Bill C-306 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation)

This enactment provides that a member’s seat in the House of Commons will be vacated and a by-election called for that seat if the member, having been elected to the House as a member of a political party or as an independent, changes parties or becomes a member of a party, as the case may be. A member’s seat will not be vacated if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

moved that Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, this evening we are debating Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation), which concerns the foundation of our democracy. Before debating the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore on his excellent work over the years to ensure that this bill was introduced in each new session of Parliament. It is an honour for me to introduce it once again and to have seconded it the first time.

The bill provides that a member’s seat in the House of Commons will be vacated and a by-election called for that seat if the member, having been elected to the House as a member of a political party or as an independent, changes parties or becomes a member of a party, as the case may be. However, I would like to point out that the seat will not be vacated if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent.

I believe that this bill will help restore Canadians' faith in our democracy. For these reasons, I am asking members on all sides to support it. Recently, the government proposed certain political reforms, and we hope that it will show that it takes them seriously by supporting this bill.

This bill also reflects a fundamental objective of my party, which is to do politics differently in order to renew people's trust in elected officials. It is unfortunate that, in a number of surveys on Canadians' trust in different professions conducted in recent years, politicians were always ranked at the bottom. Politicians who crossed the floor in recent years only added fuel to the fire. Even though there has been a slight increase in political engagement in recent elections mainly due to our party, it is not difficult to see that the Canadian political system, in particular the politicians, no longer inspires the confidence of people in general. In the last election, few observers talked about Canadians' interest and engagement in the democratic process and what Canadians think of politics in general.

I will now fill that gap. To shed light on these issues the Association for Canadian Studies commissioned Léger Marketing to ask Canadians a series of questions that offer insight into political interest and engagement. The results show that Canadians have a negative view of politicians and that the vast majority of Canadians do not recommend pursuing a career in politics. Just over one in five do not think that most politicians can be trusted and a similar percentage would recommend a career in politics. In fact, the vast majority would not suggest pursuing such a career.

More specifically, when asked whether most politicians can be trusted, only 3.1% agreed. When asked whether they would recommend that a friend or family member pursue a career in politics, only 4.9% said that they would. The entire system is being called into question. When asked why they think Canadians choose not to vote in elections, most suggest it is the feeling that their vote has no impact. The second reason offered by Canadians as to why people decide not to vote is that they do not like any of the choices.

With regard to the choices offered, 26.9% of men did not like the choices as compared to 31.3% of women. We should all be wondering why they do not like the choices offered. Something is not working at the political level. In addition, when we look at the figures on politics in general from a language perspective, 40% of francophones did not like politics, as compared to 46% of anglophones and 41% of allophones. It is unbelievable. Voter turnout for Canadian elections is still a major challenge. For the past five elections, the trend has been down: voter turnout was only 61% for the last election.

Canada is now behind countries like Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic and even Greece. Even if we are ahead of the United States, we are still behind Great Britain and New Zealand.

Over the past 30 years, political cynicism has been on the rise in Canada. For example, since 1982, the feeling that honesty and integrity among members of Parliament are weak or very weak increased in 49% of Canadians. In my province, Quebec, according to an article in La Presse:

The results [of the survey] show that 87% of respondents chose words like “discouraged” or “put off” to describe how they feel about politics. One in five voters, or 21%, said that they were [completely] indifferent. Only 9% said that they felt optimistic and 11% felt passionate about politics. Among Quebec voters of average age, 34 to 55 years, the proportion of those who felt discouraged or put off by politics climbed to 94%.

When respondents were asked whether they considered themselves to be disillusioned or cynical, 47%, and 50% of women, said that they did, 37% said that they did not and 16% were unsure.

When they were asked why they were so disenchanted, they responded:

Primarily because of integrity. That is the top reason given by 80% of the respondents to explain their disenchantment. Lack of effectiveness came in second, at 72%...Two-thirds of respondents, or 61%, said that “nothing changes in politics”. Lastly, 48% said that politicians have a “lack of ideas”.

I will go on, because it is important.

Nearly 80% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that “politicians are honest”. Only 14% agree with that statement. Similarly, 88% of respondents disagree with the statement “politicians tell the truth”. [Unbelievable.] Only 9% think that politicians tell the truth. It should be noted that no respondents, or 0%, said that they strongly agree with the fact that politicians tell the truth. Some 69% disagree with the statement that "politicians care about the interests of the public”. However, nearly half, or 45%, acknowledged that “politicians work hard”.

At least we have that.

That is not a pretty picture. A number of articles suggest that the topics Canadians care about most when it comes to trusting politicians is sincerity, honesty, wasting money and lack of public interest.

This is a situation that should concern us all. In order for a democracy to be healthy and to thrive, it must enjoy the confidence of the vast majority of the electorate. If not, we may very well be headed for a democratic crisis such as exists in the United States, where only 49% of people vote in the federal elections. That is less than half of the eligible voters.

There is a clear need to restore the confidence of Canadians. Cases like those of David Emerson and Belinda Stronach have greatly contributed to weakening Canadians' opinions of our political institutions, but so have consistent governments that have done nothing with regard to political reform.

For example, in 2006, by defeating the bill introduced by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Stoffer, the Liberals, who were in power and were backed by the Bloc Québécois, simply maintained--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot refer to another member by name.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I am sorry. I meant to say “my distinguished colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore.”

I will resume. The Liberals, who were in power backed by the Bloc Québécois, simply maintained the status quo in 2006. They proved to Canadians that the political class was once again not truly interested in democratic and ethical reforms for Parliament.

We need to give voters in Canada a greater say in the political future of their elected representatives, particularly those who want to cross the floor in order to satisfy their careers.

The point of principle here is this: whose seat is it that we or I am sitting in? This seat is not mine; it is the seat of the people of the Pontiac. I feel very strongly that our political future as MPs must always be decided by our constituents. Only when we stand up on principle and give greater control to the Canadian electorate will some of the cynicism felt by voters in this country fade. It is a fundamental question of accountability to the people we represent. No one should have a problem with that.

Since the NDP introduced the bill in 1997, there has been broad support for it among Canadians. Given the above, this does not surprise me. Ordinary Canadians are tired of the ping-pong game of politics. The reality is that nobody votes for a candidate without considering what party he or she belongs to. It is a true slap in the voter's face when elected representatives join another party without seeking approval from their voters.

Parties are there to present a series of values to Canadians. Election platforms are value statements, and Canadians connect with those values. Canadians know there are differences in values between political parties. They know that the NDP is not the Conservative Party. It is a grave injustice to treat their choices and their political values as though they have no consequence. It is an insult to their intelligence.

Honestly, I do not see this as a partisan issue. It is about disciplining us all, on this side of the House and theirs. NDP MPs as much as government MPs would be bound by this legislation.

The government has made a number of proposals with regard to democratic reform. The Conservatives themselves have been concerned about democratic reform ever since they were in opposition. There seems to be an openness by the government with regard to taking action on these matters, but time will show us how serious the government is about reform and about eliminating the backroom dealings that Canadians have come to hate about our political system.

Resistance to this legislation equals resistance to cracking down on backroom deals and secret deals. Fixing Ottawa has to start with ourselves. If the Prime Minister and the government, as well as the other parties represented in the House, are serious about democratic reform, then they should vote for the bill.

This bills aims to discipline us, as representatives of the people, to make us more accountable to the voters' wishes and to cut down on petty politics. It is aimed directly at cynicism.

Many people will undoubtedly ask us, “Why this time? Why now, when it did not work the last time?” When the NDP introduced this bill in 1997, there were 21 NDP members; in 2001, there were 14. We are bringing it back again, now we have more than 100 members, because we believe in it. It is important to us and to Canadians. We are simply continuing what was previously started by the NDP. This is important to us. Today, thanks to Canadians, we are now in a better position, as the official opposition, to get this bill passed.

To conclude, this bill gives us a golden opportunity to show Canadians that we are truly ready to be more responsible and to respect their political choice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would propose such a bill. This is a bill that actually passed in the Manitoba legislature.

There were individuals who presented in committee and raised a great deal of concerns. I was told by one individual, and we can do some research to find out if in fact it is the case, that Winston Churchill had crossed the floor on several occasions.

If the issue is to get people engaged and believe in politics, and re-establish this honourable profession as it is, we could probably do more by addressing the whole issue of, for example, negative advertising and the impact that has had. The way in which some campaigns rely on negative advertising in order to capture votes also discourages people from voting.

