Regarding the Defection of Lise St-Denis Last Week

The defection of elected NDP MP Lise St-Denis to the Liberal caucus has brought the issue of floor-crossing to the fore once again. Defections are not new. They have been part of the Westminster parliamentary system since its beginnings. In Britain former PM Churchill switched party allegiances twice during his career.

In Canadian politics provincial and federal floor-crossings usually mark a shift in the political landscape. Federally, mass defections occurred during the Conscription Crisis of 1917 during which MPs crossed between the Unionist (essentially Conservative) government and Laurier-Liberal opposition according to the parties' re-alignments of policy regarding conscription. Floor-crossings provincially, and federally, often accompany the formation of new parties. This was the case when the Bloc Québécois was formed out of defections from the Progressive Conservative and Liberal, Quebec caucuses. Provincially this situation is playing out in Quebec as members have defected from the Parti Québécois and Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ) for the newly formed (and hugely popular) Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ). Same is the case in Alberta where the new Wildrose Party has received defections from the governing Progressive Conservatives.

All of this seems justifiable on the part of the defectors; MPs and MLAs are expected to sit with the party that best fits with their political views. In the case of a realignment of the political landscape it is understandable that a sitting member may suddenly find themselves a better fit with another party. If this often happens with voters how could we not expect it to happen with those we elect?

The problem we run into with defections and floor-crossing is that they all to often seem motivated by more sinister motives. Canadians rightfully responded negatively to floor-crossings like that of Belinda Stronach in 2005 and David Emerson in 2007. In both cases the switches seemed a direct affront to democracy. Ms. Stronach, only months after running for the leadership of the Conservative Party chose to switch parties (after an election) to the Liberals so as to receive a Cabinet post. It wreaked of opportunism and clearly their was no shift in the political landscape that motivated her to do so ethically. David Emerson's floor-crossing only two weeks after an election was highly disappointing to many Conservative supporters as it represented the same disrespect for our votes that Ms. Stronach obviously had. He received a key cabinet post as a reward from Stephen Harper for his switch. Both times the issue of ethics was raised. Clearly most Canadians consider such blatant opportunism and disregard for voters as negatively impacting our democracy. Plainly, these switches are unethical.

Now we have the case of Lise St-Denise. Of course here the question of opportunism is far less clear. She left the struggling Official Opposition for the third place party whose outlook is gloomy at best. In answer to why she switched mere months after an election it becomes clear that with some foresight and actual involvement she could have found her political home sooner. She sights differences between her beliefs and NDP policy and, most tellingly, when asked how she thinks Québecers will feel she bluntly stated, “They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead.”. In other words Ms. St-Denis joined the NDP because she knew the leader was popular and thought she'd jump on the bandwagon. She disagreed with most NDP policy and knew (or if she didn't she certainly should have –when running for election one tends to consider such things–) that her political ideas and beliefs were a better fit with the Liberals. Now Jack Layton has passed away and she is crossing the floor to the party she belongs in. In her riding, by the way, the Liberals received 12% of the vote and finished in fourth place. Clearly Ms. St-Denise representing St-Maurice-Champlain is not democratic.

What does all this mean practically? Its key implications are twofold. Firstly, it indicates that the Liberals still lack understanding as to why their political fortunes have been on a continuous downwards trend in the 21^st century; they continue to show utter disregard for the people. They are a party almost intrinsically motivated by top-down management which results in decisions consistently appearing to be made out of a distrust of the average Canadian.

Secondly, it makes clear that the rules regarding defections need to change. The intent of the first half of this posting was to make clear the positive situations in which floor-crossing occurs. In Saskatchewan a law was recently passed that forces defecting MPs to sit as independents for the remainder of their term. This was a remarkably proactive policy put in place by former Premier Gary Doer. Similar legislation should be seriously considered at the federal level. The NDP has proposed that a defection automatically trigger a by-election in the affected riding. I think this is as democratic and fair as the law could be. It allows for the affected MP (or MLA) to make their case to their constituents and for voters to feel as though their vote actually counts for something.

Canadians are all too often made to feel like their vote doesn't count. Legislating a more democratic approach to defections is a remedy to this ill. I think it would be awesome if the Conservatives could work together with the NDP to see that a law on democratic reform (supposedly a passion of both parties) be passed.