FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Crossing the Floor in Canada’s Parliament to Join Another Party

In the span of just the last five months in Parliament – November 2025 through April 2026 – five opposition Members (MP) of House of Commons have joined the ruling Liberals.  Their additions to the minority government of Prime Minister Mark Carney provided the Liberals with a majority government following the winning of three more seats in yesterday’s by-elections.  In light of the current geopolitical situation and the tariff policies of the Trump administration, most Canadians appear to agree that a majority government would give Canada more leverage in negotiating a new trade agreement with the U.S.  Crossing of the floor in the U.S. Congress among the two political parties basically never happens.  This is a political phenomenon found mainly in parliamentary governments such as in the U.K., Canada and Australia.

Since four of the five opposition MPs who joined Carney’s caucus since November 2025 were Conservatives, the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has complained that the Liberals have approached and tried to convince some MPs to cross the floor.  He naturally takes exception with this political move by asserting that members of the Conservative caucus were elected by their constituents as representatives of his party in Parliament.  Some Conservatives have actually suggested that a by-election should be called when an MP joins another party.  Sorry, but Poilievre is crying into spilled milk!  As an old parable goes: “If a shepherd cannot control his flock, then he shouldn’t be a shepherd.”  There are indications that some Conservatives are beginning to question Poilievre’s ability to effectively lead the party into the next federal election in three years time.

Moreover, history shows that floor crossing is one of Canada’s most dramatic political traditions.  Since Confederation in1867, 132 MPs have crossed the floor, with varying degrees of success.  In addition, past floor crossings have occurred involving different parties at the time.  The motivations behind such dramatic political decisions can vary from policy disagreements to personal ambition, such as being appointed to a Cabinet position.  Certain past high profile crossings had even sparked national rage. Today, the media has paid particularly attention given that this most recent wave of Carney-era crossings pushed the Liberal net all time figure to its highest point ever in the history of floor crossings.  It would appear that those MPs deciding to do so did so because of their belief that the current PM is best suited to represent Canada and push forward policies aimed at making the Canadian economy more diverse and less dependent on the U.S.  Polls have also shown that Carney’s popularity is at an all time high, well above that of Poilievre who is his closest rival.

However, when an MP walks across the House of Commons to join a different party, it represents both political calculation and personal conviction, often triggering controversy about democratic representation and voter trust.  Furthermore, statistically the harsh reality of crossing the floor for most MPs who switch parties is that they struggle to win reelection in their new partisan colours.  In addition, as for conservative or other party views on social issues, the PM has made it quite clear that those views will not find their way into any legislation his Liberal government will propose.  Some analysts would even argue that the addition of MPs from other political stripes could be a healthy thing.  In this case, the ruling Liberals will have access in caucus to different perspectives which could influence their decision making.

Now that the Carney-led government has a majority and has the votes, there will be greater expectations with respect to the speedier passage of legislation through Parliament.  Already, there is growing pressure on the government to deal with the most immediate domestic issues such as affordability, economic development and employment, as well as those surrounding trade and national defence.  What’s interesting is that rumours continue to surface as to the possibility of even more Conservative floor crossings, which would indeed be unprecedented!

Leave a comment »

Is the U.S. Breaking International Criminal Laws and Laws of the Sea?

Let’s first start with the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran.  Under Article 94 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the Security Council has the authority to enforce International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) decisions. The ICJ can take a range of measures to ensure compliance, including economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and the use of military force.  The territorial jurisdiction of the ICJ is fairly broad, as it can deal with matters relating to any of the UN member states, which essentially means almost all the countries in the world. The ICJ, however, can only entertain cases where states appear before it.  It should be noted that the ICJ has no enforcement powers.  However, if states don’t comply, the Security Council, the organ of the UN primarily responsible for maintaining peace and security, may take action.  This means that the ICJ is more or less toothless as it requires unanimous agreement by Security Council members to take action, something inevitably impossible in this case given the U.S. is a Council member. 

Then one has the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is a criminal tribunal that can prosecute individuals.  The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC.  It has never ratified the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that created the court, and U.S. federal law actively prohibits most forms of cooperation with it.  As of 2026, the relationship apparently grew even more adversarial, with the current U.S. administration re-imposing economic sanctions on ICC personnel and declaring the court’s actions an “extraordinary threat” to national security.  American officials have consistently argued that the U.S. military justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting misconduct by its own personnel, thus making ICC involvement unnecessary.  In short, the U.S. ignores ICC deliberations except when the U.S. selectively cooperates with the Court in investigations targeting foreign leaders the U.S. also opposes.

Next, one has to deal with recent U.S.military strikes against vessels off the coasts of Latin America, most notably that of Venezuela.  One could consider the American actions as being questionable given International Law of the Sea.  According to the 1982 convention on International Law of the Sea (in effect since 1994), each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of what is referred to as innocent passage through this zone.  The Law of the Sea also applies to territorial waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, used for international navigation.  The navigational rights of foreign shipping are strengthened by the replacement of the regime of innocent passage by one of transit passage, which places fewer restrictions on foreign ships.  Moreover, Iran by threatening the safe passage of ships through the Strait is in violation of international law.  However, the recent declaration of a naval blockade of the Strait by the Trump administration could also be determined to be illegal.  The matter could be referred to the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for compulsory settlement, by arbitration, or by the ICJ.  However, once again, resort to these compulsory procedures has been quite limited in the past.

All said and done, none of these bodies would appear to be in a position to rule on the current conflict between the U.S.and Iran.  Through its overt aggression, the U.S.has thrown international law out the window.  However, should the U.S. decide to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran (e.g. energy, bridges, water desalination, etc.), as threatened by Trump, those American military leaders who proceed to carry out such attacks could be held responsible by the ICC as being complicit in such attacks. Consequently, they could be deemed to be “war criminals” under international law.  From a purely political viewpoint, the damage to the America’s image internationally would be devastating.

The actions of the U.S. will no doubt continue to be closely scrutinized by world leaders during this conflict.  Certain countries, such as China and Russia in particular, will take full advantage of the situation in their foreign policy.  Any attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran would most likely lead to a major humanitarian disaster.  How the American people further react to this war, time will only tell?

Leave a comment »