As the New Democratic Candidate in Scarborough—Agincourt, I’ve just finished seven debates and many more interviews.

After speaking with thousands of residents, I keep hearing three topics come up as the top concerns here:

Repealing regressive immigration reform (Bill C-50)

Scarborough—Agincourt has one of the largest immigrant populations in all of Canada. Residents have been bringing up Bill C-50 at every debate I’ve attended. It was a very regressive piece of immigration legislation brought in by the Conservatives that the Liberals let pass. The NDP was the only federal party that stood up and united against it. Constituents here are very upset with this bill because it gives arbitrary powers to the immigration minister to pick and choose who goes up and off the waiting list based on his or her own biases, often favouring temporary workers over family-class and economic class immigrants. This has been detrimental to family reunification and is treating new Canadians like second-class citizens. The New Democrats not only opposed this bill and want to repeal it, we have a plan to make family reunification easier, recognize foreign credentials, and provide training and bridging programs for those who need to upgrade or need new credentials altogether. Not only have the New Democrats consistently stood up in Parliament for this kind of immigration fairness, we’re the only party that has allocated funds to these priorities to make sure the services and new programs we are promising will actually be delivered.

Ending the war in Afghanistan

People confirm what Liberal incumbent Jim Karygiannis said in his own survey back in February:

“Seventy-four percent believe we should not extent [sic] the Canadian combat mission beyond 2009”

And yet Mr. Karygiannis voted to extend the war.

A vast majority of residents here are against this war. The recent news of a British brigadier-general saying the war cannot be won only confirmed what residents have been saying here for years. The news today of the overspending on a mission that will now cost up to $18.1 billion ($1500 per Canadian household) now adds another dimension on top of the moral and practical reasons why this mission needs to end.

People see the war as inflaming terrorism in Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom: “In three southern provinces, including Kandahar, terrorist attacks have increased more than 10-fold since 2002. In Kabul and surrounding areas, they have more than tripled” (August 18, 2008). In a riding concerned with safety, residents can’t see why Liberals and Conservatives are continuing a mission that is making Afghanistan less safe.

Poverty is also an issue: “A recent UN report says general indicators such as human development and poverty have worsened [in Afghanistan] since 2004″ (Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail, February 22, 2008). In a riding with 9.2% unemployment (even higher youth unemployment) and more than its fair share of poverty, families can’t understand why they’re being asked to pay $1500 each for a mission that’s increasing poverty overseas and adding to their own economic insecurity at home.

Finding an alternative in the New Democrats

For every vote Jim Karygiannis received last election, another voter stayed home and didn’t cast their ballot. Many people are turning away from Mr. Karygiannis because they believed in the Liberal brand; either Trudeau’s “just society” or Pearson’s commitment to peacekeeping. By abandoning the former with passing Bill C-50 and abandoning the latter with extending the war, people are looking for alternatives. There is a massive anti-Karygiannis constituency that is waiting to hear more about the alternatives so they know what they’re voting for.

With his visibility in the riding (signs and literature), many people were considering Dr. Benson Lau (Conservative) as that alternative. With his medical credentials, many assumed he’d stand up for health care. But after people realized that Stephen Harper’s last job with the National Citizens Coalition included the goal of dismantling universal health care, they began to ask how a doctor can stand up for health care with Harper as his boss. They also don’t understand how Dr. Lau, having immigrated to Canada, could support a party that introduced Bill C-50.

When residents realize the predecessor of the New Democrats (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) was the party that brought universal health care to Canada on 17 consecutive balanced budgets and that the NDP was the only federal party to stand united against Bill C-50, many anti-Karygiannis voters who were thinking of voting Conservative are changing their intentions and trusting the New Democrats to deliver social justice, peace, and economic security. At a recent debate, one resident (Sharon Adams) echoed what many others have been telling me when she said, “I came to the debate tonight thinking I would vote Conservative to try and get rid of our incumbent, but that would be a wasted vote.” She was later quoted in the Scarborough Mirror which reported: The evening confirmed her leanings toward casting a vote for Dougherty, who Adams noted “was able to hold his own and seemed to know his facts” (October 8, 2008).

Announcement from the CNW Group, October 8th. Just came up on my Google News Reader a couple of hours ago.

