On Tuesday, Southwest Nova Scotian MP Chris d’Entremont, representing the rural riding of Acadie–Annapolis, boldly crossed the floor to join the Liberals. D’Entremont has recently cited military defence, agriculture, and fisheries as his top priorities. The riding of Acadie–Annapolis, economically speaking, relies heavily on the lobster industry and is also home to a Canadian Armed Forces base.According to d’Entremont, he believes that the budget put forward by Carney’s administration will best serve the military and make it easier to support the local economy. In fact, he stated that supporting his constituents in these specific areas would not be possible under Poilievre due to his “negative leadership style.” Very interesting, but not entirely novel move.Nevertheless, is it not also strange that d’Entremont, just over a month ago, stated that the Liberals were causing hurt amongst Canadian families due to inflation? Yet now he’s so swooned by the wonderful budget that he’s ready to risk it all and jump ship..OLDCORN: Carney’s reckless spending budget unites a divided opposition.In fact — verbatim — he said, “Canadians are hurting. Families are being forced to cut deeply into their grocery budgets just to get by. And, frankly, that leaves me a little bit angry and a little bit sad.”Now, this is all fair, legal, and well. It is the job of our Members of Parliament to represent the local needs of their constituents.But it begs a few questions and some further democratic inquiry. What if MPs start frequently crossing the floor, in any direction, because of personal differences, resentment, or spite? What if they succumb to the grass-is-greener fallacy or the focusing illusion? Should we, as citizens, be concerned for our democracy? Have they misrepresented voters? If so, how could we possibly ever know? What kind of precedent would this further normalized political move set for current and future MPs?.The more this practice becomes normalized, the more chaotic — and undemocratic — our system could become. D’Entremont’s constituents voted for him because they believed Poilievre and the Conservatives had their best interests in mind. They believed the Liberals could not get what they needed done as a community. And frankly, by voting for d’Entremont, they demonstrated that the majority of constituents in his riding absolutely did not want a Liberal MP.Here’s where it gets tricky: by crossing the floor, d’Entremont is telling his constituents that he knows what’s best for them — that he is in control of their future. But hang on, that’s not quite how a democracy works. D’Entremont works for the people of Acadie–Annapolis. They wanted a Conservative representative. .WENZEL: Mark Carney’s economic reality check — Canada’s unravelling union with the US.They control their future through their vote. They decide what is best for themselves and which party is best positioned to ensure it.Our MPs work for the people. They are agents of the voters, and their one and only responsibility is to ensure that the needs of their people are being met. The first demand of the people, through their vote, is selecting which party they want to represent them. It’s a robust and holistic decision. Our MPs represent their constituents on a multitude of issues — it’s not just one or two, and constituents know this. Thus, the primary and most crucial decision voters make is determining which party best represents the totality of their needs.See how quickly our system can be forced into voting under false pretenses if MPs start changing parties like they’re changing suit jackets?.Let’s engage in a thought experiment — intentionally using dramatic hypotheticals — to further elucidate how curiously anti-democratic this legal and authorized practice could become.Hypothetically, let’s imagine d’Entremont — or any other Conservative you’d like. He is dedicated to fisheries and the local ecosystems within his riding, since they play a key role in the community’s economy. Let’s say he campaigned on these issues as a Conservative. He wins and gets into office under the Conservative banner. He meets with the Liberals and decides to cross the floor, citing his inability to work with people in his own caucus he doesn’t like, doesn’t necessarily agree with, or isn’t strategically aligned with as the major issue. He claims, vaguely, that he’ll be able to better serve his community working with Carney and the Liberals.Okay, perhaps the best thing for his constituents. Albeit strange, but plausible..McCOURT: Time to emulate King Ralph, Premier Smith!.But then — plot twist — he bumps into some of his local NDP colleagues at a government-sanctioned lunch-and-learn on unconscious bias. They get to talking. And sure enough, he’s swept off his feet by their amazing goals and plans regarding fisheries, the local aquatic ecosystems, and the lobster industry (although, the NDP likely wouldn’t actually use the noxious term lobster, as it was co-opted by Jordan Peterson and is now totemic of all things Nazism.)I digress.Back to our hypothetical..He believes that by joining them, he can fortify their support and position in coalition with the Liberals, thereby better serving his constituents. Boom — he’s now NDP. But wait! While leaving Parliament, Elizabeth May invites him for a locally grown, gluten-free, eco-friendly $15 latte. He obliges. She proceeds to wow him with her grand plans to supercharge small fishing economies and protect their environmental status. He’s sold. He’s now a Green Party member. Then what? A vote for the Conservatives is now a vote for the Green Party?Satirical, yes — but still illuminating. See how weird this can all get? Sure, one may argue that this analogizes nothing in reality — but be careful, because incrementalism is an extremely powerful concept.It seems that, yes, crossing the floor can absolutely be in the best interest of one’s constituents. But it can also be a major threat to democracy. It’s certainly not unprecedented, but it can truly put democracy in jeopardy..SLOBODIAN: Are Manitobans too gullible to tell Halloween pranks from deadly home invaders? NDP thinks so.And what is the greatest threat to the concept of democracy? Us — human beings. Humans are inherently imperfect and sinful beings. The more normalized floor-crossing becomes, the more easily it can morph into an unethical and politically strategic tool, further undemocratizing our governmental proceedings.In the end, Chris d’Entremont is the only person who knows the true reasons why he crossed the floor. The rest of us can only hope that when anyone does so — no matter which way — it’s not the result of an inability to work with people they don’t like, an inability to build strategic partnerships and alliances, an inability to compromise, or a play for personal political gain.We can only hope it’s the result of a truly well-intended politician doing everything and anything possible for their community and their constituents.
