EDITORIAL: Mark Carney’s welcome mat for Marilyn Gladu tests what it means to be a Liberal

The news that Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu has crossed the floor to join Mark Carney's Liberal caucus should, by the crude arithmetic of Ottawa, count as a win for the new Prime Minister. It is the fourth opposition defection in a matter of weeks, nudging the government to within a single seat of a parliamentary majority.

The machinery of power is grinding inexorably in Prime Minister Carney's favour. And yet, as many of us at The Provincial Times voted for the Carney Liberals precisely because they promised a departure from the cynical accommodationist, performative strategy of the Justin Trudeau era, we find ourselves watching this particular arrival with something closer to bewilderment than celebration. We have written before in these pages about the broader phenomenon of floor-crossing.

Our view, in short, is that voters are owed more than a postdated notice that their representative has switched teams, despite most voters' opinions on the matter being contextual to whether it benefits their party of choice.

But set aside the procedural affront to the electors of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong for a moment. The more immediate question for Liberals is this: Why is Mark Carney welcoming a politician whose record stands in stark opposition to the very policies that built the Liberal coalition in the 21st century?

Marilyn Gladu is not a centrist. She is not a PC or a red tory adrift in a party that has left her behind. She is a social conservative who voted against the federal ban on so-called "conversion therapy," a measure so foundational to the protection of vulnerable LGBTQ Canadians that it passed with overwhelming support across party lines. She opposed the legalization of cannabis—the same policy that, in 2015, helped deliver Trudeau his majority over Thomas Mulcair's NDP and paved the electoral road Carney now travels.

These are not minor quibbles about marginal tax rates or procurement policy. They are fundamental questions of human dignity and individual freedom.

In his public welcome on Facebook, Carney praised Gladu's “practical, results-driven leadership” and her “willingness to work constructively across party lines.” The Prime Minister is a builder by disposition, and one can understand the instinct to value competence over ideology. Canada faces genuine crises: a volatile American administration, stalled productivity, and a housing shortage that borders on generational betrayal.

The temptation to assemble a government of all talents, regardless of partisan pedigree, is not without merit. But a political party is not merely a vessel for competent management. It is, or ought to be, a coalition of shared values. The Liberal Party many voters believed they were joining last year had learned the lessons of the Trudeau decade: that accommodating any view, no matter how illiberal, in the name of a big tent eventually leaves the tent with no walls at all.

Under Trudeau, the party became notorious for shielding candidates whose personal beliefs were at war with the government's stated agenda. The arrangement was transactional: silence in caucus in exchange for a seat at the cabinet table or a committee chairmanship. Running candidates who couldn't cut it in the Conservative Party nominations in those very ridings may have helped keep the government in power, but it hollowed out any coherent sense of what the Liberal Party actually stood for.

Carney seemed to understand this. His leadership campaign promised a return to first principles: a builder's liberalism focused on economic growth, yes, but also on the enduring liberal commitment to individual rights and social progress. His early moves—the emphasis on trade diversification, the rapid housing announcements—suggested a government that would be activist but also principled.

Welcoming Gladu into the fold sends a different signal.

It suggests that the party's commitment to LGBTQ Canadians is negotiable if the MP in question brings engineering credentials and a willingness to cross the aisle. It suggests that the coalition that powered the Liberal Party to three consecutive election victories—zoomer progressives, urban voters, new Canadians, and yes, social liberals of all stripes—can be taken for granted while the party chases after the remnants of the Conservative movement.

The political calculation is transparent. Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong is a bellwether riding; bringing its MP into government is a symbolic victory in southwestern Ontario. A majority is within reach, and every seat counts. But what is the point of winning a majority if you have to abandon the definition of your own party to do it?

Liberals should take note of what the federal party is signalling and put it on notice. Being a Liberal means something. It means defending the right of LGBTQ Canadians to live free from the pseudoscientific cruelty of so-called conversion therapy. It means trusting adults to make their own choices about cannabis. It means believing that a woman's right to choose is not a matter for parliamentary debate.

If Carney believes Gladu has genuinely evolved on these questions, he should say so, and she should explain publicly that journey to her new caucus colleagues and to the country. In the absence of such an accounting, the message is clear: all are welcome, so long as they are useful.

Carney has an opportunity to build a different kind of Liberal Party, one that is serious about economic renewal and unwavering in its commitment to liberal values. That project is worth pursuing. But it will fail if it replicates the very habits of convenience that made the previous iteration of the party so difficult to trust. Many on this editorial board are Carney Liberals and want him to succeed. That means we also want him to remember what the word "Liberal" actually requires.

This piece was written and published by The Provincial Times Editorial Board and reflects the editorial position of The Provincial Times. Read our Content Policy here.