S02.E31: 2015 Canadian Federal Election

[Athena]

Segments: President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto's public image, culling in Danish zoos, 2015 Canadian federal election

[walnutqueen]

Go fuck yourself, Denmark.

[Delwyn]

Thank you for taking one for Team Canada, John. Very Gangster, even if that is only $3868.19 US. We need all the help we can get ousting the guy who took a hard pass on the Kyoto Protocol and is banking that we are more afraid of terrorists than we are of losing our civil rights. Strategic voting is going to play a big part for Canada tomorrow. Like John mentioned, we vote municipally, not federally, so some of us will be voting for a candidate's party instead of the candidate themselves, which I have never felt the need to do before. Weird.

 

I liked that he didn't necessarily endorse the other candidates for PM and just went for the comedy (there is plenty there). French Canadians falling down the stairs is pretty funny ;) LOL forever at Harper endorsing Breaking Bad and then saying weed is worse than tobacco. Pretty sure meth trumps both.

 

With regards to not knowing about your neighbouring country's election practices (and that loser they are currently dating), I got this gem from my mother yesterday: "Did you know Obama is not running in the next election?"

 

[DrScottie]

 

I got this gem from my mother yesterday: "Did you know Obama is not running in the next election?"

 

Yeah, that darned 22nd amendment. FDR had to go ahead and spoil Washington's legacy (and informal rule) of the Presidency being restricted to two terms.

 

Enjoy your fine, John. I do love that he was so obvious about it. I wonder if they will try to jail him for it.

 

In the US, with the Citizens United ruling obscuring sources of campaign donations, we probably do have advertisements for or against candidates being funded by foreign interests and that's legal here.

 

I felt so bad for the young woman who left her country to seek freedom of religious expression only to find it was also frowned upon in Canada. Half the population of Toronto is foreign born. How can they getting away with this?

Edited October 19, 2015 by DrScottie

[Iguana]

DrScottie, freedom of religion is NOT frowned upon in Canada, but by a few assholes who try to fan the flames of xenophobia for cheap political points. You'll note our courts decided that law was unconstitutional.

John, Canada thanks you for shining the small but bright spotlight of premium cable at our national election. Your plea to vote against Stephen Harper could cost you $5,000.00 (can) but could cost Mr. Harper the Prime Ministership. Should this happen, I will laugh and send you some discontinued Canadian pennies to put towards your fine.

Oh, and those Denmark zoos can go fuck themselves.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Iguana

[attica]

I'm starting to wonder if there's an underlying pathology in John or one of his show's staff regarding giant fuzzy costumes. I'm afraid it's a fetish.

[mtlchick]

I'll take that $5000, John.  I got a lot of ridiculous taxes to pay to Harper...FOR NOW.  

 

Thank God this was online as I am now HBO deprived.  The only thing that I wished was brought up since Mike Myers was there is that ex patriots are not allowed to vote.

[3 is enough]

I was pleasantly surprised to see John address the Canadian election.  There has been zero mention of it in the news here.

 

 I am certainly no fan of Stephen Harper, but I feel it should be clarified that the only restriction proposed on the niqab was that it not be worn while taking the oath of citizenship- other than that women would be free to wear it. The niqab is not allowed in Canadian passport photos and women must reveal their faces to female airport security if requested to do so.

 

For those interested C-SPAN will be switching to CBC feed and offering full election results coverage starting at 6:30 Eastern time.

Edited October 19, 2015 by 3 is enough

[DrScottie]

 

DrScottie, freedom of religion is NOT frowned upon in Canada, but by a few assholes who try to fan the flames of xenophobia for cheap political points. You'll note our courts decided that law was unconstitutional.

 

I am certainly no fan of Stephen Harper, but I feel it should be clarified that the only restriction proposed on the niqab was that it not be worn while taking the oath of citizenship- other than that women would be free to wear it. The niqab is not allowed in Canadian passport photos and women must reveal their faces to female airport security if requested to do so.

