Celina Caesar-Chavannes proved her ethical muster when she quit the Liberal caucus last week. The rookie member of parliament said she did not want to cause any more grief to constituents, especially strong Liberal supporters.

The rift with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was obvious. The rift with caucus less so. But Caesar-Chavannes heard her constituents, because an attack on the leader is an attack on the team.

If Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott’s motives were pure, they would be following her lead.

It makes no sense to claim non-confidence in the government and stay in caucus. Caucus is the legislative branch of government, empowered to act on cabinet’s executive direction.

Cabinet and caucus go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

A caucus is a place where members speak freely without fear of public broadcast or leaks. Trust is an important part of building political confidence.

Opposing view: Should dissident Liberals stay in caucus? Yes

Neither former minister trusts Trudeau, and the feeling is mutual. I have received dozens of communications from Liberal caucus members who do not feel comfortable speaking freely in the presence of two members engaged in derailing their leader.

In every profession, people work with colleagues whom they may not like. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his finance minister, Paul Martin, were not exactly bosom buddies. But together they produced results.

But not being friends, and working actively to dislodge your leader, are two different things.

The Big Debate

Philpott claims there is more to come. Their ongoing whisper campaign is strengthened by their presence inside the Liberal tent. Once departed, the bleeding would be cauterized very quickly.

Canadian Liberal parliamentarians could learn from long-serving American politician Mo Udall. The self-described one-eyed Mormon Democrat from Conservative Iowa once said, “When the Democratic Party forms a firing squad, we form a circle.”

The firing squad facing Justin Trudeau is just such a circle. The leaks did not come from the opposition.

Nor did they stop with an unprecedented invitation to speak to cabinet and more than four hours of justice committee testimony. When is enough, enough?

Both women want this issue in the headlines, but refuse to avail themselves of their right to speak in Parliament, protected by privilege.

If they stayed, it wouldn’t be the first time enemies worked together. But participating in caucus involves speaking and listening, something that Wilson-Raybould does not appear to embrace.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

THE BIG DEBATE: For more opposing view columns from Toronto Star contributors, click here.

A former Vancouver riding president said they parted company because of her unbridled resistance to listen to anyone. During her parliamentary committee testimony, Wilson-Raybould produced copious notes from assistants. But she could not name a single colleague with whom she had consulted on the deferred prosecution agreement question.

The self-described truth teller did not tell the whole truth about her cabinet move to veterans affairs. The prime minister asked her to lead the dissolution of the Indian Act as minister of Indigenous services, an offer she conveniently omitted from her lengthy testimony.

The offer was subsequently compared to having Nelson Mandela administer apartheid. She is no Nelson Mandela. He embraced the challenge to dismantle apartheid. She spurned it.

Philpott’s explosive Maclean’s interview also confirmed that Wilson-Raybould did not complain to the prime minister about undue pressure.

So what is the end game?

Just last week, Wilson-Raybould penned a 684-word letter to constituents. She confirmed that she “currently” plans to run for the Liberals in the next election. This bizarre descriptor was the only Liberal mention made, even though the letter was supposed to explain her decision to stay.

Wilson-Raybould went to great lengths to explain how she was so different from other self-serving politicians who came before her, writing “I found myself in a situation I never expected to be in. I was just doing my job, and I did not expect it to become a national focus.”

That statement is a blatant lie as personal details leaked to the Globe and Mail could only have come, directly or indirectly, from her.

Philpott and Wilson-Raybould refuse to leave the caucus. Instead, from the inside, they co-ordinate a full court assault on the leader.

Another Udall aphorism outlines the difference between a cactus and a caucus. “On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside.”

This caucus must be pruned.

Sheila Copps is the former Liberal heritage minister, environment minister and deputy prime minister of Canada.

Read more about: