In response to Member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux crossing the aisle from the Conservatives to the Liberals, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre wrote that Jeneroux had “betrayed the people of Edmonton Riverbend.”
At one level, Poilievre’s reaction is an understandable, partisan response: Jeneroux’s decision weakens the position of the Conservatives in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, Poilievre’s statement belies a broken conception of what it means for MPs to represent their constituents.
Poilievre’s claim suggests that MPs are merely delegates selected by constituents to echo the party with which the candidate is running. His view implies that candidates are empty vessels: All that matters is that they vote in accordance with the party and its agenda.
Poilievre calls it a betrayal because he claims the constituents of Jeneroux’s riding voted for “affordable homes, safe streets, and a strong resource sector.” This, however, invites immediate scepticism.
First, how does Poilievre know this? Does he have a more intimate relationship with the people of Edmonton Riverbend than Jeneroux?
Whether or not Jeneroux is acting in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, having been elected by them, he is more likely than Poilievre to have a sense of their views. This claim ruptures the norm of relationality embedded in Canadian representation.
Poilievre could only “know” the desires of the people of Edmonton Riverbend by presuming that the party is, in fact, the operative force in their voting. This, however, assumes precisely what needs demonstration: Poilievre is extrapolating that people who vote for a Conservative candidate simply want what the Conservatives ran on in 2025. This assumption allows the Opposition Leader to place his own party platform in the mouths of a subset of Canadians — a flattening of political engagement into partisan identification.
Second, even granting that Poilievre is right about the desires of Edmonton Riverbend’s constituents, why should Jeneroux be denied the ability to judge that he can do more for those objectives by crossing the aisle? One should be careful to try guessing the thoughts passing through another’s head, but Jeneroux could be concerned about national security and maintaining trade relations that he believes will provide for his riding.
Many people will be — and probably should be — sceptical of the suggestion that the Liberals are the better choice for pursuing these aforementioned goods. But this does not give license to deny Jeneroux the capacity to make the decisions for which he was authorized by his riding. As a representative, Jeneroux will answer for his decision to cross the aisle next election.
In fairness to Poilievre, every party leader would likely respond in the same manner if in his position. The intense party discipline that pervades the Lower House suggests all candidates of all parties are merely subservient to their agendas. This reflects a troubling development in Canadian parliamentary culture. This norm constrains candidates from exercising prudential advocacy based on the nuances of their local ridings. In this way, Poilievre’s rhetoric is not so much unexpected as it is an unfortunate salient example of a problematic norm that has come to dominate the Commons.
If crossing the aisle is automatically deemed a betrayal, then representation has been reduced to partisan transmission. But parliamentary democracy was never designed to function that way. Members of Parliament are elected not merely to echo a platform but to exercise judgment on behalf of their communities.
Voters may disagree with how that judgment is exercised, but they can immediately engage their representative and retain the ultimate authority to remove him or her at the next election. Until then, the authority entrusted to that member remains his or hers to exercise.
To confuse party loyalty with constitutional duty is to mistake the nature of representation itself.
