10 News

Crossing
the Floor

James Mangan
Team Member

ast December, the political balance
Li Alberta shifted greatly. Almost the
entirety of the Wildrose party crossed
the floor and joined the Progressive
Conservatives of Alberta. This sparked
outrage among Wildrose supporters
throughout the province. On February 9,
Ontario Conservative MP Eve Adams crossed
over to the Liberal Party. Commentators
across Canada have begun weighing whether
such action can be considered democratic.

Alberta Premier and PC leader Jim Prentice
welcomed nine Wildrose MLA’s to his
party, including (now former) Wildrose
leader Danielle Smith. Although both
parties are conservative, the Wildrose
party tends to represent the mindset of the
Reform movement that swept throughout
western Canada during the 1990s. The PC
party, on the other hand, tends to attract
the votes of comparatively moderate
conservatives. Despite their differences, the
Wildrose party expressed their intentions
through their former leader as “...a
unification of conservatives” in Alberta.

This change has increased the number
of seats in Alberta’s Legislative Assembly
to 72, well above the required number to

form a majority government. This has split
the role of Official Opposition between

the Wildrose party and the Liberal party,
with each party constituting five seats.

Outraged Wildrose supporters believe that
this “unification” is politically traitorous,
since they voted for their representatives out
of support for the Wildrose party. Wildrose
supporters voted for their representatives in
order to promote a specific policy agenda for
Alberta. Despite this sentiment, the elected
representatives who crossed the floor remain
tasked with the obligation to promote the
values and interests of their constituency.

This scenario has resulted in two
questions with national ramifications:
who are Canadians voting for, their
representatives or their parties? and do
these elected representatives have the
liberty to switch political parties?

Before tackling this question, Canadian
democracy must briefly be put into

context. In the United States, an elected
representative is considered to have a more
direct responsibility to his community

than his Canadian counterparts. However,
Americans vote for multiple representatives.
These politicians represent Americans by
region and by population. During federal
elections, Americans also vote for their

Commander-In-Chief. Canadians only
have a single vote in federal elections and
a single vote in provincial elections. In
only one vote, Canadians are asked to sum
up their values, interests, principles, and
match them not only to a representative
of their choice, but also the party in
which the representative belongs.

Despite this heaviness, there is no sanctity of
the elected representative in Canada. After
elections, it is common practice for elected
representatives to remove themselves in
order to provide a constituency for a high-
ranking party member, such as a cabinet
minister or party leader, who may not

have won in their home constituency. This
requires a by-election, but constituents are
robbed of the representative they originally
supported. The tradeoff, however, is a closer
connection to the party’s leadership.

On the other hand, a vocal party member,
who may go to extreme lengths to represent
his or her constituency, could be expelled
from their party. In such a circumstance,
the constituents retain their elected
representative, but are robbed of their
electorate’s association with the specific
party they supported. An independent
representative has the luxury to support
whichever legislation he so chooses,

but lacks any political leverage that

accompanies association with a party.

Canadians do not concern themselves with
these implied breaches of democracy. This
is because they recognize that such issues
of representation are not permanent,
since the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees an election at most
every five years. If a constituency feels
that an elected representative or a political
party has betrayed their interests or
challenged their democratic rights, they
have the option to vote them out in the
next election. This is fundamentally how
Canadians regulate their politicians.

Canadians expect their representatives to
act in their best interests, and as a result
elected representatives are given a certain
amount of liberty to cooperate with their
associated parties. This liberty, however,
includes the ability to change said political
parties. Returning to the Albertan example,
the Wildrose party has every right to
“cross the floor” and join the Progressive
Conservatives. This is not a challenge to
Canadian democracy, since they do so
recognizing that their constituents will

be voting within the next few years.

Only time will tell how and if
Canadians will react to the the
crossings in Alberta and Ontario.