Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

[Lotuslander]

JomZ wrote:

The fact of the matter is that when you vote you take into account the person and the party they represent. Its kind of a mish-mash of all perspectives. It is also a testament to the character of a person who stands by what the electorate felt was their party. Only opportunists abandon after the going gets rough.

I am not saying that one should not take the party into account and you are quite right to acknowledge that many different factors go into ones reasoning of who they should vote for. However, for too long parties have dominated politics in this country and individual MPs are forced to tow the party line on far too many issues of minor importance to the government. The emphasis has become skewed too far inthe direction of the party or partisan politics so much so that in most cases, David Emerson not being a particularly good example, people exclusively vote for a party not a person. Which is an aberration of how the system and process work and shows quite frankly that much work is need to educate the electorate.

I feel utter disdain for those who would only vote NDP or Tory or Liberal for they are truly closed minded. As if any political party holds a philosophy by itself or is a entity of free will. At the end of the day people should vote for the candidate who they think will do the best job, whether he/she be part of government or opposition. Parties are made up of people and their philosophy can change just as quickly a personal philosophy can. Politics is always changing nad must reflect constant new realities.

As for Emerson being an opportunist I think the title is unwarranted. It was Harper after all who sought out Emerson not the other way around. Those who truly voted for the man would have known that David Emerson would not have found satisfaction in his allotted one question per week. They would have also discerned that his rather inflamatory late campaign speeches were more bark than bite. Some of the word spitted form his mouth were rather inflamatory for a man who once worked as Bill van der Zalm's right hand man. What ever Mr. Emerson might be he is not an advocate for the poor and down trodden. I suppose labelling Emerson an opportunist or not really dependes on what one thinks his motives are for crossing the floor. It is true that he has always maintained that he is not a strong partisan, which is quite different from identifying oneself wholly with a particular party or philosophy. If he left the Grits out of purely noble reasons of better governance, strong British Columbian representation and a stronger country then he is surely selfless and not an opportunist. If he joined the Tories simply to keep the chauffeur then his highmindedness obviously is called into question.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

"Now, all of that being said, I do strongly dislike this, because I'm against people crossing the floor."

Fair enough. You have the right to like or dislike what you want.

When you vote for a candidate in your riding, you're not voting for just a candidate - you're voting for the candidate, the party, and the party leader.

If I do that, and my candidate changes party, then it's my fault for not having informed myself of the laws of Canada as a citizen ought to. According to law, I'm voting for the candidate, not the party he represents. Now if we don't like that, we could of course change to PR elections. But until that happens, we have a responsibility to respect the law and vote for the candidate. The candidate thus has the same basic human right of association as any otehr Canadian does, even after being elected. In parliament likewise, candidates, not parties, vote, one man one vote. If someone switches from Lib to Con or vice versa, that just signifies that he's either a leftist conservative or a rightist liberal who probably doesn't fit neatly into either party. So let him switch as he likes.

Sometimes the candidate may be the most important factor, but often it's not.

Eitehr way, it's the citizen's democratic duty to be aware that legally he's voting for the candidate, not the party.

Many here have speculated that Emerson wouldn't win if he was running as a Conservative. That's quite possibly true. If Peter Kent had ran for the Liberals in the GTA, he would have won in a landslide. If Anne McLellan was a life-long Tory, she would have owned her seat in Alberta. Come on - we all know it's true. Party affiliation is often much more important in voter's minds than the actual riding candidate.

Then this just shows that the educations system has failed to teach the political system and how it works properly. Students in highschool ought to be aware that Canada doesn't have a PR system.

I am disappointed in Harper here (moreso with the Fortier Cabinet appointment actually - I really hate that move, and can honestly say that I would NOT have done that if I was in Harper's shoes; I'm honestly not sure what I would have done if Emerson came asking me for a cabinet position in return for crossing the floor).

I see absolutely nothing unethical whatsoever with what he did. If he wanted to give the post to an independant or a liberal who would even remain part of the other party, even that would be his right.

