Where Canada Does it Better - Expansion of Their Parliament

An Idea That Would Help Alleviate Instability in the American Political System

Last week, Canada held its federal election amidst Donald Trump’s trade war and annexation threats. Choking harder than the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2025 NBA Playoffs, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre blew a 25% lead in the polls and Canadian voters elected Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, with a minority government.¹

Carney, a former Bank of England Governor, who had never run for elected office before turned out to be a far shrewder politician than anyone predicted. He won handily in his riding of Nepean.² Next door in the riding of Carleton, Poilievre, who has spent his entire adult life in elected office, lost re-election in what was a safe Conservative riding that he had held since 2004.

While Canadians were clearly sick of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the only politician they reviled more is Donald Trump. The threats to annex Canada into the 51st State did not sit well with Canadians who feel very patriotically towards their country.³ Prime Minister Mark Carney, who danced to Down With Webster upon learning his party’s election victory, benefitted.⁴

As

John Halpin

wrote in Lessons From Canada’s Liberals, “Although the circumstances of the Canadian election are not easily replicated in other nations with different political and economic contexts, there are larger lessons for center-left parties like U.S. Democrats.”

There are lessons though for center-right or right wing parties like the U.S. Republicans. Even in his losing effort, Poilievre actually won younger voters (Carney prevailed among Canada’s senior citizens) and the immigrant vote.⁵ That is highly unusual for any major center right or right wing party in a western democracy.

This sort of political uniqueness is made possible by a healthy and well-functioning Canadian democracy that sets an example for the world.

In general, Canadian voters have a “We will not tolerate your crap” attitude towards their elected officials. When Canadians are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, they will throw their elected officials out of office.

In 1993, Canadian voters were so angry with the incumbent Progressive Conservative Party that they not only voted them out of office but reduced them from 169 seats to just 2 with Prime Minister Kim Campbell losing her own riding.⁶

Canadians will also elevate 3rd and 4th place parties into power. In 2015, fed up with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government but disliking the socialist New Democratic Party alternative who then formed the official opposition, Canadians voted the third place Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau into power.⁷

And yet, Canada generally has political stability and responsible government.

Missing from the Canadian election were conspiracy theorists from the Conservative Party making unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud and using those unsubstantiated claims as a basis for restricting voting rights. While he was punished by his riding’s voters for being overly-partisan, Poilievre conceded the election.

For his part, Carney didn’t gloat over Poilievre’s personal embarrassment or look to push the political advantage of the opposition party not having a leader elected to Parliament.

Upon learning that a Conservative MP in the safest Conservative riding in Alberta (Canada’s political equivalent of Texas) would be stepping aside to allow Poilievre to run for his seat, Carney said that he would schedule the special election as soon as possible to enable Poilievre to get back into Parliament. “I will ensure that it happens as soon as possible … no games, nothing, straight,” he said.⁸

In Canada, members of Parliament frequently work together across party lines. There’s an absence of tactics that are designed to jeopardize the integrity of the country (like shutting down the federal government or throwing the country into default). There’s a deep respect for process and the democratic system that now seems conspicuously absent from so many American elected officials.

One couldn’t fault an American watching the Canadian election for feeling slightly envious given the current instability in the American political system.

There are many differences between our two electoral systems. Among other things, Canada has a Parliamentary system and their constitutional right to free expression does not prohibit campaign spending limits. Their system has something known as the “Notwithstanding” Clause, which allows governments to temporarily ignore court rulings that certain laws or policies are unconstitutional.

I prefer our American system and feel very patriotically towards it.⁹

However, that doesn’t mean we cannot emulate Canada where appropriate.

After all, the United States has invaded Canada twice (three times if you count the invasion from the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut). Both times, the Canadians handed our asses to us. So, obviously, we can learn things from the Canadians.

There’s one thing in particular that both Canada and the United States have in common in our governance that Canadians clearly do better.

Like the United States House of Representatives, Canada’s Parliament is comprised of single member districts that are supposed to be equal in population size. Districts are drawn once a decade to account for population changes as determined through a once-a-decade census.¹⁰ Elections are also conducted on a first-past-the-post system where whoever receives the most votes wins the election.¹¹

However, there is a key and subtle difference.

Unlike the United States, Canada does not artificially cap the number of seats in Parliament, and frequently expands its Parliament size to include more members as their population expands.

In the 2025 Canadian election, 343 Parliamentary seats were contested. This was an increase from the Canadian elections in 2021, 2019, and 2015 where 338 Parliamentary seats were contested. That followed a major Parliamentary expansion from 308 Parliamentary seats that were contested in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011 elections.

The United States House of Representatives, historically conceived as the people’s branch of government, is currently comprised of 435 members.

While this may seem like a large number, relative to other democracies, the United States has one of the smallest legislative bodies in the world.

The United States has a population of 331,449,281 people. Canada has a population of 36,991,981 people. Thus, members of the House of Representatives typically represent nearly eight (8) times as many constituents as each member of Canadian Parliament.

Many erroneously assume that 435 House members is a fixed number in the Constitution and cannot be changed, much the way in which every state receives two (2) Senators.¹² However, this is not actually the case. Instead, the Constitution merely requires minimum numbers for the original thirteen (13) states and requires that every single state receive at least one (1) member of Congress.¹³

Congress is currently capped at its current number of 435 members because of the House Re-Apportionment Act of 1921 and has not expanded since 1929.

