Oh, elections are so much fun.

I hope we have another one here in Canada again soon.

Quebecers go to the polls tomorrow - at this point the results are too close to call, but the (federalist) Liberals under Jean Charest are enjoying a surge in the polls, giving them a comfortable lead over the Premier Bernard Landry and the (sovereigntist) Parti Québecois. But anything could happen... more info here.

A defeat for the PQ would seriously harm the sovereignty movement, likely hastening the decline of their federal cousins, the Bloc Québecois. The result might be the sort of Liberal dominance in Québec seen in the late Trudeau era, when they won 74 or 75 seats in the 1980 election. Of course, things were a bit different in 1984 with the appearance of Brian Mulroney's Tories... might the decline of the Bloc create an opening for other parties, the NDP for example?

We shall see.

As of 10:21pm, CBC was projecting a Liberal majority government.

Parti libéral - 73 seats (leading or elected) - 44.77%
Parti québécois - 44 seats (leading or elected) - 33.72%
Action démocratique - 5 seats (leading or elected) - 19.51%

Interestingly, Jean Charest, who will be premier, is in a tight race in Sherbrooke, his own riding.

Some background:

Parti libéral (PLQ) - federalist, marginally more business-oriented
Parti québécois (PQ) - sovereigntist, social-democratic
Action démocratique (ADQ) - ambiguously nationalist (they've said the sovereignty question has been solved, but just don't want to talk about it), previously more right-wing

Some notes about the ADQ: They were leading in opinion polls six months ago and their leader, Mario Dumont, was the most popular among party leaders. However, their support began to erode as people became aware of their policies, which, among other things, included a flat tax and privatization of health care. They've since backed off on more of their radical policies - most of the grand statements about how the rise of the ADQ heralded a "new era" in Quebec politics have been shown to be baseless.

Final results:

PLQ - 76 seats (45.86%)
PQ - 45 seats (33.23%)
ADQ - 4 seats (18.27%)

http://www.cbc.ca/quebecvotes2003/

Jean Charest did win his seat and so becomes the next premier of Quebec.

The results are in:

Liberals 135 36.7%
Conservatives 99 29.6%
Bloc Quebecois 54 12.4%
New Democrats 19 15.7%
Green 0 4.3%
Not affiliated 1 .13%

So, we have a Liberal minority government, but they'll need the support not only of the NDP, but of Chuck Cadman, elected as an independent in Surrey North after losing the Conservative nomination. My prediction is that he'll shortly be offered a nice cabinet position - on his own terms. This will be very much a consensus-driven Parliament, which is good for all of us. Moreover, electoral reform is now firmly on the agenda thanks to the NDP.

With a minority parliament, the next election may be only months away, but it may merely produce another minority, which I consider a good thing.

We live in interesting times.

Oh, I should mention that the first number there is the number of seats, the second is the percentage of the vote.

I couldn't say what my political leanings were when I was a teen, although when I was 15, I favoured the party that said we needed wage-and-price controls to fight inflation, and that happend to be the Progressive Conservative party. I soon decided I was a PC supporter, and voted for them in my first federal election... although two years earlier, I don't know why, I voted for the socialist New Democratic Party in a provincial election... maybe I thought the Tories were too complacent with their 35-year hold on power.

I stuck with the Tories until they betrayed my hopes in the mid-80s, by not tackling the federal deficit. I've been with another party since then that suits me just fine, even though it hasn't yet won a seat. For now, its influence is to keep the other parties from ignoring certain issues or certain complexions of an issue. In fact, the Reform Party copied some of our policies! And one person who'd been a Reform candidate, but was "removed" in favour of an ethnic candidate placement, came and joined us to run in the very same electoral district!

I happened to think the war in Iraq was justified. The WMDs weren't found, but I still think it was a victory for the human rights of the Iraqi people living under that dictator. I just wish it hadn't taken so long to go ahead... Hussein really filibustered the process and he had dupes in Europe who were helping him.

I would say that you can't cast a country by its actions... because every country is made up of many people. Canada is not an "anti-war" country just because the Chretien government was anti-war. The US is not a "war-like" country just because the current government is making the difficult decisions to go on the offensive against tyrants who aid and abet terrorism. France is another seeming "anti-war" country, but there are Frenchmen who are eternally grateful to America for liberating them from the Nazis. I know that, although there are South Koreans who wish the Americans would leave, there are many others who are happy they're there to keep the North Koreans in check. There probably are some who wish that Gen. MacArthur hadn't tried to push into China when he had the North Koreans in retreat (he should have stopped and held defensible positions about 10-30 miles from the Chinese border, leaving "North Korea" as an unviable narrow strip of land, and forcing the North Koreans' eventual surrender).

