All Things AB Separatism (split fm Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???)

[Infanteer]

You could test the theory in AI. Electoral results in Canada if Quebec separated vs Alberta. If Quebec left, Cons would dominate politics, if Alberta left LPC would dominate.

Why use AI? It's a simple math problem where you get the percentage of LPC seats in the election and then take Quebec's seats away and get that percentage. It took me 60 seconds.

Your statement that the Cons would dominate isn't supported by the math because GTA and the 905 belt are the true deciders.

 

[childs56]

They learned how to devastate their economy to a degree that it still hasnt recovered? Lots of the business headquarters are in Calgary/Toronto and not Montreal anymore for a reason.

For a multiple reasons, not just the threat of separation. A main one was how they insisted on products being labeled in both French and English. When consumer markets were English and or English Spanish. Along with some of the major corruption scandals that were beginning to evolve at the time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

For people relying on AI calculations, caution. Google AI got 1RCHA and 1RCR mixed up on me one time, it also told me on another Google AI brief that the Canadian Airborne Regiment was stood in 2006 at Petawawa as part of CANSOFCOM. See where I am going with this?

For separation of various provinces and most likely outcomes, I think you can use AI to assist, but you will need more in depth analysis. Enter political academics and long time political pundits (The Kinsella and Lilley types, who openly have biases but can shelve them to give a good solid view on things).

For any province separating, it creates a cascading series of new events
-Human emotional reaction
-Economic reactions
-Security reactions
-International relationships (based on trade, economy, resources and defence to name but a few)
-What other nations would seek to exploit the events (Does the USA or China rush in to make sweetheart deals with the newly independent states?)
-Does war break out (Yup, I said it. A civil war can happen here, thats brutal reality)

So, if Alberta or Alberta-Saskatchewan or Quebec separate or all three, I wouldn't be so quick to cough a knee jerk answer, or overly rely on AI. (Use AI to collect and evaluate data points and then draw your own conclusions is my recommendation)

I just ran it through AI to see what it would tell me, thats all.

I am not hinging anything on it.

 

[QV]

Why use AI? It's a simple math problem where you get the percentage of LPC seats in the election and then take Quebec's seats away and get that percentage. It took me 60 seconds.

Your statement that the Cons would dominate isn't supported by the math because GTA and the 905 belt are the true deciders.

Because it's fun.

Simply put if Quebec is gone, so are 35-45 safe liberal seats. If Alberta is gone, so is about 32 safe conservative seats. That has an impact. I don't know why people are struggling with this. Of course there are many factors at play beyond this surface level view including how seats might be distributed, party policy shifts, and/or perceived accountability for a province leaving. But the fact remains that large political bases have an impact, and so does the absence of one.

 

[Infanteer]

Because it's fun.

Simply put if Quebec is gone, so are 35-45 safe liberal seats. If Alberta is gone, so is about 32 safe conservative seats. That has an impact. I don't know why people are struggling with this.

Re: Quebec. It also provides 35-45 safe seats for the other parties, so its a wash for the Liberal Party. I'll post the numbers, since you appear to be struggling with this:

Election Year: LPC % of total seats / LPC % of total seats excluding Quebec
1993 (LPC majority): 60%/72%
1997 (LPC majority): 52%/57%
2000 (LPC majority): 57%/60%
2004 (LPC minority): 44%/49%
2006: (CPC minority) 40%/48%
2008: (CPC minority) 46%/55%
2011: (CPC majority) 11%/12%
2015: (LPC majority) 54%/55%
2019: (LPC minority) 46%/47%
2021: (LPC minority) 47%/48%
2025: (LPC minority) 49%/47%

So, in every election for the last 35 years, the LPC share of seats would have been larger if Quebec was excluded (save 2025, but the difference is pretty small). In most years, the outcome would have been the same but in some years, the difference is dramatic (1993, 1997, 2004) and in 2008, the absence of Quebec would likely have flipped the result from a Conservative minority to a Liberal majority.

So, you've claimed Quebec props up the Liberal Party and that "they would never be the natural governing party again" if the province left. But based on seat math, this is categorically false as Quebec is largely a wash for a healthy Liberal Party. Your argument is hyperbole.

Now, turning to Alberta, it is clearly a stronghold for the CPC, and they would be toothless without it. But considering the Liberals have traditionally been a federalist party, and it still garners 30% of the vote share in the province, your statement that the LPC would be happy to see the province go seems specious at best.

