Monday, February 13, 2006

Legislating against "crossing the floor"

Alot of anger this past week over the actions of David Emerson. I can understand why Liberals would be upset, and I can understand why Conservatives would be upset. There's even an online petition being set up to encourage the Canadian Government to force Mr. Emerson to stand in a byelection. What I most enjoyed however was the day-by-day update by Mr. Garth Turner, an Ontario Conservative MP. He probably received the most publicity for his outspoken comments against Mr. Emerson's move to the Conservative government. It was even hinted that Mr. Turner might leave the Conservative party in protest. All in all, I found his blog to be quite interesting.

What interested me most of all was the growing debate over whether their should be legislation which would force anyone who switches parties to immediately have to run in a by-election in their riding. Mr. Turner is 100% in favour of this, you can read his post right here. There is some serious momentum behind this proposed law, after all, many people of all political stripes are upset with Emerson, and there is no doubt of the lingering emotions that follow the defections of Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, and Keith Martin. So with support seeming to come from all political parties, is it the right thing to do to introduce legislation effectively barring any MP from crossing the floor? I say no.

By forcing an elected official to stand for an immediate by-election in their riding, what you are effectively doing is convincing them not to switch parties at all. Why would any MP even think of crossing the floor when the repercussions would be facing an electorate when the only issue that will surface in the election is they switched parties. Not to mention how the party that the MP would switch too might not even want them, and therefore would not be willing to support them financially, and with volunteers. It would be very difficult to mount a campaign, let alone win, so why would anyone cross the floor? The answer is they wouldn't, hence, what this legislation does is ensure no one switches parties.

Is it a bad thing to ensure that floor crossing will never occur again in Canada? I say yes. What is the big wrong being committed by someone who crosses the floor to join another party? Other than hurting people's feelings, is there some key argument that can be made to explain how this is a fundamental breach of democracy? Of course there isn't. This anger emanating from the Liberal party is the same as existed from the Conservative party when Ms. Stronach defected to the Liberals, and that is people were hurt that they lost someone they considered a close friend and a member in good standing of their party. Of course it hurts when someone leaves, it hurts even more when they leave to join your bitter rival, its like if a girl-friend or boy-friend dumped you for your best friend, does it hurt? Oh yes, very much. Is it wrong? Maybe in your opinion, but the truth is that no rule was broken.

Let's break down Mr. Turner's arguments:
-"Everybody who makes up the government should be elected"- I agree, and Mr. Emerson is elected, so this point is unnecessary.

- "They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government" - This argument does not make any sense, after all, what about coalition governments? What about when the Liberals used the NDP to keep themselves in power in the last term? The people of Canada did not vote for an NDP government and yet the NDP were in a position to determine government policy. This argument is also very dangerous in that it insinuates that voters should vote for the government party if they want government representation.

-"Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it’s the other way around" - here is the core of the argument. And this statement is incorrect. You cannot pick and choose your democracy. You simply cannot say, "I like this in a democracy, but I don't like that, so lets change that." The rules of our electoral system may not be perfect, but they are better than those that anyone else has suggested to date. All MP's eventually face the people, its called an "election." To do so for the reasoning that someone disgrees with you and no longer wishes to sit in the same party is irresponsible. The second line is an extremely clever ploy to appeal to your emotion. Who doesn't read that and say "damn right, the people hold the power." Of course we hold the power, that is what democracy is all about. But remember this, we elect people to speak for us, by doing so, we give them the ability to speak for us in the best way that they know. If they believe that what they are doing is right, then I say, let them do it.

At the end of the day, when the heartbreak is over, and the hurt feelings have been mended, Mr. Emerson will again have to face the voters, it will be interesting to see what the people of Vanouver-Kingsway decide to do. I am sure many people will still be upset, which is their right, and perhaps many people will change their minds and see that he may have made the right decision after all. Maybe Mr. Emerson will be able to convince the electorate that he deserves another chance to serve them. If that happens, then not only will he need the Conservative voters, but he will also likely need many of his former Liberal voters as well. And if the people are allowed to change their support from Liberal to Conservative, MP's should be as well.