If we want to get individuals to go out and vote, we have give them a choice. Maybe we could put “none of the above” on the ballots. These are things that would increase the amount of voter participation.

My feeling is that, yes, we do need to get more people involved in the process. There are many other things that we could do that would have a very real impact in terms of voter turnout.

I am not too sure, and this is one of the issues that was raised in Manitoba, if this is constitutional. If we have members of Parliament who, in good faith, for whatever reasons, believe they cannot participate or believe it is in their constituents' best interests to take a certain action, like Sir Winston Churchill who many recognize as one of the greatest parliamentarians, do we deny them the opportunity to take an action that they feel is in fact appropriate?

I see them as two different issues, in terms of voter turnout versus something that--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member for Pontiac a chance to respond.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not opposed to some of the suggestions that the member has put forward, with regard to engaging the population.

When it comes to constitutional issues, as the member will know, the bill actually proposes that the individual sit as an independent. So, it directly relates to the role that political parties play in choices during elections. One could question it, but then again, political parties have a particular place in our Canadian democracy. They do represent a certain number of choices, a certain number of values, and those choices should be respected by politicians of all stripes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much like the private member's bill introduced my colleague. Having had a previous life in another party, I feel very comfortable saying that when I decided—completely voluntarily—to join the NDP, I did so by getting elected as a new member of this party. I did not leave in the middle of a term after earning the trust of my constituents under one banner, and then for some reason, no matter how valid, change my mind and cross the floor.

To pick up where the hon. Liberal member left off, what I like about the bill introduced by my colleague from Pontiac is that it does not take away an individual's right to change parties. It simply says that if someone leaves a party, he or she must be re-elected. I wonder if the member for Pontiac could explain this bill a little more—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Pontiac has less than a minute to respond.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gatineau for the question.

We are talking about the case of someone who wants to cross the floor during their term. I think it is responsible and reasonable to leave one's party to sit as an independent, and then ask voters to elect that individual in a given political party. There are many good reasons for crossing the floor. We are not attacking the principle. We are attacking the principle of not asking voters to re-elect such individuals when they change their political party.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I am here to speak today to Bill C-306, introduced by the member for Pontiac, which addresses changes in the political affiliations of members of Parliament, or more commonly known as floor crossing. The bill would require the resignation of a member of Parliament and a subsequent byelection if the member crosses the floor to sit as a member of a different political party.

While I understand that the goal of this bill would be to ensure that a member's decision to cross the floor is endorsed by a member's constituents, the result of it would be simple. This bill would seriously undermine the independence of members of this House and I do not think that is something we should encourage or support.

This bill would have some practical negative consequences. The bill would impose restrictions upon members who wish to express a different position than the one endorsed by a majority of their caucus. This bill would also impede members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents, which is one of the fundamental duties under our Constitution.

I want to briefly go over the details of this bill and then explain in more detail why I believe restrictions on floor crossings would not fit with our Westminster parliamentary system and are inadvisable.

Bill C-306 would require a byelection whenever members join a different registered party than the one that has endorsed them for the previous election or if they were elected as independent candidates during the previous election and subsequently join a political party. However, Bill C-306 would not require a byelection when members leave or are expelled from their caucus to sit as independents, leave their party to form a new party that does not yet have registered party status under the Elections Canada Act or, and I stress, two parties that have registered status under the Elections Canada Act merge. According to the Elections Canada Act, a party obtains registered party status when it endorses at least one candidate for an election, provided it has made the proper application to the Chief Electoral Officer at least 60 days before the issue of writs for that election.

So here are the details. I have some concerns about the technical wording of the bill and not only with its principles. I will speak a bit about the bill's reference to registered parties. Our party system plays a fundamental role in our democracy but, in fact, there are a few statutory provisions regulating the role of political parties in Parliament itself, including the Parliament of Canada Act which Bill C-306 would modify.

In contrast, the roles, rights and obligations of individual members of Parliament are well established in Canada's legislation whereby members of Parliament are central actors in our Westminster system of government. Practically, the caucus system in our Parliament is joined with, but distinct from, the registered party system.

Bill C-306 would go against existing rules and traditions by allowing the party machinery to take precedence over individual rights and responsibilities of each member of Parliament and their caucus choices. This does not correspond to our system of government. As I stated earlier, I believe Bill C-306 would have negative and undesirable consequences on the roles of members of Parliament.

In effect, the bill would require members who fundamentally disagree with their caucus or with the leader of their party to resign their seat or to sit as independents. However, it would blur the line between party membership and caucus membership. Such restrictions would strengthen the control of political parties over individual members by bolstering a party's threat of expulsion in order to maintain party discipline and limit the representative role of members.

Therefore, the bill could discourage elected representatives from expressing their views in caucus debates and encourage party leaders to act without regard to their caucus members' best interests.

We should remember that members of Parliament have three competing but equally important representative roles in Parliament. They are to represent the interests and opinions of their constituents, to present their personal views and judgments, and to support and promote their political parties and party leaders.

By seeking to punish members of Parliament who disagree with their parties so fundamentally that they decide to change their political affiliation, the bill would focus exclusively on the party role of members. This would be detrimental to the individual roles of members, including their duties to act as trustees of the public interest and that of their constituents.

Moreover, the decision to cross the floor cannot be taken lightly. It is an important decision, often with significant consequences.

Of the six members who have crossed the floor since the 2004 election, only one has managed to be re-elected in a subsequent election as an independent candidate. The same premise applies to members of Parliament who have decided to leave or who were expelled from their caucus to sit as independent members. Of the six members who left their caucus to sit as independent members since the 2004 election, only one was re-elected in a subsequent election. What does this mean?

Members are subject to scrutiny by the public, by the media, by parliamentary colleagues, and most importantly, by their voters, their constituents back at home in the next general election. Therefore, I believe this bill is unnecessary as it is that court of opinion by which members are truly judged. To emphasize, general elections themselves are the appropriate mechanism to hold members of Parliament accountable for their actions.

According to the Library of Parliament, there have been approximately 194 floor crossings since Confederation. The floor crossing tradition reflects the importance of preserving the independence and mobility of members of Parliament to vote with their feet when they feel it is in the best interests of their constituents or the country to do so.

None of our provinces require a byelection when a member of their legislative assembly changes political affiliations, although Manitoba requires members who leave their caucus to sit as independent members until the end of their terms. Moreover, crossing the floor exists in other Westminster parliamentary systems. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand do not currently impose restrictions on floor crossings.

When New Zealand went through a transition period from the first past the post electoral system to a mixed member proportional system, it had passed legislation to prevent floor crossings as a temporary measure in 2001. However, it did not renew these provisions after the 2005 election as they turned out to be ineffective.

This is consistent with the fact that laws banning floor crossing are rare in established democracies, but common in nascent democracies where they are defended as temporary measures designed to consolidate a parliamentary system. We are certainly not in that position here in Canada, nor are our peer countries. I simply cannot see the need for the provisions of this bill.

In conclusion, party affiliation is certainly an important factor when Canadians cast their vote, but they also expect elected representatives to act according to their convictions when they represent local interests at the national level. Ultimately, members are held accountable by their constituents at the next election. Therefore, I encourage all members to opposed Bill C-306

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my remarks will not take very long. It is late. I would like to tell the hon. member that his bill is based on good intentions. However, there is a principle that we do not create laws unless it is necessary to do so. In this case, I do not feel that it is necessary. I have sat in this House since 1996 and only once did it not seem legitimate to me when a member crossed the floor.

However, we do not enact a new law for one case. Mr. David Emerson, a couple days after the election, crossed the floor to be appointed minister. That was unacceptable as he campaigned against the Conservative Party, but a few days later became a minister. If this were a pattern, of course, I would agree to do something, but it is an exception.

In the other cases that I have seen, the members who changed parties had legitimate reasons for doing so. For example, when Jean Charest gave up the leadership of the Conservative Party to become the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec, the Conservative Party really changed. Many Quebec members were no longer part of the new party because the leader had changed and their constituents asked them why they did not join the Liberals. So, they came to us. When election time came six months later, they were all re-elected. The voters followed them. Had they been obliged to resign and had they been prevented from doing their work in their ridings for six to eight months, what purpose would that have served? They told me they were hopeful that their voters would follow them when they made that change.