 

[PrairieFella]

Re: Quebec. It also provides 35-45 safe seats for the other parties, so its a wash for the Liberal Party. I'll post the numbers, since you appear to be struggling with this:

Election Year: LPC % of total seats / LPC % of total seats excluding Quebec
1993 (LPC majority): 60%/72%
1997 (LPC majority): 52%/57%
2000 (LPC majority): 57%/60%
2004 (LPC minority): 44%/49%
2006: (CPC minority) 40%/48%
2008: (CPC minority) 46%/55%
2011: (CPC majority) 11%/12%
2015: (LPC majority) 54%/55%
2019: (LPC minority) 46%/47%
2021: (LPC minority) 47%/48%
2025: (LPC minority) 49%/47%

So, in every election for the last 35 years, the LPC share of seats would have been larger if Quebec was excluded (save 2025, but the difference is pretty small). In most years, the outcome would have been the same but in some years, the difference is dramatic (1993, 1997, 2004) and in 2008, the absence of Quebec would likely have flipped the result from a Conservative minority to a Liberal majority.

So, you've claimed Quebec props up the Liberal Party and that "they would never be the natural governing party again" if the province left. But based on seat math, this is categorically false as Quebec is largely a wash for a healthy Liberal Party. Your argument is hyperbole.

Now, turning to Alberta, it is clearly a stronghold for the CPC, and they would be toothless without it. But considering the Liberals have traditionally been a federalist party, and it still garners 30% of the vote share in the province, your statement that the LPC would be happy to see the province go seems specious at best.

The fact that a party blue or red can get a third of the vote share and next to no seats shows why we need PR asap. MMPR imo.

 

[Infanteer]

The fact that a party blue or red can get a third of the vote share and next to no seats shows why we need PR asap. MMPR imo.

What would we have gotten out of this?

Election Year:Real Result/Strict PR Result

1993: LPC majority/LPC minority
1997: LPC majority/LPC minority
2000: LPC majority/LPC minority
2004: LPC minority/LPC minority
2006: CPC minority/CPC minority
2008: CPC minority/CPC minority
2011: CPC majority/CPC minority
2015: LPC majority/LPC minority
2019: LPC minority/CPC minority
2021: LPC minority/CPC minority
2025: LPC minority/LPC minority

Minority governments all the time, so coalition building. Trudeau would have had a tougher time in 2019/2021, but the NDP would be stronger under PR, so the "Natural Governing Party" could possibly be an eternal LPC/NDP coalition. Add to that, the PR is complicated and has no direct accountability between voter and Member of Parliament. No thanks.

 

[dapaterson]

What would we have gotten out of this?

Election Year:Real Result/Strict PR Result

1993: LPC majority/LPC minority
1997: LPC majority/LPC minority
2000: LPC majority/LPC minority
2004: LPC minority/LPC minority
2006: CPC minority/CPC minority
2008: CPC minority/CPC minority
2011: CPC majority/CPC minority
2015: LPC majority/LPC minority
2019: LPC minority/CPC minority
2021: LPC minority/CPC minority
2025: LPC minority/LPC minority

Minority governments all the time, so coalition building. Trudeau would have had a tougher time in 2019/2021, but the NDP would be stronger under PR, so the "Natural Governing Party" could possibly be an eternal LPC/NDP coalition. Add to that, the PR is complicated and has no direct accountability between voter and Member of Parliament. No thanks.

A decent bicameral system, on the other hand, could have both local reps (the house) and regional reps by PR (the Senate).

 

[Infanteer]

A decent bicameral system, on the other hand, could have both local reps (the house) and regional reps by PR (the Senate).

Concur. What Canada really needs is a functional upper house. Mulroney tried to fix it with a Constitutional Convention, and got stuffed by the electorate (convention was wrapped up in provincial issues). Harper tried to fix it by circumventing a Constitutional Convention, and got stuffed by the Supreme Court.

A government just needs to put a simple Triple-E Senate design to a national referendum, and fix the damn thing. I suspect it would take a lot of angst out of how seats in the House are distributed or with <insert my region here> getting left out.

 

[Lumber]

Concur. What Canada really needs is a functional upper house. Mulroney tried to fix it with a Constitutional Convention, and got stuffed by the electorate (convention was wrapped up in provincial issues). Harper tried to fix it by circumventing a Constitutional Convention, and got stuffed by the Supreme Court.

A government just needs to put a simple Triple-E Senate design to a national referendum, and fix the damn thing. I suspect it would take a lot of angst out of how seats in the House are distributed or with <insert my region here> getting left out.