Les Holloway, CAW Atlantic Canada Area Director, announced today that the union is throwing its support behind Green Party leader Elizabeth May, in the Central Nova riding….

“It is critical that we do not re-elect a Harper Conservative government that will continue with its failed right-wing policies which have already cost our country hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs,” said Holloway.

Holloway stated, “This ideology that you give everybody their taxes back, cut government spending to do it by deregulating everything and let the market take care of itself has cost us dearly in both life and economic well being, and it has indeed put us on the same course as the United States.”

“Elizabeth May is an extremely intelligent and articulate woman and will do us proud as a Member of Parliament for Central Nova. She cares about what this unbalanced economy is doing to residents of Nova Scotia and elsewhere,” said Holloway….

That’s got to be a valuable endorsement!

Predicted Winner – Conservative

Short of the 1993 obliteration of the Progressive Conservatives, Greg Thompson has held this seat since 1988. The last few elections Thompson has picked up more than 50% of the vote.

X-Factor – None. As sure a bet as Acadie-Bathurst is for the NDP, this is Thompson’s seat.

Crossposted -Spink About It

dixit Louis Champagne, “grande gueule” de la radio parlante au Saguenay.

Il n’en revient tout simplement pas. Qui est en train de battre un Ministre qui a apporté des dizaines de millions dans la région, demande-t-il aux auditeurs: “une floune!” Pire, “une floune qui n’a encore rien fait et qui ne propose rien non plus!” Plus pire que pire, “une floune du Plateau!”

Porpos entendus à la radio avant-hier. Le jour même où DemocraticSPACE faisait, pour la première fois, la projection que Chantale Bouchard remplacerait Jean-Pierre Blackburn à Ottawa.

Cette sortie de haut parleur du “Fm parlé du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean” va-t-elle avoir le même résultat pour cette élection que sa sortie homophobe au cours de la dernière campagne électorale provinciale?

Rappelons les faits. Sylvain Gaudreault, candidat du PQ est un homosexuel ouvert: «À Jonquière, pensez-vous que quand vous arrivez avec un autre homosexuel, vous n’allez pas vous faire poser vraiment la question: “Coudonc”, le Parti québécois, c’est-tu un club de tapettes?» avait demandé la voix de CKRS. En prétendant que les travailleurs de l’Alcan n’accepteraient jamais de voter pour un homosexuel, il laissait entendre qu’ils étaient homophobes.  Ne leur restait plus qu’à lui montrer qu’ils ne le sont pas. La ministre sortante, la Libérale Françoise Gauthier, est vraiment sortie. Le Péquiste la bat par 1 275 votes. Certains prétendent que ce fut le point tournant de la campagne. Allez savoir!

Dans la présente campagne, malgré le ton qui monte et les attaques qui fusent depuis quelques jours (ça n’arrive pas souvent que les membres de la Chambre de Commerce huent quelqu’un), on dirait que Chantale Bouchard semble être sur le point de faire la même chose.

Faut croire qu’à Jonquière on n’aime pas les ministres! Surtout quand le pouvoir n’est pas “du bon bord”, on s’entend.

Canadians heading to the polls on October 14 do not really have much of a choice, because there is not one leader who really stands out – except, perhaps, NDP leader Jack Layton, who has displayed real pizzazz in this campaign and the ability to connect with real Canadians and their main concerns, unparalleled by any of the other leaders, for which he may yet be rewarded with the job as leader of the Official Opposition . Still, of the mediocre-to-outright-poor choices for the top job in the country available, one emerges as the clear and reasonable choice on election day: Stephen Harper.

The minority prime minister of two and a half years has not exactly wowed Canadians with visionary ideas, but he has provided steady leadership. Were mistakes made? Of course, they were. Government by definition is highly imperfect, and there is no government that has not botched things at some point during its term.

The British newspaper The Economist has endorsed Stephen Harper, just as it did prior to the last election in early 2006. That by itself speaks volumes, because, as the saying goes in Canada, the British publication is more influential than any of the Canadian media. When The Economist favours one leader over another, it is the former that invariably wins. Last time, the Brits dished up a double whammy: not only did one of the oldest magazines in the world endorse Mr. Harper, but it also trashed the then-prime minister Paul Martin by calling him “Mr. Dithers”. In the current campaign, The Economist has described Liberal leader Stéphane Dion as “wimpish” and now come out with its support for Mr. Harper – another double whammy.
(more…)

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we’re now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters–on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis–has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

“Strong” (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics–jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the “liberal” media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it’s been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people’s minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed “battleground riding’s” as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn’t want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands–which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don’t usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

But Harper failed spectacularly to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one’s head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn’t done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it’s the man’s utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party’s fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best–don’t be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They’re flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There’s an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his “inner oilman.”

