Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[MaxQue]

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

The party was utterly destroyed in the Great Depression. They were so divided on how to react to it that they did absolutely nothing while in power and the party executive decided to not choose any candidate and let every riding do their own things. Some riding associations ran candidates as Independents, others as Conservatives, some created an Unionist Party supporting current Conservative Premier and finally others created the Non-Partisan Independent Group who suppored a WW1-era former Conservative Premier (who died during the electoral campaign).

End results, they went from 35 seats (out of 48) to 2 for NPIG, 1 unionist, and 1 pro-Tory Independent.

After that, they made an anti-socialist deal with the Liberals and made a Australia-style Coalition (even appearing on ballot as Coalition). The Tories were clearly the junior partner and they still were bitterly divided between 3 factions (merging into Liberals, status quo and breaking away). Finally, the  Liberals dropped them and changed the voting method to STV.

Come the first election under that system, Social Credit wins (being the 2nd favorite party of CCF, PC and Liberals). Social Credit returns to FPTP and becomes the main opposition to the left. Lost all their seats in 1956 and only won 3 seats since then (2 in 1972 and 1 in 1975).

Unlike the Liberals, it fell in disarray, usually struggling to run more than 10 candidates and failing often to even reach 1%. In the SC collapse election in 1991, they only had 4 candidates and got an amazing 426 votes province-wide.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

[King of Kensington]

Yes and also older.  Mostly boomers while Point Grey has more rentals, but also a lot more millennials and Gen Xers.  Boomers remember 90s quite well so tend to have a strong reluctance to vote NDP while millennials don't but at same time most likely negatively impacted by high cost of living that happened under BC Liberals.

The University of British Columbia is also in Point Grey.

[mileslunn]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

For people's thoughts on direction of country wondering what people think on following below:

1.  Notley wins in Alberta even against a united right.
2.  Liberals in 2025 under Freeland make a big breakthrough in Alberta (she is originally from there)
3.  NDP beats Tories in votes in next election.
4.  Tories get under 25% of the popular vote
5.  Liberals remain in government continuously past 2030

Any thoughts on these?  I think each has a reasonable chance at happening although #1 probably most likely, others more questionable but still possible.

1. Good chance of this happening. I think the UCP will lose loads of seats in Calgary, and as goes Calgary, so goes Alberta. If they dump Kenney though, maybe they can pull off a "see the bad man is gone!" move.

2. I doubt her Alberta connection will have that much of an effect. She'll be less hated than Trudeau, and that's about it. A "breakthrough" in Alberta is likely to happen in Edmonton and parts of Calgary, where the population is heavily made up of newer arrivals with little connection to 'Berta.

3. Nope. The only way this happens is if the fringe right-wing parties become not so fringe anymore. If the NDP reaches beyond 20% it will be because something big hurts the Liberals' popularity. But that situation will also help the CPC.

4. See #3. There have been some bad polls recently, but I think the CPC will rally come election time and reach around 30%.

5. History suggests this is unlikely. The last time one party was consecutively in power for that long were the 1963-1979 Pearson-Trudeau governments, and this was back when the Liberals could count on winning the vast majority of Quebec seats every year. Of course there's a possibility that we have Conservatives winning minorities and the NDP propping up the Grits. But let's not forget, Saint-Jack-de-la-Vague-Orange once brought down a Liberal government and gave way to Harper. The NDP won't play second fiddle forever.

[King of Kensington]

British Columbia has been called Canada's Australia by one scholar of Canadian political culture.  Like Britain and Australia, class-based voting has been strong and held out longer.  The stunning defeat of Premier in Van-Point Grey in 2013 symbolized that the "stigma" against the NDP among many of the "liberally minded" professional class had come to an end.  Education and metropolitan/non-metropolitan have become bigger fault lines in politics.   Today the NDP looks quite safe in Point Grey.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

I saw on A Fiscal Conservative Point of View that you don't like them anymore. I'm having a similar problem with the Tories here.
What is Trudeau like - I know little about the details of Canadian politics, but from abroad he comes across as exceedingly irritating.

[CumbrianLefty]

In many ways Trudeau is the mirror image of right-populists like Johnson. Carries out a moderate administration in many respects, but is careful to do stuff that (in his case) "triggers the cons".

(not least because, as with the right-populists, it cements his own base)

[DC Al Fine]

For people's thoughts on direction of country wondering what people think on following below:

1.  Notley wins in Alberta even against a united right.
2.  Liberals in 2025 under Freeland make a big breakthrough in Alberta (she is originally from there)
3.  NDP beats Tories in votes in next election.
4.  Tories get under 25% of the popular vote
5.  Liberals remain in government continuously past 2030

Any thoughts on these?  I think each has a reasonable chance at happening although #1 probably most likely, others more questionable but still possible.

3. Nope. The only way this happens is if the fringe right-wing parties become not so fringe anymore. If the NDP reaches beyond 20% it will be because something big hurts the Liberals' popularity. But that situation will also help the CPC.

4. See #3. There have been some bad polls recently, but I think the CPC will rally come election time and reach around 30%.

In that vein, the right-of-Tory surge is driven primarily by anti-lockdown sentiment and O'Toole's acceptance of the carbon tax. The former will be made redundant in the not too distant future, so one wonders how they will hold up then.

5. History suggests this is unlikely. The last time one party was consecutively in power for that long were the 1963-1979 Pearson-Trudeau governments, and this was back when the Liberals could count on winning the vast majority of Quebec seats every year. Of course there's a possibility that we have Conservatives winning minorities and the NDP propping up the Grits. But let's not forget, Saint-Jack-de-la-Vague-Orange once brought down a Liberal government and gave way to Harper. The NDP won't play second fiddle forever.

Yes, proponents of the "Long Liberal" theory make two big mistakes:

1) Expecting the current Liberal-friendly situation to last forever, or at least a very long time. The Liberals have another ten years to go to make it past 2030. The economy will almost certainly downturn, and scandals will come up as they always do for governments. New issues will emerge which might be less friendly to the Liberals or which they might misplay. Think of how different the national conversation was in May 2011 vs May 2021. Heck think of how different it was in February 2020!

2) Treating the NDP as a set of emergency backup seats for the Liberals instead of as its own party with its own set of interests and goals. There isn't some unified progressive movement that will move in lockstep to stop the evil right, as much as some Very Online folks might wish it to be so.

[Benjamin Frank]

British Columbia has been called Canada's Australia by one scholar of Canadian political culture.  Like Britain and Australia, class-based voting has been strong and held out longer.  The stunning defeat of Premier in Van-Point Grey in 2013 symbolized that the "stigma" against the NDP among many of the "liberally minded" professional class had come to an end.  Education and metropolitan/non-metropolitan have become bigger fault lines in politics.   Today the NDP looks quite safe in Point Grey.

Maybe, but the NDP also won Vancouver-Point Grey (then a dual member riding) in 1988 with Dr Tom Perry who was also reelected in 1991 in the then single member riding.

[Benjamin Frank]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

I saw on A Fiscal Conservative Point of View that you don't like them anymore. I'm having a similar problem with the Tories here.
What is Trudeau like - I know little about the details of Canadian politics, but from abroad he comes across as exceedingly irritating.

I find him irritating as well, a combination of a public image of banal and sanctimonious, with a now suspected not so private image of ruthlessness.  

That said, as I also previously wrote, this general plodding image suggests an incompetence that overshadows a government that has actually had a had a number of monumental accomplishments, I argue The Justin Trudeau administration has been far more consequential than the Pierre Trudeau government from 1968-1979.  Were Justin Trudeau to step down today, I think his government would be compared to the Lester Pearson government that had a similar air of incompetence and minor scandals but left a major legacy.

The Justin Trudeau Administration's significant accomplishments include
1.Marijuana legalization
2.Senate reform
3.The Children's benefit that has significantly cut child poverty
4.The Carbon tax and the purchasing of the pipeline

Of course, all of these are still works in progress but that's true of every government.

Compare that to the previous Harper government which in nearly 10 years had the signature achievement of cutting the GST by 2 points and passing criminal justice legislation that they knew was unconstitutional with the intent of fundraising off of and running against the Supreme Court.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

I saw on A Fiscal Conservative Point of View that you don't like them anymore. I'm having a similar problem with the Tories here.
What is Trudeau like - I know little about the details of Canadian politics, but from abroad he comes across as exceedingly irritating.

I find him irritating as well, a combination of a public image of banal and sanctimonious, with a now suspected not so private image of ruthlessness.  

That said, as I also previously wrote, this general plodding image suggests an incompetence that overshadows a government that has actually had a had a number of monumental accomplishments, I argue The Justin Trudeau administration has been far more consequential than the Pierre Trudeau government from 1968-1979.  Were Justin Trudeau to step down today, I think his government would be compared to the Lester Pearson government that had a similar air of incompetence and minor scandals but left a major legacy.

