Connect with us

2025 Federal Election

The status quo in Canadian politics isn’t sustainable for national unity

Published

6 minute read

From Energy Now

  William Lacey

The Willful Blindness of the East

That’s it. I’m officially a separatist…sort of. Really, I’m just completely tired of Ontario and Quebec. After 10 years of frozen economic output, a runaway immigration program, and a debt profile that went hyperbolic, Eastern Canada appears to have decided that another four years of the same old, same old is a good path forward.

In short, they think that the clown car that led this country, after just swapping out the driver (who happened to be one of the people who was supplying the directions), is a good idea.

Having been born and raised in Alberta, I feel that there is a significant amount of the battered spouse syndrome that is alive and well in the province, with people saying “I know the rest of the country love me. They’re just having a bad day.” No matter how many times I ask “what’s in this great union for Alberta” I get the same kitschy feedback. Be grateful for Canada and its social programs and “free” medical system (they are broken), Canada in the Great War (umm…that was 107+ years ago), great moments in sports, tidewater access (umm….that’s a quiet threat), etc. When it comes to one tangible answer, I just get silence. But the reality is that the East is perfectly happy to look down their noses, take the money, and then say “you are not one of us; you lack provenance!” Now some of you may say that is bullshit and that Albertans are an ungrateful bunch. But being someone who has lived in both the East and West, and worked with people who come from all walks, I know firsthand the bias exists.

Alberta, and the West, have made outsized contributions to confederation, much of that through the system that we call equalization. The idea behind this system was so that all parts of Canada get equal treatment through the taxation system, taking funds generated by “have” provinces and redistributing those funds to “have not” provinces, making sure that all are afforded the basics that Canadians have taken to be their definition of Canada. This is essentially done by looking at the fiscal capacity of each province, based on the average national tax rate, and then “balance” the books based on this average capacity. And that’s fine. But in the world I live in, when one group reaches out and helps the other, there is an acknowledgement of the effort, not a “va te faire foutre!” like comes out of Quebec. There is a certain irony from the chart below that it looks like Quebec is giving the finger to the rest of the country.

The reality is that the East views it as beneath them to say thank you for such a contribution. Moreover, many go out of their way to vilify the work that is done and to demean those who do it. So you wonder why the frustration mounts? The fact of the matter is that I believe that the Conservative movement has been codified out East as a fringe movement, only to be voted for when the Liberals need a brief time out.

Do I think separation is a real possibility? Not really. There are numerous challenges, some of which are more difficult than others. The largest one is probably related to indigenous matters, but they too likely suffer from a version of battered spouse syndrome. There is an underlying tenet that the Federal Government cares for them, but based on what I have seen, that is a unique “standard of care” that is being applied. I actually believe that better outcome for the indigenous people could be achieved under a new relationship, assuming both sides were open minded.

Now before you say “you are on the fringe, you don’t represent the masses”, I can tell you that I know a lot of people who are leaders in their professions within this province, whether that is health, law, business, etc. that all echo these feelings. The frustration is palpable, it is real and it is broader than you think.

So, with this I finally raise my hand and make the call that “I’m tired of the relationship I am in.” This pains and saddens me deeply, as I am someone who has worn the maple leaf with great pride and who has been happy to pronounce “I am Canadian.” I think it’s time to reconsider who I view as my partner.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

NDP’s collapse rightly cost them official party status

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Michael Taube

Official party status requires 12 seats. The NDP got seven. End of story

Rules are rules.

That, in a nutshell, is why the NDP wasn’t granted official party status in the House of Commons on Monday. Prime Minister Mark Carney and the
Liberals, to their credit, made the right decision.

Let’s examine why.

The 1963 Senate and House of Commons Act passed an amendment that gave an annual allowance to party leaders other than the prime minister and
leader of the Opposition. In doing so, the Canadian government had to establish what constitutes a “political party.” The definition they came up with was a sensible one: it had to have a “recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.”

This important amendment is still used today.

The NDP fell from 24 to a paltry seven seats in last month’s federal election. (There are a total of 343 seats in the House of Commons.) They finished with 1,234,673 votes, or 6.29 per cent, which was behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois. Party leader Jagmeet Singh, who had represented the former Burnaby South riding since 2019, finished a distant third in the newly created Burnaby Central riding and resigned.

The NDP’s seven seats is well below the 12-seat requirement needed for official party status. This means Canada’s socialist alternative won’t be able to ask questions in the House of Commons and will lose out on money for research purposes.

Or, to put it another way, they’re plumb out of luck.

Hold on, some people said. They pointed out that the NDP’s seat count and popular vote only plummeted because many progressive voters backed Carney and the Liberals as the best option to counter U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. They felt that the NDP’s long history as a champion for unions and the working class should count for something. They suggested there should be an exception to the rule.

Guess what? They’re wrong.

This is the worst election result in the party’s history. Even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), did marginally better in its first campaign. The CCF won seven out of 245 seats—and earned 410,125 votes, or 9.31 per cent—in the 1935 election. Party leader J.S. Woodsworth, who had represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre as an Independent Labour MP since 1925, comfortably held his seat.

Meanwhile, this won’t be the first time they’ve ever lost official party status.

The NDP dropped from 43 to nine seats in the 1993 election. It was a dismal showing, to say the least. There was a suggestion at the time that then-party leader Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a party with political representation in Canada’s House of Commons, deserved a better fate. While the NDP certainly came closer to achieving the 12-seat requirement in this particular election, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberals decided against granting them official party status.

Why? As I mentioned earlier, rules are rules.

Then again, British pilot Harry Day notably told his fellow flying ace Douglas Bader in 1931, “You know my views about some regulations—they’re written for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”

Does this mean that individuals and organizations who follow rules are, in fact, fools? Not at all. While certain rules in a liberal democratic society can range from slightly questionable to utterly ridiculous, they’re usually put in place for a specific purpose.

In the case of the House of Commons, it’s to ensure that a bar has been set with respect to political representation. Is 12 seats the right number? That’s difficult to say. It certainly prevents small protest parties and one-issue parties that unexpectedly win a tiny number of seats in an election from acquiring power and status right off the bat. They need to win more seats and grow in size and stature to reach a point of respectability. Most of them never reach this point and disappear while others float in a constant state of mediocrity like the Green Party of Canada. ’Tis the nature of the political beast.

One final point. If Singh and the NDP had reached double digits in total number of seats in 2025, a solid case could have been made in favour of official party status. If they had finished with 11 seats, it would have almost been a lock. Neither scenario ultimately materialized, which is why Carney and the Liberals did exactly what they did.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Judicial recounts give Conservatives 2 more seats, keeping Liberals short of majority

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

After a judicial recount, Conservative candidate Kathy Borrelli has officially won over Liberal incumbent Irek Kusmierczyk, in the Ontario riding of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore.

Judicial recounts from the 2025 federal election have given the Conservative Party two new seats, with one candidate winning by just four votes.

After a judicial recount, Conservative candidate Kathy Borrelli has officially won over Liberal incumbent Irek Kusmierczyk, in the Ontario riding of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore.

Borrelli got 32,090 votes, with Kusmierczyk getting 32,086 votes, and NDP candidate Alex Ilijoski getting 4,240 votes.

In the Newfoundland riding of Terra Nova-The Peninsulas, Conservative candidate Jonathan Rowe beat out Liberal Anthony Germain by just 12 votes after a recount with the initial result showing a Liberal victory.

The new election results mean the Conservatives now have 144 seats with the Liberals at 169, three short of a majority.

Judicial recounts are automatically triggered when the margin of victory for a candidate is less than 0.1 percent of valid votes.

While these recounts have favored the Conservatives, others have gone in the Liberal Party’s favor.

A May 16 judicial recount switched the southern Ontario riding of Milton East-Halton Hills South to the Liberals with a 21-vote victory over the Conservatives.

Overall, the election results have been a big blow to the Conservative Party, which on top of losing the election also saw its leader, Pierre Poilievre, fail to win his long-held seat. However, Poilievre is expected to run in a yet-to-be-announced by-election in Alberta to reclaim a seat in Parliament.

Continue Reading

Trending

X