The polls indicate another minority government–possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat–making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win–he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that his decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

It’s the same old story, isn’t it? The Liberals send Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but the Conservatives get blamed for it.

Listeriosis kills several people across Canada because of lax food-safety inspections, and who gets blamed? The Harper government.

However, the lax inspection regime with respect to food safety was implemented by the previous Liberal government:

The architecture of the recently revamped food-inspection system–an issue that has dogged the Tories during the election– was crafted when the Liberals were in power in 2005, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed.

The design of pilot tests for the Compliance Verification System (CVS), rolled out at federally regulated meat plants in April, began in August, 2005, said Brian Evans, the agency’s executive vice-president.

At the time, the agency was operating under the direction of former Liberal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell, who lost in the 2006 election. Ujjal Dosanjh, currently seeking re-election in Vancouver, was in charge of food-safety policy as minister of health; he now serves as health critic for the Liberals.

If anyone needs to resign over this, it is Andy Mitchell, but he’s already gone, and Ujjal Dosanjh.

Fingers need to be pointed in this tragic mess, but they need to be pointed directly at the Liberals, who have blood on their hands.

I wrote this back on Sept.15.

“ La Presse (newspaper in Montreal) has questioned if deal between Dion and May not to run opposing candidates in each others’ ridings is only part of deal for strategic voting across the country. ”

 Now May has made it official by calling on Greens to vote Liberal. Regretably, this hurts the Green brand by making it a “wing” of the Liberal party, and therefore irrelevant and illegitimate as an independent party. Good luck getting into the next debate. Will Green voters listen to May and vote tactically this election for her first choice, the Liberals? Or will they vote with conviction for Green, then deal with May after the election?

Tactically, May did much to build the Greens into a legitimate force. Strategically, she has put the first nail into the Green Party’s coffin. This is a bad thing not only for the Green Party but for our democracy.

La lutte dans le comté est toujours bien engagée et plus serrée que dans d’autres régions du Québec. Par contre, Greg a retiré le “?” pour le remplacé par un logo du Bloc dans ses dernières prédictions. Le Bloc était favori au départ un peu partout dans l’est du Québec sauf que la vague conservatrice menaçait sérieusement. Les ratés de la campagne conservatrice en fin de course redonne le peu qu’il manquait au bloquistes pour vraiment l’emporter un peu partout dans l’est, de Kamouraska jusqu’à Gaspé et incluant la Côte-Nord. La remontée des libéraux dans la dernière semaine est cependant à surveiller de près, car comme mentionné plus tôt, je suis certain que les libéraux auront un meilleur score ici que dans l’ensemble du Québec à cause de la candidate locale.

Messages des candidats juste avant que les électeurs arrêtent leur vote:

NANCY CHAREST, PARTI LIBÉRAL
– A promis un projet fédéral porteur dans chacune des 4 MRC (ex: rénovation des installations portuaires à St-Anne-des-Monts, prêt sans intérêt pour un projet éolien communautaire dans la Mitis)
- Sondage interne du parti donne les libéraux gagnants le 7 oct.(!)
- Support du célèbre général Roméo Dallaire
- Long bilan personnel d’implication politique et de réalisations dans la région, implication récente dans l’industrie éolienne
- Elle vante les mérites du plan économique et environnemental du PLC pour les familles de la région

JÉRÔME LANDRY, PARTI CONSERVATEUR
- Souhaite mettre en place un programme de valorisation des produits forestiers et de développement des énergies alternatives
- Vante le futur programme de développement économique du PCC qui avantagerait les régions défavorisées
- Insiste sur le fait que les électeurs seront gagnants d’avoir enfin un député efficace, travaillant au sein du parti qui est au pouvoir
- Long bilan personnel d’implication environnementale et économique dans la région

