The Results Are In!!

[kateri]

alright. :canada is ok. not ideal but ok.

we have liberal minority. for :fishys from countries that may not have majority/minorities, this means they have more seats than any other party, but fewer than half the seats in parliament. thus they have to form alliances with at least one other party (probably the NDP, see my 'canadian election' post for party descriptions!) to get things passed. it costs some time in parliament, but this means the liberals can consider themselves well and truly chastened. they are made to stand in the corner in a pointy hat, but have not been replaced by the conservatives. thank the Good Lord.

interestingly enough, the two parties which formed the new conservatives (progressive conservatives + canadian alliance [reform]) had more seats put together than the new conservatives have now. the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

the results at time of posting (one riding seems not to have declared, but is reporting a leader) are as follows:
liberal: one-hundred-thirty-five elected
conservative: ninety-eight elected, one leading
NDP: nineteen elected
bloc québecois: fifty-four elected
(other) (basically conservative): one elected

so it could have been waaaay worse. or a bit better. but we're ok for now. let's just hope the liberals can get along with the NDP. or even with the bloc on things that don't involve breaking up the damn country.

o :canada...

[kateri]

as expected, that last remaining riding has gone conservative. so it's final.

[ribbon]

What does this (likely) mean in the context of social issues? Will the laws become more or less conservative or stay the same? Is canada likely to repeal or keep gay marriage?

[socks]

:hugon Kateri :hugoff
:balloons Thank you for giving a summary of the election results. I was wondering how I'd be able to explain it all. :balloons
While the Liberals hold the minority government, it's interesting to note that The liberals and the NDP combined will not be able to have a majority. NOR would the Bloc and the Conservatives. The balance of power rests with the one lone independent???? :confused only in Canada...
Anyway, :hugon Ribbon :hugoff to answer your question about how the social issues will turn out--I dont' know if anyone really knows. Legalizing gay marriage was a ruling made by the supreme court. Parliament has not actually made a ruling as such. I doubt anything will change at this point--the house of commons is far too divided. :flower
Frankly, I dont' know how many decisions or pieces of legislation will pass given where things are at.
My vote? We go back to the polls in eighteen months. :ugh
My other thought? Quebec voters are the most intelligent voters in the country.
I'll leave it at that.
socks

[kateri]

OK. to understand what the impact on social issues could have been, if there had, say, been a conservative majority, we come to the issue i've been avoiding. (another 'only in :canada' moment for ya, socks!)

the notwithstanding clause

i hope i can explain this well enough, but it is fundementally bizarre, so hold on tight everyone!

we have a charter of rights and freedoms, which was brought in by pierre trudeau (PM from sixty-eight to eighty-four except a few months in seventy-nine). if i'm right it says nothing explicit about, let's say gay marriage, but has been interpreted by the courts to mean that gay people have the fundemental right to get married.

the charter also has the notwithstanding clause. basically this is something a province can invoke which says the legal application of a particular right/freedom is not applicable in that province.

sounds like chaos, eh? but it has only been invoked twice in history, once successfully and once unsuccessfuly.

:bulletthe first time, it was the premier of québec who passed 'bill one-o-one', which states that signs etc. in québec must be written only in french, or in some cases english is allowed provided it is written in letters a certain percentage smaller. this goes against something in the official languages section of the charter, but they used the notwithstanding clause to protect their language. (this is still very controversial, but a whole other story!)

:bulletthen a couple of years back the premier of alberta, tried to use the notwithstanding clause to keep gay marriages from being legalised in alberta. he was met with uproar for even trying. i don't know who exactly stopped him (anyone know??), but the public reaction was strong.

now, the problem with stephen harper (conservative leader) is that he went on the record saying he would allow provinces to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the supreme court's legalisation of gay marriages. so it's not that he would have reversed the decision, he couldn't have done that, but he would have made it so the provinces could.

phew!

if i've missed anything/got facts wrong, anyone can feel free to jump in!

and if anyone's really hard core, here's a link to the charter:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html#droits

[Mully]

I'm so relieved that it is not a conservative government. And the guy in my riding that I voted for actually won- yay!

Socks- why exactly do you feel that Quebec voters are the most intelligent? I am afraid that I don't quite understand that. They voted mostly Bloc, and aren't the Bloc only concerned with themselves and separation? Please explain if you get a chance, I'd like to understand!

[geekygirl]

Yesterday was my first time voting. How exciting.

I saw on TV today that voter turnout was at an all time low, even worse than the last election in twothousand. Somewhere along the lines of twentytwo million Canadians are eligible to vote and only sixty% did. In twothousand sixtyfour% of eligible Canadians voted.

I was looking up something on the internet a couple days ago and I came acress a strange site. It was a website for the Bloc Quebecois of Ontario - Quebec and Ontario should sperate and make their own country (http://demaisonneuve.com/bloc/bienvenue.html). And I found this under their frequently asked questions:

Why does the Bloc québécois de l'Ontario oppose Confederation?

Primarily because of the eight non-Québec/Ontario provinces. We believe that these provinces are fundamentally pointless and add nothing to the nation of Québec. We believe that Québec (including Ontario) would be much better off without them. However, under the present constitutional arrangement, in order to kick them out of Confederation, we actually have to ask their permission. Obviously, this will not work, so the only viable option is sovereignty for Québec.

Interesting stuff.

I'm impressed with the other :canada, being all smart and knowing so much about how elections work and stuff.

~Heather~

[kateri]

heather, :yay for your first voting experience! hope you had a good 'i've had my say' swagger in your step :sarcasm!
i checked out your link, i have the impression they are very much a fringe party and not representative of many people. but if any ontarian feels ignored by the federal govt they should get a severe reality check from nine provinces and three territories. ontario already has a country of its own. it's called canada. still interesting though, so thanks for that.

mully, i won't speak for socks but i have to say the bloc are not just concerned with themselves and separation (though it can seem that way :winky). they are very strong on social issues and supporting the arts.

[socks]

:hugon mully :hugoff
:stars I will attempt here to clarify my statement. I'm not sure if this is going to be a popular view or not, but please bear with me. I am open to opposing views as well. :stars
My whole point is this. yes, the Bloc are for separation. I truely believe that Quebec uses the bloc to advance their own agenda. Quebecors, I think for the most part want to stay in Canada, however, by electing a bloc government, their voices are heard because everyone is so afraid of the idea of Quebec separating from the rest of Canada. Many who voted for the bloc said that they voted Bloc, not to separate but to punish the liberals. If things had gone the way the pollsters had predicted, who would have held the balance of power: THE BLOC and in essence, QUEBEC. When Bernard Landry (MP for the bloc) said in this election, "a vote for Quebec is a vote for Sovereignty, and will open the doors to another referendum in five years it was gilles duceppe (the leader of the Bloc) that came out and denied that statement. Quebecors, he knows, do NOT want a referendum any time soon. (but they'll vote for the Bloc anyway.) :ugh
Another point: How many PM's have come from Quebec???????
Only in Canada would we allow a party whose whole premise is to break apart a country. Anywhere else that would probably be considered treason. The biggest joke was when the Bloc was "her majesty's loyal opposition".... :ugh :ugh :ugh
I won't say who I think are the dumbest voters in the country.
Ok, I've said my piece. I better shut up before I get in trouble.
:love
socks