 

Thank you for those clarifications. I stand corrected. 

[dusang]

Well, John has nothing to fear - he will not be going to jail or be fined for last night's piece.

 

The law is about about foreign funding of campaigns -- expressing your opinion is not against the law.

[iMonrey]

The one thing I'd take exception to is the Canadian law forbidding women from wearing the hijab for photo IDs. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want if it's part of your religios tenet. We do not allow the sale of illegal substances, for example, even if they are part of native American religious practices. By the same token we do not allow polygamy. If part of your religious belief was being able to beat your wife we wouldn't give people a free pass to do that just because it's their religion. We can and should outlaw harmful things even if it infringes on a so-call expression of religious belief. How "harmful" a hijab is, of course, is debatable, but the purpose of a photo ID is to . . . you know, identify someone facially. If your face is covered in the photo ID it sort of defeats the purpose. I have no problem with making a law that says you have to show your face for a driver's license photo. If it's against your religion, then you don't get a driver's license. Period. Pick your priorities.

[dusang]

The one thing I'd take exception to is the Canadian law forbidding women from wearing the hijab for photo IDs. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want if it's part of your religios tenet. We do not allow the sale of illegal substances, for example, even if they are part of native American religious practices. By the same token we do not allow polygamy. If part of your religious belief was being able to beat your wife we wouldn't give people a free pass to do that just because it's their religion. We can and should outlaw harmful things even if it infringes on a so-call expression of religious belief. How "harmful" a hijab is, of course, is debatable, but the purpose of a photo ID is to . . . you know, identify someone facially. If your face is covered in the photo ID it sort of defeats the purpose. I have no problem with making a law that says you have to show your face for a driver's license photo. If it's against your religion, then you don't get a driver's license. Period. Pick your priorities.

 

First, a hijab does not cover the face and Canadian law does not prohibit women from wearing a hijab in photo IDs, just as it does not prohibit Sikh men from wearing turbans.  However, niqabs, which do cover the face, are not allowed in photo IDs and that was never in debate.  The debate during this election cycle was over wearing a niqab during a public ceremony to take the oath of citizenship -- the woman in question had already provided identifying photos showing her full face and removed her veil in front of a female officer, as required by the current immigration policy manual.

[Victor the Crab]

Loved everything about Ollie's look at our upcoming election. Especially how he's begging us not to vote Stephen Harper back into office (I've already voted in advance last weekend, and no it wasn't for the Tories). And Ollie wasn't wrong about the vast majority of things he said about it, including the part about Labatt's Blue tasting like piss. And while I'm no fan of Mike Myers, I did enjoy him coming out dressed as a Mountie riding a snow plow and concurring with Ollie to not return Harper to power - and parodying his humiliating experience with Kanye West from ten years ago.

 

Now, will Harper get the boot? Will Justin Trudeau become our new prime minister and usher in a new generation of Trudeaumania? I have no idea. Last election, I thought Harper's Conservatives would get a reduced minority government, which would put in play a coalition government involving the NDP and Liberals. Instead, Harper got a majority government and went ahead to run roughshod over the Canadian democratic process. In a polarized country, where two of the three major parties are on the left and Harper playing Nixon with the entire right vote all to himself, no bets are safe. It would depress me, but wouldn't surprise me, if Stephen Harper were to emerge triumphant six hours from now.

 

C'mon fellow Canadians. Do Ollie proud.

[cattykit]

I think the Canadians ought to get together with the Danes on what constitutes a barbaric cultural practice.

[purist]

 

We need all the help we can get ousting the guy who took a hard pass on the Kyoto Protocol and is banking that we are more afraid of terrorists than we are of losing our civil rights.

 

Ugh. This sounds depressingly like Australia (where I live). My sympathies, Canada.

 

Loved Mike Myers blowing his nose on a bit of Canadian money and flinging it into the air. That segment was so full of glee.