All hon. members who have switched parties more or less justify their decision that way. They feel that they did not change, but their party did and that they were elected for certain commitments that the party has not respected. They were no longer comfortable in their party and they switched. It does not happen very happen, but it does happen from time to time. Every time it happens—and I do not necessarily approve of the change when it is Liberals who leave to join another party—I am not happy about it, but I cannot deny the legitimacy of the decision. As the hon. member was saying earlier, if voters do not follow them, they will not be re-elected. They will be treated as turncoats and they will be defeated. That is how the system works. I do not see the need to change it when we do not have the necessary justification for unduly strengthening the parties with respect to the free choice of the hon. members of this House, who, for personal reasons, might want, quite legitimately, to change their allegiance.

My colleague mentioned other parliaments earlier. The parliamentarian who quite possibly is the most respected in the history of democracy, who not only saved a country, but a civilization, is Winston Churchill. If ever there was a parliamentarian who switched parties often, it was Winston Churchill. Thus, under certain circumstances I think it is legitimate to switch parties. That being said, I am a Liberal and I will always be a Liberal.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am completely shocked. I thought the Conservatives were a party of democracy, as were the Liberals. I did not know that even though my name is on the seat here it is not my seat. I do not own this seat. It does not belong to me. It does not belong to my party. It belongs to the 91,000 people I represent in Sackville—Eastern Shore.

I was elected as a New Democratic member of Parliament. However, if in an hour I called the leader of the Liberal Party or maybe the Prime Minister and asked if they wanted me, I could be a Conservative member of Parliament or a Liberal member of Parliament in an hour or even less than that.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Not a chance.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I was not elected as a Conservative, a Liberal or a Green member. I was elected as a New Democratic member of Parliament.

If, for whatever reason, I could no longer sit as a New Democratic member of Parliament, either I was being a real rabble-rouser and the party members said that I was being a major pain in the buttocks and that I could not be here any more, or I could no longer live by the philosophy, I would have several solutions to my problem. I could sit as an independent until the next election and make my choice known or I could quit. The premise then would be to seek the nomination of the new party, fly under its flag and seek election under that banner.

It is the people who decide our fate. There is nothing worse than sitting in the House of Commons listening to a new member of Parliament, for whom I have great respect, read bureaucratic notes that are handed to her. Does she not remember what the Prime Minister said when the former member for Kings—Hants joined the Liberal Party and became a cabinet minister. He said that any person who crosses the floor for a few pieces of silver has more or less sold their soul. He was very angry that it happened.

I remember when the great Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives and went over to the Liberal Party. Not one Conservative said that it was a wonderful thing she did. Not one Conservative sent her flowers and said, “Good for you, Belinda, that was great. You exercised your member of Parliament's duty”. No. What they said was very vile. What they said was extremely rude because she was a woman and she was well-known in this country. However, the comments from the Conservative members of Parliament and the Alberta Conservative members of Parliament were beyond the pale. Besides the tone of those comments, they were justified in their anger because a person left the party to sit as a cabinet minister in another party.

I will use the great David Emerson as an example. The beauty of being here for a while is that we get to remember some of these things. David Emerson was a minister in the Liberal government. There was an election in 2006 and the Conservatives won the election.

In February 2006, the cabinet of the Conservative Party was sworn in, and rightfully so, and the beauty of our democracy is that not a shot was fired. However, an hour before the Conservatives took over the government, the former member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was a Liberal cabinet minister when Paul Martin signed off, was sworn in as a Conservative cabinet minister with a better pension, better pay and a car. That was a Liberal cabinet minister who had said that he would be the Conservatives' worst nightmare, and it turned into a dream for him.

Would David Emerson have crossed the floor if he were to sit in the backbench with no critic area or anything? I do not think so.

The reality is that this is not my seat. It belongs to the people of Canada in my riding.

I cannot thank my hon. colleague for Pontiac enough. For the Liberals to stand up and say that they do not like this, they should get real. If we do not start disciplining ourselves, more and more people will not go to the polls. Canadians are telling us that they do not like the fact that we are entitled to our entitlements. The last thing members of Parliament should do is Dingwall the Canadian people. We should stop that.

If a member wishes, for whatever reason, to join another political party while sitting as an elected member of Parliament of a current party, it is quite simple: the member should sit as an independent until the next election, or quit, seek a byelection and explain to his or her constituents why he or she now needs to have another flag over his or her home. That is constitutional responsibility, and that is being true to democracy and to one's constituents.

The Conservative member spoke with bureaucratic notes without really thinking. There are four reasons that members get elected: first, to throw bums out; second, for their leader; third, for their party; and fourth, for themselves. In most cases, being oneself is the last reason people vote for a person.

The member talked about giving too much party discipline to the leader and the party. I remember a certain Conservative defence minister from Central Nova who said, “We don't kick people out of our party for voting against the budget or voting against the wishes of their constituents”. Guess what? Bill Casey, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, voted against the Conservative budget because of the Atlantic accord and, before that man sat his derrière on the seat, he was out of the party. He was gone.

The Conservatives exercised discipline because they triple whipped the vote. We understand that parties do that time and again, but we cannot have a senior minister, who joined the Conservative Party, say publicly in the House of Commons, “We don't kick people out for voting against us and doing what they wish”, and then, before the member could sit down, kicked him out. That is party discipline. We understand party discipline. It happens. It s is what all members of Parliament need to understand when this happens. If members take chances, they take the consequences.

We have a party system but, and I am talking about the ladies and gentlemen across the way, how many of them would have gotten elected as independents? I ask them to put up their hands right now if they could have been elected as an independent in the House of Commons. I do not see any hands going up. The reality is that it does not happen. It is rare that it happens.

Therefore, we should stop abusing the trust of our constituents. Our constituents are the ones who put us here. We tell our constituents which political banner we are being elected under. For whatever reason, it happens all the time. There are legitimate reasons for members to leave their parties. I will bet that members who are here long enough may think maybe it should. However, the reality is that members have a couple of beverages, forget about it and move on.

The truth is that we should never abuse our constituents. This bill would enact more discipline among ourselves and, more important, it is a private member's bill. We would hope that the Conservatives and the Liberals would enact a free vote on this measure, get it to committee and have Democracy Watch and others from across the country attend. I can honestly say that I have been working on this legislation since 1999 and the overwhelming majority of people I have spoken to, not just New Democrats but a lot of Conservatives, Liberals, the Green Party and former Bloc members are fully supportive of this legislation.

They do not want us treating the House of Commons as the no tell motel, where people check in under an assumed name. This carpet is very expensive. We cannot just keep tramping back and forth when we want to. We need to have respect for the institution, but, most important, we need to have respect for our constituents.

This is what this bill is all about and I am very proud of my hon. colleague from Pontiac for introducing this legislation once again. All the Conservatives and Liberals should send ten percenters or householders into their ridings and ask their constituents about floor crossing. They would be surprised at the answers, because I have already done that and I know the answer. The overwhelming majority of Canadians want us to stop that practice, stop the entitlement of entitlements, behave ourselves, be more responsible and understand that the seats do not belong to us. They belong to the people of Canada.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the time of the year that the seasons change with Halloween, the geese fly south and for 30 days the moustache of the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore disappears before it makes its annual return to our chamber.

I want to take this opportunity to address the bill. I think it is an unwise bill. It is problematic on a technical level and I will explain what that is very briefly. However, even if it worked, which I do not think it would, it would do something that is not in the public interest, and that is to establish greater control for the party leadership in each of the parties, not just the governing party but all the parties, over the individual member, something which, frankly, there is too much right now. In fact, that was a fair part of the substance of the member's speech.

I will read one of the four sections by which it would amend the Parliament of Canada Act. The bill states:

Any person holding a seat in the House of Commons who becomes a member of a registered party as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act is deemed to have vacated the seat and ceases to be a member of the House if, in the last election, the person was endorsed by another registered party or was not endorsed by a registered party.

In other words the member is an independent. It is trying to say that if I were elected as a Conservative in my riding and I crossed the floor to the New Democrats, I would cease to be a member and there would be a byelection. It does not actually achieve that goal because I could just as well sit with the New Democrats as a member of the caucus without being an actual card carrying member of the New Democratic Party. It may very well be that the New Democrats would not accept me, but I am assume if they were willing to accept me on those terms, this whole process would be obviated. There have been many examples, both of opposition parties and of governments which have functioned with members of multiple parties.

The actual goal of the bill will not be achieved even if it is passed. Quite frankly, that is a good thing because the bill is a bad bill. It is a bad idea and it was a bad idea when it was proposed by a New Democratic member a couple of Parliaments ago. I spoke to it then. It was a bad idea when it was proposed by a Conservative member a few Parliaments ago, when I spoke against it and voted against it as well.

