Readers Demand Electoral Reform After Recent Political Floor Crossings
In a passionate collection of letters to the editor published on February 20, 2026, Canadian citizens have voiced strong criticism of the practice of political floor crossing, calling for immediate electoral reforms and condemning the actions of recent defectors as deceptive and self-serving.
Scabs in the Political Arena
One reader from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, minced no words in their assessment, labeling floor crossers as "scabs" who betray voter trust for personal gain. "Let's be honest and call it what it really is," the letter begins. "Floor crossers are nothing more than scabs. No different than crossing a picket line, except worse."
The writer specifically referenced former politician Sean Fraser, accusing him of using "the worn-out excuse" of wanting more family time only to return to politics when promised favorable conditions. "Much like Sean Fraser, who was like a rat leaving a sinking ship," the letter continues, "because he wanted more family time—only to return because he was promised he would get it, and now is in the news every other day. So much for family time."
The Dartmouth correspondent expressed hope that such politicians would face voter backlash: "As for the rest of the 'scabs,' I can only hope that every time they return to their constituents, they are booed out of town and kicked to the curb in the next election."
Calls for Mandatory Byelections
Another letter from Oakville, Ontario, proposed concrete legislative action to address what the writer sees as a fundamental unfairness in the current system. "Is there anyone currently in the House of Commons who can introduce a bill to say if a sitting Member of Parliament decides to cross the floor, they will force an immediate byelection for that riding?" the reader asked.
The Oakville resident pointed to three recent floor crossings as evidence that "it is time for a change in the rules." They argued that the current situation violates democratic principles: "It is not right that a person I elected as a member of a particular party now represents me as a member of another party. Very unfair to me and other supporters. This situation must be corrected."
The letter acknowledged that Alberta has already implemented similar legislation at the provincial level but expressed skepticism about federal adoption, noting parenthetically: "(The province of Alberta had passed legislation along those lines. Federally, it won't happen)."
Partisan Double Standards Alleged
A third perspective came from Oshawa, Ontario, where a reader questioned whether criticism of floor crossers depends on their political affiliation. The letter posed a hypothetical scenario about politician Jamil Jivani: "If Jamil Jivani crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Party and then went to Washington to use his friendship with JD Vance to try to smooth things over, I wonder then if he'd still be a 'Nazi collaborator' or too ugly to be in politics."
The Oshawa correspondent suggested the answer would be different based on party lines, adding pointedly: "(Of course not. He'd be heralded as a bridge builder)."
Growing Public Discontent
These letters collectively reveal significant public discontent with political floor crossing practices in Canada. The correspondents represent diverse geographic regions—from Nova Scotia to Ontario—yet share common concerns about:
- Voter deception when elected officials change parties without seeking renewed mandates
- Personal opportunism overshadowing public service principles
- Inconsistent standards in how political defections are judged based on party affiliation
The letters published on February 20, 2026, suggest that recent floor crossings have struck a nerve with Canadian voters who feel their democratic choices are being undermined by politicians who switch allegiances after election. While solutions proposed range from mandatory byelections to simply hoping voters will punish defectors in subsequent elections, the underlying message is clear: many citizens believe the current system fails to adequately protect voter intent when politicians cross the floor.
