Switching parties mid-term should come with a trip back to the voters

MPs who change parties mid-term should have to seek a new mandate from voters

Interview requests

Should members of Parliament or provincial elected officials have to resign and face a by-election if they cross the floor and join another party?

That question resurfaced late last year after MPs Chris d’Entremont and Michael Ma left the Conservative caucus to join the governing Liberals. Their decisions revived an old debate about who truly holds a parliamentary mandate—the individual politician or the voters who elected them under a party banner.

In modern Canadian politics, party identity is central to how Canadians vote. Voters choose platforms, leaders and governing direction. Very few cast ballots based primarily on the local candidate alone.

When an MP switches parties, the mandate under which they were elected changes. The person may remain the same, but the political identity voters endorsed does not.

Canada does not require that MPs resign if they formally join another party. They may cross the floor and sit under a new banner until the next general election.

It works that way because, under Canada’s parliamentary system, a seat in the House of Commons belongs to the individual MP, not the political party. The Constitution Act, 1867, and federal law do not require an MP to resign when changing party affiliation. As long as a member does not formally give up the seat, they remain the elected representative until the next general election.

While that may be legal, it is not democratic.

This debate has surfaced before. In 2012, former NDP MP Mathieu Ravignat introduced a private member’s bill that would have required MPs to vacate their seats and run in a by-election if they changed parties. He argued the measure would “help restore Canadians’ faith in our democracy.” Both Conservatives and Liberals opposed the bill, arguing it would limit an MP’s freedom to act independently of their party.

Under Ravignat’s proposal, MPs could leave their caucus and sit as independents without triggering a by-election. What would have required a new mandate was formally joining another party.

Manitoba once put that principle into practice. From 2006 to 2018, MLAs who changed party affiliation were required to seek a new mandate from voters. They could sit as independents but could not simply register under a new party without facing the electorate. The law was later repealed, but the model demonstrated that such a rule is workable within Canada’s parliamentary framework.

If an MP believes another party better represents their values or their constituents’ interests, they should be prepared to make that case directly to the people who elected them.

If they are right, voters will return them to office under their new banner. If they are wrong, voters will choose someone else.

Requiring a by-election when an MP formally joins another party does not silence dissent or prevent principled disagreement. It simply ensures that when the political banner changes, voters decide whether that change stands.

If an MP changes parties, the only honest course is to face the voters again.

Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.