[OneWhoLurks]

Key said on Tuesday that Oliver's attention did not faze him.

 

"He seems to have a great fascination. I mean, he is describing that as the greatest political interview of all time, and I reckon if he enjoys it so much he should come down and be a part of the post-cabinet press conference.

 

"It'd be a riot."

 

[...]

 

He said he answered the questions because 'what else do you do'.

 

"Now I get criticised for being too honest".

 

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/73175926/john-key-show-greatest-political-interview-of-all-time--john-oliver

[trow125]

Justin Trudeau Headed For Victory In Canada

NYT: "For much of the 78-day race, all three major political parties were in a statistical dead heat, according to various polls."

I like to think it was John Oliver who gave Trudeau his winning margin.

[Shermie]

Hardly. Trudeau was pulling ahead the last week or so.

And while I don't drink beer very often and have no opinion on Labatts, it's pretty rich for an American to criticize any Canadian beer, when everyone knows American beer is just a watered-down joke.

[AshleyLyn]

I think what angers me the most about this episode is the bit about the zoos in Denmark. Weren't zoos created to not only be educational for the public but also as a safe haven for animals that are endangered/nearly extinct? I mean.. that's what they are for right? Preservation of species too?
 
So what the hell is Denmark playing at here? This is just wrong. 

 

And as someone who grew up in Maine, and only a little over an  hour away from Canadian border, I used to go on school field trips when I was younger to Quebec and other towns and I didn't need a passport. Really enjoyed that. Miss it now. *Sigh* 

 

So wait... they only campaign for 78 days? Seriously? So Canadians don't get plastered with election crap continuously for years. I mean it seems to never end here in the States. There's local elections almost every year, elections every two years, federal elections. etc, etc. 

[briochetwist]

 

So wait... they only campaign for 78 days? Seriously? So Canadians don't get plastered with election crap continuously for years. I mean it seems to never end here in the States. There's local elections almost every year, elections every two years, federal elections. etc, etc. 

Yep.  It's awesome.  It boggles my mind that $1.7 billion was spent in the 2012 Presidential campaign, yet universal healthcare is considered too expensive in the US.  

[Victor the Crab]

Buh-bye Harper. >:D

[Delwyn]

I tuned out the Denmark segment the first time, assuming he was just giving people a hard time over all the pearl clutching about this. I actually had to go back and watch it when I saw the reaction here. I have questions about the outrage that may seem callous on my part (rhetorical, keep moving), but genuine:

 

-Dissection is a mandatory part of Biology for school children here to earn their grades.  Those frogs and sheep eye balls did not die of natural causes and as far as I can discern, the zoo did not force those kids to watch the lion or giraffe be dissected like we do in our schools.  Traumatizing, sure. But not mandatory? Maybe the parent’s fault, not the zoo’s?

 

-We kill thousands of perfectly healthy animals all the time in the name of science and food. A lot of it goes to waste.  This animal was going to be killed to avoid inbreeding anyway (sad fact of zoos with breeding programmes). Using her body for education as well is deplorable?

 

-What did people think happened to surplus zoo animals worldwide? Wait, don’t Google that. It will bum you out. Is this so horrifying because Denmark is acknowledging the practice? Or because it was a big name animal?

 

I’m not trying to say John or the people upset are wrong. I’ve seen these animals in the wild; it’s hard to watch. I just don’t understand why he didn’t qualify this a bit with “PS: Zoos in London and Spain, etc. also killed a bunch of hippos, some zebras, these monkeys, and these adorable antelope. And somewhere, your kid is clumsily removing the entrails of an embalmed pond frog for a B minus grade.” Denmark was an easy target here, I guess.

 

On the upside, “That’ll do Harper, that’ll do. Now don’t screw this up, Trudeau. We’re all counting on you.”

