Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

Why Matt Jeneroux’s Floor Crossing Makes Sense—Even If It Feels Wrong

When leaders dominate Parliament, switching parties is one of the few remaining acts of independence

Opinion writers aren’t meant to offer tepid defences of things. We’re meant to be strong and certain. I’ve always thought the admonition to be stupid, since some things thoroughly deserve a sort-of defence. Floor crossing is one of those things.

Last week, former Conservative member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux left his party to cross the floor to the Liberals. Previously, he said he would leave the Commons. His move strengthens the governing side’s standing in the legislature, putting them within reach of a majority and, in the meantime, buttressing their “working” equivalent of one. Since their election last year, the Liberals have maintained popular support, at once navigating and leveraging the threats from President Donald Trump and the United States against Canada’s economy—and sovereignty.

Jeneroux’s crossing marks the third departure from the blue to the red side in the life of this Parliament. As he left, observers drew their battle lines immediately. As always, differences of, ah, opinion were split between those who mark the switch as an act of conscience—and thus honour—or a betrayal, cynical and self-interested or otherwise.

Parties, including the Conservatives, who bemoan such a move, rarely remind us that when it’s them receiving a defector, the former explanation is a given. It’s all conscience and honour. When it’s a matter of losing a member, it’s always a betrayal. Politics and all that. Pointing out the double standard, the hypocrisy, is barely worth the clicks and clacks of the keyboard strokes.

Floor crossing is permitted. It’s a long-standing practice in the Westminster system, and any party is welcome to tempt and admit crossers or to turn them away as they wish. As a voter, you might like crossings or not, but they’re perfectly legitimate and well within the boundaries of the rules. You might prefer a crosser stand down instead of leaving their party and run in a by-election. That’s a fair preference given the terms on which members tend to be elected—voters tend to cast a ballot thinking of party affiliation or leader over the local candidate themselves.

As reasonable of an ask as that may be, whatever our intentions when voting, we return individuals to be parliamentarians. We should expect and want them to exercise their judgment. Indeed, for all the complaining we do about MPs being trained seals or nobodies or whatever, when one finally decides to think for themselves, we get awfully worked up awfully fast. This tension captures how voters tend to be torn between wanting their MP to be a representative exercising judgment but also a delegate responding to the preferences of the individual. The job cannot be captured as a binary, though. It’s often a little of each, here and there, which suggests that individual member judgment is, in fact, paramount.

Political Defectors Face Mistrust, Hostility, Sexism, and Worse. Why Do They Do It?

Party Loyalty Can Be Bad for Democracy

What We Lose When Question Period Becomes Performance Art

In our system, leaders dominate parliamentary life. The tendency isn’t new, but it’s been growing since the 1960s and has really gotten out of hand. Floor crossing allows individual members a bit of leverage against the all-powerful centre. This is the best defence of floor crossing. Ideally, it wouldn’t be necessary, since members could work through their issues within their party or, worst case, leave it and sit as an independent. The latter choice would remove or at least limit any perception of quid-pro-quo or any sort of personal gain from leaving one’s party. Sounds nice. But given the central role parties play in our system, it would also limit the member’s capacity to get things done during their time in office as they face constrained resources and a hard limit on roles (e.g. committees). Moreover, what if the member comes to truly, madly, and deeply believe in the value of being a part of a different party?

The upshot of this conundrum is that there is no ideal outcome. Whether you support floor crossing as a rule (or in particular circumstances) in any form, or whether you’d prefer a different set of standards or rules, each position reflects or emphasizes a different set of values, priorities, or concerns. Parties or individual members? Solidarity or independence? Discretion and judgment or a close, enduring, delegate-style commitment to the electors who sent you to Ottawa (forgetting, of course, all those electors who cast a ballot while thinking of another candidate or party).

All told, I support floor crossing, if somewhat weakly. Within the system we have, it allows individuals to exercise their judgment, an act which is all-too-often in short supply. Moreover, it allows those same members to have a bit more control over their leader and—perhaps more importantly—the office of the leader.

It’s a pity that a crossing undermines the will of the electorate, at least to an extent, but that’s the trade-off. If voters don’t like it, and they often don’t, they can make their displeasure known at the next election. The system will survive to disappoint another day.

Originally published as “Floor Crossing: A Sort-Of Defence” by David Moscrop (Substack). Reprinted with permission of the author.

Canada Is Edging Toward a Two-Party System. That Would Be a Mistake

February 17, 2026February 17, 2026

This Is What American Fascism Looks Like

February 16, 2026February 17, 2026

The Undeclared Civil War Inside Poilievre’s Conservative Party

February 12, 2026February 12, 2026

Support Independent Canadian Reporting and Storytelling

The Walrus is located within the bounds of Treaty 13 signed with the Mississaugas of the Credit. This land is also the traditional territory of the Anishnabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat peoples.

© 2025 The Walrus. All Rights Reserved. Charitable Registration Number: No. 861851624-RR0001

The Walrus uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences.

Fund Canadian journalism to help you make informed decisions. Fund The Walrus.

Fund Canadian journalism to help you make informed decisions. Fund The Walrus.

Fund Canadian journalism to help you make informed decisions. Fund The Walrus.

Fund Canadian journalism to help you make informed decisions. Fund The Walrus.

You’re not imagining it. Donald Trump posted a doctored image of the map of Canada with the US flag plastered across the whole country. Canada is not a meme; the “51st state” is not a joke.

Let’s get the facts (and the flags) straight. Canada’s strength isn’t in our size or being the loudest. Prime Minister Mark Carney put it best: Canada has what the world needs. And the world needs honesty.

The Walrus brings the truth. We capture Canada’s conversation with fact checking and diligence in reporting. The Walrus brings Canada’s values to the front page. Will you support The Walrus now, when Canada needs it most?

You’re not imagining it. Donald Trump posted a doctored image of the map of Canada with the US flag plastered across the whole country. Canada is not a meme; the “51st state” is not a joke.

Let’s get the facts (and the flags) straight. Canada’s strength isn’t in our size or being the loudest. Prime Minister Mark Carney put it best: Canada has what the world needs. And the world needs honesty.

The Walrus brings the truth. We capture Canada’s conversation with fact checking and diligence in reporting. The Walrus brings Canada’s values to the front page. Will you support The Walrus now, when Canada needs it most?

While others cut, The Walrus is investing. And that’s because of your donations. More podcasts, a bigger books section, expanded local reporting, and a broader international lens.

We’re not retreating, and you shouldn’t either. Donate today, or better yet, make a monthly commitment. It’s the best way to keep Canadian journalism growing.

While others cut, The Walrus is investing. And that’s because of your donations. More podcasts, a bigger books section, expanded local reporting, and a broader international lens.

We’re not retreating, and you shouldn’t either. Donate today, or better yet, make a monthly commitment. It’s the best way to keep Canadian journalism growing.

© The Walrus