I may be an outlier here, but I actually prefer an unelected and (mostly) "figured head" Senate, same with our Head of State.

 

[GR66]

I may be an outlier here, but I actually prefer an unelected and (mostly) "figured head" Senate, same with our Head of State.

I think an unelected Senate appointed by Proportional Representation could work if done right.

To me since the purpose of the Senate is to represent the Provinces/Territories (not the Federal political parties) then the Senators should be allotted on a Proportional Representation basis from a slate of candidates based on the results of the Provincial elections.

For example, Saskatchewan has 6 Senate seats (let's ignore for now any changes to seat numbers to provide equal representation to Provinces or Regions).

In the 2024 Provincial Election the results were:

1. Saskatchewan Party 52.3% of Votes = 3 Senators (3.138)
2. New Democratic Party 40.4% of Votes = 2 Senators (2.424)
3. Saskatchewan United Party 3.9% of Votes = 1 Senator (0.234)
4. Green Party 1.8% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.108)
5. Progressive Conservative Party 1% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.06)
6. Buffalo Party 0.7% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.042)
7. Progress Party 0.2% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.012)
8. Independents 0.1% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.006)

The three parties that earned enough of the popular vote would decide what individuals would fill those Senate seats.

When the next Provincial election roles around the seat assignments would changed based on the popular vote split of that election. Senate seats would no longer be for life. If for example the Saskatchewan Party continues to earn enough of the popular vote to continue to secure Senate seats they could decide to have the same candidate(s) continue to serve in the Senate as long as they decide to select that candidate. If however that candidate falls out of favour with the Provincial party (or has poor attendance/performance) then the Party could choose to drop them in favour of a different candidate the next provincial election.

Similarly, if the Saskatchewan Party drops in the popular vote and earns fewer (or no) Senate seats in the next Provincial election they would be able to send fewer (or no) Senators so some people would lose their Senate seats that way as well.

 

[Infanteer]

I like the idea of senators being drawn from provincial parties as they would not be beholden to the Federal party leader. PMO can whip caucus, especially in a majority, but would have to convince the Senate on the bill.

 

[dapaterson]

I think an unelected Senate appointed by Proportional Representation could work if done right.

To me since the purpose of the Senate is to represent the Provinces/Territories (not the Federal political parties) then the Senators should be allotted on a Proportional Representation basis from a slate of candidates based on the results of the Provincial elections.

For example, Saskatchewan has 6 Senate seats (let's ignore for now any changes to seat numbers to provide equal representation to Provinces or Regions).

In the 2024 Provincial Election the results were:

1. Saskatchewan Party 52.3% of Votes = 3 Senators (3.138)
2. New Democratic Party 40.4% of Votes = 2 Senators (2.424)
3. Saskatchewan United Party 3.9% of Votes = 1 Senator (0.234)
4. Green Party 1.8% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.108)
5. Progressive Conservative Party 1% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.06)
6. Buffalo Party 0.7% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.042)
7. Progress Party 0.2% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.012)
8. Independents 0.1% of Votes = 0 Senators (0.006)

The three parties that earned enough of the popular vote would decide what individuals would fill those Senate seats.

When the next Provincial election roles around the seat assignments would changed based on the popular vote split of that election. Senate seats would no longer be for life. If for example the Saskatchewan Party continues to earn enough of the popular vote to continue to secure Senate seats they could decide to have the same candidate(s) continue to serve in the Senate as long as they decide to select that candidate. If however that candidate falls out of favour with the Provincial party (or has poor attendance/performance) then the Party could choose to drop them in favour of a different candidate the next provincial election.

Similarly, if the Saskatchewan Party drops in the popular vote and earns fewer (or no) Senate seats in the next Provincial election they would be able to send fewer (or no) Senators so some people would lose their Senate seats that way as well.

My preference would be for half the Senate seats to be in play each election, to provide longer tenure. Short tenure politicians are less able to accomplish things as they spend their time learning their job.

 

[GR66]

My preference would be for half the Senate seats to be in play each election, to provide longer tenure. Short tenure politicians are less able to accomplish things as they spend their time learning their job.

Unless there are radical swings in the vote percentages of the major provincial political parties there is nothing stopping Senators from serving for a long period of time. If there IS a massive swing in party representation (i.e. a major party is wiped out in the election) then are they really representative of that province any more? So why should their Senators keep their seats?