So... unlike Liberal supporters who refuse to admit wrong-doing over the Dingwall situation, I'm willing to admit when the party I voted for is wrong. Harper is wrong here - on principle with Emerson (though pragmatically, I see why he did what he did) - and both in principle, AND pragmatically, on Fortier (I may have more to say on that later).

If anything, I tend to sympathise with the left (I even used to be a member of teh NDP at one point) but I still see nothing unethical with what Harper did here.

 

[FiveParadox]

But until that happens, we have a responsibility to respect the law and vote for the candidate. The candidate thus has the same basic human right of association as any otehr Canadian does, even after being elected. In parliament likewise, candidates, not parties, vote, one man one vote.

You raise an interesting point, Machjo; if the House of Commons were to legislate against crossing the floor, if that law were challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada, then would it be struck down in violation of the right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to freedom of association?

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

But until that happens, we have a responsibility to respect the law and vote for the candidate. The candidate thus has the same basic human right of association as any otehr Canadian does, even after being elected. In parliament likewise, candidates, not parties, vote, one man one vote.

You raise an interesting point, Machjo; if the House of Commons were to legislate against crossing the floor, if that law were challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada, then would it be struck down in violation of the right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to freedom of association?

I suspect it would be. Technically, Canada has a first past the post system. Yes it does officially recognise registered parties with so many seats in parliament, caucus, etc (God knows why!), but still at the end of the day, it does recognise that we voted for the candidate and not his party. And we vote based on the assumption that we understand this and that we also understand that even after having been elected, an MP is still entitled to every fundamental human right accorded by law as any other citizen of the country, and that includes freedom of association. If a voter chose to vote for a candidate based on the assumption that he would somehow lose this fundamental human right, than that is the fault of the voter for his ignorance of the political system and the charter of human rights.

 

[Machjo]

I think the only way to make the law you are recommending legal, Paradox, would be if we changed to a PR system whereby the MP is in due to votes for his party rather than for himself.

This would mean that each party would be entitled to so many seats, and it would be up to each party to decide who would hold those seats.

And even then, the MP could still change party as per his fundamental human rights, but it would be up to the new party to decide whether or not he gets to keep a seat in parliament or loses it. So he would still have that right, except that his seat would then be in the hands of his party rather than those of his constituents.

In the current system, since constituents vote for the candidate rather than the party, his party affiliation thus has no bearing whatsoever on his seat, with his constituents being the sole deciders of whether or not he gets to keep it, unless of course he ought to commit a felony. but then that's a matter for another debate.

 

[#juan]

Mackjo wrote:In the current system, since constituents vote for the candidate rather than the party, his party affiliation thus has no bearing whatsoever on his seat, with his constituents being the sole deciders of whether or not he gets to keep it, unless of course he ought to commit a felony. but then that's a matter for another debate.

Not quite true. If I vote for a particular candidate, it is because I agree, or mostly agree with the platform of the party he is representing. If, after an election, my candidate suddenly decides to change parties and join a party whom I didn't vote for because of their platform, I want a re-election, plain and simple.

 

[Machjo]

Not quite true. If I vote for a particular candidate, it is because I agree, or mostly agree with the platform of the party he is representing. If, after an election, my candidate suddenly decides to change parties and join a party whom I didn't vote for because of their platform, I want a re-election, plain and simple.

You want it, but taht's not what the law says. I'm arguing neither in favour nor in opposition to PR, since that is not the point of this thread anyway.

What I''m saying is that under the current laws, it is a firstpastthepost system. I personally vote for the candidate with no bearing on his party. So if I vote for a candidate with no care for his party affiliation, why should I have to run to the polls every three months because he's had a fallout with his party?

Now if we wanted to change to a PR system (I personally like voting candidate rather than party, but that's another matter there), then it would be a different story. but until we do switch tosuch a system, it's candidate and that's it. His party affiliation is his own private business. He doesn't even need to tell us whether or not he's a member of any party because tht's not even our business anyway,that's his private life technically.

