Open this photo in gallery:
Conservative MP Arnold Feersen listens to a speaker during a press conference in Ottawa on May 27, 2021. Adrian Wylde/The Canadian Press
The podcast interview with Conservative MP Arnold Feersen panned in the newspapers this week was as fascinating and puzzling as Cirque du Soleil: “There's lots of interesting stuff here, but what is it all about?”
To summarise, Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith has a podcast called “Uncommons” where he chats with a range of experts, media figures, party teammates and opponents.
The conversation with Viersen began with a lengthy discussion about Bill C-270, a bill aimed at curbing non-consensual online pornography. Then it expanded.
Viersen, a Conservative member, spoke about his staunch opposition to abortion (he has initiated 19 abortion petitions) and his views on same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization (he would vote against both if given the opportunity). When a Liberal colleague asked if he felt like he was wandering in the wilderness in his caucus, Viersen suggested it wasn't the solo quest that Erskine-Smith made it out to be.
“The caucus has a range of positions on just about every issue,” he said, adding, “I don't think this is a lonely fight.”
The reaction from Conservative Party leader Pierre Poirievre was swift and blunt.
“I disagree with the comments made by Arnold Feersen and the position he takes in this podcast and they do not represent the Conservative Party or my position as its leader,” he said in a statement. “If I become Prime Minister there will be no laws or regulations that restrict women's reproductive choices. Period.” Similarly, he has declared there can be no same-sex marriage amendment.
Viersen publicly retracted his statement, but his fellow lawmakers were infuriated.
So was this a bipartisan conversation aimed at understanding what our political opponents think and, as a result, why we don't have the good stuff? Or was it a cynical bear trap set against a surprisingly cooperative bear?
Feersen's office did not respond to an interview request. Erskine-Smith said the podcast conversations are business as usual, and are a wide-ranging discussion of different ideas that he finds interesting.
“We're a large party, but how does he view that, where does he stand with the caucus, and is this a lonely fight?,” Erskine-Smith said. “I actually thought that was the most interesting part of the conversation was when he said this is not a lonely fight.”
A useful person to ask these questions about is Alex Marland, the Jarislowski Professor of Trust and Political Leadership at Acadia University, who is something of a Jane Goodall of politicians explained.
What he found interesting was that with elections looming, an MP would be “stupid” enough to talk about how in a minority parliament an opposition MP had been told to keep quiet.
“This leads me to believe that the congressman would have known exactly what he was doing and that he felt so strongly about this that he made a deliberate decision to rebel against leadership,” he said.
Marland said while it's tempting to think that Poirievre's response was aimed at all Canadians, it was actually a warning to Conservative MPs and candidates that this is what happens when you freelance.
Behind the scenes, he foresees more than just being denied critical positions: Someone like Mr. Feersen who goes against the party's orders will be ostracized by his colleagues, which Mr. Marland said will lead to greater message discipline, with the caucus lining up behind the leader and creating a sense that the leader is the ultimate authority on messaging and policy.
It wasn't always this way. Marland and co-author of the upcoming book “No I in Team: Party Loyalty in Canadian Politics” make it abundantly clear that before the advent of social media, politicians were free to say all sorts of things that, for better or worse, would not be tolerated today.
Realistically, he said, we should have a parliament where people can express their views more freely, but we live in a world of powerful political parties, where everything is built around managing party reputations and a unified message.
“On the one hand, you have a much cleaner, more hygienic form of politics,” Marland said, “but the price is a loss of authenticity, and a feeling of alienation for everyone because most politicians are mouthpieces for their parties and their leaders, and they're just mouthpieces.”
Nearly 20 years ago, an enthusiastic young MP heard that journalist Paul Wells was writing a book and sought him out to offer some concrete thoughts on some of the more interesting aspects of Stephen Harper's rise to power.
“Everybody thinks he's seducing the centrists,” the congressman said. “In reality, it's a way to get the right wing to comply.”
One astute observer who pointed out that Harper had implemented a whole host of explicitly centrist policies without offending social conservatives was Pierre Poirievre.
