dismissed as “Republicans in Name Only,” or RINOs. Is the disloyalty greater when an individual legislator changes from one team to another, or when a party abandons the platform or policies in place when they joined it?

There is, within politics, a certain ordering of loyalties that is relevant to this discussion. Judging by the popular media response this week, many seem to believe that MPs betray voters when they cross the floor, arguing that anyone who does so should resign and re-run under the new party banner in a by-election. The premise is that since most voters' choice is based more on party or leader than the local representative, the voters are somehow disenfranchised when an elected member crosses the floor.

My view is different. An MP is an elected individual who owes loyalty first of all to personal character and convictions, which the voters evaluated when they elected him; then to constituents and the promises made during a campaign; then to a political party and its platform; and finally to the leader of that party. We think nothing of a party changing leaders and expecting immediate loyalty from MPs in that party, even if the new leader was not their choice. In politics, there are multiple loyalties. Our system relies on the legislator’s judgment to balance these loyalties when they collide. In every such circumstance, perspectives will inevitably differ, but that is why we put an X beside the name of an individual. As voters, we subject ourselves to the elected individual’s judgment in a representative democracy. You can agree or disagree, but balance within our system is only maintained when we respect the right of individual legislators to make that call.

Nevertheless, switching parties is and ought to remain a weighty and consequential matter that should be reserved for serious situations. It also makes sense that it will almost always evoke an intense response from partisans who feel betrayed. However, partisans need to balance that emotion with the fact that the alternative is an insistence on loyalty in all circumstances which becomes a misused tool for enforcing conformity and centralizing power. Our partisan system needs to operate on a general presumption of party loyalty. However, we elect a Parliament of representatives, and it is Parliamentary caucuses that govern how our system operates. Even so, the names of local representatives are on our ballots, and we rely on their judgment to sort through these things. Those individuals are accountable for their decisions in elections. The reactions this week to the independence of legislators seem to me to undersell the importance and respect for the individual judgment of our elected representatives.

Some partisans worry that in a Parliament where the governing party is only a few seats shy of a majority, a handful of MPs not in the major parties where votes are “whipped,” have disproportionate power. In the present situation, some have mockingly asked whether Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, as a caucus of one, should really be holding the future of the Canadian government in her hands. Indeed, when the minority Liberal government needs just two or three opposition MP votes to pass a budget, Ms. May’s vote becomes very consequential. But suggesting that this is improper is false framing. Every MP holds influence in exercising independent judgment. In ordinary circumstances, MPs exercise their influence less publicly in the caucus room, but it is a responsible check on the party leadership for MPs to have agency to break the whip and vote differently from the rest of their caucus, or even to leave the party, if they don’t feel they are being adequately heard. Blind loyalty erases individual agency, putting too much power into too few hands—typically, the leader’s office. There are 343 votes in Parliament. Just as Ms. May can wield influence in some situations, other MPs can do the same thing, especially when they work in concert with like-minded colleagues.

This week’s events were significant on their own. Yet the intensity of personal attack revealed something deeper: a continuing decline in the health of our political discourse. I think it is a strength of our system that it is the accumulated judgment of 343 MPs, and not just the decisions of three party leaders (only the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois meet the definition of a Parliamentary caucus as that requires a minimum of 12 seats) who make legislative decisions on our behalf.

Sir Winston Churchill crossed the floor twice in the British Parliament. He is credited with defending his decisions through a witty remark: “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.” His point was not only about the political skill that is required to successfully cross the floor. He also was arguing that fidelity to conviction on issues of national importance must guide action more than partisan expectation.

The principle applies today. The sage advice holds: “Let the imperative follow the indicative.” What you say must be done should flow from who you are. Identity and conviction should take precedence over party pressure. Democracy’s strengths are enhanced when we rely on the consequential judgments of many representatives and not just a few leaders.

Politics is a team sport, and loyalty matters. But before criticizing legislators who break ranks—whether we see them as brave or treacherous—we should ask: To whom or to what are they being loyal? In a political culture that increasingly demands unquestioned loyalty, the willingness of MPs to use their individual votes and consciences is not a threat but a democratic asset, regardless of one's stance on the issues themselves.

