Wanderings – Floor crossing is not wrong or right

Last week’s federal budget should have been the primary focus of Members of Parliament in Ottawa. Instead, the budget was only one of three rings of the circus on Parliament Hill. Two of those rings had nothing to do with the minority government of Mark Carney, but rather Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre.

In the lead-up to the budget, political reporters were teeing up the usual “floor crosser” rumour stories. One reporter said there was potentially “four to six” Conservative MPs who would walk. Another said the figure was lower. Less than a day after the budget was tabled in the House, Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont left the CPC and joined the Liberals.

Another CPC MP, Matt Jeneroux, is resigning his seat. It had been rumoured that Jeneroux was going to jump ship to the Liberals too, but he chose to resign only months after being re-elected. He said in his statement that he had not been coerced. No one had asked that question before, but the inclusion of the comment leads to questions of course.

Floor crossing in Parliament is nothing new. Nearly every year there are people who join or leave a party while sitting in the legislative body they were elected to serve in. Often an elected official will leave their party to sit as an independent. This is as much a choice of conscience as it is a push out the door. Elected officials may be forced out of the party to sit in the naughty seat while being investigated, or they may not agree with their leader. All these are considered floor crossing in Canadian legislative terms, but the heinous ones are when an official changes from Liberal to Conservative, or Conservative to Liberal.

When an MP crosses the floor from opposition to government, there is usually an issue. D’Entremont decided to air some of the CPC’s alleged dirty laundry on the line. Cries of traitor are bellowed from the benches and so on.

Floor crossing is tricky because, like in this example, the MP was elected for one party, and months later is changing for another. Is it political opportunism, or legitimately an issue with party leadership that makes the MP get up and move? And should that MP have to go back to their riding and face the voters for making that choice?

Voters elect an MP using the first-past-the-post system. An archaic election system that doesn’t accurately reflect a voter’s party intent and individual candidate choice. Under other voting systems, like Mixed Member Proportional, a voter could choose the person they like, and the party they like, and both votes wouldn’t have to align. FPTP rolls it into one vote on the ballot.

Depending on the election, you may be voting for a specific candidate you like. Many still do this. There are many who have held their noses and voted for a specific candidate, despite their party affiliation, because they genuinely feel that the candidate is the right person for the job. Others may vote for party first, and in some cases hold their noses because they dislike the local candidate, but they want to see their preferred party get in. Both choices are valid.

So in the case of floor crossing, if you believe that you elect an MP to represent you and your interests and community, and they cross the floor, that MP is not wrong to do so because they are doing what they think is best for the riding. If you believe that the party is first and foremost, then your MP switching sides is the worst thing they could do – then it’s the right call. There are no right or wrong answers, because the system that we use to elect our MPs allows for this.

Floor crossing is bad, or it is good. Confused? Remember these two things: First, that elected officials are generally good people unless it’s proven otherwise. So their reasoning may really be sound – not a scheme or corrupt plot. And second, that there are some famous floor crossers who did their country well by crossing the floor. The most famous of them all, Winston Churchill in Britain – who left the Conservatives for the Liberals in 1904. He returned to the Conservatives in 1924, and except for the period from 1922-24, served in multiple governments and led that country during WWII.