Edited October 20, 2015 by Delwyn

[ZoqFotPik]

 

-Dissection is a mandatory part of Biology for school children here to earn their grades.  Those frogs and sheep eye balls did not die of natural causes and as far as I can discern, the zoo did not force those kids to watch the lion or giraffe be dissected like we do in our schools.  Traumatizing, sure. But not mandatory? Maybe the parent’s fault, not the zoo’s?

I agree. As long as everyone was made aware of what was going to happen, I don't have problem with a zoo performing a dissection in front of an audience for educational purposes.  

[ProfCrash]

The Denmark Zoo that killed the giraffe participates in a European program that maintains animals for breeding. If there are too many animals at the Zoo, they look to other partner Zoos for homes. The animal in question has to be able to add to genetic diversity to prevent inbreeding. If I remember the story correctly, the giraffes in question were part of a genetic line that is too common and breeding them would have increased problems associated with inbreeding. So when the Zoo had to remove animals because there were too many, they could not find a home for the giraffes. They would not send them to private or public zoos that did not meet specific regulations on housing and caring for animals. They euthanized the giraffes in question. Instead of wasting the giraffes, they feed the meat to the lions.

 

I have no idea why parents or teachers would allow kids to watch the dissection. That strikes me as a poor decision by those folks. Why the zoo waited 9 months to dissect the animal is more interesting to me.

 

I remember a small controversy at the DC National Zoo. A deer jumped into the lion compound and was killed and eaten by the lions. People were upset that the keepers didn't save the animal. The keepers reminded folks that lions are hunters and if a deer gets into their compound then there was not way that the keepers where going to get between the lions and the deer before or after it was killed.

[Hanahope]

I appreciate the additional information about the Denmark zoo and now it makes me wonder about what important information is being left out in other of John's segments, which is depressing.  I really like his shows and the spotlight he turns on various issues that are so often kept in the dark and almost no one knows about the 'embarrassing' details.  My first thought while watching the Denmark zoo story was why couldn't the animals be sent to another zoo and now I know why, and it does make some sense.  Maybe there was some zoos that could have taken the giraffe and the lion cubs, but maybe the cost was too prohibitive and the benefits too few (including that the other zoos really didn't need the extra animals, but could have made room, if necessary).  And its not like these animals could be placed in a wild-reserve if they didn't have the skills to survive.  I suppose lions and giraffes aren't like pandas, so few and endangered that any zoo could use one.

 

Not surprised Justin won. He's a hottie.

[dusang]

I have no idea why parents or teachers would allow kids to watch the dissection. 

 

I didn't see the segment (it isn't on YouTube) so I don't know the specifics of these children and this giraffe (? or lion?) but I would argue that watching the dissection is a rare and amazing learning opportunity.

Edited October 20, 2015 by dusang

[ProfCrash]

He leaves important stuff out a fair amount. It is not a huge deal except when it is. His story on North Korea/South Korea tensions left out the fact that the North Koreans had planted two land mines on the South Korean side and cost two South Korean soldiers limbs. It wasn't some random provocation that led the South Koreans to blast propaganda at North Korea.

 

I enjoy the show, it makes me laugh but he did just promote a candidate who he mocked regarding his appearance and a silly video of faking falling down a stairs over one who had a stupid band name, is cold as ice, and is Xenophobic. He didn't really present why either of the other candidates were better then Harper other then the fact that they were not Harper.

 

He brings up some very interesting problems and gets people to think, which is great, but some of his segments I know there are areas where he is leaving out information or playing up somethings that over shadow the larger problem.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/index.html

 

CNN had an article on the giraffe which includes this quote,  so the info was pretty easy to find.

 

"'Our giraffes are part of an international breeding program, which has a purpose of ensuring a sound and healthy population of giraffes," Bengt Holst, scientific director at Copenhagen Zoo, told CNN. "It can only be done by matching the genetic composition of the various animals with the available space. ... When giraffes breed as well as they do now, then you will inevitably run into so-called surplus problems now and then.'

