Former Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont crossed the floor to join the Liberals last week.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
David Moscrop is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail.
When former Conservative Party member of Parliament Chris d’Entremont crossed the floor to join the Liberals last week, the move sparked a debate about whether the practice is consistent with the principles of democracy in Canada. The short answer is yes, though the longer answer is “it depends” – but either way, floor-crossing is not new, nor is it a grave threat to self-government in Canada as we know it.
The practice may be controversial, fit to rile up whichever party loses a member, but it is common enough. More than 300 members of Parliament have crossed the floor since 1867, with the first occurring in 1868; 80 crossings have occurred within the past 25 years. And in the coming weeks, the story about Mr. d’Entremont’s decision itself will likely blow over. Years from now, it will be, at most, a trivia answer for political wonks. Still, in the meantime, given the close seat count in the House of Commons and the budget vote, it’s drawing a lot of attention, while serving as a litmus test of hypocrisy.
If, six months from now, a Liberal were to join the Tories, the same Conservatives complaining of Mr. d’Entremont’s betrayal today would welcome their new caucus member with open arms, just as their forebears did when David Emerson left the Liberals to join Stephen Harper’s minority government in 2006, and when Leona Alleslev left Justin Trudeau’s side to join the blue team in 2018.
Shannon Proudfoot: A dramatic week that buried the budget but left the Liberals purring anyway
But above all, it reflects the reality of Canada’s system: In our federal elections, voters elect members of Parliament who are first and foremost individuals before they are party representatives. They may associate with and join any party that will have them, just as they may be dismissed from a party and just as they may sit as an independent, free of party affiliation. They may be listed on the ballot with a party affiliation, but they are elected as individuals.
Upon election to the House of Commons, members may then exercise their discretion and judgment to represent their constituents – or not – as they see fit. In this sense, crossing the floor isn’t the least bit undemocratic, since each of our 338 individual riding-level elections are meant to return a member of Parliament, not a party. If voters don’t like the floor-crossing, they can – and do – make their displeasure known at the ballot box the next time around.
Canadian voters, however, tend to cast their ballots with a party or leader in mind, rather than the candidate. Voting for an individual based on his or her party is entirely reasonable and represents a competing conception of how elections ought to work – or, at least, a competing approach to how one should evaluate ballot options and choose a candidate. With voters for whom party choice trumps individual merits, a floor-crossing might seem undemocratic, since it was a party they were, de facto, voting for, not an individual.
Nonetheless, the practice is democratic, both given the way Canadian parliamentary democracy operates and the recourse voters have to punish floor-crossers and, if they wish, the parties that receive them. Canadians are welcome to protest, write letters and vote against the receiving party.
Campbell Clark: The threat of defections that could puncture Poilievre’s swagger
Floor-crossings allow members of Parliament to exercise their judgment and represent their constituents according to their conscience. In Mr. d’Entremont’s case, he criticized the leadership of Pierre Poilievre and other senior Tories, effectively arguing that the party had left him. In a system that is increasingly built around and governed by party leaders who exercise tremendous centralized power and control, floor-crossing acts as a small check on the party head and his or her unelected courtiers. In that sense, floor-crossing as a practice is not only consistent with democracy in Canada, but a tool to empower parliamentarians against parties, leaders and the staffers who often hold more power than elected members.
The practice of floor-crossing may be abused by members who hold petty grievances or cravenly seek power, and that is a regrettable feature. But it’s not one that’s unusual in politics and it’s not immune to rebuke by voters who, one way or another, will have their say.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows and short memories alike. If we’re lucky, what will outlast the inconsistent and performative outrage of this current moment in our politics is a better understanding of how Canadian parliamentary democracy functions, and the nuances of institutional inner workings. To be forewarned is to be forearmed – and that, ultimately, is how parliamentary democracy will live on.