There are floor-crossers and then there are floor-crossers. The Carney Liberals have been lucky so far, with three of their four recent recruits causing no problems at all, for very good reason. Even Michael Ma, a somewhat dubious addition, stirred up only a little controversy, and that was focused on a single issue. Marilyn Gladu, however, is a horse of a different colour, and a Trojan horse the Liberals may come to regret bitterly.
As an earlier article outlined, floor-crossers typically fit into one of three categories. (“Floor-Crossing 101”, 19 March, 2026). There are those who feel a particular issue overrides party loyalty (eg. Conscription during wartime), there are ideologically committed veteran parliamentarians, who feel it is their party that has strayed (eg. D’Entremont and Jeneroux, Progressive Conservatives under the far-right populist Poilievre), and then there are the newcomers of uncertain commitment, who find themselves out of place in a caucus (Ma, Idlout, and the classic examples from the not-so-distant past, David Emerson and Belinda Stronach.)
Integrating floor-crossers from any of these categories into a different caucus is not that great a challenge. They share most of the important values and beliefs of the party to which they have migrated, which is why they made the move. The same cannot be said of Marilyn Gladu. This is no Progressive Conservative, despite coming from Ontario rather than the west. This is someone who has been elected FOUR times representing the new, right-wing Conservative Party. And this is someone who is ideologically consistent. She is on the record countless times, in Parliament and elsewhere, denouncing the Liberals and all their works, to say nothing of her contrary social conservative positions on such crucial Liberal issues as abortion, conversion therapy and vaccine mandates. [i]
It is no wonder, then, that Gladu’s fellow Conservative caucus members — and veteran Hill Watchers alike — were stunned by her defection. It makes no sense whatsoever. True, some of the crossers in the third category may also be opportunistic, but there is still a minimum amount of synergy required to make the transition work, regardless of benefits to either the crosser or the receiving caucus. It is certainly unclear what Ms Gladu hopes to gain from this move, which many of her constituents have vocally opposed already. And this is not someone who goes quietly anywhere. She is not going to be silent in caucus, or in public.
And where did this get Mr. Carney? With Gladu on board, the Liberals have moved to 171 seats. Assuming they re-take the two Ontario seats up for byelections on Monday April 13, they will have reached 173 seats, or a razor-thin majority that will avoid requiring the Speaker to cast the deciding ballot (necessary at 172 seats). If the Liberals also re-take the Quebec riding of Terrebonne, they will have moved to 174 seats.
Many commentators are suggesting this is enough to constitute a solid majority. With 173 or 174 seats the Liberals will be able to take back control of committees and be more in charge of the agenda in the House. While this is technically true, it blithely ignores the elephant in the room, the Liberal caucus. At 173 or 174 seats, the Carney government is far from being on solid ground. Even one or two of its MPs missing a vote will throw it into chaos. Illness happens. Accidents happen.
However the real problem for the prime minister is that he is the odd man out in his own caucus. Yes, he has managed to put together a cabinet of like-minded so-called “business” Liberals on the right wing of the party, many of them new to both the party and politics, and many of them former colleagues and acquaintances of the prime minister in the real world. So far this has worked swimmingly. But it is also true that a significant portion of the caucus are not only veteran MPs but individuals who come from the progressive “social” Liberal left wing of the party. They are already more than a little uncomfortable with the apparent willingness of their leader to abandon both environmental and foreign policy positions of longstanding in the name of economic progress. Now, even social policy positions appear to be up for debate.
The fact is that the left-leaning social Liberal MPs in the Liberal caucus will now hold the balance of power. They will, in fact, form the unofficial opposition to the Carney government if it attempts to move too far to the right. If some of these MPs choose not to show up for a vote, he is doomed. And they might very well decide to do so if he does not pay enough attention to their concerns. Then there are others, such as Nathan Erskine-Smith and Jonathan Wilkinson, who will simply choose to leave, and not all of them have safe seats. (A consensus is already emerging that suggests new NDP leader Avi Lewis might be successful in a byelection in Erskine-Smith’s riding.)
Then there is that all important factor, public opinion. Other defections to the Liberal caucus have been met with widespread public support or lack of concern on the part of ordinary Canadians, who do not, in any event, want to see the Poilievre Conservatives in power, and who appreciate the utility of a majority government. But they will not go along at all costs. And recruiting Marilyn Gladu is already shaping up to be an extremely unpopular move. Indeed, Marilyn Gladu may be the canary in the Liberal coal mine. Canadians are not comfortable with her defection, any more than the progressive wing of the party is.
Sadly, Bloc leader Yves-Francois Blanchet is absolutely right when he notes the line between Conservatives and Liberals is now very thin. Put another way, what exactly do Liberals stand for these days? This is not simply an acceptance of diverse views in a big tent — this tent appears to have no walls. As one long-time Liberal staffer declared, she would rather have an election than face the fallout from this debacle. Accepting Gladu into the Liberal fold smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy, labels Mark Carney has easily been able to avoid until now. He has appeared to be above partisan politics and in government to do great things, not to stay in power at all costs. If he loses that image, there is no telling where polling numbers might go. And from a political perspective, the best thing Carney and the Liberals have going for them is Pierre Poilievre himself. If they poach any more of his MPs, even the admittedly ruthless Conservative leader could find himself in difficulty. Liberals do not want to face someone else in the next election, because it might be a Progressive Conservative much like Carney.
[i] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-convention-montreal-9.7156845
