The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- What Do You Think Of Floor Crossers?

Episode Date: November 13, 2025

A week after the budget and the floor crossing, many Canadians are still talking of both and mainly the latter. So we asked this week's question -- What do you think of floor crossers?". Your answers plus this week's rant from the Random Ranter whose message this time is about AI -- and he's still not impressed. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. What do you think of those who are crossing the floor in politics? Your turn and the random ranter coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Thursday. Welcome to your turn and the random ranter. The ranter will be by in about 20, 25 minutes. But we're starting off your turn with your turn, your opinions on the issue that's kind of captivated a lot of the talk in Ottawa over the last week and a lot of the talk across the country.

All this has a result of some degree of chaos inside the Conservative Party of Canada. it's only been one floor crossing there has been one announcement by a conservative that he's quitting politics we'll see where that one ends up but I can say that you had a lot of thoughts on this

so let's get right to them Sean Aiken in Whitby, Ontario I've always struggled with this I think the disgruntled politician should sit as an independent rather than change political stripes. As a voter, I feel portrayed my Election Day vote made invalid, as election must be called immediately. And the electorate can decide again what party they wish to see represent them.

Ron Fisher in Moncton, New Brunswick. Generally speaking, crossing the floor is a very big deal, but it has happened on both sides. It is generally indicative of someone who does not align any longer with their former party or leader. You know, it's a good point. This has happened many times before. Floor crossing, I'm talking about. And, you know, let me give you some indication of that.

Floor crossing is not exactly rare. 307 MPs have changed their political affiliation since 1867 Confederation. 158 switched from one party to another, and 149 were independents, either before or after changing affiliation. Back to the letters, Mark Engelden in Barrier, BC. The rules allow for it. What I think about it really depends on the circumstances. It can be a selfish decision.

However, Pollyev is offering no ideas to combat Trump or to help this country, and I think he wants an election for his own selfish reasons and not what's best for the country. So I applaud the recent crossover from the conservatives to the liberals. I don't think it's fair to say he's offering no ideas. I mean, even the liberal. say he's offering ideas because they're stealing them, or at least some of them. Dave Cole in Wallisburg, Ontario. First and foremost, an elected MP should not be allowed

to cross the floor to another party. If an MP has lost faith in the party that he or she was elected to, he or she should sit as an independent, and within three months a by-election is called in the defecting MP's riding. Crossing the floor, it is a betrayal. to the people who voted that MP into office. Febri and Budaman in Milton, Ontario. According to research, and he supplied the research, 95% of voters decided their vote based on leader or party, not local candidate.

Replace the candidate with a potato, and it'll get 95% of the vote the candidate got, or more. crossing the floor is a betrayal to those 95% of voters. If you dislike the leader to quit the party, then at least sit as an independent, run as independent, or under another party banner in the election. Brian Hoyle in Bedford, Nova Scotia. The only emotion I could feel is betrayal.

Whatever the motive, an elected politician, is beholden to the electoral wish of the constituents. Crossing the floor is political opportunism by the individual, however they spin their rationale. Instead, resign and run in the subsequent by-election, or become an independent and run as the candidate for the desired party in the next election. Joshua Como in Montreal. We vote for people, not parties, though you wouldn't know it from watching how those people vote on legislation. I think if floor crossings were more common, maybe party leaders would start to understand

that our MPs are there to represent us not to obey the party platform. I think this is a lesson that both Karni and Pollyev could use. Interesting, Joshua. Joseph Pisa in Waterton Lakes National Park. That's in southern Alberta, bordering Montana's Glacier National Park. I do not approve of floor crossing. If an MP wants to cross, that's fine.

They should then sit as an independent until a by-election is called. Simple as that. Let the people decide who represents them. Not some backroom political machinations. Dennis O'Sullivan in Mississauga, Ontario. As I see it, there are two reasons an MP switches parties. The first, and maybe the most common, is personal advancement, often a carrot being offered by the party across the floor. Examples are the case of Wajid Khan, an my MP back in 2007,

who switched from liberal to conservative to be an advisor to Stephen Harper on Afghanistan. But another reason is if the party itself shifts directions such that it no longer aligns with the ideals the candidate supports. In either case, the MP might be a man. must address the rationale to the electorate. If perceived as selfish, most likely the voters will toss that member at the next election, as was the fate of Wachit Khan. James Altie in Hauden, Manitoba. That's the area west of the Red River, just south of Winnipeg.