 

CNN anchor Jonathan Mann asked Holst if it would have been possible to sterilize Marius or move him to another zoo to avoid killing him.

'If we just sterilize him, he will take up space for more genetically valuable giraffes,' Holst answered.

Did the children watching cry? Mann asked.

Just the opposite, Holst said. The crowd was 'very enthusiastic' and 'the kids asked good questions.'"

Edited October 20, 2015 by ProfCrash

[attica]

I agree, dusang. A plus is that a giraffe is big enough that onlookers can see what-all is going on inside, even from a small distance. (I once watched a u-tube of a dissection of a two-faced calf. It was pretty gross, but the two scientists conducting it were both so interesting that their enthusiasm for its weirdness rubbed off on me.)

[redfish]

Hardly. Trudeau was pulling ahead the last week or so.

 

 

True. Even though he was behind in the polls when the election began but after each debate his numbers started to grow. The Big Red Machine was up and running and did not stop.

 

 

 

So wait... they only campaign for 78 days? Seriously? So Canadians don't get plastered with election crap continuously for years. I mean it seems to never end here in the States. There's local elections almost every year, elections every two years, federal elections. etc, etc.

 

Usually, the most is under 50 days and that's pushing it. Harper only made it this long with the hope of bankrupting the other two parties (The Conservatives accumulated the most in donations) to expend all their money on commercials and local expenses and the chance that he could embarrass Trudeau by creating a narrative that he's not ready and too green to handle the long slog.

Edited October 20, 2015 by redfish

[fastiller]

I'd love a 78-day election cycle.  Heck, I'd be fine with twice that (that's only about 5 or so  months).

 

If I can figure it out maybe I'll start a change.org petition and try to have John Oliver promote it?!

[Jamoche]

At least those kids weren't required to be there - what about all the frogs that die just so a bunch of junior high kids can learn that formaldehyde stinks? That's all *I* took away from the experience.

[3 is enough]

Before I came to the US from Canada in 1991, the standard federal election campaign lasted 6 weeks.  Part of the reason for this is that the PM calls an election and dissolves Parliament when he decides it is a good time to do so. There is no exact term limit, but no Parliament cannot exceed 5 years in length. Typically the PM calls an election at around the 4 year mark. The fact that Parliament is dissolved during the campaign helps to keep it relatively short. The public would not take kindly to months and months of campaigning with no governing being done.

 

 In the US everyone knows that the election is the first Tuesday in November every four years, so campaigning can start at any time, which sadly is becoming earlier and earlier. 

 

I am surprised that John didn't latch on to how "polite" Canadian political "attack ads" are, but I guess he could only cram so much into a 10 minute segment.

I was visiting at the end of September and saw quite a few of them.  The Harper ads condemning Trudeau said that he had "nice hair", and "was just not ready"- "maybe someday, but not now".  I was waiting for Trudeau to say, "Well Canada, I AM ready!"  last night in his speech, but I think he is just too classy to go down that road.  Even Harper's own ads said "we know Stephen Harper isn't perfect, but he is better than the alternative". How Canadian.  That would never fly in the US.

 

Still really pleased that this was the main story of the week, and happy about the outcome.

[Shermie]

Trudeau did use "I AM ready" in some of his ads. It's been so overplayed by now that it's yesterday's tag line. I wish that Oliver said better things about Mulcair, who really has Prime a Minister written all over him. But the NDP has a history of good leaders who would be great PMs if they led a different party. We'll never know.

As for the giraffe story, it's part of the nonsense of animal overlove that takes a simple story, eliminates half the facts, grabs onto the worst part for sensationalism and it blows out of proportion. PETA is a master at this.

It's like Bob Barker raising a stink about elephants at the Toronto Zoo because it's too cold for them there (it's not). Even though he doesn't say a peep about elephants in New York or Boston or Detroit or Chicago, equally cold or often colder than Toronto. And he says nothing about polar animals in southern zoos (same issue, if you view it as a problem). But his sob story and celebrity made the bleeding hearts in TO cave and the elephants were shipped to California , a long and unpleasant journey that Barker paid for. One of the elephants was 44 when she was moved and had lived in the Toronto Zoo for 39 years. Not surprisingly, she died a couple years after being moved.

