The point about constrained resources really stands out. When an MP sits as an Independent, they effectively lose their voice under the Standing Orders (the rulebook for the House). I was looking at committee rosters recently. Independents are almost invisible in the actual legislative work. Crossing to a major party is often just a survival tactic to get access to the microphone again. It looks like pure opportunism to voters, but the parliamentary records show it is often the only way to get work done.
A Liberal pickup on the ordinarily impenetrable home turf: This is the *real* reason why the Conservatives are foaming at the mouth with rage right now.
Yes, and also that this brings the Libs closer to majority.
It will be fascinating to see if Jeneroux can win his riding again as a Liberal.
His 2025 result was 48.5% to the Lib 45% - closer than most AB ridings.
"Redmonton" is not a Conservative monolith like the rest of the province, electing several NDP and Lib MPs for decades.
Also, several federal ridings split the left vote which allows Conservatives to sneak up the middle.
Edm Riverbend is more of a binary riding, and will almost certainly be even more so whenever the next election happens... it's looking increasingly distant now.
Carney has made floor crossings far easier for Conservatives as Carney's Liberals are so conservative so corporate minded. This leaves the NDP more room and makes the NDP more necessary.
Obviously that is a ndp plug . . .however you want to paint PM Carney is secondary to his behaviour, personality, conduct etc he represents the best in us particularly in this moment when our survival depends on abilities not only within our borders but on the international stage. It is his character that matters, his depth of experience, his maturity and his values. That is the mirror reflection we want to see. Leadership is calling forth the best in the population. He exemplifies the best in us. We should count our lucky and reach for our better selves always.
No, it's not a pitch it's a fact. And you raise another fact -a sad fact: That personality matters more than policies. Carney is indeed far more eloquent less divisive and has a far greater understanding of the domestic and world economy than Poilievre. But that does not mean that he is not taking us further down the path of concentrating of wealth, of endless material growth on a finite planet of finite resources. The NDP must use whatever space there is to challenge the Conservative/ Liberal shared ideology/narratives.
And my implication is that there is nothing sad about that.
Because policy is fixed, but circumstances change, and then it's personality that determines how a politician responds to those changing circumstances.
Personality influences policy. To suggest that policy has some sort of primacy, as though it emerges from nothing, is naïve.
I agree with both of you, and disagree with both of you 😊
I’m a progressive liberal (not Liberal except by necessity, federally).
I think we’re very fortunate to have a level-headed, intelligent PM at this moment — even though he’s also been an enabler of neo-liberal policies both here and in 🇬🇧.
But he also wasn’t part of those neo-liberal governments — both our central Banks are arms-length — though he’s demonstrated an ability to be a (very) successful money manager for himself & for the problem class.
Absent a Jack Layton-level personality (and person of similarly deep policy thinking & integrity), there was zero chance of the NDP having any effect but to potentially hand our last election to PP le Pew. And that very nearly happened, despite an unprecedented rebound for LPC under Carney (including a lot of wishful Dippers & Greens voting for democracy.
Now that the immediate risk of MapleMAGA sedition is in check, I continue to advocate actively for electoral reform: we need Proportional Representation, specifically, to effectively eliminate the risk of a future right wing (or left wing, tbh) government takeover, as the large majority centre can hold out.
I don't think we can call this is a crossing. We need a new word for someone who resigns, not today, but in a bit, then revokes the resignation and goes to the other team. My vote is we call that a floor meandering.....
From south of the border in a strong presidential system, the compromise I suggest is you get six months on the other side of the aisle and then a by-election (if something like a no-confidence vote has not happened or a regular election is not already on the horizon). Enough time to justify your aisle-crossing to those who voted for you in your old uniform, and enough time for the old team to get a new player ready to run.
Umm...I don't think anyone in Canada (apart from Maple Magas), want to emulate the US' "strong presidential system". I suggest you find suggestions to fix your own problems.
Every time someone crosses the floor the party losing the MP reminds me of Louis in Casablanca shutting down Rick's because he's shocked there's gambling on the premises. And then he asks for his winnings... At this point I think the thing most likely to deter more floor-crossings from the Tories is that their heads may explode if they ever have to hear Pierre repeat the words, "costly Liberal majority."
I found a lot to like in this piece... statements with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is undeniable that representation is granular at the level of the individual MP regardless of the rationale each voter depends on to chose them.
As I argued in an unpublished letter, perhaps floor crossing should be mandated to avail voters of their right to meaningful representation... at least part of the time.
Yes, that's a joke... but then so is the whole institution: logically faulty, hypocritical and crazy.
Your last sentence was pessimistic... I hope!
I'm hoping our Charter Challenge will leverage the impossibility of the current institutions to help us effect much needed sufficient change.
Hope this helps.
--- --- ---
re: Crossing the floor a slap in the face to voters (that breaks faith with those who died to save democracy) -- Toronto Star letter
Hi
Pursuant to our ongoing Charter Challenge for Fair Voting the Court has argued that it is understood that "Members of Parliament are responsible to their entire constituency, including those who did not vote for them or their party."
