From Floor Crossings to Foreign Influence, Canada Faces a Crisis of Integrity: Op-Ed
When public officials treat their mandate like a personal asset instead of a public trust, democracy loses legitimacy: Garry Clement
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.
Foreign Influence Concerns
At the same time that questions about internal political integrity swirl, another troubling theme has entered the public conversation: foreign influence and the vulnerability of democratic institutions. My own work — and reporting and analysis by Sam Cooper, Dean Baxendale, and others — has consistently highlighted how foreign actors exploit weak points in Canada’s political and regulatory systems, and how slow Canada has been to respond.
A recent report by the Jamestown Foundation, authored by China expert Cheryl Yu, found that Canada hosts at least 575 groups linked to the People’s Republic of China’s United Front Work Department — an apparatus designed to influence political, social, and economic environments abroad.
Yu described these organizations as part of an extensive network that embeds itself in civil society through informal ties — personal relationships, invitations, honorary titles, and privileged access — all designed to subtly advance the strategic goals of the Chinese Communist Party.
Such findings remind us that democratic integrity is not just a matter of domestic ethics — it is also about resilience against external influence that seeks to shape policy and public opinion in ways Canadians may never have intended. I have long warned that Canada’s political class underestimates the sophistication of these influence operations, often to the country’s detriment.
This raises an especially provocative question when placed alongside recent political developments: how can political leaders be welcomed with open arms on international stages when concerns about foreign influence loom so large?
For example, former Conservative-turned-Liberal MP Michael Ma — elected in 2025 to represent Markham–Unionville as a Conservative — crossed the floor in late 2025 and has since accompanied the Liberal government on diplomatic travel, including to China. For Canadians already grappling with concerns about covert influence and United Front penetration, this invites uncomfortable questions about perceptions of access and influence that transcend partisan lines.
Canada’s political culture has long prized integrity, accountability, and transparency. These values are not partisan; they are foundational to democratic legitimacy. I have emphasized repeatedly that once trust is lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.
It is one thing for MPs to reevaluate their convictions and make choices they believe serve their constituents’ interests. It is quite another for these decisions to appear as strategic realignments that serve political self-interest — or worse, create the appearance of undue sway by external actors over domestic affairs.
Democracy thrives on trust — trust that elected officials uphold the values and commitments on which they were elected, trust that political transitions respect voters’ voices, and trust that foreign engagement is transparent, not covert.
As Canadians watch these recent political developments unfold — from rapid floor-crossings to concerns about foreign influence — the nation must ask itself: has integrity taken a back seat to political expediency? And if it has, what will we do about it?
Former senior RCMP officer Garry Clement consults with corporations on anti-money laundering, contributed to the Canadian academic text Dirty Money, and wrote Undercover, In the Shady World of Organized Crime and the RCMP and Canada Under Siege: How PEI Became a Forward Operating Base for the Chinese Communist Party.
Try stepping out of the political arena for a moment, and examine these floor crossings through a different lens. Look at them as an outsider - say, a non-partisan scientist might look at them - through a lens of clarity and objectivity. That particular lens is never available to a politician. Clarity and/or objectivity are not in their vocabulary. That lens will have, etched in glass, the question: Qui benedictum? Who profits?
The only objective answer is that this is, quite simply, a frontal assault on literal democracy by the self-named Liberal Party, The Liberal Party is telling Canadians - out loud - that your vote in these three constituencies does not count because we have purchased it. And oh yes, we purchased it with your tax dollars. Period, no spin allowed. And, as a corollary, when we seduce one more MP and gain a majority, the entire national election will not count. And that this assault is criminal in its planning and implementation.
This is just one more step in the so-called Liberal Party's relentless plan to achieve their ultimate goal, an Authoritarian Rule, similar to China's . The same system that is so much admired by Trudeau-the Witless.
OYFEyes Canada.
"It is one thing for MPs to reevaluate their convictions and make choices they believe serve their constituents’ interests."
The switch from Conservative to Liberal is such a paradigm shift that I have to assume the floor crosser was not in politics because of their convictions, or financial incentives and/or foreign influence were enough to cause them to abandon them.
Ask yourself, "What would it take to change my vote in the next election?" Now imagine how much more it should take for an MP, with the pressure of all their supporters, to switch their allegiance.