It is not because these are bad members or members who are lacking in goodwill, but because anything that establishes further control for the reasons that my hon. colleague from Calgary spelled out in her speech and anything that creates greater control for the party leadership over the individual MPs is a bad thing.

I am not alone in thinking this. As my colleague from Calgary mentioned, there have been 194 floor crossings at the federal level and many more at the provincial level since the time of Confederation. The Library of Parliament apparently did that research, but there have been so many floor crossings that there is actually a Wikipedia article about Canadian floor crossings. I asked one of the researchers to print the pages that dealt with floor crossings since I became a MP in the year 2000.

It is interesting to look at what happened to people who tried crossing the floor. Some of them were defeated in the next election, indicating that their voters did not like what they did. Others were re-elected, some of them many times. I will read some of the names and members will see my point.

In September 2000, just before I first ran and was elected, David Price, Diane St-Jacques and André Harvey all left the Progressive Conservative Party caucus and joined the Liberals. At least two of those were re-elected successfully in the next election.

Rick Laliberte, a New Democrat, left the NDP to join the Liberals at that time as well.

In 2001 there was rebellion against Stockwell Day, the leader of my party at that time. I was a member of the Canadian Alliance and a number of members rebelled against his leadership and sat as the Democratic Representative caucus, a separate group which had not previously existed. Whether that would violate the terms of this act, I do not know, but they sat separately: Art Hanger, Chuck Strahl, Gary Lunn, Jim Pankiw, Val Meredith, Grant McNally, Jay Hill, Jim Gouk, Monte Solberg, Andy Burton, Brian Fitzpatrick, Deborah Grey and Inky Mark all did that. Most but not all of them returned to the new Conservative Party caucus once the new Conservative Party had been created.

Others of us did not go through that process, but we did enter that Parliament as Canadian Alliance Canada and left as Conservatives after the creation of the new Conservative Party, or as Progressive Conservatives, and left as Conservatives. Those were all legitimate changes.

Would they fall afoul of this bill? I do not know, but they were legitimate changes. I can say for myself, I was re-elected with a much more substantial margin following that election. Was it because people liked me more? Was it because they liked the new party more? Was it because they liked the new leader more? I am not sure. It was some combination I suppose, but the point is in the end that choice was validated by my voters.

Continuing along down here, in 2002, this was while the Canadian Alliance was still in existence, before the merger of the CA and PC, Joe Peschisolido, a Canadian Alliance MP, left to join the Liberals. He was defeated in a subsequent election.

In 2003, in the course of the merger negotiations between the PCs and the CA, the member for Kings--Hants left the PCs, just as the new Conservative Party was to be created, to sit as a Liberal, ran, and has been successfully re-elected several times.

That was also what Keith Martin did. He was re-elected twice, or maybe three times after that as a Liberal, and chose not to run in the recent election.

About the same time, a year later, John Bryden, a Liberal MP, stepped down. He sat as an independent first, joined the Conservative Party, and then was defeated in the nomination battle for the Conservative Party, so we never got the chance to see what the voters thought of his proposal.

David Kilgour sat for many years as a Liberal. He had been elected as a Progressive Conservative and chose to cross the floor prior to the 1993 election. He was then re-elected, served as a Liberal, and in fact became a cabinet minister for the Liberals. Clearly, the voters were willing to accept what he did.

Belinda Stronach, of course, left the Conservatives after having sought its leadership. She sat as a Liberal and was re-elected as a Liberal, so voters agreed with that.

Wajid Khan tried leaving the Liberals to join the Conservatives in 2007. He was defeated in the subsequent election. Voters were not willing to accept that.

Blair Wilson ran as a Liberal, was essentially pushed out of his party, and then sat as the first Green Party MP. He was then defeated in the next election, so his voters were not willing to accept that.

As we can see, there is a wide range of people who have done this, and there has been a wide range of voter reactions. The general reaction has not been to say, “We absolutely reject what these MPs have done”. Absolutely not. There has, in fact, been a considerable acceptance when the circumstances seemed legitimate.

I want to make a further point about this. There have been some quite well-known people who have made multiple floor crossing changes. Someone earlier mentioned Winston Churchill. Here is what Winston Churchill did. He was elected in 1901 as a Conservative in England. In 1904, he crossed the floor to the Liberals and served in their cabinet. This rankled the Conservatives so much that in 1915, during the first world war, when the Conservatives joined with the Liberal party to form a coalition government, they demanded that he be demoted as a condition of joining a coalition government, in the time of war, so this really bothered them a lot.

However, as it turned out, his voters thought it was okay and he continued to be re-elected and served until 1924 as a Liberal MP. He was then defeated, spent some time, about a year, as a private citizen, then came back in as a Conservative again. He made the observation, because some people did not approve of this sort of thing, by saying, “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”.

He then went on and served his country, admirably of course, as prime minister. He did save western civilization, so he could not have been all bad. He did so, I should point out, as head of a coalition government. Effectively, he was not a Conservative while he was doing that. He served as prime minister the second time as a Conservative. He served, really, in three different parties. He served as prime minister in two different parties. Clearly, these things are permissible in certain circumstances.

I have a final note, because I know I am just about out of time. My former colleague, Inky Mark, was one of those who was a floor crosser to the Democratic Reform caucus. Here is his history, party wise. He was elected as a Reformer, served as a Canadian Alliance MP when the party changed, then served in the Democratic Reform caucus, then served as a Progressive Conservative, then served in the Conservative Party of Canada. His voters re-elected him over and over again.

Clearly, this is an acceptable practice and I do not think we should make it illegal.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of the Bill C-306 submitted by my colleague from Pontiac. I was here for some of the time that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore gave some examples. I always find it interesting to listen to the comments from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington. Once again, I do not agree. We usually do not agree, but we do enjoy the give and take. As often as I can, I say I have a great deal of respect for the member, but I disagree with him again.

I will deal with the core piece because I will not have a chance to deal with all of it.

At first blush, one aspect citizens think about when they want to choose their member of Parliament, whether it is in the legislature or in the House of Commons, is the candidate. I thought the point was well-taken that an awful lot of us believe we are the only ones who could get here on our own. We do not need anybody or party because they are a big problem more than they are a help. The reality is that most members do not get elected on their own name, recognition and reputation alone.

A lot of people, especially these days, do not have a particular allegiance to a political party. Rather they take it issue by issue, election by election. They will see what the issues are and the ones that affect them the most, determine how they feel about them and that often drives their decision, recognizing that citizens have the right to base their decision on anything they choose. That is one of the beauties of democracy and freedom.

Certainly a lot of people look at what the parties are offering. They might not even know the candidates or they do not care about the party label. Rather they care about one issue, they find the party that is closest to their heart on that issue and that is where they mark their ballots. That is fair enough.

Some folks have great allegiance to a political party. All members of all parties have active members in their riding associations. These are people who, with some exceptions, will likely vote for the candidate no matter who it is. They will vote for the candidate no matter what the platform is because they support the party.

All of that is entirely legitimate and acceptable.

Those people who vote for the candidates probably do not care much as to whether they are independents, or members of the parties they have run for, or have crossed the floor, or have re-rat, which has been brought back from history as former Prime Minister Churchill had said, and I am glad that is in there, or have re-rat over and over again. They really do not care.

However, those people who vote on platform or party are often devastated when the person they voted for crosses the floor. They told their friends to vote for that candidate. They put signs on the their front lawns in support of the candidate. They took all the heat from others who did not vote for that candidate during the election. They told people that was their candidate because of the platform or the party. Their whole reason for voting for that candidate is negated.

It is not a small matter. When I have stood for election for the four parliaments I have been elected to, I have stood on my own reputation and I am accountable for the decisions and the actions I have taken. However, make no mistake, in my riding a lot of my constituents voted for me because they liked our platform. As long as there was a candidate who would support the platform, they would be with that person. It is likewise for the party.

If we accept that is a legitimate, rationale, understandable and important reason for people to think about voting for a candidate, the platform or the party, if one then bails out, as did Mr. Emerson, which is the richest example, and I do not like to personalize, it takes one's breath away.

I do not think the writs were even returned. The ink was hardly dry on the ballots, and this man was already trotting across the floor to join another party. He believed that was the right thing to do, for him, but what about all those constituents who had a reason to believe that once elected, the member would actually go about enacting the platform and policies of the party that member belonged to?

