Canadian MPs Switching Parties Undermines Democracy and Public Trust
In a powerful critique of current parliamentary practices, former Montreal mayoral candidate Balarama Holness argues that allowing Members of Parliament to switch political parties after being elected represents a fundamental miscarriage of democracy. This practice, known as crossing the floor, enables elected officials to override the will of thousands of voters without seeking renewed consent, creating a dangerous disconnect between electoral outcomes and parliamentary representation.
The Hockey Analogy: When Victory Changes Sides
Holness draws a compelling parallel to Olympic hockey to illustrate the absurdity of post-election party switching. Imagine Canada and Czechia tied 3-3 in overtime elimination, with national pride hanging in the balance. As Canadians across the country lean toward their screens, Mitch Marner receives the puck, twists through pressure from three Czech players, and lifts a backhand under the bar for the winning goal.
One minute and 22 seconds into extra time, Canada wins 4-3. The red sweater with the black Maple Leaf represents more than cloth—it symbolizes covenant, allegiance, loyalty, and national pride that reaches kitchens in Calgary, apartments in Montreal, and living rooms across the country.
Now imagine this: before the handshake line is complete, Marner disappears into the tunnel and returns minutes later wearing Czech colors. The same hands, the same talent, but a different crest. The goal is reinterpreted, the scoreboard revised, and Czechia wins 4-3.
"If allegiance could flip after victory, it would corrupt the spirit of the game and tarnish our collective national pride," Holness writes. "And it is precisely this principle that should trouble us in Ottawa."
The Parliamentary Reality: Overriding Voter Consent
The analogy becomes particularly relevant following Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux's recent decision to cross the floor and 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 consciously chose a Conservative representative—they did not choose a Liberal vote in what has become a near-majority government.
When an MP switches parties after election night, the parliamentary result becomes untethered from the electoral outcome. The ballot says one thing while the chamber reflects another. Representation transforms into revision, with significant consequences for governance.
This is not an abstract concern. The Liberals now sit at 169 seats, just three short of a majority government. One MP's decision can alter the balance of power in the House of Commons without a single voter revisiting their choice at the ballot box.
Democratic Contradictions and Institutional Erosion
Contrast this practice with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Terrebonne case, where an election was decided by a single vote. One mail-in ballot was returned because Elections Canada sent envelopes with the wrong postal code, prompting the court to annul the entire result.
Chief Justice Richard Wagner stated clearly that the purpose of election law is to promote public participation at a time when institutions are under strain. The message was unmistakable: democratic legitimacy demands precision, and every vote must count.
"One misplaced ballot requires a new election," Holness observes. "Yet one MP may override more than 30,000 voters without any renewal of consent. That contradiction is not subtle. It is a miscarriage of democracy and justice."
The political hypocrisy surrounding floor-crossing further compounds the problem. Conservatives have accepted defected Liberals in the past, while Liberals have condemned defections when in opposition. The outrage rotates with power, suggesting that politics has become about power by any means necessary, even when it requires open hypocrisy.
Eroding Public Trust in Democratic Institutions
Meanwhile, public trust continues to erode. Canadians already report alarmingly low confidence in political institutions. Courts strain to reinforce democratic legitimacy while citizens struggle to believe their participation matters. Into this fragile moment walks the spectacle of post-election party switching, quietly rearranging democratic outcomes after the people have spoken.
Holness proposes a straightforward solution: if an MP believes their convictions have genuinely changed, there exists an honorable path forward. "Resign. Run again under the new banner. Seek renewed consent," he writes. "If voters agree, they will send you back. If they do not, they will choose someone else. That is not democratic reform. It is common sense."
Preserving Democratic Integrity and National Pride
Hockey embodies Canada's national pride, while democracy embodies the country's constitutional order. Undermine the result of an election, and Parliament becomes divorced from its people. A Parliament divorced from its people stands in direct tension with the Constitution, which affirms that government derives legitimacy from the will of the people.
"Undermine that will, and you undermine Canada itself," Holness concludes. "When Canada wins 4-3, it must remain 4-3. If the result is to change, it is settled, as any Canadian would want, on the ice."
Balarama Holness, a former Montreal mayoral candidate, author, and CFL Grey Cup champion with the Montreal Alouettes, brings both political experience and athletic understanding to this critical examination of parliamentary integrity and democratic accountability.