 

[Lotuslander]

machjo wrote:

I suspect it would be. Technically, Canada has a first past the post system. Yes it does officially recognise registered parties with so many seats in parliament, caucus, etc (God knows why!), but still at the end of the day, it does recognise that we voted for the candidate and not his party. And we vote based on the assumption that we understand this and that we also understand that even after having been elected, an MP is still entitled to every fundamental human right accorded by law as any other citizen of the country, and that includes freedom of association. If a voter chose to vote for a candidate based on the assumption that he would somehow lose this fundamental human right, than that is the fault of the voter for his ignorance of the political system and the charter of human rights.

I don't want to be argumentative or overly critical but I have a different take on this question, though I think Machjo raises some good points.

I personally think that the law on floor crosssing would not be struck down. Historically the Courts have given Parliament exclusive purvey over their own affairs of whichI beleive this law would fall under. This is one reason why regular laws of slander and free speech are not enforced inside the House of Commons, people usually refer to this as parliamentary immunity. In fact the House of Commons, Senate and all Legislative Chambers are technically Courts and therefore they have supreme authority over their own domain which in most cases is exclusively administered by the Speaker. Only the Speaker has the power to censure or bar parliamentarians from the Chamber. Although Parliamentary supremacy is more tempered in this couintry than in the UK, New Zealand or Australia, I believe statutes which only affect internal adminstration of these Chambers could not be struck down by the Courts because of that long-standing parliamentary and constitutional convention of Parliamentary supremacy.

Andrew Heard a poli-sci prof at SFU often writes about similar topics for any and all who are interested.

 

[FiveParadox]

Parliamentary Privilege

If a Member of Parliament, however, were to challenge any such measure before the Supreme Court of Canada, would the Justices dismiss the case, or hear it to completion and make a judgement?

One must keep in mind that there are very few (if any) matters of "Parliamentary privilege" that would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; such a challenge to the Court would be unprecedented and, therefore, highly unpredictable, I would think.

 

[Lotuslander]

Five paradox wrote:

One must keep in mind that there are very few (if any) matters of "Parliamentary privilege" that would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; such a challenge to the Court would be unprecedented and, therefore, highly unpredictable, I would think.

This is not a case of parliamentary or personal priveledge which are governed by standing orders and which are in all cases deliberated and ruled on by the Speaker who's decision is final. Rather, this is a case of constitutional authority. Does the Court have the right to make judgements on the internal goings-on of the House of Commons? I think you are right to conclude that the Court would most likely decide that it does not have the authority to rule on this matter and the case woudl be dismissed. However, the government and possibly (albeit somewhat hypothetically) the opposition could ask the Supreme Court for an opinion as to the validity of the law, as was the case with same-sex marriage. In this case the question would be whether the proposed law would violate the Charter not whether the Courts' have the constitutional authority to strike the law down.

 

[Durgan]

My View[/img]

Emerson has no legitimacy. Less than two weeks ago he told thousands of voters that he professed allegiance to the Liberal platform. He is plain and simple a pariah to me. To many he is simply a parliamentary leper.

Durgan.

 

[MMMike]

Mackjo wrote:In the current system, since constituents vote for the candidate rather than the party, his party affiliation thus has no bearing whatsoever on his seat, with his constituents being the sole deciders of whether or not he gets to keep it, unless of course he ought to commit a felony. but then that's a matter for another debate.

Not quite true. If I vote for a particular candidate, it is because I agree, or mostly agree with the platform of the party he is representing. If, after an election, my candidate suddenly decides to change parties and join a party whom I didn't vote for because of their platform, I want a re-election, plain and simple.

Damn right Juan. I'd be protesting outside his constituency office if he was in my riding. This is disgusting, both Emerson's actions and Harper accepting him in to the cabinet. :evil:

 

[Colpy]

I'm not happy with this one either.

I think the fault lies with Emmerson, however, and not Harper. Harper is simply trying to get representation from the big cities. He wants to win an upcoming election, and Emmerson has (or HAD) a good reputation. Harper has not fouled anyone.

Emmerson himself is another story. He was elected a Liberal, and should resign and stand for re-election. He should return monies owed to the Liberal Party (or the Tories should do it for him)

I would not pass laws that made it impossible to cross the floor. Winston Churchill did it not once, but TWICE!

Now, as an old Reformer, perhaps we could talk about recall?

Just kidding.

