Floor Crossing in Canada: Between parliamentary freedom and the voters’ sense of betrayal

The debate surrounding “floor crossing”, the act of elected MPs switching parties, has reached a new intensity in Canada at a time when the movement of several opposition members to the Liberal Party has transformed a minority government into a majority. For Anthony Wilson-Smith, President and CEO of Historica Canada, this is an unprecedented moment in the country’s federal political history.

In an interview with Milénio Stadium, Wilson-Smith emphasizes that the issue is not merely political but deeply democratic, as it directly touches upon the relationship between the popular vote, party loyalty, and trust in institutions.

In response to the first question regarding the impact of these changes on public trust, the historian was clear: “While people vote for specific candidates in elections, polls over the years have shown that the primary motivation for how they choose to vote is based on party loyalty (only about 10 per cent of total voters base their vote on the individual candidate). Thus, when a candidate elected on that basis leaves their party and joins another, there is often a sense of betrayal. The fact that this is the first time in history where switching parties can transform a minority government into a majority makes this scenario even more dramatic.”

Translated into Canadian political reality, this means that while citizens formally vote for a name on the ballot, the choice is, in the vast majority of cases, made based on party identification. According to Wilson-Smith, only about 10 per cent of voters decide their vote based on the individual candidate.

This is precisely why floor crossing tends to be felt by many as a breach of trust. When an MP leaves the party under which they were elected to join another, especially the governing party, a sense of betrayal often sets in among voters.

The expert further highlights that the current moment is historically unique. For the first time, floor crossing is not just an isolated political episode but the decisive factor in transforming a minority government into a parliamentary majority. This possibility gives the phenomenon a much more dramatic dimension than in previous instances.

The second question focused on the meaning of the vote and the traditional idea that voters primarily choose parties, not just individuals. Here too, Wilson-Smith provided a balanced interpretation, showing that the topic is far from linear. “There are two different perspectives on what a vote means. There is a reason why Canada and other parliamentary democracies do not prohibit party switching. This is due to the concern that doing so would give too much power to parties and their leaders over individual MPs, making them afraid to challenge leadership, even in the face of very negative decisions. Furthermore, party goals and structures can sometimes change drastically. For example, today’s Conservative Party is very different from the old Progressive Conservatives, and the Liberals under Mark Carney are undoubtedly very different from the time of Justin Trudeau. Thus, some MPs may feel it was the party that changed, and not themselves, which is why they no longer feel comfortable. The contrary argument is the one I mentioned above: the majority of voters base their choice on the party and, therefore, feel betrayed when their MP goes against that choice.”

This response highlights two distinct visions of representative democracy.

On one hand, there is the perspective that an MP must maintain the political freedom necessary to act according to their conscience and to distance themselves from a leadership with which they no longer identify. The Canadian parliamentary system, inspired by the Westminster model, protects exactly this autonomy.

On the other hand, the political reality remains that the majority of voters cast their ballots for the party and its platform. When an MP switches sides, many feel their choice was altered without consent.

Historically, Canada is no stranger to these types of transitions. However, Wilson-Smith makes a point to emphasize that the frequency and, above all, the current impact are of a different order. “There have been over 300 cases of party switching in Canadian federal politics, and over 80 in just the last quarter-century. But the current situation—a minority government transforming into a majority due to floor-crossers—clearly marks an entirely new chapter and dimension.”

These figures reveal that floor crossing is far from a rare phenomenon. Over 300 cases in federal politics and more than 80 in just the last 25 years show that the practice is part of the country’s parliamentary history.

Still, the current situation is distinguished by its concrete effect on the balance of power in Ottawa. This is not just a symbolic change or an individual gesture: what is at stake is the possibility of altering the very nature of the government without a new election.

Asked whether the current system offers sufficient accountability mechanisms when an MP switches parties without returning to the polls, Wilson-Smith recalled an important moment in the legislative debate.

“Polls show that the majority of Canadians do not feel comfortable with MPs who cross the floor to join other parties. But in 2012, an NDP MP introduced Bill C-306. Its effect would have been to force any MP who left their party with the intent to join another to resign their mandate and submit to a by-election. (They could, however, leave the party to sit as an independent.) The Conservatives (including Pierre Poilievre), who were then in power, all voted against the proposal, as did the Liberals, citing the reasons I mentioned above.”

This point is particularly relevant in the current context. Polls show that the majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with these party shifts. In response to this discomfort, Bill C-306 proposed a clear solution in 2012: any MP wishing to join another party would have to resign and contest a by-election. The proposal would, however, allow the parliamentarian to leave the party to sit as an independent without the need for a new election. The fact that both Conservatives and Liberals voted against the measure, including Pierre Poilievre, reveals how the issue continues to deeply divide the political system.

Finally, regarding possible future reforms, Wilson-Smith remains pragmatic. “In terms of responding to public concerns, Bill C-306 would have (or would have had) the answer. But it is very much in the interest of the major parties, especially the one in power, to keep things as they are—so while change is not impossible, it is unlikely in the short term.” In other words, from an institutional standpoint, a model already exists to address the public’s democratic concerns. However, political reality makes any change unlikely in the near future.

The major parties, especially the one in government, have little interest in changing rules that can, at certain times, strengthen their parliamentary position.

Canada thus finds itself facing a central question of modern democracy: should the individual freedom of the MP prevail, or the loyalty to the party mandate conferred by the voters?

Anthony Wilson-Smith’s answers show that there is no simple solution. The debate between political flexibility and democratic legitimacy will certainly continue to define Canadian parliamentary affairs in the months to come.

MB/MS

The content on the Milénio Stadium website is automatically translated using Google Translate.