Is there a wrong way to gain a parliamentary majority?

A few years after Michael Ma decided to span the base to the Liberals, capital of south dakota Poilievre was asked whether the red of another MP was a problem for his leadership of the Conservative Party. 

On the contrary, Poilievre argued, it was a problem for the leadership of Mark Carney. The prime minister was, in Poilievre's words, "trying to manipulate his way through backroom deals" to get a majority in the House of Commons.

A few days later, Carney was asked whether he would be comfortable gaining a majority as a result of floor-crossing.

"I am comfortable commanding the confidence of the House of Commons," he told Barton.

In conclusion, Canadian parliamentary democracy is a land of contrasts.

These duelling interpretations might be influenced by partisan interests. But they also raise a useful question of civics: Is there a bad way to gain a parliamentary majority?

Poilievre's argument that Canadians did not vote for a Liberal majority might have a ring of truth, but it is also the case that not a single ballot cast this spring included the words "majority government" or "minority government." Voters might be motivated by their preferred party or leader, but they do not elect governments — they elect individual MPs. And it is those MPs who then decide who gets to govern.

The confidence of the House is ultimately what matters. Carney has so far been able to win it on every important vote, but that task will obviously get that much easier if the Liberal caucus — the MPs formally pledged to support the government — grows to 172 (or more) members.

It is also the case that no major party's history is free of "backroom deals."

Poilievre was, for instance, a member of the Conservative caucus when former Liberal MPs David Emerson (2006), Wajid Khan (2007), Joe Comuzzi (2007) and Leona Alleslev (2018) chose to become Conservative MPs, either directly or after parting company with the Liberal Party. Andrew Scheer, Poilievre's House leader, was the leader of the Conservative Party who happily welcomed Alleslev.

If Conservatives were so inclined, they could propose legislation to restrict or ban the practice of floor-crossing. But Poilievre was among those Conservative MPs who voted against an NDP MP's bill in 2012 that would have forced floor-crossers to run in a byelection before switching parties.

'MPs are attracted to what we're doing,' says Carney after 2 Conservatives join Liberals

As the Liberals have recently pointed out, Stephen Harper defended the ability of MPs to switch parties after Emerson's move in 2006. 

"I believe members of Parliament should have that freedom and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions at the next election," he said.

For years, observers and MPs themselves have worried that party leaders have too much power and backbench MPs have too little freedom to think and act independently. Part of the argument against restricting an MP's ability to switch parties is that doing so would only exacerbate that broader problem.

(It might also be noted that the ethics commissioner also found no rules had been broken in the case of Emerson.)

Nonetheless, It might be argued that the current situation is different: the defections of Emerson, Khan, Comuzzi and Alleslev did not result in the Conservatives gaining a majority in the House.

But it might be useful to ask what Poilievre would do if the current situation was somewhat reversed.

What if the Liberals had won a bare majority — 172 seats — in the last election and then three Liberal MPs decided they wanted to cross the floor to the Conservatives? Would Poilievre refuse to accept them on the grounds that the voters had "elected" a Liberal majority?

If the Liberals are able to gain a majority from floor-crossing, it might be a situation without precedent, at least at the federal level in Canada. During the First World War, a number of Liberals crossed the floor to join a "Union" government led by Robert Borden, but in that case Borden's Conservatives already had a majority in the House.

The closest point of comparison might actually be the last Parliament.

Justin Trudeau's Liberals won 160 of 338 seats in the 2021 election, but later negotiated a confidence-and-supply agreement with the 25 NDP MPs. Together, they constituted a majority and the Trudeau government was able to maintain the confidence of the House through the fall of 2024.

Conservatives attacked the New Democrats for supporting the Liberal government. But the Liberal-NDP deal wasn't fundamentally undemocratic or illegitimate. 

Carney hasn't pursued a similar agreement with another party, but he might end up with something like the same result.

The obvious difference in this case, of course, is that MPs who ran under one party banner are now moving themselves to another. And since modern political parties tend to express themselves in uncompromising and un-nuanced declarations — particularly when it comes to denouncing each other — switching sides can easily raise questions about one's credibility.

There are fair questions to be asked of any MP who switches parties. But there are also fair questions to be asked whenever an MP — or party — deviates from the promises they ran on during a campaign. 

MPs who cross the floor — and the party leaders who welcome them — might worry about engendering cynicism. Voters aren't necessarily wrong to wonder if they've been misled.

On the other hand, Carney's argument is that MPs are simply "attracted" to what his government is doing. Chris d'Entremont has linked his defection to Poilievre's leadership of the Conservative Party. And MPs can fairly argue that they are not merely elected to be representatives or placeholders for a given political party — that they have some freedom, perhaps even some responsibility, to exercise their own judgment.

Either way, as Harper suggested nearly 20 years ago, MPs and parties can be held accountable for their decisions at the next election — just as they might be held accountable for anything else.

Senior writer

Aaron Wherry has covered Parliament Hill since 2007 and has written for Maclean's, the National Post and the Globe and Mail. He is the author of Promise & Peril, a book about Justin Trudeau's years in power.

---

---