Canadian MPs Should Be Banned From Switching Political Parties
Crossing the floor represents a fundamental miscarriage of democracy and justice at a time when Canadians have already lost significant confidence in their political institutions. The practice allows elected representatives to abandon the party platform upon which they were elected, effectively rewriting election results without voter consent.
The Sports Analogy That Reveals the Problem
Consider Olympic hockey during overtime elimination. Canada and Czechia are tied 3-3 with national pride hanging in the balance. Mitch Marner scores the winning goal for Canada at 1:22 into extra time, securing a 4-3 victory. The red sweater with the black Maple Leaf represents more than cloth—it symbolizes covenant, allegiance, and shared national identity.
Now imagine this absurd scenario: Before the handshake line concludes, Marner disappears into the tunnel and returns wearing Czech colors. The same player with identical talent now represents the opposing team, with his goal reinterpreted to give Czechia a 4-3 victory. This would corrupt the spirit of competition and tarnish collective national pride.
This precise principle should trouble Canadians in their political system.
The Real-World Consequences of Floor Crossing
This week, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux crossed the floor to join Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals. Jeneroux won Edmonton Riverbend in 2025 with 30,343 votes, defeating the Liberal candidate who received 27,075. Citizens deliberately chose a Conservative representative—they did not elect a Liberal vote that could help create a near-majority government.
When an MP switches parties after election night, parliamentary results become completely untethered from voter intentions. The ballot indicates one outcome while the chamber reflects another. Representation transforms into revision without democratic consent.
This isn't abstract theory. The Liberals now hold 169 seats—just three short of a majority government. One MP's personal decision can alter the balance of power in the House of Commons without a single voter revisiting their choice at the ballot box.
Contrast With Democratic Principles
Compare this situation with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Terrebonne case. That election was decided by a single vote when one mail-in ballot was returned because Elections Canada sent envelopes with incorrect postal codes. The court properly annulled the result, recognizing that every vote matters and election integrity must be preserved.
Yet when an MP crosses the floor, potentially shifting parliamentary control and government direction, no similar mechanism exists to protect the thousands of votes that elected them under a specific party banner. The system treats these two scenarios with dramatically different standards of democratic accountability.
Allegiance, loyalty, and political representation remain sacred components of parliamentary democracy. When elected officials abandon the party platform upon which they campaigned and won, they betray the trust of constituents who voted based on specific policy positions and ideological commitments.
The solution is clear: Canada must implement legislation banning MPs from switching parties during their elected term. If representatives wish to change political affiliation, they should resign their seat and face a by-election, allowing constituents to decide whether they support this new alignment. Only through such measures can Canada restore integrity to its parliamentary system and rebuild public confidence in democratic institutions.