 

[TenPenny]

But Harper went after Emerson, so who's worse?

 

[DasFX]

Honestly, nothing wrong has been done. It is just that it seems to hypocritical after the whole Belinda scandal.

Why is nobody in the media asking them (Solberg, Vellacott, Abbott, and so on) why Belinda was a political *censored*, someone who prostituted herself for power and Emerson is not? Such hypocrisy will only get us to the 23rd PM a lot faster.

As for the other guy, again, nothing wrong, but to appointed him as a Senator when he has gone on and on about an elected Senate is just plain stupid.

I don't think these two moves will create this support in Vancouver and Montréal as he had hoped.

Man, 1st day too, at least the Liberals wanted until their 3rd term to screw up.

 

[FiveParadox]

Government and Ethics

I have no problem with the appointments made by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper in terms of the new Conservative Ministry. However, I would simply assert that these appointments were questionable in respect of the platform that Mr. Harper and his party had implied during the campaign. He was made it clear, however, that his campaign promises regarding Senate reform and floor-crossing were exclusively implicit. I would grant him that; reviewing his speeches, it's true, he never explicitly stated that any reforms would take place in the near future.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

Hey uncle, it means switching parties, they're devided by sides of the floor in Parliment

OK, BUT, remember I am coming from a US background. Doesn't the PARTY finance the member's campaign? Isn't he/she beholden to them for the term of his office? If not, why not?

This is rarely done in the US/but I vaguely remember reading about one presidential candidate who did change parties - was it Adlai Stevenson? But I think it was at an election juncture.

ITN, I tried to research it, but I keep getting access restricted. This was before our time, and it's been a long time since I had American history. Do you know?

Manda, if a member crosses the floor, and then changes his/her mind again, can they go back? This seems like it would create massive mayhem.

Uncle

 

[Jo Canadian]

if a member crosses the floor, and then changes his/her mind again, can they go back? This seems like it would create massive mayhem.

There are no Official rules in regards to what one can do. Doing it in the first place creates a bit of emnity, that with the old party and most likley with his constituants. If Emmerson wanted to go back for whatever reason, he'll most likley not be let back in....and that's if he's elected again in the first place. After all his constituants voted him in two weeks ago to give the Libs more leverage over the conservatives, and now he's changes sides.

:lol: I'm sure the fur will really fly when he has to eventually face his constituants...I hear that's what some people are calling for. Plus the funding that the libs helped him with in the very recent election...well I have a feeling that's a skeleton that won't be put in his closet very easily, and it'll be used against him in the future for sure.

In the end theres much you can do in Canadian politics, but there's always concequences for your actions.

 

[FiveParadox]

Crossing the Floor of the House

On a related note, the Liberal Riding Association, of the electoral district of Vancouver Kingsway, is demanding that the Honourable David Emerson, our new Minister of International Trade and the Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, return nearly one-hundred thousand dollars in donations and contributions to his campaign from his Liberal supporters. He has apparently lashed out at his critics, stating that he has no such intention to do so.

:arrow: Crossing the Floor

Once a Member has crossed the floor of the House of Commons, there is nothing to prevent such a Member from crossing again (either returning to the same party, or to another party entirely). In fact, entirely-new parties can emerge mid-session, if the Members in the House do so wish. Like Jo Canadian quite correctly stated, there are no legislative measures in effect that would pertain to one's capacity to cross to the other side.

 

[Lotuslander]

Just for "Uncle Percy's" knowledge you are allowed to switch parties in the States. A couple of years ago a Senator from Vermont or New Hamphire left the GOP to sit as an independent, there was talk of him crossing the floor to the Democrats but, I don't know if he did or not. Anyway I remember pundits commenting on the possible move so it is definetly "legal" to cross the floor.

As to the financing question: In Canada a candidate usually receives campaign funds from 2 sources. One, the political party he/she belongs to. Two, donations to the individual candidate through his official agent, however, these funds are also sometimes given to the riding association which represents the party in his district.

Finally, in Canada and most other Westminster democracies you can cross the floor as many time as you like so long as the party will have you back. THe Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, K.G. was a Tory then a Liberal then a Tory.