MPs are meant to represent their constituents, not their parties, so leaving a party should not be seen as. an act of betrayal. Parties give the false impression that MPs must prioritize party interest over those of their constituents and or the nation. But this belief can harm our democracy. Ideally, when MPs leave a party, they should spend some time as independence to concentrate on constituent needs and vote without restraint for the greater good. Don Mitchell in Ottawa I feel that floor crossers should sit as an independent

because in my mind they can't be trusted but I'm kind of old school Winston Churchill crossed the floor and then crossed back again and became prime minister so what do I know? His quote, anyone can rat but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat

is a testament to the cold-bloodedness of politics Peter Arato in Toronto. The two major Canadian parties overlap on a narrow political spectrum, making it easy to be pragmatic and vote for the best individual to represent my views and concerns, regardless of party affiliation. If my member or parliament believes they can better deliver their campaigned mandate by aligning with a different leader, that's acceptable.

alternatively adopting new political beliefs and objectives midterm is not Michael Artendale in Sudbury, Ontario When we vote the one we choose is based on many things Party affiliations is one of them Even if it was the party I did not vote for coming over to the party I did vote for I still would want a by-election so that we all can vote for what we want. Crossing the floor should trigger a by-election. Neil Douglas Fraser in Edmonton.

I'm not big on floor crossing MPs. It feels like gaming the system to keep or achieve political power. Let the seat go to the runner-up instead. And as for Chris D'Entremant, that's the Tory who crossed to the liberals, leaving because of bullying from a party, by someone accused of being a bully for the last four years. I hear pints of irony are on special at the bar in Parliament. Cecilia Classen in Colonna, BC. We've evolved to accept that people can change their views, so why not politicians?

In most areas, we celebrate growth, yet we expect political leaders to stay frozen to please voters who change their minds too. Canadian politics isn't what it used to be two years ago. Liberals have shifted to the center. Conservatives have swung far right, and the old progressive conservatives are gone. Now our parties exist on a constantly moving spectrum,

fluid, unpredictable, and even redefining what leadership means. Michael Patton in Edmonton. There is a tradition of party leaders dragging the speech, or the house to their position. Maybe we should have a tradition for floor crossers. Party leaders could log drivers waltz the floor crosser from their whole seat to their new one. Afterwards, you can talk to your guests about the merits of dance with the one who brought you in a literal sense. Scott Jansen in Sanich, BC.

Hearing about yet another case of floor crossing made me realize the problem isn't disloyal politicians. It's the party system itself. We vote for individuals but are ruled by brands. Imagine instead a parliament of citizens chosen by sortition. That's random selection by lottery. Qualified Canadians who were in 5,000 local signatures serve eight-year terms and can be recalled by voters. No parties, no ads, just civic duty and rotating renewal.

That's the democracy candidate. deserves. Okay, that's one possibility. Jackie McCurdy in Toronto. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Canada, we do not elect a party or a prime minister. We elect a representative. Presumably, when we vote, we've considered the representative and believe that their values and platform aligned with our own. If that representative later finds themselves at odds with the direction their party is taken, then they must realign to meet the needs of their constituents and their own

moral compass. I love this because there's lots of different answers here. It's not as clear cut as the question seemed to be yes or no, you know? Tim Stott in Minnesota, Manitoba. In my opinion, if an elected

official decides that he or she can no longer represent the party that they were elected from and cross the floor, they should have to resign from Parliament. A by-election is called immediately and let the electorate decide what party they want to represent them in

Parliament. Ruthie Muller in Toronto Crossing the floor is a sign of the times and a sign of a leader like Polyev is well past his best before date. Working together across multiple party lines is a good

roadmap for the future. Extreme party positions will not last in this rapidly changing world where the only way to survive is by cooperating. It takes a big mind to work under a big tent. Chris Tarduff in Aurora, Ontario. I think that crossing the floor is an important tool that our MPs should have available to them, and I think it should also trigger a by-election in the riding.

