By Arthur Weinreb
Monday, July 2, 2007
Crossing the floor to sit as a member of another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch party allegiances on more than one occasion.
This practice used to be unusual and grabbed a lot of attention even when the MP was not high profile as Belinda Stronach was or the act was not dubious as in the case of David Emerson who was sworn into the Conservative cabinet in what seemed like mere moments after being re-elected as a Liberal. Floor crossing is now becoming so common and routine that when the latest MP made the trek, Joe Comuzzi, it barely caused a ripple. Comuzzi joined the Conservatives three months after being booted out of the Liberal caucus for supporting the Harper government's budget. Attention is paid to those now crossing the floor, only to the extent to how the numbers of members in the various parties can affect future votes that can make or break the current minority government.
The ease to which MPs now seem able and willing to change political parties points to one thing. Despite the perceptions that Stphane Dion is a cross between Karl Marx and David Suzuki and that Stephen Harper is a dangerous right wing extremist who hangs out with, you know, "those people", Christian evangelicals, the reality is that there is not a lot of difference between Canada's two major political parties.
But crossing the floor can be good for Canadians and good for democracy. The concept of members acting like a trained seal who jump at commands issued by their party's leadership, a practice formerly associated with the Liberals but now entrenched in the Conservative Party of Canada, can be minimized. The reality is that MPs in all political parties vote yea when told to vote yea and nay when told to vote nay. One wrong move and it's out the caucus door they go.
Canadians don't want to hear this but the U.S. congressional system is far superior to ours in terms of the representation that members of Congress can provide to their constituents. If farmers in Iowa have a problem they can go to their members of Congress and their Senators. If their elected representatives agree with them, they can fight for what their constituents want. It doesn't matter whether the particular lawmaker is a Republican or a Democrat; nor does it matter which party has the majority in Congress or the Senate or which party is in power in the White House. We have just seen a good example of how Republican Senators defied the White House and their own political leadership to vote down the so-called "Amnesty Bill" that they believed was what their constituents wanted. And it doesn't matter if they voted the way they did just in anticipation of the next election.
If farmers in Alberta are faced with the same problem, they can go and see their elected representatives. But the similarities stop there. The worst case scenario is if the particular MP happens to be a government backbencher. If what the farmers are asking for does not fit into current government policy, their MP can do nothing about it. All he or she can do is raise the matter in caucus and then undoubtedly be told to shut up or else forget about any hope of consideration in a future cabinet shuffle.
Perhaps frequent floor crossings or even the threat of taking that walk will make our system of government a little more democratic and allow MPs more flexibility in acting for their constituents. But no one should hold their breath; if this party jumping becomes more common in the future, the only concrete result will be that overtaxed Canadians will have to fork over more money to replace the badly worn carpet on the House of Commons floor.
Pierre Trudeau once said that when MPs got 50 yards away from Parliament Hill they were nobodies. But that was almost 40 years ago; they are now nobodies even when they sit in the House and vote on issues of the day. Perhaps going back and forth across the floor will help change that.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement