Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

[Hash]

(Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The apportionment formula in 1867 - when there were only four provinces - split equally between Ontario (24), Quebec (24) and the Maritimes (NS and NB at the time, with 12 each, reduced to 10 each in 1873 when PEI joined Confederation and was given 4 seats). After 1915, when all current Western provinces had joined Confederation, the Senate was expanded to give a fourth of the seats to the four Western provinces (24 total, 6 each), in line with the existing 24 seats each to ON, QC and the Maritimes. This has remained unchanged, and seats have been added when Newfoundland joined in 1949 (6, has had been laid out for them since 1915), and one each for the territories after 1975. So now we have Ontario, Quebec and the group of four Western provinces having 24 seats each and the four Atlantic provinces having 30 seats total. So, yes, this is a massive overrepresentation of the Atlantic provinces -- NS, NB and NL have more seats than any of the four Western provinces on their own, even if their populations are now significantly smaller. Newfoundland (pop. 520,000) has the same number of senators as BC (pop. 5.15 million). The West (pop. 12.1 million) has the same number of senators as the Maritimes (pop. 1.9 million).

ON: 1 per 614,800
QC: 1 per 357,331
BC: 1 per 858,839
AB: 1 per 739,376
MB: 1 per 230,155
SK: 1 per 196,372
NS: 1 per 97,944
NB: 1 per 78,207
NL: 1 per 86,739
PEI: 1 per 26,635
NT: 1 per 45,136
YK: 1 per 42,192
NU: 1 per 39,407

Yes; even if there should be a slanting in favour of smaller provinces, that is excessive.

It should be noted that what Western Canadian Senate reformers usually want is a Triple-E senate - elected, equal, effective - a concept initially popularized and advocated by the Reform Party in the late 1980s and 1990s.

The Charlottetown Accord constitutional reform proposal would have created an equal senate with each province represented by six senators (and territories by one), with an option for indigenous representation, but would not necessarily have been elected as it would have given provinces the authority to decide on the method of selecting their senators (including indirect elected by the provincial legislature) and it would generally reduced the enumerated powers of the Senate. Western Canada, and the Reform Party, felt that Senate reform didn't go far enough so the Charlottetown Accord was rejected across Canada and in all Western provinces (with over 60% opposition in Alberta, BC and Manitoba).

Triple-E kind of died out as a popular idea among right-wing politicians pretty quickly: by 2000, the Canadian Alliance was no longer explicitly advocating for it and Harper's Conservatives initially campaigned on a much vaguer notion of making the Senate an "effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions" (2006 platform) and only proposing to create a "national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory". In power, as noted, Harper found himself (unsurprisingly) unable to do anything. In 2008 and 2011, the Conservative platform pushed for Senate reform (mostly term limits and holding Senate nominee elections à la Alberta), but after the Supreme Court's reference ruling in 2014 essentially killed off those ideas as easy reforms. In his last two years in office, Harper deliberately did not fill any vacancies, letting 22 vacancies accumulate by 2015. In the 2015 election he ran on a promise of continuing this moratorium on Senate appointments, a slow scorched earth strategy to eventually force debate on Senate reform, although if reelected his decision not to fill vacancies would likely have run into legal/constitutional problems of its own.

The Supreme Court's 2014 reference ruling has basically killed substantive Senate reform as doing anything substantive - term limits, changing the apportionment of seats, holding elections, abolition - would require the general 7/50 amendment formula or unanimous consent of all provinces (abolition), and nobody is in the mood for constitutional debates and  crafting some kind of Senate reform that would have a realistic chance of meeting the 7/50 formula is very unlikely today (abolition is basically impossible). I guess this means that, for the foreseeable future, Trudeau's Senate 'reform' is the best we can realistically ask for. The Conservatives, on their end, having acknowledged that Senate reform as they would like is extremely unlikely / not a hill worth dying on, seem to have run out of ideas. It wasn't mentioned formally in the 2019 Conservative platform, and Andrew Scheer said that he would have ended Trudeau's reforms and returned to traditional political patronage appointments.

[Geoffrey Howe]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

So what were the PCs like?

[Benjamin Frank]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

[Benjamin Frank]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

So what were the PCs like?