By crossing the floor, in many cases a member is throwing away what he or she believed in to join a party that is 180 degrees in the other direction. How do we think constituents feel? They would sit there wondering what happened. Constituents went out and voted in good faith, as did all their friends, and they expected that the money they donated to that campaign and the sign that they posted were all to help get enough seats on a particular platform so that the way the constituent would have liked to have seen Canada shaped on a particular issue would have actually happened. Now that would be gone, because the member could just cross the floor in order to remain a cabinet minister. It really is problematic.

I have great respect for the other views. It is never easy to change things around here, and for good reason. We do not want to rush to change, but by the same token, we cannot be afraid of change. This is an evolving place, and the way we do business here does evolve.

It would seem to me that it is an appropriate restriction on members when they get to this place. Just as members cannot break the rules of the code of conduct or break the rules of the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have three minutes when this bill returns on the order paper.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from November 2, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the issue of parliamentary reform comes up for debate, it is always nice to be able to express what I think are important issues. I hope people will be somewhat generous in terms of relevancy. We are in an interesting time in that we have seen a lot of things happen with respect to parliamentary reform. I want to focus on two aspects.

One is the need for reform in terms of the number of members of Parliament. We had a good discussion about that just before winding down the fall sitting. It is something I would not mind reviewing. Members will recall that the government decided to increase the size of the House of Commons. It was interesting to hear the different opinions from the three political parties on that issue. We have always maintained that given today's reality and priorities this was not necessary. Without any hesitation whatsoever I would suggest that the vast majority of Canadians do not support the need for parliamentary reform in the sense of increasing the size of the House of Commons.

When we talk about parliamentary reform, we should be talking about how best to meet the needs of our constituents. There are different ways in which the government could have addressed the issue. We were disappointed that the government decided that the short answer to this issue was to increase the size.

We could just as easily have seen an increase in the resources available to individual MPs as opposed to increasing the overall number of MPs. With additional resources members of Parliament would be able to better serve their constituents.

There is always a great deal of discussion in terms of first past the post, plurality of votes, multi-member ridings, and so forth. I have always found these debates to be of great interest. A number of years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a small task force on parliamentary reform. There is a great deal of interest from the public to participate.

In my discussions I found that people appreciate one member, one ward. People appreciate that we operate with a first past the post system, even though there is a great deal of interest in individuals acquiring more than 35% or 38% of the vote in order to ultimately win. There could be a runoff ballot. I have heard many discussions in regard to that. There is a great deal of merit in that.

This is not the first time I have seen the issue that is before us. The first time I saw this specific issue was in the Manitoba legislature. The New Democratic Party introduced it. When it got to the committee stage, it was interesting to see the number of presenters who came forward. A former New Democrat, Sid Green, talked about how government cannot take away the right of a member of Parliament or an MLA to do what the member thinks is the right thing to do in terms of crossing the floor. Winston Churchill crossed the floor on several occasions, I am told. I do not think we would find very many Canadians who would suggest that Winston Churchill was a poor politician or not a wise politician. Winston Churchill is probably one of the most recognized parliamentarians worldwide because of some of the things he did during World War II.

There were cases presented in the committee that challenged whether or not the law being proposed by the NDP was constitutional. I would have had a very difficult time if my political party was trying to force me into a position which was completely at odds with my constituents.

In the past we have seen individuals make good decisions in terms of serving their constituents. Crossing the floor would be a very difficult decision to make, but I find it rather odd that a party that wants to come across as being a grassroots party would suggest that this would be an illegal activity.

There are other ways to do it. I made reference to the task force in Manitoba in which I participated. Another way would be recall. Public support could be gained for other ways.

At the end of the day, when we talk about members of Parliament and their ability to act on what is important, it is important that they have the opportunity to leave a political entity if they think that political entity is not meeting the needs of their constituents first and foremost.

The most significant reference I could make is that of Winston Churchill. If we looked at the British Commonwealth as a whole, we would find many cases where it has been justified and individuals have been re-elected after crossing the floor.

I have had exchanges with individuals here in Ottawa as well as in Manitoba. I have received responses that have been fairly positive toward this. All political parties have benefited by it. In Manitoba, I believe there was a Liberal MLA who went over to the New Democratic Party. I do not think there were any New Democrats who complained about it at the time. In fact, I believe they felt the individual had a right to do so.

Ultimately, we have to take into consideration that there is a Constitution. I believe individuals have a right to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents. If that means participating in another caucus, they should be allowed to do so.

However, when we talk about electoral reform, there are other priorities that are more important than this issue. I would like to extend to members the challenge of how to get more people to participate in elections. I would welcome a lot more discussion on that.

I have made the suggestion to put the choice of “none of the above” on the ballot. I have also suggested, and Manitoba has adopted, allowing more people to vote in places such as malls where people convene.

I am more interested in trying to engage people in participating in the electoral process and opening up nominations than what this bill is attempting to do. It is trying to dishonour or discredit the political process that has worked exceptionally well. The system that we have has worked exceptionally well. By discrediting it, we are ultimately discrediting the democratic process. I would suggest--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a touch of humility that I rise here today in support of Bill C-306, introduced by my hon. colleague from Pontiac. I mentioned humility because Bill C-306 led me to reflect on my role as a member of Parliament, and more importantly, on the principles that motivated me to run in the last two elections. It has always been clear to me, but to sum it up in a speech and then articulate it here in the House requires some reflection.

According to this bill, if a member decides to change parties, this decision would automatically lead to a byelection in the riding of the floor crosser. Or else the floor crosser would have to sit as an independent until the end of that Parliament. The spirit of this bill, of course, is meant to protect the democratic choices of Canadians. In light of what has already been said about this bill on both sides of the House, it seems to me that there are two conflicting opinions regarding the role of an MP. Once again here today, these conflicting views will emerge, but no one dares to spell out what they are. I would like to identify these two categories from the outset. If the adjectives I use rub people the wrong way, I apologize. However, someone must have the courage to say them.

There is humble conception of the role of MPs and there is an elitist conception. Those two notions are at odds when it comes to this bill. Bill C-306 is the humble vision. The government's reaction, and that of the third party, is the elitist vision. There is a very clear line and, from what I have read, it is completely unyielding. Let us not forget that sitting in a seat here in this House and representing a constituency comes with tremendous privileges. These social privileges automatically place all federal members in the now-famous 1%. While the west is going through a period of economic difficulties and uncertainties, we, as democratically elected members of Parliament, are sheltered from that wave.

I think that is the very definition of the word “privilege”. This privilege is the result of our democratic responsibilities. We work hard in return; we represent the people of a constituency and we do our best to defend their interests. Careful, I detected some rude remarks in my colleagues' comments. We do not represent the people who voted for us; we represent everyone in our riding, regardless of what party they voted for or whether they voted at all.

Those who place this democratic trust in us deserve a minimum of recognition. The seat I am sitting on is not my seat; it belongs to the people of L'Ancienne-Lorette, Loretteville and Wendake. Louis-Saint-Laurent is not my riding, it is the riding that I represent. A majority of people in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent voted for me to occupy this seat on their behalf. That is my job. Their commitment to me is instrumental.

A member is first and foremost responsible to the people. I am not invincible and I remain humble before the task entrusted to me by the voters of Louis-Saint-Laurent. I admit that some very talented people elected to the House can be elected merely on the basis of their reputation. That is the ultimate accomplishment of a career in democracy. These talented people can be found in all the parties represented in the House. We all admire a number of our colleagues—often without consideration of their political persuasion.

This is not the case for everyone. Many are elected because they represent a party. That is the political party system and, although this system does have some flaws, we accepted a long time ago that it has more pluses than minuses when it comes to the democratic process. And for good reason. Some members who were recently elected because they were members of a certain party will soon prove to be incredibly talented and may perhaps be re-elected later just on their reputation.

And since I am talking about humility and great merit, I would like to point out the excellent work of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who introduced this bill about 15 years ago. Fifteen years, what does that represent? It represents 15 years of inaction on something that is so simple. We in the NDP have not changed our position. We fight for the principles we believe in. Respect is the guiding principle that directs our work. We are not here for the privileges; we are here because someone must shape and build our country. This bill reiterates that power belongs to the citizens of Canada and that this power is exercised during elections in order to send representatives to Ottawa. It reiterates that the power in our system comes from the bottom and not the top. The member does not choose; citizens choose through the elected member.