There are many good reasons for smaller legislative seat sizes and increasing them periodically to keep up with population growth as the Canadians do.

1. Reduction of Power of Money in Politics. Reducing the number of constituents reduces the power of money in politics because there are fewer voters that candidates must reach to persuade. Moreover, candidates do not have to raise as much money to counter attacks from opponents and other political groups.

2. More Attentive Legislators. The fewer constituents that an elected representative represents, the easier it is to provide needed constituent services. Moreover, elected representatives who fail to provide good constituents services are more likely to face electoral accountability from disgruntled constituents.

3. Less Isolation From Constituents. When Prime Minister Carney told Trump that Canada was not for sale, he explained that on the campaign trail, he had consulted with “the owners of Canada”. When elected representatives have more face to face interactions, they are far less isolated from their own constituents, acting less like kings and more like elected officials.

4. Better Informed Elected Officials. The fewer constituents that an elected representative has, the closer an elective representative stays to their constituents, making it easier to stay attuned to the everyday needs and problems of their constituents.

5. Increased Legislative Diversity. The more available legislative seats will naturally increase diversity and not just the in traditional sense of discrete groups defined by immutable characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation). It also increases diversity of thought and diversity of background (whether a different career path, educational background, or business/non-profit experience).

6. More Sensible Districts. One mandate of California’s independent redistricting is that legislative districts must generally be drawn to include communities of common interest.¹⁴ Legislative districts are also supposed to be drawn to be geographically compact.¹⁵
   
   But with districts that must have extremely large populations, that’s often impossible. Communities that don’t belong together and have vastly different interests and needs often find themselves together. Increasing the number of districts reduces the number of constituents per seat and enables the drawing of more compact communities of common interest.

7. More Talented Elected Officials. The skills required for winning elections aren’t necessarily the skills that make for good governance. But with more legislative seats per population, there are more opportunities for smart and talented individuals who are needed in government to get elected.

8. Population Equality in Districts. In order to effectuate the principle of one person, one vote, Congressional seats are required to be equal in population size.¹⁶ Under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, all legislative seats must be equal in population size.¹⁷ However, capping the number of seats has led to inequalities in district population between states.
   
   Consider this. While California lost a Congressional seat in 2021, Between 2010 and 2020, California’s population net increased by 2.3 million people.¹⁸ As a result, every California representative represents approximately 761,091 constituents. As a result of gaining just under 100,000 new residents, Montana gained a Congressional seat and both members represent 542,112 constituents.

   
   In Canada’s last major seat expansion, which was introduced and shepherded through by the Conservative Party, having more equal population sizes between ridings among provinces was one of the chief reasons for the expansion.

9. Political Stability. As writer and centrist thinker Noah Smith has argued in The Wealthy and Privileged Can Revolt, Too and The Elite Overproduction Hypothesis, limiting the number of elected officials often increases political instability while expanding the number of elected officials often increases political stability.

Why do we freeze the numbers of elected officials? A very wise journalist (and loyal subscriber) once explained to me that she believed that many people had a natural aversion to the idea of more paid politicians.

This is certainly borne out by unsuccessful attempts at expansion of political bodies in notoriously under-represented California.¹⁹ Voters previously rejected extremely modest efforts to expand the California State Senate in 1962,²⁰ the Los Angeles City Council in 1999,²¹ and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 2000.²²

In 2024, Los Angeles County voters only narrowly passed Measure G, which modestly expanded the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from 5 members to 9 members.

There is one group of people who are particularly happy that voters feel this way: elected officials to legislative bodies.

Why?

Because adding more legislative seats reduces their power, diluting their individual votes. If the House of Representatives expanded the number of Congressional seats, it would reduce the individual voting power of Congressmembers.

Consider that reality when you hear elected officials argue against the expansion of legislative bodies and couch their language in anti-politician rhetoric.

However, while expansion of legislative bodies reduces the individual power of elected officials, it adds to the power of individual voters. And as shown by Canada, expansion of legislative bodies improves the political system overall.

While Canada will never be the 51st State and the United States will never be Canada, some ideas from north of the border are worth copying. Expansion of the United States House of Representatives to keep up with population growth would definitely be one of them.

1. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.

2. “Riding” is the term that Canadians use for their electoral districts.

3. If you are an American reading this article, ask yourself, would threats of annexation of the United States sit well with you?

4.

5. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/immigrants-denied-carney-his-majority

6. In the 2014 Ontario Provincial elections, the incumbent Liberals under Premiere Kathleen Wynne were reduced from a majority to just 7 seats.

7. Earlier that same year, in the Alberta Provincial elections, voters elevated the New Democratic Party from a perennial fourth place into a majority government, with the number of New Democratic Party MLAs increasing from 4 to 54 in a single election

8. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/05/02/pierre-poilievre-mark-carney-byelection-call/

9. For those who want to abolish the electoral college who might cheer Canada, I should note that in both the 2019 and 2021 elections, the popular vote winner (the Conservative Party) was the election loser. This has happened before in Canada and is not an infrequent occurrence in a parliamentary system.

10. There have been mid-decade redrawings for partisan advantage in the United States and occasionally court-ordered redrawings mid-decade to account for Constitutional violations or to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

11. In some states, elections are conducted slightly differently like in California and Washington State, where elections to the United States House of Representatives are conducted on the basis of the top two system.