Mostly the opposition.  They governed from 1957-1963.  1979-1980 and 1984-1993.

I'm not all that familiar with the Diefenbaker government, but he certainly was no right winger.  His government passed a Bill of Rights (that was the basis of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and opposed nuclear weapons.

The Joe Clark government from 1979-1980 did not pass a single piece of legislation.  I'm not even sure if they appointed a single person to any agency, board or commission.  The budget, which they were defeated over, was their first piece of legislation.  They actually had a number of pieces of legislation ready to go that likely would have been popular and likely would have bolstered their popularity before the budget with its $0.18 a gallon increase in gasoline prices.  Joe Clark was never a political genius.  He basically got extremely lucky in winning the 1976 Convention, but felt it was due to his political genius.

The Mulroney Government is hated by most Canadians for those who old enough to remember it, but I think it's the second best Canadian Administration of the last 60 years (second only to the Pearson government.)  Mulroney was a person easy to dislike due to his bluster and ego, but he presided over a very consequential government.  In addition to negotiating the original Free Trade Agreement and the subsequent NAFTA (left to both the brief Kim Campbell government and the Chretien Government to complete) he also replaced the inefficient Manufacturer's Sales Tax with the GST.  In doing this, he resisted the impulse of the other right wing governments in English speaking countries in the 1980s to significantly reduce taxes and significantly increase their budget deficits.

The Mulroney government generally was the equivalent to the 'wets' in the U.K Conservative Party.  In addition to those two significant achievements were a whole host of smaller accomplishments the proudest of which was openly supporting Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

[Benjamin Frank]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

Other than removing most of the hereditary Lords, I'm not sure what changes were brought in by Tony Blair or what has happened subsequently.  There are a lot of potential benefits to an unelected House of experts that has the ability to amend legislation but that ultimately realizes it has to defer to the elected House.

It can:
1.amend unconstitutional legislation rather than going through the time consuming process of court challenges (of course the Senators are assuming the legislation is unconstitutional, but if a group of non partisan experts think legislation is unconstitutional that's generally good enough for me, even if they aren't all lawyers.)
2.sit on craven populist legislation until the populist sentiment cools
3.propose unpopular changes to legislation or propose unpopular legislation that the House of Commons is trying to avoid (not dissimilar than the Supreme Court)
4.hold non partisan hearings that influence public opinion

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

Other than removing most of the hereditary Lords, I'm not sure what changes were brought in by Tony Blair or what has happened subsequently.  There are a lot of potential benefits to an unelected House of experts that has the ability to amend legislation but that ultimately realizes it has to defer to the elected House.

It can:
1.amend unconstitutional legislation rather than going through the time consuming process of court challenges (of course the Senators are assuming the legislation is unconstitutional, but if a group of non partisan experts think legislation is unconstitutional that's generally good enough for me, even if they aren't all lawyers.)
2.sit on craven populist legislation until the populist sentiment cools
3.propose unpopular changes to legislation or propose unpopular legislation that the House of Commons is trying to avoid (not dissimilar than the Supreme Court)
4.hold non partisan hearings that influence public opinion

I need to read up on this (and shall do so this summer) but yes, all he managed to do was reduce the number of hereditaries, which was probably a good compromise.

[cp]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

Other than removing most of the hereditary Lords, I'm not sure what changes were brought in by Tony Blair or what has happened subsequently.  There are a lot of potential benefits to an unelected House of experts that has the ability to amend legislation but that ultimately realizes it has to defer to the elected House.

It can:
1.amend unconstitutional legislation rather than going through the time consuming process of court challenges (of course the Senators are assuming the legislation is unconstitutional, but if a group of non partisan experts think legislation is unconstitutional that's generally good enough for me, even if they aren't all lawyers.)
2.sit on craven populist legislation until the populist sentiment cools
3.propose unpopular changes to legislation or propose unpopular legislation that the House of Commons is trying to avoid (not dissimilar than the Supreme Court)
4.hold non partisan hearings that influence public opinion

I need to read up on this (and shall do so this summer) but yes, all he managed to do was reduce the number of hereditaries, which was probably a good compromise.

I mean, it was literally the least they could do besides absolutely nothing. There were proposals to expunge up to 80% of the desiccated appointees but they couldn't get enough Labour support to pass. (This was due to left Labour principled opposition to any non-elected HoL, something that I think was a dreadful mistake of theirs).

Fwiw, I think both upper chambers would be far better served by being selected by lottery from all eligible voters.

[mileslunn]

For Canada UK comparisons, I would say following:

Tories: Canadian Tories are more or less like British Tories but don't always line up.  In 80s Mulroney was a lot more cautious than Thatcher and more like your Kenneth Clarke type.  On other hand at provincial level later you had Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and to lesser extent Gordon Campbell who were quite Thatcherite.  Atlantic Canada and Quebec being 1/3 of country meant electing someone like Thatcher never feasible as Atlantic Canada like Celtic fringe in UK, while Quebec more like continental Europe on role of government.  On the other hand Harper was more right wing than David Cameron as while both similar on fiscal issues, on social issues they diverged, i.e. Cameron introduced gay marriage while Harper fought it tooth and nail.  Best comparison to Johnson is probably Ford brothers in Ontario.  Both buffoonish, but have a populist appeal and tend to underperform in upper middle class areas but do better than Tories normally do in working class areas.  Scheer would be akin to Michael Howard while O'Toole similar to William Hague.

Liberals: Generally like Liberal Democrats but Trudeau would probably be Labour if in UK, similar to Miliband and Starmer but not as left wing as Corbyn.  Martin/Chretien more like LibDems, New Labour or even some Wets but definitely wouldn't fit in today's Labour.  Trudeau leans same way as Labour but a bit more cautious and big on left wing rhetoric but less on action.  Loves to play class warfare like Labour while Chretien/Martin never went into that territory, but hasn't proposed anything crazy like nationalizing any major industry and on more programs, tends to prefer tailored ones to buy off certain groups as opposed to massive expansion of welfare state.

NDP: They are like Labour and you have some like Notley or Horgan who would be soft left kind of like Andy Burnham or Sadiq Khan while Singh is more on left although not quite as radical as Corbyn, but to left of Starmer.  Best example of Corbyn is Niki Ashton.  Generally NDP where they can win is more moderate while more radical when they don't expect to win.  If a right wing party vs. NDP battle, they will be moderate to try and win over several federal Liberal voters (see Notley and Horgan) while if squeezed out by Liberals than more radical to differentiate themselves. 

BQ: Is most like SNP and while officially centre-left they attract people across spectrum who either favour Quebec separation or greater autonomy.

Greens: Same as Greens in UK although our Greens tend to be less radical than most Greens in Europe.  They are similar to Greens in Baden-Wurttemberg who are in government but fairly moderate, not like Dutch or Danish Greens who are quite radical.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

So what were the PCs like?

Depends on the era. Roughly, I'd break it down as such:

1867-1942: High Tory Era. This was before the "Progressive" label. Predominantly high tories, lots of connections to the Orange Order and other such groups, identified more strongly with Britain than North America, and were skeptical of federalism and decentralization. Economically they believed in classical economics like most non-socialist parties of the time. They were the party of big business interests and generally favoured high tarrifs and minimal government intervention except on things like infrastructure.

1942-1983: Red Tory Era. By now, Canadians were much more North American and there was less loyalty to the empire (of which Canada stopped being a part in 1931). Being the party of big business also hurt their popularity during the economic crises of 1920s-30s. In 1942, the Tories made a dramatic shift to the left and started appealing more to farmers/western provinces. "Prairie populist" Diefenbaker finally led them to power, and while the PCs had limited success in the era, they managed to bring the west into the fold by adopting a more populist version of conservatism.

1983-1993: The Blue Tory Era. The business wing (blue tories) of the party had been growing since the 1970s, and in 1983, Quebec lawyer/businessman Brian Mulroney became leader. He was elected with a landslide in 1984 on a promise of supply side economics to counter stagflation and public debt, and constitutional reform to satisfy Quebec and the West where Pierre Trudeau's 1982 constitution was unpopular. His PC coalition included the majority of seats in every province, and he brought his normally-Liberal home province into the PC fold. But then he completely flopped as PM and left before the 1993 to avoid humiliation at the polls. His successor (and first and only woman PM) Kim Campbell was the sacrificial lamb who did even worse than expected, stooping so low as to put out this attack ad, to which Chretien responded like the absolute king he is.