It's always good to know the whole story, but John Oliver (who I used to love, but his irrational rah-rah-America crap is annoying coming from a Brit) is in it for the laughs.

[AshleyLyn]

Even knowing that, I'm still iffy about a zoo doing this.. probably just me, but I just don't see the need to dissect an animal that is in your care for education.  Yes I stated zoo's are also educational, but shouldn't something like that be reserved for schools? Or am I not making sense? It just seems wrong and out there for any zoo anywhere to do this. These animals are in their care, and if they can't get another place to take them, then aren't there sanctuaries that could? I mean I can understand euthanizing an animal when it's sick, but if it's older and still healthy, then why not just let it live until it dies? Am I missing something here? 

 

So the pretty guy won the election? Or his party won right, and he got the PM position? I'm not entirely clear on Canadian politics, but from what I understand the leader of the party that gets the most seats get the highest seat right? Like UK's Parliament? 

 

still, 78 days, 50 days of campaigning, whatever length it is, seems like a breath of fresh air. It doesn't seem to end here in the States. City elections, then it's state elections, then it's country wide elections, and then it's back to the city stuff. Never ending cycle of elections and campaigns. 

[Delwyn]

It just seems wrong and out there for any zoo anywhere to do this. These animals are in their care, and if they can't get another place to take them, then aren't there sanctuaries that could? I mean I can understand euthanizing an animal when it's sick, but if it's older and still healthy, then why not just let it live until it dies? Am I missing something here?

Not that I agree with it, but I can explain the rationale behind these practices via PM if anyone's interested. I doubt everyone in this thread wants to know.

Yes, Trudeau won, but only in the sense that Harper really, really lost. Like, anyone but Harper.

[dustylil]

Don't worry. It is not all "sunny ways" (Trudeau's new motto) here in Canada. We also have tiresome municipal and provincial/territorial election campaigns too.

[Shermie]

AshleyLyn, Canada has three main political parties and a few minor ones. Each party has a leader. The country is divided into districts called ridings and a person from each party runs in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings is elected and its leader is Prime Minister. The person who wins in each riding represents that riding in government, regardless if their party won or not.

Some people base their vote on the party (as in, they always vote Liberal), some base it on the leader (who they want for Prime Minister), and some base it on who their riding rep would be. It can be tough if you like your local person but hate the party leader. Or if you're dedicated to a specific party, but the local rep running is an ass.

And yeah, we have provincial and municipal elections too. And I am grateful that our elections don't drag on for years like in the US.

[FartyPants]

Shermie .. Does the PM have to win the election from some riding too? Or is the PM an unelected member of the parliament? Or is he technically not a member of parliament at all?

[dusang]

Shermie .. Does the PM have to win the election from some riding too? Or is the PM an unelected member of the parliament? Or is he technically not a member of parliament at all?

 

Usually, the Prime Minister (PM) is an elected Member of Parliament (MP) -- for example, Justin Trudeau is the MP for Papineau.  However, the position of Prime Minister is actually a convention of Parliament, not established by the constitution, and is technically an appointee of the Governor General who is to select "the individual most likely to receive the support, or confidence, of a majority of the directly-elected House of Commons," which is usually the leader of the party with the most seats.  "However, there are no age or citizenship restrictions on the position of prime minister itself, as it is not necessary for the incumbent to be a sitting MP."

 

It has happened that the PM is not a sitting MP but that is a rare circumstance.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada

Edited October 21, 2015 by dusang

[AshleyLyn]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/CanadianPolitics actually helps a little too I think if anyone is interested. I feel bad that I still don't quite understand it all. I feel stupid because of it, but clearly the...science? of politics is not something I'll be able to properly wrap my head around, but tv tropes actually helps explain things a bit easier for me. 

