By Lori Turnbull

March 12, 2026

There are three federal by-elections currently underway for voting on April 13; in the ridings of University-Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest, and Terrebonne.

If at least two of these go Liberal, which is almost guaranteed, Prime Minister Mark Carney will have successfully performed the political equivalent of the miracle of the loaves and fishes: he’ll have created a majority government out of a minority without a new election.

Carney has famously — political rivals say notoriously — achieved this miracle of majority math, if it happens, through the salvation of floor-crossings, which are partly but not entirely in his control.

In his first year as prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party, Mark Carney has recruited four members of Parliament from other parties to join the Liberal caucus — three Conservatives and one New Democrat. By Canadian standards, four in a year is serious traffic.

The affected opposition parties have heaped scorn on the party-switchers and the man who recruited them, alleging that the prime minister is building a broader coalition through “backroom deals” and against the will of the Canadian public, who did not vote for a Liberal majority government in the last election (more on this later).

Some, including the NDP, have argued that floor-crossers should be dissuaded by being forced either to resign and run in a by-election under their new party banner or to sit as independents before joining another caucus.

However well-intentioned these ideas might be, and however protective of the electorate, their implementation would only further empower political parties and their leaders at the expense of Canadian democracy and would punish MPs, whose subservience has come to be expected, for challenging the power of these leaders. Though floor-crossings are uncomfortable, they are a legitimate part of political life.

First things first: in a parliamentary system, we do not elect governments. We elect MPs. And they choose the government. Responsible government means that the prime minister is the person who holds the confidence of the House of Commons. It makes no difference how this support comes together. The constitution is completely agnostic to partisan affiliation, past or present.

Membership in a party caucus is, in fact, not a binding part of the contract that an MP makes with the voters in their constituency. It is a choice. MPs are not robots, pawns, or sheep. They can switch parties if they want, despite our cultural tendency to act as if they lack autonomy.

Further, it is entirely legitimate for the status or composition of a government to change between elections. Choosing a government is the most important thing a parliament does.

It cannot be doubted that Prime Minister Carney’s broad public appeal is helping him to grow the Liberal tent — and that this is frustrating to his opponents. He is an unusual politician in an unusual time. He’s no partisan hack. His political messaging is about Canadian economic growth and sovereignty.

Hell, Mr. Carney was prime minister even before he ran as a Liberal candidate. So, if anyone could transcend partisanship, it’s him.

The real shocker is how deeply our political system has normalized MPs’ compliance with, and servitude to, partisanship even when it does not resonate with their own values.

That said, every floor-crossing is a zero-sum exercise: there is a clear winner (the party that goes up a seat) and loser (the party that loses a seat), though the specific details, factors, and personal considerations that led to the switch in the first place are never fully known to the public.

Floor-crossings are particularly taboo because they break the number one rule of Canadian politics: loyalty. Even among our Westminster parliamentary peers, Canada stands out for its commitment to party discipline and the concentration of power in the hands of party leaders. Any deviance from the party line is met with shock and awe. This is true even when the MP has clear and obvious reasons for making a change.

For example, the fact that Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont left Pierre Poillievre’s Conservatives to join Carney’s Liberals is hardly shocking, given that Carney and d’Entremont obviously share Red Tory values.

But the fact that d’Entremont contested the election wearing a Conservative jersey creates an expectation that he ought to continue to wave the Conservative flag even if he disagrees with the Conservative leader’s approach.

The real shocker is how deeply our political system has normalized MPs’ compliance with, and servitude to, partisanship even when it does not resonate with their own values.

To suggest that MPs need to resign and run in a by-election or to sit as independents before switching parties suggests that they are not independent-minded people but, instead, are mere delegates for the party and their only job is to raise their hands in support of the leader. This is not a meaningful or mature concept of representation.

Further, any obligation for MPs to either run in a by-election or sit as independents before they switch parties would deter them from choosing to sit with the party that most closely aligns with their values.

It makes them pay a disproportionate cost. A by-election is expensive, time-consuming, and would ultimately wind up to be a partisan fight, while sitting as an independent would be even worse.

Independents have no entitlement to sit on committees or ask questions in Question Period. So, an independent MP would have even fewer resources with which to represent their constituents.

A mature democracy acknowledges that politicians can choose how best to represent their constituents. The condemnation of floor-crossing is really about the relative power of political parties rather than the role of MPs.

Frankly, no matter which party an MP sits with, they end up toeing its line, reading its talking points, and standing behind its leader.

At the very least, we should let MPs choose which jersey they wear while doing so.

Policy Columnist Dr. Lori Turnbull is a professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University and a senior advisor at the Institute on Governance.