1993-2003: The Dead Tory Era. 1993 was a humiliation, winning only two seats. They had a bit of a dead cat bounce in 1997, but it was clear that the writing was on the wall. In 2003, a young Nova Scotian named Peter MacKay became the PC leader on a promise of NOT merging with the Canadian Alliance (Reform Party rebrand), a promise he promptly broke. And like that, the Progressive Party of Canada was dead.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

When I say Mulroney flopped I don't mean he was inconsequential. Like Frank said his government actually got quite a bit done. But he never got anything done on reducing the deficit, a promise he ran on and most Tories wanted. More substantively, he spent much of his premiership trying to reform the Pierre Trudeau constitution, and failed repeatedly.

[mileslunn]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

So what were the PCs like?

Depends on the era. Roughly, I'd break it down as such:


1993-2003: The Dead Tory Era. 1993 was a humiliation, winning only two seats. They had a bit of a dead cat bounce in 1997, but it was clear that the writing was on the wall. In 2003, a young Nova Scotian named Peter MacKay became the PC leader on a promise of NOT merging with the Canadian Alliance (Reform Party rebrand), a promise he promptly broke. And like that, the Progressive Party of Canada was dead.

2004-present: Ideological Tory era.  Since then Tories have a strong base largely rooted in West but also strong in rural Ontario and generally have a hard floor of 30%.  But unlike old PCs, have far fewer who have them as second choice meaning while stronger base ability to win means pretty much winning over every person open to voting Tory which is not easy.  Also unlike past era much more ideological although party careful not to go too right, but more because of fear of electoral consequences not principles like old PCs.  More than anything membership is very much from Reform side and is more interested in ideological purity than winning.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For Canada UK comparisons, I would say following:

Tories: Canadian Tories are more or less like British Tories but don't always line up.  In 80s Mulroney was a lot more cautious than Thatcher and more like your Kenneth Clarke type.  On other hand at provincial level later you had Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and to lesser extent Gordon Campbell who were quite Thatcherite.  Atlantic Canada and Quebec being 1/3 of country meant electing someone like Thatcher never feasible as Atlantic Canada like Celtic fringe in UK, while Quebec more like continental Europe on role of government.  On the other hand Harper was more right wing than David Cameron as while both similar on fiscal issues, on social issues they diverged, i.e. Cameron introduced gay marriage while Harper fought it tooth and nail.  Best comparison to Johnson is probably Ford brothers in Ontario.  Both buffoonish, but have a populist appeal and tend to underperform in upper middle class areas but do better than Tories normally do in working class areas.  Scheer would be akin to Michael Howard while O'Toole similar to William Hague.

Liberals: Generally like Liberal Democrats but Trudeau would probably be Labour if in UK, similar to Miliband and Starmer but not as left wing as Corbyn.  Martin/Chretien more like LibDems, New Labour or even some Wets but definitely wouldn't fit in today's Labour.  Trudeau leans same way as Labour but a bit more cautious and big on left wing rhetoric but less on action.  Loves to play class warfare like Labour while Chretien/Martin never went into that territory, but hasn't proposed anything crazy like nationalizing any major industry and on more programs, tends to prefer tailored ones to buy off certain groups as opposed to massive expansion of welfare state.

NDP: They are like Labour and you have some like Notley or Horgan who would be soft left kind of like Andy Burnham or Sadiq Khan while Singh is more on left although not quite as radical as Corbyn, but to left of Starmer.  Best example of Corbyn is Niki Ashton.  Generally NDP where they can win is more moderate while more radical when they don't expect to win.  If a right wing party vs. NDP battle, they will be moderate to try and win over several federal Liberal voters (see Notley and Horgan) while if squeezed out by Liberals than more radical to differentiate themselves. 

BQ: Is most like SNP and while officially centre-left they attract people across spectrum who either favour Quebec separation or greater autonomy.

