Carson Jerema: Holy cow, Michael Ma is shameless

Michael Ma’s floor crossing from the Conservatives to the Liberals was so shameless, it’s almost worthy of respect. There was no issue of conscience that Ma was wrestling with, no loud calls from his constituents that he must aid Prime Minister Mark Carney’s quest for a majority, no apparent fallout with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. In fact, there doesn’t appear to be any reason at all, least of all a defensible one, for why the rookie MP, having just been elected less than eight months ago, needed to change parties.

While parliamentary convention permits floor crossing, the whole business is embarrassing for everyone involved, kind of like how there is no law against adultery. It is hard to overstate just how cynical this floor crossing is. The day before being welcomed with applause at the Liberal Christmas party, Ma danced at the Conservative Christmas party and was photographed with Poilievre and his wife, Anaida.

Also, just hours before officially joining the Liberals, Ma participated in the Tory gift exchange. MP Kurt Holman noted on X that he was “Michael Ma’s Secret Santa,” and that he had just given him an “Amazon Fire Stick.” Holman added, “Now I want my gift back, just like the people of Markham—Unionville want their votes back!”

Ma, of course, tried to spin it all as a matter of principle, saying in a statement issued by the Liberals that his decision was made after “listening carefully to the people of Markham–Unionville in recent weeks.” Those would be the very same people who, again, just sent him to Ottawa as a Conservative in April.

Ma’s statement continued that he also made the decision after “reflecting with my family on the direction of our country,” and that, “Prime Minister Mark Carney is offering the steady, practical approach” to “making life more affordable, growing a strong Canadian economy … and creating real opportunities for young people and families.”

If he truly felt that way, why did he seek the nomination for the Conservatives in the first place? The answer seems simple enough: Ma has no actual views on the economy or the direction of the country, at least none that he came to on his own, and if he does have any ideas of his own, he doesn’t put much stock in them.

Speaking in the House of Commons just last week, Ma stated the exact opposite about the Liberals of what he is saying now: “They are team asset inflation. They are team rentier economy. They are team feudalism. The Liberals do not believe in a productive economy that works for hardworking Canadians.”

Perhaps there shouldn’t be much surprise at this development, as MPs tend to vote and speak at the direction of their leader. They may voice their opinions in caucus, but at the end of the day, they do as the leader wants them to. Yet even by the standards of empty-headed backbenchers being issued commands like an AI chatbot, the cynicism of Ma’s floor crossing is particularly notable.

Former Post columnist Jonathan Kay summed it up when he called it, “the tackiest floor crossing in modern Canadian political history.”

Ma won his riding narrowly, edging out the Liberal candidate by a margin of 51-47 per cent. Perhaps he reasoned he’d have a better chance at re-election if he switched parties, or simply wasn’t happy the Tories lost the election.

After the Ma’s crossing, which was preceded by the floor crossing of Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont, Carney is now one seat away from a majority. At the Christmas party, the prime minister suggested that more MPs may be joining the Liberal ranks. “The year’s not over, that’s all I’m saying,” he said, apparently joking.

All jokes aside, Canadians have a right to know what Ma was offered in exchange for betraying the Conservatives, and what will be offered to the floor-crosser who gives Carney a majority.

As for Poilievre, his response to Ma leaving caucus was exactly on point: “The people he let down the most are the ones who elected him to fight for an affordable future. He will have to answer to them.”

While this event shouldn’t be perceived as a sign that Poilievre’s standing within the Conservative party is weakening, it will certainly be portrayed that way by the Liberals and much of the media. The Opposition leader is still struggling to find the best way to respond to Carney.

The prime minister has become adept at introducing very progressive policies, but making them sound conservative, the memorandum of understanding with Alberta being the best example. While it commits Ottawa to approving a pipeline, the conditions placed on it are so strict, any pipeline project seems set up to fail.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, Carney appears reasonable, and after 10 years of Justin Trudeau, that is what people want. That said, Carney could now, assuming he gets his majority, have a full term to implement his agenda, and if Canadians are not better off, Poilievre will have more room to manoeuvre, assuming his party doesn’t dump him beforehand.

It might be tempting to dismiss concerns over floor crossing as being ahistorical, pointing to examples where they have happened in the past, but that would be a mistake.

Winston Churchill, a titan of parliamentary democracy if there ever was one, crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberal opposition in 1904. He returned to the Tories decades later. Churchill’s floor crossing was on a matter of clear policy disagreement with his party (free trade) but that doesn’t mean he was ignorant of the significance of switching sides between elections. He is often quoted as saying, though the phrase may be apocryphal, “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”

The point is not that floor crossing is a part of the parliamentary system, but that those who engage in it should be regarded with deep suspicion.

National Post