This bill, which would limit the ability of elected individuals to put their own interests ahead of the voters' democratic choice, reflects the NDP's view that our democracy can be improved. How does the fact that other Commonwealth countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, do not have such laws justify abandoning this idea? Can Canada not innovate in politics? Voters find this lack of flexibility discouraging. Everyone knows that. Everyone claims to be aware of and concerned about the crisis of legitimacy we are facing.

Fewer and fewer Canadians bother to vote. Voters feel alienated from government. Yet nobody is doing anything. The system does not change. What is the current situation? Anemic voter turnout and pervasive cynicism. Do we have to wait until voter turnout in general elections drops below 50%, which is what happened during the last provincial election in Ontario?

The system is fundamentally exclusive. Neither the government nor the third party are truly concerned about voter turnout. That is the only explanation. This way, they win. The situation does not bother them because they have a basically elitist view of an MP's role.

I have tried to make sense of their arguments, but I can see only one troubling conclusion: voters are not relevant to the debates. The people are secondary. The member of Parliament is the only one who really matters. As I understand it, elitism is the best word to describe what is going on here. These people think that members of Parliament are an end unto themselves. An election victory is proof of intellectual greatness, confirmation of brilliance, an A+ awarded by the nation. These MPs turn up in Ottawa like little monarchs because, clearly, the people in their ridings could see that they deserved a place in the 1%. I apologize if I have offended anyone, but not talking about this would be much worse.

At first reading of this bill, some members of the House very seriously stated the following by way of criticism:

In effect, the bill would require members who fundamentally disagree with their caucus or with the leader of their party to resign their seat or to sit as independents.... Such restrictions would strengthen the control of political parties over individual members by bolstering a party's threat of expulsion in order to maintain party discipline and limit the representative role of members.

I do not want to make a value judgment, but this was said by an elected member of a resolutely strict, closed and exclusive government whose thoughts are systematically expressed as a single voice as a result of blatant internal terror. I will refrain from commenting on its legitimacy.

A floor crosser often acts to save his own skin. The wind blows in a certain direction, the person loses the favour he once had and panic pushes him a little bit left or right, depending on the case.

At first reading of Bill C-306, many members searched the long list of former floor crossers in Canadian history to find exceptional cases that would justify the act. When they failed to find any truly glorious and memorable examples, they quickly turned to world history. Perhaps because Carthaginian leader Hannibal was too obscure, they decided to mention Sir Winston Churchill, who changed political parties several times. Any reference to Sir Winston Churchill in this context is extreme. The man made a direct contribution to the survival of western civilization through the force of his character, and he received a Nobel Prize in Literature. His case is in a class of its own. Let us not compare apples and oranges.

Some members are trying to confuse voters. They want to lead voters to believe that they are acting in the interest of voters when, clearly, they are acting in their own interest. Members get used to their privileges. They start to feel invincible and they will do anything they can to stay here. After all, they got an A+, did they not?

I am confused when some hon. members refute the intention of this bill by saying that it is ineffective, since it is really the court of public opinion that judges members of Parliament. Essentially, they are saying that the system regulates itself. Is neo-liberalism being applied to the political party system?

If we follow the hon. member's reasoning to the letter, a member of Parliament is completely disconnected from his or her electors and has to defend his or her record just once every four years. It is clear what the Conservatives' priorities are. This also suggests that the message sent during the previous election is quite meaningless for the Conservatives and the Liberals. The mandate that is given to a member of Parliament under a specific banner ideally should last until the next general election. We know that circumstances change. We know that people change their minds. However, we are not talking about whether we want rice or potatoes with our steak. We are talking about affiliation to a political party and the convictions of the voters who made their choice.

The New Democratic Party, as I was saying earlier, has strong principles. An MP is not a demigod whose opinion is worth more than that of the people who sent him or her to Ottawa. We are not talking about a mandate from heaven. Just because an MP believes that the ideology he or she once defended is no longer suitable does not mean that walking away is morally acceptable.

The MP is in Ottawa precisely because the people want him or her to be here. Leaving it up to the voters to decide in the next general election does not make crossing the floor morally acceptable. That is why we strongly believe that a member who crosses the floor, as honourable as it is, has to answer to the voters if he or she decides to change parties.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I take great pride in rising to speak in favour of Bill C-306, introduced by my colleague from Pontiac.

In the last parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a similar bill due in part to the experience that I had in my own riding, Vancouver Kingsway, which I will speak about in just a few moments.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who has been a champion of this kind of legislation for many years in the House.

Fundamentally, the bill is about democracy. Fundamentally, the bill is about respect for voters. Fundamentally, this bill is about elections and the way Canadians choose their representatives in their parliaments and legislatures in this country. Bill C-306 proposes that byelections be called when an elected member of any political party in this House decides on their own to change to another political party than the one chosen by the voters in that member's riding during his or her term of office.

The bill proposes that byelections also be called when an independent member decides to join a political party during his or her term in office if he or she were elected as an independent. However, byelections are not called, according to this legislation, when an elected member of a political party decides to become an independent during his or her term in office. This exception is important because it allows a member of Parliament to make a principled stand against his or her party if they deem it appropriate, but removes the incentive to do so for personal gain or in violation of the clear expression of the voters of the riding.

What is floor crossing? It is essentially a betrayal of the trust that electors put in us when they send us to Ottawa. When candidates run under the banner of a party, they are saying that they agree broadly with the principles and leadership of that party. To expand on that, the reality of elections in Canada is this.

We have 100,000 to 150,000 voters in many of our ridings. We do not get to meet all of those voters. It is impossible for voters to come to independently interview each candidate running for office. Therefore, our country and modern democracies around the world have developed a party structure, allowing people to gather together and ascribe to broad and general concepts, philosophies and principles and to present that grouping of policies and principles to the public. Why is that important? It is important because that is how voters express their democratic will. They do not have to independently interview each candidate. They know that when someone is running as a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, they can trust that those candidates broadly represent a set of principles, policies and philosophies reflecting that voter's intention.

I have heard some highfalutin stuff in the House from the third party in particular that I think is utter nonsense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's what we think of what you're saying.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It suggests that people do not vote for the parties in this country—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

People vote for people too, you know.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, can I have some quiet, please, from the hon. member behind me? I listened carefully when he was talking. The member should respect democracy. I have the floor.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. Indeed, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will continue.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to concentrate when I have a yapper two desks behind me who wanted everyone to be silent in this House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, all members are honourable members in the chamber. Sometimes when we get emotional in a speech, as the member is starting to do in his speech, someone will heckle, even within our own political parties. It was nothing that was meant to be disruptive. As to whether or not it is unparliamentary, it is the manner in which one puts it.

The member was expressing himself passionately on an issue. Yes, I did say one or two words. They were not meant to be rude. I apologize if the member felt that it was not appropriate for me to have said so.

Having said that, I do not believe it was appropriate for him to take his cheap shots either.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I think the member has apologized and we will move on. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway to continue. I hope all members will try to maintain decorum while another member is speaking in the House.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, when electors vote for a particular party, a particular candidate, they need to have confidence that the person will faithfully represent and reflect those policies and principles in the House of Commons. I would argue that members in the House who pretend that the voters of their riding are voting for them personally and not also heavily influenced by the party, policies, principles and philosophies represented by their party are seriously mistaken.

It is a promise that candidates make to their constituents that they will faithfully represent the platform they are running on, the party platform. It is in that way that the electors' votes can faithfully be counted in a Canadian election and we can call ourselves a democracy.

If people can represent themselves to be one party and then come to the House of Commons and switch to a different party, how can that be a faithful representation of the voters of our country? It cannot.

The history of floor crossing has been talked about in many speeches in the House. Historically, members who have crossed the floor have, in some cases, done so on a position of principle but most have not done so for any high-minded policy reasons or because of the interests of their constituents. Historically, this has been done for personal gain.

A few recent examples come to mind: Belinda Stronach, who moved from opposition to a cabinet post in the Liberal government; David Emerson, from my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, who moved from the Liberal opposition bench to a cabinet position in a Conservative government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

How many days after he was elected.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

He did that 14 days after the voters sent him to this House as a Liberal. Other examples include Garth Turner, Wajid Khan and Blair Wilson.