Greens: Same as Greens in UK although our Greens tend to be less radical than most Greens in Europe.  They are similar to Greens in Baden-Wurttemberg who are in government but fairly moderate, not like Dutch or Danish Greens who are quite radical.

Very helpful - thanks.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

I'm normally a liberal but this is one case where I agree with the canadian conservatives, the canadian senate doesn't realy do anything and should be abolished or radicaly reformed.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

I'm normally a liberal but this is one case where I agree with the canadian conservatives, the canadian senate doesn't realy do anything and should be abolished or radicaly reformed.

From what I hear, you should support the NDP then.

[King of Kensington]

Filmmaker, Leap Manifesto spokesperson and NDP dynasty Avi Lewis is running in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/filmmaker-activist-avi-lewis-to-run-for-federal-ndp-seat-in-b-c-riding-1.5431132

Quite the uphill battle, to say the least.  The NDP came in fourth there last time.

[Hash]

On the fascinating topic of the Senate, the qualifications to be a senator have remained unchanged since the BNA Act of 1867, except for the mandatory retirement age of 75 adopted in 1965. Senators need to be citizens over the age of 30 (and less than 75), must own real property with a net value of at least $4,000 in the province they are appointed, have an overall net worth of $4,000 in real and personal property and be a resident of the province for which they are appointed. The 2014 Supreme Court reference held that property and asset qualifications could be repeal by the unilateral federal amendment procedure... but...

The other archaic aspect of the Senate is that Quebec's 24 senators are appointed to represent one of the 24 electoral divisions... which are Canada East/Lower Canada's electoral divisions in the Legislative Council of Canada (pre-Confederation upper house of the united Canadas) as defined in the consolidated statutes of 1859. Quebec senators must hold their real property in the division for which they were appointed, or be a resident of said division. The boundaries of the division are based on municipalities and counties which existed in 1859 - but Quebec's counties were abolished by the local government reforms of the late 1970s (which created the MRCs), and the provincial boundaries of Quebec have also changed since 1859, with the enlargement of the province in 1898 (Abibiti and parts of northern Quebec) and 1912 (rest of northern Quebec incl. Nunavik). So the end result is that Quebec's senate divisions are based on administrative divisions which have long disappeared or been modified, do not correspond at all to modern administrative divisions, exclude a huge chunk of the province (so Abitibi and northern Quebec is technically 'not represented' at all in the Senate) and have archaic names which are often weird to modern ears.



To get back to the possibility of repealing the property and asset qualifications, while that is possible through the unilateral federal amendment procedure, doing that would also have a knock on effect on the subsection of the constitution which requires Quebec senators to have their real property qualification in their respective divisions, and therefore require them to reside in the electoral divisions for which they are appointed. An amendment to this subsection would fall within the scope of another amendment formula (special arrangements applicable to one province) and would require the consent of Quebec's National Assembly - and I doubt that the Quebec National Assembly would allow such a simple change without demanding something else in exchange... So even Quebec's anachronic senate divisions are here to stay.

[Хahar 🤔]

Social Credit, then Liberals - why have the Tories not been the main rightist force in BC at state level?

MaxQue did a good job of answering this question, but I'd add that its premise is flawed, in that in western Canada it has historically been unusual for the main right-wing party to have "Conservative" in its name. Consider the partisan breakdown of provincial legislative assemblies in the West as of 1963:

Manitoba: 36 PC, 13 Lib, 7 NDP, 1 SC
Saskatchewan: 37 NDP, 17 Lib
Alberta: 60 SC, 2 Lib, 1 Lib/PC coalition
British Columbia: 33 SC, 14 NDP, 5 Lib

Manitoba here is the obvious outlier, not BC. In the other provinces, the local "Conservative" brand was discredited by the Great Depression; when the accompanying rise of socialism led non-socialists to coalesce behind one electoral option, it didn't make sense for it to be the Conservatives.

[beesley]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1394348332579950592?s=19

Interesting. I don't know enough about Edmonton politics to say whether he's a frontrunner but he'll certainly add to this race. If I recall correctly he was a councillor before his election to Parliament.

[Benjamin Frank]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1394348332579950592?s=19
Interesting. I don't know enough about Edmonton politics to say whether he's a frontrunner but he'll certainly add to this race.