Michael Pash in Victoria Floor crossing is a risky step for any politician, never undertaken likely. The Conservative Party under current leadership is distinctly toxic, not hard to see why a moderate member of caucus could become fed up. While generally, you should dance with the one that brought you, circumstances can definitely change. In the end, reasons leading to the,

decision must be justified to constituents. They will either agree or not when they go to the polls. Mark Lozier in Timmons, Ontario. When I hear this week's question of the week, I think about all the volunteers and friends who are likely disappointed about having worked to support a candidate with a party to find out the member is switched. Politics is about friendships and alliances, and it must not be easy to make a decision like this and to let your supporters down. I'm thinking of running myself and understand the amount of work involved to support a candidate. Frank Bodezzi in Toronto. When individual MPs cross the floor, it is evidence of representative democracy at work.

The governing party naturally seeks a majority vote and the confidence of the House. MPs who are elected represent the wishes of all the voters in their individual writings and may choose to support a piece of legislation their own party disfavors. Their individual power to do so is a check on autocratic power. Joseph Murdoch Flowers in Ottawa If the MP goes to the party I prefer, it is a principal decision that I am. and surely their constituents can easily support. No by-election is necessary.

However, if the MP leaves my preferred party, then it is a deep betrayal of their constituents, a troubling sign of our eroding democratic norms, and the MP should have to run in a by-election. Ian Hebelthrode in Moncton. There are conflicting feelings on this matter. on one hand it is a betrayal of those who voted for you but on the other hand it speaks to the healthiness of our democracy

that the two major parties are not polar opposite and we are governed instead by mostly centrist governments thus I'm actually going to stay on the fence and judge it if and when it affects me more directly hmm Preston Lewis in Little Rock, Arkansas. I think about the personal relationships that are irrevocably change. People forget that elected officials aren't merely characters on a screen.

MPs don't just sit beside one another in the house without forming genuine friendships. They travel together, share meals, play hockey, and volunteer. in each other's writings. Sometimes their families intertwine. When an MP crosses the floor, I pause to reflect on the personal sacrifice and lasting public hurt. Don Kerr in Thamesville, Ontario.

The electoral system works just fine, but Ronnie LeBlanc, the liberal candidate in Akkadine-Anapolis, in the last election, be a bit frustrated. In the last federal election, the conservatives just squeezed out a win with a difference of only 533 votes or about 1% of the electorate. My hunch is that a progressive conservative or a liberal fits the riding just fine. While I find it is reasonable to expect that an MP go back to the electorate when an MP crosses the floor, in this case, I don't think it

would make much of a difference. Mr. D'Ontremont's decision seems reasonable given that Carney is acting like a progressive conservative, the form of conservatism that is popular in Atlantic Canada and almost half the riding voted liberal

in the last election. Kevin Dugan in Southampton, Ontario, it's on the shores of Lake Huron. Beautiful area, actually. Kevin writes, I voted for a local representative to speak for me in the House of Commons, not for a political party. I voted for someone who would stand up for the needs and interests of our community. If my local representative is pressured to act in the interests of the party rather than their constituents,

I believe they have the right to leave that party and join one that allows them to serve their community. John Minchell in Comox Valley, BC When I hear about a politician crossing the floor, I think it depends on the circumstances. If they believe it is for a principled reason, I can understand them doing so. If it is for an unprincipled reason, then I have trouble with it.

The issue of being elected to a certain party can be troubling, but again, if it's a matter of principle, they should be able to express such. You've got to think about that for a little bit because I'm not sure what an unprincipled reason is. I'm sure no politician would ever articulate an unprincipled reason to cross. Lisa shoot or shut in Oak Bank on Manitoba. just east of Winnipeg.