I want to talk about Vancouver Kingsway because I know the story very personally. In 2006, when the Conservative Party first got a minority government, my own member of Parliament, David Emerson, who had been a Liberal cabinet minister, crossed the floor two weeks after the election to become a Conservative cabinet minister. The people of Vancouver Kingsway felt outraged and betrayed by that decision. That betrayal was most deeply felt by the many voters who voted for a Liberal member of Parliament. Moreover, the party that came in second in that election was my own, the New Democratic Party of Canada.

I want to go over some of the numbers in that election. The Liberals in that election had 20,000 votes, the NDP had 15,500 votes and the Conservatives had 8,600 votes. We had 35,500 people who voted for a party other than the Conservatives against 8,600 who voted for the Conservatives.

Not only did the Conservative Party come third in that election, it came far back. The two parties combined, other than the Conservatives, had 400% more votes than the Conservatives and yet the people of Vancouver Kingsway found themselves represented by a Conservative member of Parliament in a Conservative cabinet for his term of office.

That is fundamentally undemocratic and a betrayal of the voters of Vancouver Kingsway, and that is exactly what the people of Vancouver Kingsway declared to this country.

Interestingly, on election night, Mr. Emerson celebrated his victory for the Liberals by declaring publicly on television that he would be the Prime Minister's worst nightmare. Two weeks later, on February 6, he was that same Prime Minister's minister of international trade. Who would stand in the House and justify such a fundamental betrayal of the democratic process? That is just absolutely awful.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway rose up in disgust. Signs sprung up all over Vancouver Kingsway. People like Mike Watson, the president of the local Conservative Riding Association, a man of rare integrity and principle, people like Jurgen Claudepierre, a lifelong Liberal supporter, and Shannon Steele, the New Democrat, worked together from all three sides of the political spectrum to oppose that fundamental rejection of the will of the people of Vancouver Kingsway.

For a democracy to work, people need to have trust in their politicians and trust is at an all time low in this country. People are not voting in elections. Why? It is because they do not trust politicians to keep their word.

There is no more fundamental breach of trust of politicians in this country than to ask for someone's trust and vote to represent their philosophy in the House of Commons and then get into the House and change. The recent example of the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain crossing the floor is outrageous. The numbers are staggering. The Liberals had 12% in that riding and the member thinks it is a fair representation of constituents' vote to cross the floor to the Liberal Party. That is fundamentally wrong and should not be defended by anybody. This legislation should be put into practice to bring democracy to this country.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to echo what my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said, that is, it is an honour to be able to speak to this bill, knowing—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would ask for some order in the House while the member is speaking.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I wish to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. She said it was an honour to speak to this bill, knowing that over the past few months, those of us who are new here have had the opportunity to understand the honour and the significance of such a responsibility. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Pontiac on the work he has done on this file and his bill. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who carried this torch for many years.

I would like to come back to the comments made earlier by one of my colleagues from the other opposition party. He said that this would jeopardize members' ability to follow their conscience and to speak out when their party heads in a direction that goes against the wishes of their constituents.

When considering such a comment, it is important to remember one nuance in the bill. After deciding to leave a political party, a member may sit as an independent. That is very important because sitting as an independent provides an opportunity to say that the choices made by his or her political party no longer correspond to the choices of the electorate. The member would not have to join a party with ideas that are contrary to those of his or her voters.

There are a number of examples. Some of our provincial colleagues, in Quebec for example, acted this way. Without commenting on debates that are not within our purview, the fact remains that, in their case, they said they left their party because they believed it was no longer the party their voters voted for.

It is understandable that by joining another party they give the opposite impression. Recent events are a perfect example. There was a glaring example this evening, during a vote on a bill. Bill C-25 deals extensively with retirement and pensions. One of our colleagues has left one party and joined another, and she voted against the NDP. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the voters of Saint-Maurice—Champlain would have agreed with her decision, in light of the fact that they chose a certain political platform on May 2.

Choosing a political platform is very important. I will again reiterate the comments of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. All members work very hard to represent the voters in their ridings as best they can. In spite of the individual work of a member, he or she cannot be everywhere at the same time. That is when a party's platform is very important. When people choose a political party, it obviously plays an important role because the name of the political party is on the ballot. The most hard-working member must have people in the riding who will identify with the name of the political party that appears beside their name on the ballot. Every member works to transcend the existence of his or her party. The member must do such a good job that we forget their political affiliation and we really think about what they do. We are at least associated with this work.

I can speak from personal experience and I am certain that many of my colleagues would agree with me. When a person decides to enter politics and to represent a political party, he is very aware of the principles of that party, as are the voters. That is probably the reason—at least I hope it is—that the person chose to become involved in that particular party in the first place. I find it very hard to believe that someone would be prepared to put his name on a ballot and, if he wins the election, fulfill the responsibilities of a member of Parliament for a political party whose values do not completely correspond to his own.

I find it very hard to understand that situation. I would also like to come back to an example given by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway—the case of David Emerson. At that time, I was in the middle of my political science degree. When this event occurred, I was sitting in a class of political science students. These are informed people who understand our country's parliamentary system and electoral realities. No one in the room was prepared to say that he made the right decision and no one could begin to understand why a member of Parliament was prepared to go against the wishes and will of the voters so soon after an election—whether it be two weeks, as in 2006, or seven months, as was the case recently.

I have a personal example to illustrate this point. One morning in my riding, Chambly—Borduas, I was having coffee with a resident of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where I live. She made a very interesting comment about the work of my predecessor, whom I respect very much. She said that, despite the fact that he had done so much for our region and our riding, it was time for change; there were things that needed changing. Among other things, she mentioned my predecessor's stance on various issues as a member of a particular political party with particular ideas. In the end, she said that she had nothing against the person in question, who was a hard-working guy like the other MPs here, but that he was bound by certain ideas and had to make decisions based on his political party.

One could easily argue that if ever that MP had stopped believing in those ideas, he could have switched parties. That may be true, but the fact remains, as I said at the outset, that he was elected under a banner, and the fact that he could choose to join a party whose ideas stood in stark opposition to the platform on which he was elected is utterly incomprehensible. Just consider some of the examples given. I gave one recently. Take Mr. Emerson and Ms. Stronach. I would bet that no Liberal or Conservative would be prepared to say that they have anything in common. Yet individuals elected as members of one political party were prepared to switch to another. Would my colleagues say that their ideas are similar? Not at all. People in the ridings voted for certain ideas, which the MP no longer espouses. I think that is what we have to keep in mind as we talk about this bill.

The other important element of this bill is the notion of respect for the electorate. If we look at what happened in 2006 or even more recently, the concerns of Canadians are clear. People made it very clear that they wanted byelections. Thus, we must bear something in mind when making a decision: the people's wishes. We must respect those wishes. And if a member makes a decision knowing that it is in the best interests of his or her constituency, riding or region, I have no problem with that person running in a byelection. If his or her convictions are right, I am 110% convinced that the people would share those convictions. And this would show in the results of the byelection. Being in politics takes courage—the courage to be accountable for what we say and do, especially what we do. This is what would happen if that individual were to run in a byelection. If that person had made the right choice, as I said, the result would reflect the people's wishes. I think that is the basic idea of this bill.

That is why I invite all members of the House, with their parties' convictions and those of the people they represent, to support this bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation). Like my colleagues who spoke before me, I would like to congratulate the member for Pontiac for his initiative. I would also like to congratulate the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his excellent work; he has been working on this since 1999. In fact, since 1999, the NDP has asked that members who cross the floor during their term of office go before the voters to ratify their decision. We believe that this is fair and democratic, contrary to what members of the third party, for example, might say.

It is important that we mention it. This bill makes a lot of sense in terms of democracy because the general election campaign is always the moment when voters—every four or five years, or more often in recent years—have the opportunity to mark an X beside the name of the person who will represent them for those four or five years. In theory, parliamentary tradition says that the voter votes for the local candidate. That is just a theory. In reality, and I believe that we would all agree, people vote for many reasons. Some vote for the local candidate and others for the leader of a party or for a political party and its platform.

The most recent case is that of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain who, less than eight months after the election, decided to switch parties. This case clearly showed that people are against this type of political shift. Immediately afterward, a poll was conducted by Leger Marketing in Quebec with more than 1,000 respondents. People who responded truly represented popular opinion. And yes, the poll was taken after the deed was done and reactions were heated. I can say that the opinion is the same when a public opinion poll is take before or after a similar event.

