Political parties aren't part of or even named in the Canadian Constitution, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. We already grant political partisans far too much influence over major decisions in this country. As this column suggests, Canadians need to put more effort into figuring out *who* they want representing them, not just picking the candidate with a particular party behind their name. It's also great to have that opportunity: it allows voters to reject loathsome partisan figures who are popular within a party. In many proportional representation systems, those people keep getting elected because they're picked from a party list.
Floor crossing in a Westminster style parliament can be defended on the basis that elected representatives are meant to exercise independent judgment, not simply act as agents of their party. As Ms. Van Geyn points out, this idea is rooted in the thinking of Edmund Burke, who argued that a representative owes constituents their reasoned judgment rather than blind obedience. If a party shifts its platform, breaks commitments, or adopts positions that conflict with an MP’s principles, crossing the floor can be seen not as betrayal but as a fulfillment of that representative duty.
It also serves as a check on party leadership. Modern Westminster systems concentrate significant power in leaders and central organizations, enforced through strict party discipline. Floor crossing remains one of the few meaningful constraints on that power, a last resort for MPs or MPPs when internal dissent fails and caucus concerns are ignored. Historically in Canada, leaders were expected to maintain the confidence of their caucus and persuade rather than command. As power has become more centralized, the ability of members to act independently has diminished, making floor crossing one of the few remaining tools to reassert accountability.
Floor crossing also allows Parliament to respond to changing political realities between elections. Parties evolve, leadership priorities shift, and new issues emerge. Rather than freezing representation until the next vote, it allows the composition of the House to adjust in real time. In some cases, MPs may reasonably conclude that another party is better positioned to represent their constituents’ interests, making the decision less about opportunism and more about maintaining alignment with those who elected them.
In Canada, while floor crossing is not new, it has rarely played such a visible role in altering the effective strength of a government. Individual defections have typically helped minorities survive rather than move toward a working majority. The recent pattern stands out because of its cumulative impact on parliamentary arithmetic. However, that does not change the underlying principles of the Westminster system, in which governments are formed from the confidence of the House as it exists at any given time, not frozen at the results of the last election.
Public reaction, however, is often partisan. Defections that benefit one’s own side are minimized or defended, while those that strengthen opponents are condemned. In Canada, criticism has been louder when crossings bolster a Liberal government, while similar moves that reinforced Stephen Harper’s Conservatives generally produced less sustained outrage in conservative leaning circles. The principle invoked, democratic legitimacy, is often consistent, but the intensity of concern is not.
The claim that voters “did not vote for a Liberal majority” reflects a misunderstanding of the system. Canadians elect individual MPs, not a fixed national government. The balance of the House can legitimately evolve between elections, and when MPs change affiliation, that balance changes with them. That is inherent to Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Other Westminster systems have seen this dynamic even more clearly. In the United Kingdom, for example, defections have directly affected whether governments could maintain a working majority. Across the broader tradition, such shifts have at times determined whether governments survive or fall.
Ultimately, the case for floor crossing rests on a choice about the nature of representation. If MPs are independent representatives, accountable to their constituents and their own judgment, then floor crossing is a legitimate, if rare, expression of that role. In that sense, it is not a flaw in the system, but one of the mechanisms that keeps it responsive and accountable.
> If a party shifts its platform, breaks commitments, or adopts positions that conflict with an MP’s principles, crossing the floor can be seen not as betrayal but as a fulfillment of that representative duty.
Or the party leader turns out to be ... "less than expected".
> it has rarely played such a visible role in altering the effective strength of a government
I'd say it hasn't played much of a role in altering the **effective** strength of *this* government either. A theoretical possibility of bringing down the government that isn't going to actually happen doesn't really change the effective strength, only the theoretical strength. I could be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Carney's government was falling until he decided to pull the plug. Whether I like it or not, things were and are very much in his favour.
If it case of fraudulent representation, or a case to return donated money to the party it was intended for I disagree. The voters who worked on the campaigns and the donors who donated to a specific party deserve recourse from these members. Un less the candidate can demonstrate that he or she would have won regardless of party affiliation a fraud was perpetrated. Donating to a political campaign is not the same as investing where there is risk of loss. You donate and work on campaigns because you believe in the values of that party and that candidate representing that party.
Or, you believe in that candidate and their values, who have been elected to exercise their judgment, not simply act as a fixed extension of a party label. In a Westminster system, the seat belongs to the member, not the party, and their responsibility is ultimately to their constituents and their conscience, even when that leads them to leave the party under which they were elected.
The idea that 'we didn't vote for a Liberal majority' is ludicrous. Its a win or lose proposition. If you want the Liberals to lead parliament you vote for the Liberal candidate, if you want the Conservatives to lead, same thing. I can't get my head around the magical thinking that someone would go to a polling station and vote to lose - who would they vote for to achieve that result? If they wanted that, why didn't they vote NDP to split the vote on the left? Its such weird reasoning, and maybe sour grapes???
You're getting letters from whining Conservatives who hate that it happened to them. I think the notion that we vote for the person is a long-dead idea....the government is run out of the PMO; Chretien being when that reality became obvious. I vote party and leader, and have for decades. I still think crossing the floor is a betrayal of voters who think as I do, and should require a by-election. That won't happen because both sides are fearful of closing a loophole they might benefit from.....the same reason that FPP is here to stay, dubiously democratic as it is.
I've asked this question before, but how would you require it?
"Oh don't worry man.. I haven't crossed the floor... I just vote with the government because they make a really good case every time. And yeah, sure, I get invited to their caucus meetings... but that's because I want to represent a good conservative case in the LPC meetings! ... And yes, I'm in a minister in cabinet, but that's because that's because this is now a coalition government with CPC and LPC leadership... you know what? I am offended that you would even suggest I've crossed the floor when you should be thanking me for making this government a conservative one!"
So how would you prevent floor crossings? I mean, in real practical terms... how would you stop it from happening?
There are ways... and they all come with implications that people will like much, much less than floor crossing.
Political parties aren't part of or even named in the Canadian Constitution, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. We already grant political partisans far too much influence over major decisions in this country. As this column suggests, Canadians need to put more effort into figuring out *who* they want representing them, not just picking the candidate with a particular party behind their name. It's also great to have that opportunity: it allows voters to reject loathsome partisan figures who are popular within a party. In many proportional representation systems, those people keep getting elected because they're picked from a party list.
Music to my ears, my friend!
What an excellent, well-researched and well-reasoned argument. Thank you.
Floor crossing in a Westminster style parliament can be defended on the basis that elected representatives are meant to exercise independent judgment, not simply act as agents of their party. As Ms. Van Geyn points out, this idea is rooted in the thinking of Edmund Burke, who argued that a representative owes constituents their reasoned judgment rather than blind obedience. If a party shifts its platform, breaks commitments, or adopts positions that conflict with an MP’s principles, crossing the floor can be seen not as betrayal but as a fulfillment of that representative duty.
It also serves as a check on party leadership. Modern Westminster systems concentrate significant power in leaders and central organizations, enforced through strict party discipline. Floor crossing remains one of the few meaningful constraints on that power, a last resort for MPs or MPPs when internal dissent fails and caucus concerns are ignored. Historically in Canada, leaders were expected to maintain the confidence of their caucus and persuade rather than command. As power has become more centralized, the ability of members to act independently has diminished, making floor crossing one of the few remaining tools to reassert accountability.
Floor crossing also allows Parliament to respond to changing political realities between elections. Parties evolve, leadership priorities shift, and new issues emerge. Rather than freezing representation until the next vote, it allows the composition of the House to adjust in real time. In some cases, MPs may reasonably conclude that another party is better positioned to represent their constituents’ interests, making the decision less about opportunism and more about maintaining alignment with those who elected them.
In Canada, while floor crossing is not new, it has rarely played such a visible role in altering the effective strength of a government. Individual defections have typically helped minorities survive rather than move toward a working majority. The recent pattern stands out because of its cumulative impact on parliamentary arithmetic. However, that does not change the underlying principles of the Westminster system, in which governments are formed from the confidence of the House as it exists at any given time, not frozen at the results of the last election.
Public reaction, however, is often partisan. Defections that benefit one’s own side are minimized or defended, while those that strengthen opponents are condemned. In Canada, criticism has been louder when crossings bolster a Liberal government, while similar moves that reinforced Stephen Harper’s Conservatives generally produced less sustained outrage in conservative leaning circles. The principle invoked, democratic legitimacy, is often consistent, but the intensity of concern is not.
The claim that voters “did not vote for a Liberal majority” reflects a misunderstanding of the system. Canadians elect individual MPs, not a fixed national government. The balance of the House can legitimately evolve between elections, and when MPs change affiliation, that balance changes with them. That is inherent to Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Other Westminster systems have seen this dynamic even more clearly. In the United Kingdom, for example, defections have directly affected whether governments could maintain a working majority. Across the broader tradition, such shifts have at times determined whether governments survive or fall.
Ultimately, the case for floor crossing rests on a choice about the nature of representation. If MPs are independent representatives, accountable to their constituents and their own judgment, then floor crossing is a legitimate, if rare, expression of that role. In that sense, it is not a flaw in the system, but one of the mechanisms that keeps it responsive and accountable.
> If a party shifts its platform, breaks commitments, or adopts positions that conflict with an MP’s principles, crossing the floor can be seen not as betrayal but as a fulfillment of that representative duty.
Or the party leader turns out to be ... "less than expected".
> it has rarely played such a visible role in altering the effective strength of a government
I'd say it hasn't played much of a role in altering the **effective** strength of *this* government either. A theoretical possibility of bringing down the government that isn't going to actually happen doesn't really change the effective strength, only the theoretical strength. I could be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Carney's government was falling until he decided to pull the plug. Whether I like it or not, things were and are very much in his favour.
For me, I'm hearing mostly the bonkers price of gas from folks. What are you hearing?
If it case of fraudulent representation, or a case to return donated money to the party it was intended for I disagree. The voters who worked on the campaigns and the donors who donated to a specific party deserve recourse from these members. Un less the candidate can demonstrate that he or she would have won regardless of party affiliation a fraud was perpetrated. Donating to a political campaign is not the same as investing where there is risk of loss. You donate and work on campaigns because you believe in the values of that party and that candidate representing that party.
Or, you believe in that candidate and their values, who have been elected to exercise their judgment, not simply act as a fixed extension of a party label. In a Westminster system, the seat belongs to the member, not the party, and their responsibility is ultimately to their constituents and their conscience, even when that leads them to leave the party under which they were elected.
The idea that 'we didn't vote for a Liberal majority' is ludicrous. Its a win or lose proposition. If you want the Liberals to lead parliament you vote for the Liberal candidate, if you want the Conservatives to lead, same thing. I can't get my head around the magical thinking that someone would go to a polling station and vote to lose - who would they vote for to achieve that result? If they wanted that, why didn't they vote NDP to split the vote on the left? Its such weird reasoning, and maybe sour grapes???
You're getting letters from whining Conservatives who hate that it happened to them. I think the notion that we vote for the person is a long-dead idea....the government is run out of the PMO; Chretien being when that reality became obvious. I vote party and leader, and have for decades. I still think crossing the floor is a betrayal of voters who think as I do, and should require a by-election. That won't happen because both sides are fearful of closing a loophole they might benefit from.....the same reason that FPP is here to stay, dubiously democratic as it is.
I've asked this question before, but how would you require it?
"Oh don't worry man.. I haven't crossed the floor... I just vote with the government because they make a really good case every time. And yeah, sure, I get invited to their caucus meetings... but that's because I want to represent a good conservative case in the LPC meetings! ... And yes, I'm in a minister in cabinet, but that's because that's because this is now a coalition government with CPC and LPC leadership... you know what? I am offended that you would even suggest I've crossed the floor when you should be thanking me for making this government a conservative one!"
So how would you prevent floor crossings? I mean, in real practical terms... how would you stop it from happening?
There are ways... and they all come with implications that people will like much, much less than floor crossing.