If Mr. Dantremant's constituents are contacting him and requesting that he support the budget and cross the floor, then he's doing what an MP is supposed to do, represent the wishes of his constituency in Parliament. As for the Conservatives crying foul, I don't recall them complaining when Leona Aeslev crossed in 2018 to their side. To their side.

Alislef was the Liberal MP for the Toronto area riding of Aurora Oak Ridge's Richmond Hill when she crossed to the Conservatives. In 2019, she was re-elected as a conservative. Then she was defeated in 2021. Don Dufour in Ottawa. When a politician crosses the floor, I see it as a sign.

of strength and standing up for one's values. It demonstrates clear and decisive action that one individual can take to make a difference in the future of Canada at a pivotal moment. In light of the behavior, tone, and tenor of Pierre Pollyev over the past 18 months, we may see more conservative caucus members follow Christont-Romont down this path. T.C. sang in currently vacationing in T. T.C. Sang, and currently vacationing in Tifino, Does it get more beautiful on Tfino on Vancouver Island?

But T.C. is a resident of Vancouver. I have a very grim view on elected politicians changing party affiliations while in office. At its core, it's a betrayal to the people who voted for them, no matter how good their intentions are. I may view those becoming independence less grimly, but still negatively. Thus, I've long supported legislation requiring MPs, MLAs, to resign and stand for re-election and a by-election if they want to change party affiliation. This move requires a mandate from voters. Let's take a break. Let's take our break now.

We've still got lots of letters to go. but we also have the break and then we have the random ranter who's off on a totally different topic today if you've been listening to the ranter for some time you know he's not necessarily a big proponent of AI artificial intelligence well he refines his message

even stronger this time round that's coming up but first time for a break we'll be back right after this And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge Thursday episode. That means, of course, it's your turn. The question this week is,

what do you think when a politician crosses the floor? We've seen evidence of that in the last week. We've seen the chaos that it has led to, especially inside the conservative party. but today you have lots of views on this subject and it's really been interesting to read your letters and we've got lots more to read as well. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks

or on your favorite podcast platform. Before we get back to the letters, it's time for our good friend, The Random Ranter. What's on his mind this week? Let's find out right now. I don't know what to be scared of the most when it comes to AI. The massive job losses or the environmental impacts of a technology that hogs power and chugs water. It's pretty clear that we're in a mode right now where governments and businesses have a line to go all in on AI.

And while I know there are early adapters out there who love the potential of it, I got to say I'm the opposite of that. I worry about AI because I don't see how the benefits outweigh the consequences. AI is a disruptive technology, the likes of which we've never seen before. It's not just a technology that tears down an industry. It's a technology that impacts pretty much everything in society, from the arts to the sciences. It will impact education, making many degrees moot. And I think pretty much everyone agrees it will eliminate jobs, And from factory workers to white-collar middle managers, no one will be safe.

Many of the so-called experts out there are saying that kids should opt for trade school instead of university. Well, let me just say, not everyone is cut out to be a plumber. And how many plumbers do we really need? I've read other experts say AI will give us more time to explore our creative side. Well, that's a load of bunk, because one of the earliest impacts of AI has been felt by creatives. I mean, there are bots for writing, graphic design, photography, video, music, poetry, and even painting. It's everywhere. There are ads on TV entirely made with AI. Same goes for voices on your radio, and for many people, the art on their walls.

AI is everywhere, and right now it looks like the zealots are calling the shots, or rather the tycoons and oligarchs are, because AI is big, big business that is consolidating wealth and power like we've never seen before. I mean, we've always had the Uber rich, but when have we had true bat villains like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, blasting off to space, digging tunnels under cities, or introducing technology, touted to solve all our problems? Honestly, it reads like a comic book. The one thing I don't understand about all this, though, is the government's role. Do they really believe all the jobs that are going to be lost to AI are going to magically morph into jobs we haven't thought of yet? That seems like a pretty giant leap of faith. Because the way I look

