Poilievre might want to take a political science course

If you’re going to accuse a government of subverting democracy, it helps to understand how that democracy works.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and other critics are claiming the Liberals’ new majority (gained this week following wins in three byelections) is the result of “dirty backroom deals” — as though something improper or illegitimate has taken place.

It’s a compelling bit of political theatre. But it’s also wrong.

The core of the argument — that Canadians “didn’t vote for a majority government” in 2025 — is deeply flawed and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada’s parliamentary system.

Canadians don’t vote for majority governments. They don’t vote for minority governments, either. In fact, they don’t technically vote for parties or prime ministers at all.

They vote for individuals.

Every ballot cast in a federal election is for an individual candidate in a specific riding. That candidate is usually affiliated with a political party and, yes, voters are typically influenced by the party’s platform and/or leader. But the act itself is local and personal: choosing someone to represent your constituency in the House of Commons.

That distinction matters because it undercuts the entire “stolen majority” narrative.

When voters send someone to Ottawa, they are entrusting that person with judgment. Not blind loyalty. Not permanent partisan obedience. Judgment.

Usually that judgment includes supporting their party. Sometimes — although rare — it means opposing it. And occasionally it means leaving it altogether, to join another party or to sit as an independent.

Floor-crossing is not a loophole in the system. It’s part of it.

And it has been for as long as Canada has had a Parliament.

MPs have switched parties for decades, including from opposition to government. There is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about it. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

What is unusual is what Prime Minister Mark Carney has managed to accomplish: converting a minority government into a majority over the span of a year through byelection wins and a handful of defections.

Unusual, yes. Illegitimate, no.

The Liberals didn’t wake up one morning and declare themselves a majority. They earned it the only way our system allows between elections — seat by seat.

They won byelections and they persuaded sitting MPs — including some from the Conservatives and one NDP MP — to join their ranks. And in doing so, they reached 174 seats in the House of Commons, a razor-thin majority.

Poilievre’s claim that this amounts to a betrayal of voters conveniently ignores how and why people vote in the first place.

Voting in a federal election is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Some people vote based on party loyalty. Others are drawn to a leader, or both. Some choose a candidate because they like the individual, even if they have reservations about the party the person is affiliated with.

And some vote strategically — backing the candidate they think has the best chance of defeating someone they oppose.

But there is always one constant: people are voting for an individual — not a prime minister and not a majority or minority government.

To suggest that every vote cast is an unbreakable endorsement of a particular party or leader for the duration of a parliamentary term is simply not credible.

If a Conservative minority government had spent the past year winning byelections and attracting Liberal MPs to cross the floor — eventually assembling a majority — would Poilievre be decrying a democratic crisis?

Of course not.

He’d be celebrating it as proof of political momentum and effective leadership. He’d argue Canadians were sending a message, one riding at a time, that they wanted his party in charge.

Everyone knows that, including the Conservatives.

Which is what makes the current line of attack ring so hollow.

The reality is that the Liberals played by the rules and, for now, won the numbers game. They expanded their caucus through legitimate means available to any party in Parliament.

You can disagree with the outcome. And you can question the decisions of MPs who switched sides.

But calling the result a “backroom deal” suggests something secretive or improper took place. It didn’t, at least not that we know of.

If voters in those constituencies don’t like it, they have the ultimate say in the next election.

They can vote to remove any MP who crossed the floor, if they wish.

That accountability is the safeguard — not a rigid rule that locks in the makeup of Parliament for four years regardless of what happens in between.

Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to be flexible. Governments must maintain the confidence of the House, and the composition of that House can evolve over time.

What’s happened over the past year is rare — it’s the first time a minority government has gained majority status between elections — but it is entirely above board.

There’s no scandal here. No subversion. No democratic sleight of hand.

Just politics — fluid, sometimes messy and, occasionally, inconvenient for the side that comes up short.

» Tom Brodbeck is a Winnipeg Free Press columnist.