The current mayor, Don Iveson, announced several months ago he's not running for a third term.  I assume Beesley knew that, but I didn't know that and I assume some other people here didn't know that either.

If elected mayor, maybe Sohi can continue his tradition of announcing infrastructure projects and then not get them built.

[Benjamin Frank]

Filmmaker, Leap Manifesto spokesperson and NDP dynasty Avi Lewis is running in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/filmmaker-activist-avi-lewis-to-run-for-federal-ndp-seat-in-b-c-riding-1.5431132

Quite the uphill battle, to say the least.  The NDP came in fourth there last time.

Well, he's running for the NDP nomination anyway. I know the NDP can be parochial, and the Lewis name is associated with Ontario New Democrats, but I also know that, especially the more urban New Democrats, can be supportive of other urbanites, at least for candidates running for leader.  For instance, Jack Layton likely won more support in British Columbia than the Manitoba M.P Bill Blaikie who was running as something of a 'western Candidate', and British Columbia New Democrats also likely supported Jagmeet Singh over the aborted campaign of Burnaby-New Westminster M.P Peter Julian.

In regards to this riding for a general election, the West Vancouver ridings were two of only four ridings in suburban Lower Mainland (or Greater Vancouver, I mean not including the city of Vancouver, Surrey or the Fraser Valley, just the suburbs around Vancouver but including Delta which is actually south of the Fraser River) that the NDP did not win in the recent provincial election (the Green Party narrowly lost one of the two.)  The provincial NDP has held the provincial riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast since 2005, but I don't think the Sunshine Coast part of that riding is a very solidly NDP area. Federally, the Powell River part of the riding is included as part of a Coastal Vancouver Island riding.


Historically Powell River-Sunshine Coast is something of an interesting oddity in that it's something of a historical stronghold for the provincial NDP even though the NDP didn't hold it from 1986-2005. In 1986, the NDP lost the riding in an upset by something like 30 votes.  The winner in that election was Social Credit candidate Harold Long.  In 1991, Gordon Wilson, then leader of the Liberal Party won and was reelected in 1996 as the leader of the People's Democratic Alliance (PDA.)  In the 1991 election, Harold Long received the lowest percent of vote of any Social Credit incumbent.

In 2001 during the Liberal landslide, the B.C Liberals took the riding.  The winner was former Social Credit MLA Harold Long.

Apropos of nothing here, but for fans of Canadian books, the defeated NDP candidate in the 1991 election was Howard White, the then President of Harbour Publishing.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

2004-present: Ideological Tory era.  Since then Tories have a strong base largely rooted in West but also strong in rural Ontario and generally have a hard floor of 30%.  But unlike old PCs, have far fewer who have them as second choice meaning while stronger base ability to win means pretty much winning over every person open to voting Tory which is not easy.  Also unlike past era much more ideological although party careful not to go too right, but more because of fear of electoral consequences not principles like old PCs.  More than anything membership is very much from Reform side and is more interested in ideological purity than winning.

Good catch. I didn't include the 2004-present CPC because they're not officially PCs, and they have little in common with the likes of Stanfield.

I would call 2004-present the "Harper Tory Era", because the modern CPC is very much a spawn of the Harperite fusion of Reform populism with traditional Conservative priorities

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

West Vancouver-Sea to Sky is a weird choice for someone of Avi Lewis' profile to run in. AFAIK he doesn't have any particular connection to that area, so if he's getting parachuted, why not somewhere the NDP actually has a shot? Challenging the Green Party for third place seems like a waste of time.

He looks like a good fit for left-wing, activist-y urban areas like Parkdale-High Park or Ottawa Centre, but places like that seem pretty locked in for the Liberals for now. Maybe somewhere like Halifax he could eat into the Green/left-Liberal vote and challenge Fillmore. But surely, surely he can find a better place than WestVan-Sea-to-Sky

[Hatman 🍁]

Avi Lewis' decision is strange, but he does live in the riding. I worry that it may be some sort of grift campaign, and I hope the party doesn't throw any money at the riding. The only way the party wins it is if there is some sort of 25-25-25-25 split.

Avi's father (Stephen) is dying at the moment, so this may just be a campaign to honour his father, I guess?