WHAT I’M READING

Regulating, Financing, and Building Major Projects

Minerals and liquified natural gas were the priority Thursday as Prime Minister Mark Carney announced more projects for the newly created Major Projects Office (MPO). New oil and gas pipelines were conspicuously missing, though, given the high-profile discussions between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and the feds. Ms. Smith remained supportive of the federal list and seemed to imply the Alberta-federal negotiations were following a different process, for which there might be an announcement soon. The MPO doesn’t treat all projects identically. Projects simply referred to it merely get a higher public profile, helping them to secure funding and putting them in the queue for fast-tracking, but the referral doesn’t achieve anything in itself. So-called “nation-building projects” are supposed to sidestep some of the regular regulatory processes. And there are also projects which have been granted federal funding (of which there was only one on the list announced this week). Industry expert Heather Exner-Pirot makes important distinctions in her conversations with The Hub, noting that efforts to date seem more focused on securing financing, not regulatory reform.

Venezuela - War or Pressure?

The American–Venezuelan conflict stems from years of tension over Venezuela’s authoritarian turn including crackdowns on political opposition, economic mismanagement, and allegations of narco-trafficking and human-rights abuses. The recent deployment of a US Navy aircraft carrier marks a significant escalation, raising the prospect not just of counter-drug actions but of pressure on the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela, complicating regional diplomacy and potentially triggering wider conflict or sanctions. This military analysis piece suggests that these moves are more likely intended to exert pressure and perhaps launch a few precision strikes, rather than an overall escalation. 

Building Houses for the “Missing Middle”

It seems like good news to read that construction of row houses, townhomes, multiplexes, and low-rise apartments has increased by 44 percent from 2023 to 2024, after only rising by 5 percent over the previous five years. The report cautions against premature celebration, noting that significant regional differences exist, with most of the growth concentrated in six of Canada's major cities, particularly in Alberta. This good news was tempered by the projections in the Ontario financial statements released this week, which had lower-than-expected projections for new housing starts.

Your Computer is Not Your Friend

Russell Moore reflects on the trend of lonely people chatting with their AI as a substitute for real friendship. It’s not accidental, Moore argues, citing a 2023 “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that affirmed, “We believe that there is no material problem—whether created by nature or by technology—that cannot be solved with more technology.” The Wall Street Journal reported on attempts by tech titans to engineer babies genetically. Moore frames the challenge, referencing the prophecies of Isaiah, in which the gods of our own making ultimately fail to live up to expectations. “The problem, Isaiah thundered, is not just that this is an offence against God but also that it fails on its own terms,” Moore writes.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Can Newspapers Still Do Their Job?

For most of my life, I have had multiple newspapers delivered to my door each morning. That has been replaced by digital subscriptions, which operate under an entirely different set of economic parameters. So this week’s Statistics Canada data was no surprise. I knew I was part of the Canadian newspaper industry’s trend toward steep structural decline. Operating revenue fell to $1.6 billion in 2024, down almost 18 percent from 2022 and more than twice the pace of the decline over the previous two years. Advertising revenue, long the financial backbone of the sector, plunged about 26 percent with print ads down more than 34 percent. Even digital ads—once a rare growth area—were down almost 12 percent. Modest gains in digital subscriptions could not offset ongoing erosion in print. It’s all part of a vicious circle as publishers respond with cost-cutting, reducing their product’s value. I was surprised to see that the industry's profit margins nudged from around two percent to just over three percent, although none of this takes into account the hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies through various programs. Precise subsidy numbers are contested and require more industry knowledge than mine, but even the lowest estimates are that they’re worth several multiples of newspapers’ profit margins. This suggests that we’ve not only lost the physical newspapers that I once relied on, but also that what’s left doesn’t have the capacity or independence to carry out the important public function this industry once served.

.

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Man of Letters

Regular readers will not be surprised that after reading The Economist’s review of the recently released book Why Q Needs U, I ordered it. I’m the sort that minds my Ps and Qs. Yes, this weekly paragraph of wordplay has become a rite, so much so that it is right that I write it with a sense of accomplishment. Just as a sentence without a period is questionable, Insights would not be perfectly proper without leaving readers with something that they can take to go. Hopefully, these puns punctuate your week like silent letters that pop into words uninvited (the psychic knows what I mean), prompting that wry smile that makes your heartbeat of wit patter just a bit faster. While words are mainly used to communicate weighty stuff, puns arrive to lighten the mood and soften the moment. Yes, they are goofy and they drag U around for no reason but when you question it, you realize that you never get a Q without a U. I am sure I’ll be better able to explain it after I read the book, but for now, that’s all she wrote.

Thanks again for reading. See you back in your inbox next Saturday morning.