at it is, if AI does create a bunch of new jobs, won't AI just try to figure out a way to replace those jobs with more AI? Then there's the question of taxes, because unemployed folks don't pay taxes. And bat villains? Well, we know they don't pay taxes either. So who's left to foot the bill? The plumbers? Where is the oversight? I mean, AI moves faster than we can ever hope to react. And in a digital world, that's dangerous. From our financial systems, to our communications, everything we do is digital. We already have enough trouble protecting our systems from human hackers, what chance do we stand against quantum-powered superbots set out on cashing out our RRSPs? The backbone of society is trust, but every which way we turn, that trust is being

undermined. We trusted the value of a dollar. We trusted our elections, and we trusted the news, but all those things and more are under attack, and adding AI to the mix is only making it worse, because now you can't trust photos, videos, or even the voice on the other end of a phone. The scariest part of this to me is that the bat villains know the damage they're doing, they know the investment bubble they're creating, the resources they're depleting, the jobs they're destroying, and the trust they're eroding. But thank goodness they have a plan to solve all these problems. They're going to ask AI.

there you go you know i've been thinking about an ai related question for our question of the week and i've still got to refine it a little bit yet uh so i'm going to do that and hopefully on monday morning i'll have it don't assume anything at this point the idea i have is as i said it's AI related. Okay? So keep your powder dry on that one. And listen Monday morning, and I'll tell you what it is. You know, unless something else comes along before them.

Okay. Back to our letters of the week on the question, what do you think when you hear about somebody crossing the floor in politics? Frank Wang in Surrey, BC, a bunch of BC answers here right now. Frank Wang writes, In a representative democracy, we surrender most of our decision-making to the representatives that had been voted in. Technically, we are supposed to trust the representatives to do what they believe is the best thing for their constituents,

including floor crossing. In reality, there's always some level of office. opportunism involved, we as the electors then choose to affirm or punish that decision by voting accordingly in the subsequent election. Rory Filer in Vancouver, politicians have been crossing the floor in Canada since the first parliament. It's not unheard of. What is unheard of is someone apparently intent on crossing the floor being coerced into resigning instead. I heard the conservative party executives were persuasive in their discussions with Edmonton Riverbends MP. They must have potent tools in their coercion kit

to successfully stop someone from crossing the floor. They are not welcome in my Canada. So we're still looking for the actual story on that one. There are all kinds of rumors abound. But by the way, Rory is right that there was a floor crosser in the very first parliament. The first MP to cross the floor was Stuart Campbell from Nova Scotia. On August 30th, in 1868, he crossed from the anti-Confederates to the Liberal Conservatives. That's right. That was the name of the party in those days, the Liberal Conservatives.

Next letter, once again from BC and perhaps my favorite writer. um from at least from bc if not all over maryland wallace from fanny bay bc this week maryland writes the answer to this week's question hinges on the significance of a second more nuanced one should we vote for a person or a party political leadership does not happen in a vacuum unpredictable events and information can shift perspectives the evolution is constant i think we must trust our elected members to make the best decisions on our behalf, even accepting them in the rare cases when that means crossing the floor. Sarah Allinger in New Westminster, BC. This is a run here. We got four or five in a row from

BC. I used to live in Vancouver Kingsway, a historically left of center riding. In 2006, two weeks after the election, our liberal MP, David Emerson, crossed the floor to accept a cabinet position from Stephen Harper. It felt like betrayal. I support elected officials leaving their party, but only to sit as independents or run in a by-election, not to join a party that their constituents did not vote for. Emerson stayed in Stephen Harper's cabinet, by the way,

until another election loomed in 2008. he decided not to run again. Scott Lebus in Blind Bay, British Columbia. Enough already. It's refreshing to see someone follow their convictions rather than the party line. Imagine a parliament where collaboration and merit guide decisions, where MPs vote based on their constituents' needs,

not party dictates. A system built on consensus, not divisive, could deliver meaningful progress for Canada and Canadians. Perhaps it's fine and it's time. We redefine what effective leadership looks like. Julie Molnar in Burlington, Ontario. MPs are individuals who are partisan by all accounts. They have given up their jobs and made personal sacrifices to run for their chosen

party and campaigned vigorously under its leadership. After all that, for them to break ranks and leave for another party seems extreme. It's up to them to share with voters where exactly things broke down. I think that crossing the floor makes them human. I sincerely wish them well. Ruth Gaspar in Peterborough, Ontario. I believe the reasons an MP would cross the floor are one. they've lost confidence in their party's policies.

