After MP Marilyn Gladu crossed the floor to join the Liberals last week, she says she immediately started to see the benefits.
“Interestingly, after I crossed, I had a call … from the infrastructure and housing minister’s office wanting to get together and talk about the things we need in Sarnia—Lambton,” Gladu told the Sarnia Observer last week.
“I had sent [Minister Gregor Robertson], when I was re-elected in 2025, a one-page of all the things that lined up with his file that we wanted in Sarnia. It went really nowhere, until I crossed the floor.”
Days later, at the Liberal Party’s national convention in Montreal, Gladu described the move as the “best thing” for her constituents, the country and herself.
Gladu’s remarks raise questions about whether MPs who switch parties gain advantages in terms of rewards, access or influence.
Howard Anglin, who served as deputy chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, says there are “certainly advantages” to being in the party that is in government. But prime ministers are careful to avoid offering direct benefits for switching sides.
“I don’t think we can say [courting opposition MPs is] bribery without evidence of a clear quid pro quo that goes beyond joining the party in government,” he said.
Alex Marland, a professor at Acadia University whose research focuses on party branding and executive power, agrees.
“The last thing that a prime minister would want to do is show that they are giving out rewards,” he said.
The executive would be accused of using public resources for partisan purposes if they were seen to be offering high-profile positions or material benefits to floor crossers, says Marland.
“That creates an ethical quagmire.”
The perks of power
However, Anglin notes that MPs can enjoy a range of practical, intangible benefits from joining the governing side.
“You find that ministers return your calls much more promptly,” Anglin said, describing one of the most immediate differences MPs may notice.
Additionally, government MPs may have opportunities to pursue parliamentary roles not available to opposition members. Liberals may be asked to chair parliamentary committees, for example.
“I wouldn’t underestimate the value that MPs place on those roles,” said Anglin.
Committee chairmanships confer not only political influence, but also increased compensation: an annual stipend of $14,700.
And government MPs can help shape the legislative agenda.
“You just have better access … to press your concerns on ministers, on parliamentary secretaries and on the prime minister,” said Anglin.
That advantage is not necessarily the result of deliberate favouritism; it is a function of how parliamentary government operates.
“I think that’s an access issue that’s inherent in the Westminster system,” said Anglin, who is now a postgraduate researcher in constitutional law at the University of Oxford.
Finally, there can be reputational benefits to being part of the governing party.
“The social prestige that comes with being on a winning team — back home, in your riding, with your family and friends — it’s like getting traded to a playoff team at the trade deadline, even if it’s as a bench warmer,” said Anglin.
As Anglin notes, both Gladu and fellow Conservative defector Matt Jeneroux, spent over a decade on a losing team.
“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that both Jeneroux and Gladu were from the class of 2015, so they’ve never actually been in government.”
Neither Gladu nor Jeneroux responded to Canadian Affairs’ request for comment.
Caucus concerns
For his part, Marland is skeptical floor-crossing MPs do see any tangible, long-term benefits.
“I think the reality is that you’re going to hear floor crossers say that sort of thing, because what they’re trying to do is defend their decision,” he said.
“But then over time they become a backbencher, just like everybody else.”
Furthermore, governing parties have to be careful not to be seen to be favouring a new MP, he notes.
“It creates problems for existing members of caucus, who are being loyal party soldiers, when all of a sudden somebody they perceive to be a traitor waltzes in and takes a position from them,” said Marland. “You want the person coming over to show a degree of loyalty and build trust.”
However, that does not mean governing parties never send signals that they would be welcomed into the party, says Marland.
Both Jeneroux and fellow Conservative floor-crosser Michael Ma accompanied Prime Minister Mark Carney on diplomatic trips to Asia after crossing the floor earlier this year.
“It’s maybe a way to signal that you matter if you come over,” said Marland.
But such gestures are limited, he says.
“The average MP, let alone somebody who crosses the floor, is not going to get these opportunities with the prime minister very often.”
Sustained skepticism
While floor crossings are a long-standing feature of Canada’s parliamentary system, the Canadian public generally does not approve of them.
An Angus Reid Institute poll published in March found only 26 per cent of Canadians believe MPs who cross the floor should be allowed to keep serving under their new party banner. More than 40 per cent said MPs should be required to resign and run again.
MPs who abruptly abandon their party undermine public trust in the democratic process, says Anglin.
“If there is no loyalty — not just to the party banner, but to the party’s actual substantive principles and policies that you signed onto as a candidate — then I think that breeds a real cynicism,” he said.
Floor crossings also rarely serve to further a MP’s career in the ways they might imagine, Anglin notes.
“I don’t say that just as a partisan Conservative,” he said. “I think for the floor-crossers themselves, it’s almost always a mistake.
“ I think you are rightly perceived as a traitor and untrustworthy by the side you desert. And the side you cross over to will never fully embrace you.
“Why would they trust you? You’re not really one of them. So you end up in a political limbo after the initial hugs, backslapping and praise from your new party wears off.”