The poll indicated that 60% of the respondents felt that members of Parliament who were elected for a party should not change political affiliation. Only 32%, or less than a third of the respondents agreed with the principle, but 60% were against it. Nevertheless, since our parliamentary system currently allows it, respondents were asked whether a member of Parliament in this case should have their decision confirmed through a byelection and 70% of the people agreed. Only 22% said it was not necessary. The public wants this type of change and the latest incident clearly shows there is a public consensus in favour of an initiative like the one being proposed in Bill C-306.

I mentioned that people vote for a multitude of reasons and the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that people were voting for Jack Layton in the case of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. That is true, just as they voted for the NDP and its policies, just as they might have voted for the local candidate. This was my fourth election campaign and I know that many people in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques voted for me. I also know that if I had run as an independent, I would not have won this election.

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North, among others, who made all those comments during the earlier presentation by my colleague, is truly convinced that people only vote for the local candidate, as he suggested in his presentation, I challenge him to run as an independent in the next election and see what happens. He will not do it because running with a political party, benefiting from the resources available during an election campaign and an electoral platform that he promotes along with himself, is what got him elected, just as I was able to get elected for the same reasons.

To say that, in theory, people vote for the local candidate and that is how we should look at this, is incorrect. In practice, people clearly think differently.

It is important to understand that people vote only every four or five years and that they vote for all those reasons. If a member of Parliament changes parties, the people who voted for all those reasons feel betrayed, and for good reason. That is what happened in the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, and that is what happened in the riding of Newmarket—Aurora, for example, when Belinda Stronach changed parties. That is also what happened in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Voters feel betrayed because they feel cheated out of their choice, particularly those who vote for the political party, the party leader or the platform. Many people do it. The Leger Marketing poll that I just cited also asked people what motivates them to vote for a certain person during an election.

According to the poll, close to 30% of people vote for a political party; 30% vote for the party platform; between 20% and 25% vote for the party leader; and only 12% vote for the strength or character of the riding candidate. During a general election, people vote a certain way for many reasons, and when a person who became a member of Parliament for reasons other than his own candidacy changes parties in the middle of his term, the people who voted for him feel cheated.

We also need to consider the absurdity of our system of electoral politics. The Canada Elections Act prohibits voters from selling their vote. It is completely prohibited, and fairly severe sanctions are imposed on anyone who decides to sell his vote or who receives undue benefits as a result of the way he votes. However, no such sanctions exist for a member of Parliament who decides to sell his seat. Examples of people who sold their seats have been mentioned. For example, there is the case of Newmarket—Aurora, where Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join the Liberal government in exchange for a cabinet position. In Vancouver Kingsway, David Emerson did the opposite when he left the Liberals to join the Conservatives in exchange for a cabinet post.

Are we supposed to believe that these individuals would have deserted even if the party in power had not offered such perks? Of course not. MPs can personally sell the value of their seats and receive undue benefits as a result of the position the voters gave them. Such MPs did not necessarily get the job on their own merits, but because of a variety of factors. That is the problem Bill C-306 would fix. That is what the NDP has been trying to fix since 1999.

We keep hearing about participatory democracy. Supposedly, that is how our voters want us to vote. It is difficult for each of us to talk to all of our voters. There are 85,000 voters in my riding. I have not yet met all of them. I hope I will have a chance to meet them all in the next four years, but that is a lot of people, and I feel for the MPs who represent more than 100,000 voters.

But in this case, this is a private member's bill. Every member should be able to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. But I can guarantee that if every one of us went back to our ridings to consult the people about whether the voters should have a say in this decision, which is supposed to be made by one person, the MP, the vast majority would be in favour of the MP's decision.This is important.

I see that there are very few government members here just now, and I see one member from the third party. I think that goes a long way toward explaining the problem. We have to consider a particular situation, one that arouses voter cynicism. Once again, in his presentation, the member for Winnipeg North said that we have to tackle the situation. Fine, yes, we have to deal with it. This is our chance to do that, to tackle one cause of voter cynicism. If we were to ask the people of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, they would say that recent events have made them cynical when it comes to politics.

That is why I urge members to do their job, to consult their constituents, to find out exactly what they think of this private member's bill. I would also invite them to vote according to this decision, because it is a decision that concerns them, concerns their right to vote and the value of the decision they make during the election campaign.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. I must inform the member that she has only about three minutes, because the hon. member for Pontiac must have time to reply.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-306, introduced by my hon. colleague from Pontiac, which has to do with respecting voters' choices when it comes to political affiliation. I am delighted to debate this here in the House. I have been talking about this with my constituents for several weeks now. Many things have happened, at both the provincial and federal levels. Quebec has seen many political floor crossings in the past few weeks.

I have been asked many questions on the matter. People were very worried. They wanted to know what became of their choice, why members were not respecting democracy and why they were betraying the people who had elected them. Many of my colleagues talked about this here today. A few comments struck me as particularly interesting, especially comments about those who criticize the NDP's bill.

We have heard a great deal about the fact that, in Canada, we vote for an individual. That is true. Our political system means that, in an election, we vote for the next person to represent us. But if we ask our voters, most of them do not necessarily vote for the person, but rather for ideas, a party, a platform. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques just said that only 12% of voters vote for the individual, and not for all the other reasons that influence how people vote. Unfortunately, I find this argument a little weak. It is sad to think our electorate is being disrespected in that regard.

Someone also talked about a member's freedom of expression. I would be very careful addressing that point. Do members not have a moral obligation towards the people who elected them? When one changes parties, there is a breach of trust. My hon. colleague from Pontiac is suggesting that when members no longer agree with the ideas of their party, they can sit as independents. If they definitely want to join another party, a byelection must be held. This shows basic respect for the people's freedom of expression. Besides, members are not above the rights of others. They must respect the rights of their constituents.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for their enlightened speeches. I want to again congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for the work he has done for so many years on this bill.

During the last election, Canadians voted to put an end to the old ways of doing politics in Canada and to change things in Ottawa.

For the past few weeks we have been hearing about politicians who change parties, provincially and federally, as though you can change political values the way you change your shirt.

This bill is reasonable and simply provides that a member’s seat will be vacated and a byelection called for that seat only if the member changes parties or if an independent MP becomes a member of a party, as the case may be. It is a matter of respecting the voice of the people. A member’s seat will not be considered vacated if the member elected as a member of a political party chooses to sit as an independent. This is a simple and reasonable proposal to protect our democracy.

In the recent case of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who was elected under the NDP banner and then, seven months later, turned around and joined the Liberals, the Liberals should also be ashamed for once again playing old political games. If my bill were to pass, and I truly hope it does, the voters of Mauricie would not feel today that they had been taken for a ride. They would not be so angry with politicians in general. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain would have had to run as a Liberal and ask the people to re-elect her.

We know that people are increasingly disenchanted with politics. The three themes that people keep bringing up are members' honesty, their accountability and the waste of public funds. A growing percentage of the population thinks that politicians are lying to them, lack integrity and are wasting their money.

We can indeed talk about the growing political cynicism in Canada over the past 30 years. Since 1982, the honesty and integrity of MPs were considered to be low or very low and 10 years later, the percentage was barely 49%.

According to an article that appeared in La Presse in May 2010, in Quebec, the province where my riding is located:

The results of this survey...indicate that 87% of respondents choose adjectives such as “discouraged” or “disheartened” to describe how they feel about politics. One in five voters...is indifferent. Only 9% said they were “optimistic” and 11% were “passionate”.

Whose fault is that? Ours. We wonder why they are so disenchanted. The main reason is politicians' lack of integrity.

This makes me sad because I decided to get into politics and to become more involved in my community in order to help people fight for their causes. And I know very well that the people in the riding of Pontiac voted for me because they have confidence in my party's ideas. It is unfortunate that, in recent years, according to a number of polls on trust in various professions, politicians are always ranked at the bottom, in Quebec and in Canada. The floor crossings in recent months have only fanned the fire.

The results of a poll on the Democratize.ca site, show that, in the last two months, 80% support my Bill C-306 on political affiliation.

Therefore, I invite all Canadians to speak out about this and write to their MPs because the more Canadians who express their dissatisfaction, the better the chance that the government will vote for this bill.

We should remember that our ridings do not belong to us. They belong to the voters. The NDP has been clear: if members wish to cross the floor, they should first ask the voters. My bill to respect the voters' choice would make this mandatory.

Voters who have placed their trust in us deserve nothing less. This seat is not just an object: it represents the people of the riding of Pontiac in the House of Commons. It does not belong to us, the MPs, but to the people of the Pontiac and to our voters.

Let us honour our voters and respect our commitments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 7:20 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, 2012, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.