Two, they've lost confidence in their party leader and feel misaligned. And three, they believe that the current government can meet the needs of their constituents better and is more closely aligned to their personal values than that of their current party. Deb Greening in District of Lakeland, Saskatchewan. One would hope that integrity is one factor, that gets a politician elected. Crossing the floor is a serious decision, and I would expect my representative to resort to such a move only

if that integrity, as well as the well-being of my constituents and my country, were compromised. It would be my expectation that some degree of consultation within the riding would take place. Presently, the move is totally justified. Don Whitamore in Colonna, BC. In true Canadian fashion, my opinion on floor crossers depends on the situation. I lived in Yarmouth for a couple of years and met Mr. Entremant informally on several occasions,

and he never struck me as a Pierre-Polleve conservative, so his crossing did not anger me. I now live in Colonna, where our recently elected MLA crossed the floor to join an ultra-right-wing splinter party. We are actively trying to get her. called. Andrew Wilson in Windsor. I do not take issue with floor crossing. A parliament is made up of individuals who are selected by a specific writing to best represent them.

It's the obligation of each member to represent their constituents' interests. I find people are conflating partisan politics with governance. Parties should not be entrenched. Should not be an entrenched. of our government, rather something that helps grow like minds outside governance. Floor crossing keeps party leadership and structure attentive to the needs of real people. Eric Lussar and Pierre Fon, Quebec, that's the West Island of Montreal. Politicians who wish to change parties during a mandate should resign and run for re-election

under the new banner. If not by special election, then at the next general election, then at the next general election. Okay, but of course they would have to face the electorate at the next general election unless they just decided not to run again. Chris Wilson and Barry, Ontario. It is an MP's sworn duty to represent those constituents in their party's platform for which they were elected. If that party no longer represents those constituents' wishes during a parliamentary session,

and it is inherent and proper for that MP to resign from caucus. It is, however, deplorable for an MP to cross the floor and represent the opposition for any reason, especially personal gain. By-election, anyone? Actually, Chris, you're correct, there is an oath that MPs are sworn to. But the oath that MPs take in order to sit, in the House of Commons simply says this, I, whoever the name is,

do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King Charles III, King of Canada, his heirs and successors, so help me God. There's an assumption that being faithful to what the crown stands for includes democracy. Spencer Watson in Enderby, B.C., about an hour north of Congress.

Kelowna. I think regardless of which way the party switch is going, we should see it as a sign that MPs who we send are not merely following the leader, but reassessing the situation as it happens. This is what they're meant to do, make their own choice about the best way to represent their writing. If they were meant to always do the leaders bidding, then we should just elect party leaders.

Mark Renick in Guelph, Ontario. I think that crossing the floor mid-term goes against what the public voted for. The member should sit as an independent until the next election. Thomas Freeman in Cambridge, Ontario. The recent decision by Chris D'Entremont to cross the floor serves as an important reminder that in Canada we do not elect political parties, we elect individuals to represent us. Under this system,

members of Parliament are first and foremost accountable to their constituents, not their party. If voters disagree with a floor-cousing, they have the opportunity to make their views known at the ballot box at the next election. Barry Hoffman in Burlington, Ontario. There are times, I suspect,

when many politicians have considered a floor crossing and for many different reasons, both personal and political. Without a significant level of constituency support, I feel the politician should resign and take his or her chances with a by-election. To do less is a disservice to the voters of their riding. Ken Peloshock in Newstad, Ontario. I want all MPs to think about their constituents first and party somewhere further down the list, maybe after where to grab lunch. That's the ideal anyway, but how many of those constituency voted for their MP because of their party? Most, I reckon. I don't know how we detribalize ourselves, but it's a problem from the bottom to the top, and if we don't sort it out, our democracy will devolve into political theater.