Of course this is a logical absurdity. As Wright explains in "The Basis of Authority in Government" (1983), "This assumption is credible only if we accept the proposition that a voter can be adequately represented by a person who is a declared opponent of the policies of the candidate preferred by the voter."
However, if an elected MP crosses the floor to sit with a different party, perhaps, in one sense, they have taken the presumption of the Court seriously by representing more voters in the riding... albeit at different times over the course of a Parliament.
For instance, Michael Ma, a Conservative, was recently elected by 27,055 voters in the riding of Markham-Unionville leaving, according to Wright, some 26,000 voters without meaningful representation or legislative power in Parliament. By crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals he has, arguably, availed almost all the voters in this riding with their democratic "freedom" over the course of this Parliament. He will have represented most every voter at one time or another... at least from a party perspective.
Indeed, this is the only way in which the Court's assertion could ever be true for a typical single-member system... given, all the while, that such spot-changing Members exist in every riding.
So it would seem that letter writer Peter Caldana is left holding the wrong end of the floor-crossing stick.
Or is he?
If in our elections most every voter could elect a member who reflected their views and had the strength of their convictions necessary to stay the course, the tenuous hold on democracy delivered by our current system could be avoided.
When all is said and done, the best way to honour those who fought and died for democracy is to effect sufficient electoral reform such that most every voter gets a rep of their choosing and every rep delivers real legislative power to an equal number of voters.
The real tension is not about rules but about representation—whether MPs are expected to exercise personal judgment or strictly reflect the party banner under which they were elected.
How dare you offer a nuanced opinion! Everything should be black and white. /s
The point about constrained resources really stands out. When an MP sits as an Independent, they effectively lose their voice under the Standing Orders (the rulebook for the House). I was looking at committee rosters recently. Independents are almost invisible in the actual legislative work. Crossing to a major party is often just a survival tactic to get access to the microphone again. It looks like pure opportunism to voters, but the parliamentary records show it is often the only way to get work done.
The public fury over floor crossings is really more a sad commentary on our nation's poor political literacy.
We understand very little about how the sausage gets made in Canada, and I include myself.
Best-written analysis of floor crossing I've read anywhere.
Thanks!
In the case of Jeneroux, he is a veteran Edmonton politician who is widely respected for his conscientiousness, if not his conscience.
This crossing is a huge pickup by the Libs in Conservative heartland AB.
A Liberal pickup on the ordinarily impenetrable home turf: This is the *real* reason why the Conservatives are foaming at the mouth with rage right now.
Yes, and also that this brings the Libs closer to majority.
It will be fascinating to see if Jeneroux can win his riding again as a Liberal.
His 2025 result was 48.5% to the Lib 45% - closer than most AB ridings.
"Redmonton" is not a Conservative monolith like the rest of the province, electing several NDP and Lib MPs for decades.
Also, several federal ridings split the left vote which allows Conservatives to sneak up the middle.
Edm Riverbend is more of a binary riding, and will almost certainly be even more so whenever the next election happens... it's looking increasingly distant now.
Carney has made floor crossings far easier for Conservatives as Carney's Liberals are so conservative so corporate minded. This leaves the NDP more room and makes the NDP more necessary.
Obviously that is a ndp plug . . .however you want to paint PM Carney is secondary to his behaviour, personality, conduct etc he represents the best in us particularly in this moment when our survival depends on abilities not only within our borders but on the international stage. It is his character that matters, his depth of experience, his maturity and his values. That is the mirror reflection we want to see. Leadership is calling forth the best in the population. He exemplifies the best in us. We should count our lucky and reach for our better selves always.
No, it's not a pitch it's a fact. And you raise another fact -a sad fact: That personality matters more than policies. Carney is indeed far more eloquent less divisive and has a far greater understanding of the domestic and world economy than Poilievre. But that does not mean that he is not taking us further down the path of concentrating of wealth, of endless material growth on a finite planet of finite resources. The NDP must use whatever space there is to challenge the Conservative/ Liberal shared ideology/narratives.
Both personality *and* policy matter.
If you can't persuade people to follow, you won't get a damn thing done *anywhere*.
Of course, I never said personality doesn't matter I clearly said that it's sad personality matters more than policy.
And my implication is that there is nothing sad about that.
Because policy is fixed, but circumstances change, and then it's personality that determines how a politician responds to those changing circumstances.
Personality influences policy. To suggest that policy has some sort of primacy, as though it emerges from nothing, is naïve.
You are assuming that policies must be fixed hardened in stone rather than a general direction...
I agree with both of you, and disagree with both of you 😊
I’m a progressive liberal (not Liberal except by necessity, federally).
I think we’re very fortunate to have a level-headed, intelligent PM at this moment — even though he’s also been an enabler of neo-liberal policies both here and in 🇬🇧.
But he also wasn’t part of those neo-liberal governments — both our central Banks are arms-length — though he’s demonstrated an ability to be a (very) successful money manager for himself & for the problem class.
