Conservative MP James Rajotte at a 2007 committee meeting. “MPs should not cop out and say, ‘I have to do this because some young person from some office phoned me.’ You don’t.” (CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson) CANADA

More from Don Lenihan available More fromavailable here

MPs fall into two broad camps. The ‘political types’ love the game. Issues may come and go, but for them the war is never over and politics is at least as much about the battle as the issue.

‘Policy types’, by contrast, like answers. They tend to focus on a few key issues and move up the ladder by building expertise and positions on them.

James Rajotte, the MP for Edmonton-Leduc, is in the second camp. His goal as an MP is to “influence public policy.” As the respected chair of the Finance Committee, he’s in a good position to do so — or so you’d think. Looks can be deceiving.

Long-time observers say they’ve never seen a Parliament as partisan or as controlled by the PMO. For political types, this is not all bad. You might even say that, for them, it’s good for business. There’s lots of opportunity to spar and bristle as they deliver the government’s talking points. But what about the policy types?

Last week I talked to Rajotte about what it’s like to be a backbencher in the Harper government. I started by asking about the partisan environment.

There’s good and bad partisanship, says Rajotte. While different viewpoints on issues can be helpful, personal attacks are not. “MPs need to see each other from across the aisle and say, okay, there’s an idea over there. It wasn’t my idea but it’s a pretty good idea. How can we try and incorporate it into this report?” In his experience, committees often succeed at this and, when they do, they can have a lot of influence.

It’s an old story in Ottawa — that the real work of Parliament happens in committees. But I wonder how many backbenchers still believe it. Brent Rathgeber notwithstanding, is there still enough flexibility in the system to let hardworking policy types have some real influence?

Rajotte hears this kind of skeptical talk a lot and he thinks it is misplaced. There is always a tension between a party trying to have a unified message and MPs who have their own views on the issue, he says. Balancing this is an ongoing challenge for any political party.

He recalls the days of the Canadian Alliance when “we got into a fairly bitter period of internal strife … When six or seven different messages are coming out of a party, it is confusing for the people and the media.” It was Stephen Harper who first argued that people didn’t see the Alliance as a party that was ready to govern. Rajotte thinks Harper was dead right — that a party that wants to govern needs a disciplined message.

“So how far should you take this? Is there still room for backbenchers to speak their mind?” I ask. Rajotte’s reply is blunt and surprisingly passionate.

“Yes, MPs have the authority. They can stand or not stand in the House. They can speak or not speak in the House on the topics that they wish to. It’s ultimately up to them in terms of what their own actions and their words are. So with respect to committees, if they feel something is important, they should argue that with the committee members and try to push that forward.”

There is a note of impatience in his voice (though I don’t think it is directed at me), so I push a little further: “So you’re saying this is a personal decision? If someone wants to make progress, the opportunity is there. What do you say to those who disagree?”

While Rajotte’s statements are clear, his overall message is ambiguous. I can’t decide whether he is calling on his colleagues to show some spine and speak out more often — or taunting those who say they are afraid to speak out because he thinks there is nothing to fear.

Rajotte replies: “I would ask: What do you want to do that you can’t? If it’s a cabinet decision, of course you have to respect that. But even there, if it is a ‘two-line’ voting system, this means the cabinet votes one way, but the backbench can vote another … If there is control there, then members can always stand up against that control. If someone phones you from an office and says you should do this or that, you can always say no.”

“What about the price of standing up to that kind of control?” I ask.

“What price?” questions Rajotte.

“Lots of people think you will be punished,” I say.

Rajotte hesitates: “You have to decide how important the issue is to you. What do I want to do at the end? On two-line whips there are no repercussions. And if you think there are, you have to decide whether that’s true and what you’re willing to do for that.”

He continues: “MPs should not cop out and say, ‘I have to do this because some young person from some office phoned me.’ You don’t. You’re elected by your electors, by a certain constituency, and that’s ultimately who you have to answer to.”

He concludes by recalling House Speaker Andrew Scheer’s ruling on SO31s, which he applauds as “exactly the right ruling. If MPs feel they are not allowed to speak, that gives them an avenue to do so.”

I have to pause. While Rajotte’s statements are clear, his overall message is ambiguous. I can’t decide whether he is calling on his colleagues to show some spine and speak out more often — or taunting those who say they are afraid to speak out because he thinks there is nothing to fear.

I ask him: “Given the reach of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, won’t the pressure for a consistent message eventually place backbenchers under lock and key, if it hasn’t already?” Rajotte’s answer takes me by surprise:

“Then the media are going to have to change,” he says brusquely. His voice goes calm again, and then he tells a story. Shortly after the Conservatives formed their first government, a respected journalist asked Rajotte for his view on an issue. Rajotte knew he was at odds with the minister, but offered his view anyway, emphasizing that it was just his view.

The journalist immediately phoned the minister’s office to get a reaction on the “disagreement” in caucus. Rather than presenting it as a policy discussion between two members of the caucus, the story became one of dissent in the ranks.

“I find it rich for journalists to criticize us for not speaking out,” he concludes, “and then one of our members says something different and the story is about our disagreement.”

This resolves my confusion: He really does think backbenchers are afraid to speak out. He also thinks they have a good reason to be afraid, but is calling on them to stand up for their convictions. Only, in this view, the culprits are not the 25-year olds in the PMO, but the media. Rajotte confirms this with a concluding comment:

“I think there is far less control than everyone thinks. It’s almost an imposed discipline on MPs with the message. If they go out and say something they get heralded (by the media) as rebels, rather than that there is a real discussion going on about issues. I’m not saying that MPs shouldn’t speak. I think they should go ahead and speak out on these issues — publicly or privately or both.”

It’s hard not to agree with Rajotte’s critique of “gotcha journalism,” but blaming the media for backbenchers’ fears about speaking out seems a little one-sided — more like a convenient way to avoid the uncomfortable questions about internal control. Plainly, such tensions exist and Rajotte is troubled by them — which is a good thing.

Or is it? My mind turns to Pierre Poilievre, a quintessential ‘political’ type of MP. I realize that I could never have had this conversation with him. He is a different animal, one who simply would not know how to sit down with me and openly struggle with the tension between what he believes and what he is allowed to say. His mind would be riveted on delivering the right message.

As for cabinet, the last shuffle suggests the priority is now political types, rather than issue people. Rajotte himself was rumoured to be heading for cabinet, but was passed over — again. It must have been as big a disappointment to many of his colleagues as it was to Rajotte. What message does it send to those who, like him, really care about ideas and issues?

Don Lenihan is senior associate at the Public Policy Forum in Ottawa, Canada. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery, with over 25 years of experience in the field. He is the author of numerous articles, studies and books. Don’s latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, is published by the Public Policy Forum.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.