I rather envy America. Your laws have some elements superior to ours in Canada, especially the way rights are defined. You don't have a burden of tax-fed socialism dragging things down. If we could only take the best that each of our countries have to offer, we would have a fine pair of nations.

My wife is an American, and so our children have dual citizenship (an INS official checked out the numbers and told us so), so I hope that you 'Mericans won't mind this Canuck bringing his wife home to her country and three children to join it, even if you have to allow this alien a job!

I hope that you 'Mericans won't mind this Canuck bringing his wife home to her country and three children to join it, even if you have to allow this alien a job!

I for one won't mind a bit!

Um, isn't the Canada the country that requires Americans to prove they aren't going to take a Canadian's job when they come here?

Not to my knowledge. And what the heck is "the" Canada?

The WMDs weren't found, but I still think it was a victory for the human rights of the Iraqi people living under that dictator.

Indeed, now they merely face being shot at checkpoints or blown up by insurgents, all while living under martial law and a "government" which makes Weimar Germany look like a paragon of political stability.

I just wish it hadn't taken so long to go ahead... Hussein really filibustered the process and he had dupes in Europe who were helping him.

Yup, after all, the "threat" posed by Iraq was "imminent." Certainly, the US shouldn't have waited for the weapons inspectors to finish their work.

And what the heck is "the" Canada?

It's the Canada to the north of the USA, as opposed to any other Canadas that might happen to be out there!

Let's hear it for Canada!

Give me a C, eh? Give me an N, eh? Give me a D, eh?

The Liberal Party is at an end in Canada.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-28-canada-government_x.htm?csp=24

Elect Bob & Doug McKenzie.

Clearly I was teasing the French with "L'Canada."

Or maybe I was thinking of The Ukraine or The Gambia. "The Settlement."

But for all you South Park Fans http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057794/

Now, this is sabre rattling. Historically, Canada really only has two options when dealing with America, accomadation or annexation. Canada can only exist as a US ally.

It is still good to see that the new government isnt going to be a puppet for King Bush. Thats a bit of good news. And with the way the US military is so stretched even canada could probably win a confrontation or at least put a bit of hurt on the mainland.

Realistically though. Probably a bit of posturing, some diplomatic overtures and either nothing will come about or some trade agreements will get changed. Anyone know if any fishing rights or other treaties are up for renewel soon?

Last time the US tried to annex Canada, it was such a success that Michigan was occupied and Washington was put to the torch.

R: What do mean the Army? The police would be sufficient. Heck, Civil War Reenactors would work too. That or a massive back channel donation to Bloc Quebecois.

Josh G: Actually, we would have tried again after the Civil war, but it just didn't work out.

The American military cannot even keep control of small countries like Iraq or Afghanistan - what makes you think it could possibly successfully occupy a country larger than any other except Russia?

You also seem to be under the rather mistaken impression that the Bloc Quebecois is some sort of paramilitary organization or that Quebec sovereigntists are the sort who will accept donations from hostile foreign powers.

Pesti you do realize that Canada does have its own military and while they may not be quite as large as our own they are a professional fighting force with just as much technology and training as our own.

And since we are sending our military all over the place for our king's petty desire to be in the history books for something other than the destroyer of the economy, civil and human rights and generally being a jerk it wouldnt take much of a military to put the hurt on the us mainland.

And as Josh pointed out our military isnt able to control someplace like iraq what makes you think another professional army would be able to be easier to handle than a bunch of hillbilly insurgents whose prime weapon is the ability to blow themselves up?

Francois, in the Ask The Moderator section of Doctor Who:

we do what Barbados did and remove the king of England as our head of state.

My reply, which I shall re-post here, as PM is really where such a discussion belongs, IMO.

That will not be happening anytime soon.

In order to make a change like that, the Canadian Constitution will have to be changed. For that to happen would require the unanimous agreement of all ten Canadian provinces and all three territories. This has never, ever happened, and most likely never will.

Since this site's posters are mostly old codgers, my fellow Canadians here, Francois and Steve, are both old enough to remember the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (1987 and 1992 respectively). These were attempts by then Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, at Constitutional reform. Both blew up it his face.

And I think that a knock off affect was the Progressive Conservative Party, which Mulroney led, getting massacred in the 1993 Federal Election (not that Mulroney was around for that, he saw the tsunami coming and retired a few months before, leaving poor Kim Campbell to take the fall).

Since then, no Canadian Prime Minister has touched the Constitution. They're smart enough not to want to go down that rabbit hole again.