As Prime Minister Mark Carney prepares to welcome members elected in by-elections, and the opposition MPs who joined his parade as it marched by, it stands in stark contrast to any majority government in Canada’s history. For the first time, our parliamentary democracy will attain a majority from floor-crossing MPs who ignored the banner under which they were elected, for the prize of a new brand and fresh colour. As of this writing, five MPs had left the opposition benches to sit as government members. These astonishing and unprecedented developments are legal under our system, but rare. The spirit of an election results in members representing a district under the name of one party. A member should honour that pledge. There could always be unusual circumstances that develop, so making the switch illegal seems heavy-handed. Since last April’s election, however, the switches have been happening more frequently. A trickle could become a torrent unless something changes the present mood. Why this previously unusual event dominates our news and its broader implications should give Canadians pause.
In rapid succession, four members of the Conservative Party have left Pierre Poilievre’s caucus to join the Carney Liberals. They have provided various reasons for leaving, but nothing clearly justifies the increase in the number. Rumours suggest there is more to come. The other member to flip parties left the NDP, just before they elected a new leader. No one has proved that the prime minister or the Liberal Party enticed these members, promised them positions, or pledged to fund their ridings more generously. Still, it does not seem overly suspicious to believe something greasy has happened. Regardless, Carney and the Liberals achieving a majority government a year after the election should stand as something beyond normal in Canadian politics, if not parliamentary democracy. About 100 years ago, during the 14th Canadian Federal Parliament, floor crossing changed the standings of the Liberal and Conservative parties for four years. The difference lies in the numbers. William Lyon Mackenzie King’s government had earned a majority by one seat in the 1921 election. The majority kept going back and forth until an election was finally called in 1925. In 2025-26, Carney started a few seats short and deliberately targeted opposition members. No one can claim any level of unfairness or illegality, but are the tactics honest? Are the precedents set ones that will serve our democracy well in the future?
Interestingly, a bigger development awaits on the horizon that may haunt Canada’s future. The long tenure of Liberal governments beginning in 2015 appears safe for some time. If no Conservative government forms until the 2030s, it could rival the lengthy period between Conservative governments from 1963 until 1984 (save for the brief Clark government of 1979). Under Trudeau and Carney, the Liberals have been appointing senators at a rapid clip. The merit-based system sounds good, but these senators have voted with the Liberal government 94.5 per cent of the time yet claim to be “independent.” Liberals will argue that anyone can apply, that the prime minister selects his appointments from a list of five recommendations, and that no Liberal caucus exists in the Senate. While technically true, the Liberals have done research to determine which candidates have donated to the Big Red Machine, and a private database has been used to conduct background checks on prospective candidates. Keeping this in mind, it does not take a wild imagination to figure out that by the time a Conservative government gets elected, the Senate will contain enough Liberals to create a legislative headache for a new government.
Andrew Coyne, on CBC’s At Issue panel the week of April 9, suggested just this: “…at some point, Liberals, believe it or not, will be replaced in power by probably the Conservatives. And there’s real potential for a crisis at that point, partly because a lot of these senators have gotten used to the idea that they’re not there because their patronage appointments are partisan hacks, but because they have a mandate of virtue. And the Senate’s been getting friskier and friskier over the last couple of decades. And you had people, for example, saying that if Pierre Poilievre were to get in there and to invoke the notwithstanding clause, that they would defeat that legislation in the Senate. There’s real potential for a crisis brewing. I think we need to revisit this question of how do we defang the Senate? And the main point is we’ve got to stop this idea that there’s any legitimacy to the Senate defeating legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate has the power to restrain itself. I think it should do so.” Coyne’s colleague, Althia Raj, pushed back, arguing that the new senators have not been pushy despite making recommendations on pending legislation. She, in fact, went further, contending that the House rushed legislation, and some of the progressive members appointed under Trudeau think the bills deserve more study before they become law. What happens when a Conservative government replaces the Liberals and must work with a contingent of progressively liberal senators just to get basic legislation passed?
Rob Shaw, the third member of the crew, may have nailed the problem on its head. Perhaps it’s time to abolish the Senate. A cross-country survey would affirm its unpopularity in the West. Large groups of people see it as an anachronistic body from an age that no longer exists. Like the monarchy itself, the people associated with the institution, its irrelevance to most people in the 21st century, and the threat it poses to democracy make it a sound choice for budget cuts. Why perpetuate an institution that serves as a landing spot for party workers, partisans, and organizers? These folks make their contributions during elections and through their work at the grassroots level. Placing them in a position to oppose a duly elected government seems like treachery and a basic act of anti-democracy. Before the problem worsens further, it might be a reasonable step for the prime minister, in good faith, to at least establish a commission to study the Senate and recommend its abolition. If the commission presents overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Carney can count on the Senate to vote for its survival. The former seems unlikely, and the latter as redundant as the institution itself.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who now works part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, where he earned a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