The Justin Trudeau Administration's significant accomplishments include
1.Marijuana legalization
2.Senate reform
3.The Children's benefit that has significantly cut child poverty
4.The Carbon tax and the purchasing of the pipeline

Of course, all of these are still works in progress but that's true of every government.

Compare that to the previous Harper government which in nearly 10 years had the signature achievement of cutting the GST by 2 points and passing criminal justice legislation that they knew was unconstitutional with the intent of fundraising off of and running against the Supreme Court.

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The Senate is steeped in regional representation. 1/4 of Senators represent Atlantic Canada, 1/4 represent Quebec, 1/4 represent Ontario, and 1/4 represent Western Canada.
So yeah, it does overrepresent small provinces quite a bit.
iirc...

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The Senate is steeped in regional representation. 1/4 of Senators represent Atlantic Canada, 1/4 represent Quebec, 1/4 represent Ontario, and 1/4 represent Western Canada.
So yeah, it does overrepresent small provinces quite a bit.
iirc...

That's the point though? What power does it really have - the HoL is generally quite deferential: for example, it cannot veto money bills, and under the Salisbury Convention it doesn't oppose the third reading of a bill from the election manifesto.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The Senate is steeped in regional representation. 1/4 of Senators represent Atlantic Canada, 1/4 represent Quebec, 1/4 represent Ontario, and 1/4 represent Western Canada.
So yeah, it does overrepresent small provinces quite a bit.
iirc...

That's the point though? What power does it really have - the HoL is generally quite deferential: for example, it cannot veto money bills, and under the Salisbury Convention it doesn't oppose the third reading of a bill from the election manifesto.

From my understanding of it, the Canadian Senate is House of Lords-ish (house of review etc) in practice, but with mechanisms that in some ways reflect the US Senate more in more relative terms.
I'm not necessarily an expert on it though.

[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

[Geoffrey Howe]

(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.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Here's the wacky thing about Canada-UK political partisan comparisons: ideologically, Tories=Tories, Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories, and our Tories are your Labour. The LPC is more institutional, more centralist, and associated with the "establishment", while the CPC is more decentralist, populist, and associated with the "hinterlands". As such, the CPC takes a more Labour-esque stance on constitutional issues, while the LPC takes a more Tory-ish one.

The Senate allocation formula is a mess. I've never met an honest, non-hackish CanPoli observer who doesn't think so. But Tory supporters mostly come from the underrepresented west and so the party cares more about it, and Liberal supporters mostly come from Central and Eastern Canada where this is a non-issue so the party doesn't bother.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?

By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?

By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

My knowledge of UK politics is pretty rudimentary so I might be using the wrong terms, although I wouldn't say the Liberals are that Blairite these days. Under Chretien and Martin they were definitely more in line with the Blair/Clinton consensus (minus the war), but under Justin Trudeau they've moved more to the left.

It's hard to compare because political terms are used so differently in the two countries. "Social democrat" refers to moderates within the Labour party, but here in Canada, that's a term used by the NDP which is much more Corbynite. The Liberals are not and have never been a workers' party so their rhetoric is certainly more "bourgeois", and they're more business-oriented. But when it comes to social welfare spending and things of that nature, I don't really see much of a difference between Justin Trudeau and a median Labour politician like Miliband or Starmer (my examples might be wrong, but you know what I mean - left of Blair, right of Corbyn)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?


By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

Ehh, kinda. Canadian politics (esp. before the 21st century) was nothing if not big tent. Both the Liberals and PCs were institutional Tory-ish parties, but the PCs had a populist wing out west that eventually took over.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?


By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

Ehh, kinda. Canadian politics (esp. before the 21st century) was nothing if not big tent. Both the Liberals and PCs were institutional Tory-ish parties, but the PCs had a populist wing out west that eventually took over.

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

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?

By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

My knowledge of UK politics is pretty rudimentary so I might be using the wrong terms, although I wouldn't say the Liberals are that Blairite these days. Under Chretien and Martin they were definitely more in line with the Blair/Clinton consensus (minus the war), but under Justin Trudeau they've moved more to the left.

It's hard to compare because political terms are used so differently in the two countries. "Social democrat" refers to moderates within the Labour party, but here in Canada, that's a term used by the NDP which is much more Corbynite. The Liberals are not and have never been a workers' party so their rhetoric is certainly more "bourgeois", and they're more business-oriented. But when it comes to social welfare spending and things of that nature, I don't really see much of a difference between Justin Trudeau and a median Labour politician like Miliband or Starmer (my examples might be wrong, but you know what I mean - left of Blair, right of Corbyn)

Right. It’s tough to compare really because the problems we face these days are different from those of old, and so are the solutions.