[dustylil]

I would suggest not relying too heavily on that site, AshleyLynn. It contains some errors. For instance, Mr. Trudeau is not yet Prime Minister. He will become P M  sometime in early November. Just as an American President is elected in November but takes office the following January.

You may want to check out some of the major Canadian newspapers - e.g. Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, or Toronto Star - for straightforward FAQs  concerning the recent election.

[Shermie]

FartyPants, what dusang said.

The party that gets the second most seats is the official opposition.

And it has happened that a party leader doesn't win their own riding, so they don't even have a seat in Parliament. It usually happens after they've been leader for a while and fall out of public favour. The general response is to resign as leader (and usually from politics) and a new leader is chosen by the party.

Canada usually goes back and forth between Conservative and Liberal Prime Ministers. Doesn't matter who is in charge, the public gets sick of them after 10 years. And it's important to note that Conservative here does not equal Republican, at least as far as social issues go. For example, abortion has been off the table as an election issue for years, even the Conservatives said it's been decided and they wouldn't revisit it. Canada is generally a more liberal and socialist country than the US.

[AshleyLyn]

The US unfortunately still pretty much clings to their Puritan roots it seems. It's funny, the people that came to the US were trying to escape persecution for their beliefs, you'd think they'd be more understanding and tolerant.. but nope. Same then, same now.  The more a portion of the country tries to embrace change and accept the differences in others, the more the VOCAL Puritan side is. 

 

The word socialism is evil here. Every time someone comments that this country is going to hell and says they want to move to Canada or Australia doesn't seem to realize that the very things they hate most other countries have. 

[Victor the Crab]

I would suggest not relying too heavily on that site, AshleyLynn. It contains some errors. For instance, Mr. Trudeau is not yet Prime Minister. He will become P M  sometime in early November. Just as an American President is elected in November but takes office the following January.

You may want to check out some of the major Canadian newspapers - e.g. Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, or Toronto Star - for straightforward FAQs  concerning the recent election.

 

And avoid the Toronto Sun - i.e., The World's Worst Newspaper™ - at all cost.

[Jamoche]

The US unfortunately still pretty much clings to their Puritan roots it seems. It's funny, the people that came to the US were trying to escape persecution for their beliefs, you'd think they'd be more understanding and tolerant.

It's not surprising the US is a mess, we were founded by people whinging "how can you say you're tolerant when you won't tolerate our intolerance!"

[Shermie]

And the original "pilgrims" (who are celebrated at Thanksgiving for open-mindedness in sharing a meal with the native population when they were probably just using them for their food providing skills) were actually Puritans who left Europe because their ridiculously fundie beliefs weren't tolerated there.

Tea Partiers' abhorrence of socialism is ridiculous, since they send their kids to government funded schools, and drive on government funded roads and bridges, and utilize government funded police and fire services when needed. But when you point that out, "that's different". Okay.

[Traveller519]

As a Canadian, it was interesting to see the outsiders take.

 

I do wish he had revisited Trudeau and Mulcair after the Conservative take-down though. Just to remind viewers that there wasn't a truly "good" leadership candidate in the lot. Mulcair could never convince the general public that he didn't have a secret agenda, in spite of his centrist platform. Even if he seemed like the best leader alternative. Trudeau certainly has a lot of fanfare, but as John mentioned, his intelligence has been drawn into question repeatedly by the journalists that talk with him, and in the leadership debate he appeared like a child at the adults table trying to get a word in.

 

I'm typically a (Canadian) conservative minded voter. In my experience they've produced the most stable economic platforms. However, I've gone against that in the past two elections that have affected me (one provincial and one federal). In this case I was growing tired of Harper to begin with as his top "Red Tory" (the more centrist faction of the Conservative base) cabinet members retired and it became clear he had no succession plan in place and micromanaged all aspects of the government to such a degree that those folks couldn't handle him anymore. And the drifting further right social policies could no longer be justified by the economic platform. And then his campaign was just an utter disaster, and showed how out of touch he had become with Canada top to bottom.

