The shift happened swiftly, a political tremor felt across Ottawa. Conservative MP Michael Ma, seemingly without warning, crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks, a move orchestrated by Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson. The announcement, a sudden email blast from the Liberal Party, landed just after 6 p.m. on a Thursday evening, catching even Ma’s own staff completely off guard.
The scene at the Liberal Christmas party was electric. As Ma was introduced, a wave of applause, cheers, and excited shouts erupted from the assembled MPs and staffers. He offered a simple greeting, wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2026, a year that now held dramatically different possibilities.
Liberals are openly confident this is just the beginning. Whispers circulate of further defections, with some claiming one, perhaps even two, more Conservative MPs are poised to make the same leap. Such a shift would hand Prime Minister Mark Carney a coveted majority government, fundamentally altering the political landscape.
Hodgson’s role was key, leveraging a pre-existing relationship with Ma that extended beyond the parliamentary sphere. Both men had navigated the corporate world at high levels, a shared history that provided a foundation for private discussions. Their ridings, geographically close, also facilitated frequent interactions at local events.
The move stunned many within Conservative circles. One MP recalled seeing Ma and his wife enjoying themselves at the Conservative Christmas party just the night before, showing no outward sign of discontent. The question lingered: what truly motivated this unexpected change of allegiance?
Ma’s statement alluded to a desire for “steady, practical approach” under Carney’s leadership, but insiders suspect a more complex story. He had been a long-time Conservative supporter, a donor, and even a candidate in a previous election. The full truth, it seems, remains hidden beneath the surface.
For Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, the defection represents a deepening crisis. This is the third MP he has lost – two through floor crossings and one through resignation – a clear indication of growing turmoil within his caucus. The loss of even one more could prove fatal.
A majority for Carney, secured through such defections, would be a devastating blow to Poilievre’s leadership. A leadership review looms in January, and his survival hinges on maintaining party unity. To lose power not through electoral defeat, but through internal fracturing, would be a particularly damaging outcome.
While partisans will undoubtedly attempt to deflect blame, pointing to issues like alleged corruption or foreign interference, the reality is Poilievre’s caucus management is under intense scrutiny. Even a strong show of support from the party base may not be enough to overcome a disillusioned and disengaged caucus.
The next 45 days, leading up to the Conservative convention and leadership review in Calgary, will be critical. Poilievre faces a desperate battle to salvage his leadership and prevent his party from unraveling, a fight that will define the future of the Conservative movement.