Sonal Champsey in Toronto Sonal writes it depends a bit on the circumstances surrounding the decision to cross the floor occasionally it comes across as opportunistic particularly if the MP gains a more powerful position in the new party

but more often I see it as positive that a politician is taking a principle stand. That said, MPs may find that their constituents voted for different principles than what they themselves hold. Mark Clarehue in Mississauga. An MP who crosses the floor is overturned a riding's voting outcome. In such cases, a by-election should be called as soon as possible. The MP can run representing their new party, while their former party can

field a new candidate, the voters should have the immediate right to confirm or reject his or her decision. Spencer Stinson in Blenham, Ontario If the people in the riding are peeved enough by a floor crossing, they can have their say the next election. I don't support a by-election, like some argue. It's another example, another expense for what is usually a low turnout. Getting near the end here.

Cindy Zampa in Erdry, Alberta. If a politician of any stripe pivots because it better serves their constituents supports more effective governance addresses urgent public needs ignored by their former party than I'd say, Godspeed. Is it betrayal? Intent matters, as does alignment with values

in these rapidly evolving times. Crossing the floor can demonstrate integrity, courage, and a willingness to act on conviction rather than conformity. Loyalty should be the public good, not just to a party. Constance Menzies in Narrow, Manitoba. Risky, noble, self-serving? Better for any elected individual to disengage from their party and citizen independent than cross the floor, as this is fairer for those who voted for the party. One hopes this decision is made with as much consultation with their constituents in the first place

as representing people ought to come before political parties ultimately. Mike Warkentine in Nanaimo, BC. As an elector, if the member I voted for switched teams, they would need to be in a position where they were under duress and were being forced to tow a line that was unconsored. conscionable. I also support the right of the constituents to recall a member. Actually, as far as I can tell, only two provinces allow for recalls, Alberta and B.C. There has been recall legislation introduced over the years in other provinces,

usually private members' bills, but I don't think any have passed. Regway Flynn in Goose Bay, Labrador. I flew over at Goose Bay the other day. I was coming back from Scotland. There are two questions that under my mind when I hear of someone crossing the floor. Opportunistic or disillusionment. I think people who seem to be disillusioned,

like Dantramal, Genica Atwin, who went from the Greens to the Liberals in 2021, Scott Bryson, who went from Conservative, to liberals in 2003, we'll find more understanding from voters if they explain themselves well. Voters often have less understanding for those that seem opportunistic.

Belinda Strannick, who ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party in early 2004, crossed the floor to the Liberal Party in 2005. And David Emerson, come to mind. Personally, I have no issue with it if it's within the rules. Kate Wilson in Toronto

I'm not sure if MPs should be able to cross the aisle to join another political party many people work for the candidate based on political allegiance locals voted for the MP to some extent based on party affiliations if a member isn't happy with their current party work to fix it or wait until the next election to run for the other party Michelle Kaufman in Toronto Politicians are elected to serve the people and have the right to do that in the best way they can

even if it means a floor crossing for regular folk when we have a boss that we no longer respect we can look for other opportunities why should it be different for politicians hard to imagine but politicians are people to all this brings us to our last letter for this week it comes from Truro Nova Scotia and it comes from Jason Jollimore

if they are crossing to the side I support it's a great idea if they're crossing to the side I don't support it's a very bad idea and shouldn't be loud. Jason, you just may have nailed it there. Thanks again. Fascinating issue.

And, you know, it basically comes down to, in most of these letters, you either think it's okay or not okay. But what I loved about the letters, dozens of letters this week, is a different thinking that you use to get to your basic conclusion. and that's what I think those who listen religiously to your turn on Thursdays here at the bridge

appreciate the most as you make us think you know I say that most weeks and it's so true you make us think all right that's going to do it for today

tomorrow of course is good talk Chantelle and Bruce will be here. And as always, there's always stuff to talk about. And we'll talk about it right here tomorrow. So I hope you'll join us. I'm Peter Mansfich. Thanks so much for listening today to both your turn and the Random Ranter.

We'll talk to you again in about 24 hours. Thank you.