5 Comments:

At 4:14 PM, February 13, 2006, Blogger Scott Hennig said...

All of this would be a mute point if Canada had recall legislation. That way voters in every riding could petition to pull back their representative if they were unhappy with a decision or a raft of decisions made by their MP.

Not allowing floor crossing is impossible anyway. There's nothing saying that even with that legislation in place an MP wouldn't opt to vote lockstep with another party while still technically a member of different party.

As for Emerson, he still could be a Liberal MP and be a cabinet minister in a Conservative Government. He would likely be kicked out of the Liberal Party, but there's nothing saying that you have to hold a membership in a certain political party to be a member of their Cabinet.

 
At 4:37 PM, February 13, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

I just simply do not understand the big deal with floor-crossing. I mean, in an election where NDP supporters were encouraged to vote Liberal (through Buzz Hargrovem, among others), Bloc Quebecois supporters voted Conservative, and Green Party support decreased and went elsewhere, we are supposed to get upset at MP's reconsidering their allegiance? Wow, hypocritical.

It is not "politically smart" to publically state that you supported Mr. Emerson's move, especially if you live in BC, but I bet that there are many many people, businesses, and Olympic organizers who are thrilled.

 
At 11:24 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger Hasty said...

Plus fundamentally, we elect MP's not parties (or leaders). The role of an MP is to serve their constituents. In parliament, the GG asks that MP which she determines to have the best chance of succeeding to form a government. That government is a coalition of whichever members want to join. I know you guys know all this, my point is: floor-crossing legislation just would not work. Here's what the Prime Minister himself stated on the subject during the campaign: http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-did-harper-really-say-about.html#links

I can understand why people are mad. If my MP ever crossed to the Liberals, of course I would be mad. And I would work extra hard to get him un-elected. But do I think he should be not ALLOWED to cross? No.

Its sort of like a free market system where in the end, the market decides which companies/products/services are successful. In our political system , eventually the people will have their say. And to agree with a prior comment, I bet that after 2 years of having a senior cabinet minister, they'll realize that this wasn't so bad for them. And note the total lack of press whining about how this government doesn't represent Vancouver and Montreal?

One last thing: of course the NDP will mouth off about this issue. That's the luxury of never having to worry about governing. And that's another reason why I think the Prime Minister is ridiculously smart - because he had the foresight to not get caught in a popular and populist, but ultimately limiting, trap.

 
At 9:33 PM, February 15, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Recall legislation is very interesting in situations where someone may win with just over 30% of the vote, after all, the MP may easily be recalled with around 60% of the so-called "sore-loser" vote, but then easily win re-election with the exact same 32% of the vote.

I like the idea of re-call, but there must also be a balance with the electorate accpeting what happened in an election.

As for the Alberta alliance, all I can say is that the best comment I heard during an election was from a gentleman in a crowd who was watching the Alberta Alliance candidate sign a document saying he would be in favour of being recalled if he was elected, and this guy yelled out "it must be easy to sign such things when you have no chance of actually winning the election."

 
At 4:16 PM, February 16, 2006, Blogger Scott Hennig said...

They have recall legislation provincially in BC already and it's rarely used.

If I recall correctly (bad pun), only three recall petitions have ever been initiated in BC, one failed as they didn't get enough signatures in time, and two resulted in the MLA resigning before the petition drive was over.

It's like Citizens Initiative Legislation. Right now in Alberta municipalities we can force a plebiscite on any issue related to local government. How often is it used? Very rarely.

I know of only a couple. A few years ago the City of Fort Saskatchewan was trying to attach a new recreation facility to the Legion building. The Legion organized a petition drive, put the decision to a vote and voters defeated the idea.

Recall and citizens initiative won't be used every day to recall every politician or to force a vote on every issue. It's a hammer that could and should be available to the public if they (in large numbers) feel strongly their representative isn't working in their best interest.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home