Canada has recently experienced one of the busiest periods of floor-crossing in years, raising serious questions about the accountability of Members of Parliament to their constituents. So far, four Conservative MPs and one NDP MP have abandoned the will of their voters and crossed the floor to join the governing Liberals. These defections, combined with three Liberal by-election wins on April 13, have given Prime Minister Mark Carney a majority government. According to media reports, more floor-crossings may be on the horizon.
Voters choose party and platform
Every MP who has crossed the floor claims they are acting in the best interests of their constituents, even though they were elected as opposition MPs less than a year ago. They argue that voters now want them on the government benches. For instance, Tory-turned-Liberal MP Marilyn Gladu stated, “I’ve heard clearly from constituents that you want serious leadership and a real plan to build a stronger and more independent Canadian economy.” She added that she decided to join Carney’s caucus to serve her riding.
However, this is not how elections are supposed to work. Voters choose a party and a platform. When an MP crosses the floor, that choice is altered without any input from the electorate. In practical terms, the decision made at the ballot box is no longer reflected in Ottawa.
Floor-crossing has not always been this way. Historically, MPs have moved due to deep policy disputes, such as those over constitutional change and Quebec separatism. The current wave appears less about principle and more about political advantage.
Recall legislation as a solution
Recall legislation offers a way to address this issue. It is the only option that gives voters a direct say when an MP breaks with the platform they were elected on. Under a recall system, constituents can collect signatures to trigger a by-election. If enough signatures are gathered, the MP must run again mid-term and face the voters.
British Columbia and Alberta already have versions of recall legislation. While rarely used, it serves as a backstop when trust breaks down. The signature threshold can be set high enough to prevent constant challenges but low enough to allow action in clear cases.
Other proposals fall short
Some proposals focus on banning floor-crossing altogether. The NDP has introduced legislation in every Parliament since the 1990s that would require MPs who leave their caucus to sit as independents rather than join a new party. While this might change the optics, it does not solve the core problem. An MP could still break with their platform and face no test from voters until the next election.
Recent cases would likely meet the bar for recall. In Gladu’s riding of Sarnia-Lambton-Bkejwanong, which has voted Conservative since 2006, she was elected as a Conservative with 53% of the vote just last year. She now sits as a Liberal. Under a recall system, voters would decide whether she should continue to represent them.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has expressed support for federal recall legislation. He said, “I am a longstanding supporter of the concept that voters should be able to recall their member of Parliament. If you work as a barber or a mechanic or a waitress or a businessperson and you mess up at work and you don’t do what you’re saying, you get fired, but in politics, you get the rest of your term and your paycheque, so let’s take a look at it.”
Recall legislation also addresses another issue: MPs facing serious allegations are often forced to leave their caucuses but sit as independents until their term ends. Voters in those ridings deserve the chance to choose a new representative.
Without recall, MPs can change parties and continue until the next election. Recall would not stop that, but it would force those decisions back to voters. If Ottawa wants to rebuild trust, it should give voters the power to fire their representatives.
Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
