Unacceptable SooSunP (@SooSunP)

By Garry Clement OTTAWA — In recent months, Canadian democracy has been shaken by events that ought to prompt serious reflection — not just from politicians, but from every voter who believes in representative government. For years, leaning on my expertise as a former RCMP Superintendent, I have warned that complacency, political expediency, and foreign influence are eroding the ethical foundations of our institutions. Today, those warnings feel more relevant than ever. Three Members of Parliament — Chris d’Entremont, Michael Ma, and most recently Matt Jeneroux — have chosen to abandon the Conservative Party and join the governing Liberals. D’Entremont crossed the floor in November, Ma followed in December, and Jeneroux just days ago — making three defections in a remarkably short span. Each of these MPs were elected under the Conservative banner, financed by Conservative supporters in their ridings, and yet now sit with a different party caucus without seeking a fresh mandate from their constituents. For many Canadians, this isn’t merely partisan theatre or a quirk of parliamentary convention — it’s a breach of trust. When voters cast their ballots, they are not simply choosing an individual; they are endorsing a platform, a party identity, and a set of policy promises. Floor-crossing between elections — especially when it shifts the balance of power in Parliament — raises an uncomfortable question: whose interests are these politicians serving, and who truly pays the price for such decisions? Critics of floor-crossing argue that MPs who switch parties should resign and seek re-election before altering the political calculus of the House of Commons. Public opinion polls have long shown Canadians divided on the practice, with a significant proportion believing MPs should be required to face the voters again if they cross the floor. Yet the recent sequence of transitions — three in a matter of months — has many Canadians asking whether morality and integrity have been supplanted by political opportunism. I have repeatedly argued that when public officials treat their mandates as personal assets rather than public trusts, democratic legitimacy suffers. These defections fit squarely within that concern. Continued in Comments.