Floor Crossing

There will be much wringing of hands and knashing of teeth over the crossing of Khan to the Conservative benches this morning. In the interest of full disclosure, I was of a mixed mind about both Stronach's and Emmerson's defections, but that was more of a questioning of motives than saying that floor-crossing per se is wrong.

When you go to vote, you are voting not for a party, but for an individual. The respective parties all endorse particular candidates for election as Members of Parliament (and I pray someday Senators), but in reality, it is the individual who is being elected to represent the interests of their constituents.

I disagree with anything that would prevent floor-crossing in the future. I am from the Reform wing of the party, particularly the small "d" democratic tradition. Requiring MPs to remain where they are elected means that party leaders have even more control over those MPs.

I believe that MPs need to have the right to vote based upon a variety of factors: the platform they were elected on, the platform of the party (think of David Kilgour and his personal crusade against the atrocities in Darfur, which differed from the Liberal Party for whom he ran), the wishes of his/her constituents, and ultimately, the MP's own best judgement about what is best for his/her country.

So long as party leaders can expel members from caucus for voting against the party line, a MP must have the same right to leave. And he/she should not be consigned to the purgatory that is the lot of Independent MPs. Like it or not, the House of Commons is a house of parties, and even though backbench MPs are close to powerless, unaffiliated MPs are even more so, as they miss out on committee assignments, turn in Question Period rotation, support for private members bills and motions, just to name a few items.