 

I don't like the notion of strategic voting as I think it undercuts the basis of democracy when we're not voting for our beliefs but ultimately against something else, but at least the Liberal party has representation from all parts of Canada now. I'm hoping Trudeau will build a cabinet to reflect that.

[HelenBaby]

And the original "pilgrims" (who are celebrated at Thanksgiving for open-mindedness in sharing a meal with the native population when they were probably just using them for their food providing skills) were actually Puritans who left Europe because their ridiculously fundie beliefs weren't tolerated there.

Tea Partiers' abhorrence of socialism is ridiculous, since they send their kids to government funded schools, and drive on government funded roads and bridges, and utilize government funded police and fire services when needed. But when you point that out, "that's different". Okay.

My tea party relatives send their kids to private "Christian" schools. And if I had to guess, if tea party folks do send their kids to public schools, they live in areas where there isn't a diverse population. I'm convinced that most of them don't realize how much government touches their lives until something it taken away.

[AshleyLyn]

If Trudeau's campaign managers and aides are smart, then most likely they'll guide him to have the best he needs in his cabinet. Whatever type of intelligence he may lack, he appears to have the charisma (and on a shallow note, he's not bad looking) and the people guiding him will probably help him. You don't have to be smart to run the country, just have enough smart people that can help you run the country. I think a lot of leaders are probably like that. 

 

And personally I don't think there's anything wrong with having an emotional intelligence. Someone I've worked with and known for a long time, while not the smartest person in the world (she's an unfortunate example of the dumb blonde trope/cliche) is extremely good at reading emotions on people, and doing what she can to help. Being in tune to the emotional aspect of people and knowing how to navigate it is not a bad thing.

 

So here's hoping to my fellow Canadians that Mr Trudeau will have everything and everyone he needs to help him run the country. 

[shok]

I do wish he had revisited Trudeau and Mulcair after the Conservative take-down though. Just to remind viewers that there wasn't a truly "good" leadership candidate in the lot. Mulcair could never convince the general public that he didn't have a secret agenda, in spite of his centrist platform. Even if he seemed like the best leader alternative. Trudeau certainly has a lot of fanfare, but as John mentioned, his intelligence has been drawn into question repeatedly by the journalists that talk with him, and in the leadership debate he appeared like a child at the adults table trying to get a word in.

 

I have to disagree with you Traveller519 that there wasn't a good leadership candidate in the lot. The Conservatives tried hard with their attack ads to insinuate that but obviously (and thankfully) the Canadian public saw through their nasty campaign. Most reasonable people didn't think Mulcair had some kind of hidden agenda but his platform didn't connect with the Canadian public - it was too cautious and just seemed 'PC light" and his no deficits plank wasn't different enough from what had just been endured under the Conservatives.

 

Trudeau's intelligence wasn't questioned except by those who bought into the Conservative ugliness and in fact, that line of attack turned off most Canadians. I mean, the guy has two university degrees and was working on his masters in environmental science. It only took one debate where Trudeau more than held his own for people to see that the Conservatives were lying...again. And I certainly didn't see any journalists (other than the far right) questioning it either. In fact, the general consensus in the media was that Trudeau far out-performed expectations at all the debates and that was a big reason why he and his Liberal Party were able to rise in the polls and by the end win going away.

 

It's funny how in the US and I guess now in Canada many people have the mistaken idea that right wing governments are more fiscally responsible. The facts are that deficits have always skyrocketed under Republican and Conservative rule and it's not until the Democrats and the Liberals get back into power that the economies are reined in and set back on track. I guess it does prove that rightwing misinformation campaigns are effective. That's what I found most disappointing about John's segment on the Canadian election - that they went for the easy slapstick style jokes and didn't actually do any research into the reality of the situation.