Absent a Jack Layton-level personality (and person of similarly deep policy thinking & integrity), there was zero chance of the NDP having any effect but to potentially hand our last election to PP le Pew. And that very nearly happened, despite an unprecedented rebound for LPC under Carney (including a lot of wishful Dippers & Greens voting for democracy.
Now that the immediate risk of MapleMAGA sedition is in check, I continue to advocate actively for electoral reform: we need Proportional Representation, specifically, to effectively eliminate the risk of a future right wing (or left wing, tbh) government takeover, as the large majority centre can hold out.
Thanks, David, for this in-depth analysis of floor crossing. It’s the best I’ve read!
This position is only defensible if we remove the parties from the ballot.
As it stands, the practical reality is we elect both an indvidual and a party
The compromise should be thus:
1. MPs can't be removed from office early for crossing
2. Parties and MPs can choose to disassociate with one another
3. If an MP crosses the floor, the MUST sit as an independent for 30 days
4. At this point, a plebiscite is held in their riding. If the people approve the crossing, it can go through
5. If they reject it, the MP remains in office, but MUST remain an Independent until the next general election.
I don't think we can call this is a crossing. We need a new word for someone who resigns, not today, but in a bit, then revokes the resignation and goes to the other team. My vote is we call that a floor meandering.....
Good read.
Have you abandoned Twitter/X for good?
From south of the border in a strong presidential system, the compromise I suggest is you get six months on the other side of the aisle and then a by-election (if something like a no-confidence vote has not happened or a regular election is not already on the horizon). Enough time to justify your aisle-crossing to those who voted for you in your old uniform, and enough time for the old team to get a new player ready to run.
Umm...I don't think anyone in Canada (apart from Maple Magas), want to emulate the US' "strong presidential system". I suggest you find suggestions to fix your own problems.
Did I say I AGREED with the strong presidential system? No. I just used that as a referent.
Second, as David knows, I've commented here before. I'm not sure if I've seen YOU here before.
Third, I know enough about politics north of the border that, were I there, I'd vote NDP.
Fourth, David's not the only Canadian Substacker I follow.
Hey, there's room for respectful discourse here, and there was nothing offensive about the suggestion.
Sometimes a room temperature glass of water is precisely the thing you need.
Every time someone crosses the floor the party losing the MP reminds me of Louis in Casablanca shutting down Rick's because he's shocked there's gambling on the premises. And then he asks for his winnings... At this point I think the thing most likely to deter more floor-crossings from the Tories is that their heads may explode if they ever have to hear Pierre repeat the words, "costly Liberal majority."
David, hi
I found a lot to like in this piece... statements with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is undeniable that representation is granular at the level of the individual MP regardless of the rationale each voter depends on to chose them.
As I argued in an unpublished letter, perhaps floor crossing should be mandated to avail voters of their right to meaningful representation... at least part of the time.
Yes, that's a joke... but then so is the whole institution: logically faulty, hypocritical and crazy.
Your last sentence was pessimistic... I hope!
I'm hoping our Charter Challenge will leverage the impossibility of the current institutions to help us effect much needed sufficient change.
Hope this helps.
--- --- ---
re: Crossing the floor a slap in the face to voters (that breaks faith with those who died to save democracy) -- Toronto Star letter
Hi
Pursuant to our ongoing Charter Challenge for Fair Voting the Court has argued that it is understood that "Members of Parliament are responsible to their entire constituency, including those who did not vote for them or their party."
Of course this is a logical absurdity. As Wright explains in "The Basis of Authority in Government" (1983), "This assumption is credible only if we accept the proposition that a voter can be adequately represented by a person who is a declared opponent of the policies of the candidate preferred by the voter."
However, if an elected MP crosses the floor to sit with a different party, perhaps, in one sense, they have taken the presumption of the Court seriously by representing more voters in the riding... albeit at different times over the course of a Parliament.
For instance, Michael Ma, a Conservative, was recently elected by 27,055 voters in the riding of Markham-Unionville leaving, according to Wright, some 26,000 voters without meaningful representation or legislative power in Parliament. By crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals he has, arguably, availed almost all the voters in this riding with their democratic "freedom" over the course of this Parliament. He will have represented most every voter at one time or another... at least from a party perspective.
Indeed, this is the only way in which the Court's assertion could ever be true for a typical single-member system... given, all the while, that such spot-changing Members exist in every riding.
So it would seem that letter writer Peter Caldana is left holding the wrong end of the floor-crossing stick.
Or is he?
If in our elections most every voter could elect a member who reflected their views and had the strength of their convictions necessary to stay the course, the tenuous hold on democracy delivered by our current system could be avoided.
When all is said and done, the best way to honour those who fought and died for democracy is to effect sufficient electoral reform such that most every voter gets a rep of their choosing and every rep delivers real legislative power to an equal number of voters.
--- --- ---
The real tension is not about rules but about representation—whether MPs are expected to exercise personal judgment or strictly reflect the party banner under which they were elected.