I'm always in favour of cabinet ministers resigning on principle. At the least, it suggests to politicians they are supposed to have principles.
Today it was Michael Chong, who was Intergovernmental Affairs minister (who knew?) and cannot accept the prime minister's new views on the nationhood of Quebeckers.
But this resignation-on-principle thing creates new problems in today's context. The historical sense in resigning from cabinet was that by resigning, a minister gave up the privileges of power in order to escape the discipline of cabinet solidarity. Cabinets work collectively, and they must; if you can't agree, you must go.
But it used to be that a cabinet minister who resigned got in exchange the freedom of the backbench. The point about being in the back benches, not part of the government, was that you got to hold the government accountable.
Now, discipline weighs equally upon cabinet ministers and back benchers. Back benchers face ejection from the party for the most trivial deviations from the Line of the Boss.
I salute Michael Chong, who's doing what he must.
But what will he do as an ordinary member? In what passes for parliamentary practice in Canada, ordinary members don't seem to get to have principles at all.