JEAN-YVES ROY, BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS
- Il va tenter d’obtenir du gouvernement un programme de soutient de revenu pour les personnes agées qui perdent leur emploi
- Insiste sur le fait qu’il faut bloquer l’arrivée d’un gouvernement conservateur majoritaire; freiner l’idéologie du parti qui ne nous ressemble pas et protéger nos acquis sociaux qui seraient en péril sous les conservateurs selon M. Roy

LOUIS DRAINVILLE, PARTI VERT
- Prône l’achat local et une agriculture équilibrée, humaine, auto-suffisante pour la Gaspésie
- Mentionne qu’une gaspésie aux politiques vertes attirerait les jeunes et les investisseurs
- Biologiste et agronome originaire de Lanaudière, implication personnelle en énergies renouvelables (éolien surtout) et agronomie dans notre région

JULIE DEMERS, NPD
- Malheureusement invisible dans la campagne. La candidate du NPD semble être originaire de la Saskatchewan et habite présentement à Montréal.

LILIANE POTVIN
- Malheureusement invisible dans la campagne.

VISIBILITÉ GÉNÉRALE
Personnellement, j’habite Baie-des-Sables et je témoigne en tant que tel:

Débat = Annulé à cause de l’absence de J-Y Roy (Bloc). Extrêmement décevant, on dirait que M.Roy confirme l’idée circulant qu’il n’est pas très très présent sur le territoire…
Pancartes = Bloc et Conservateur
Téléphone pour sortir le vote = Bloc
Pamphlets explicatifs = Bloc, Vert, Libéral
Invitation à rencontrer le candidat pour discussion = Libéral
Visites à domicile = Aucune
Sites web = Tous sauf la candidate indépendante (sites étoffés = Libéral et Conservateur)

Below is a chart of how the democraticSPACE projected vote totals in Edmonton-Strathcona have changed between September 25th and October 8th. The graph displays averages of democraticSPACE’s projected ranges.

With this current situation in mind, here are the things each of the four main parties will have to achieve in order to call this election a success.

The Conservatives:

The Conservatives have to keep their seat. That’s really all. In the end it doesn’t really matter whether their vote total goes up or down or stays the same as long as incumbent Rahim Jaffer stays in Parliament for a fifth term.

How likely are they to get their wish? Well, at the moment, the democraticSPACE projections do favour them, but only slightly. If NDP candidate Linda Duncan can cut only a few points out of the Liberal vote, she can win. This is going to be a tough battle, and an impossible race to call. Still, the odds are in the Conservatives’ favour, as is history.

The New Democrats:

In the 2006 election, just massively increasing the vote for the New Democrats was enough to call it a success. This time is different–this time they need to take the seat from the Conservatives. Anything less is a massive defeat, even if they increase their vote percentage enough to only lose by a few votes.

What’s their likelihood of success? Well, they’re clearly the underdogs in this race, but the softness of the Liberal vote is the wild card. The Liberals for Linda blog has been getting plenty of coverage in the local media, and Duncan has scored endorsements from the likes of former Liberal candidate Steven Leard and Liberal blogger daveberta. Plus, the Duncan team is both hungry for a win and willing to work for it–just as an example, they recently sent out a team of more than a hundred volunteers to canvass more than 5000 houses in the Tory-bluest part of the riding in a single afternoon. Don’t count them out yet.

The Liberals:

They can’t win, but to call this election a success, they need to recover from the 2006 election’s eleven-point drop in their vote. Maintaining their vote wouldn’t quite cut it–they really do need to recover some ground in order to have achieved something for their party in this election.

Are they likely to achieve this? In a word: no. Now that Edmonton-Strathcona has been reported as a close two-way race between the Conservatives and the NDP everywhere from the National Post to the Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun to CBC radio, Anybody But Conservative voters in the riding pretty much all know the score. The Liberal candidate has been publicly asked to step down at an all-candidates’ forum, and her anti-NDP brochures are being panned by the media. Whether enough of the Liberal vote migrates to the NDP to achieve a Duncan win is still an open question, but one thing is certain: the Edmonton-Strathcona Liberals will suffer further losses in this election.

The Greens:

Like the Liberals, they can’t win. But in the 2006 election, Edmonton-Strathcona was the only riding in Alberta where the Green vote actually decreased. So in order to call this election a success, they need to reverse that trend and increase their percentage of the vote.

What is their likelihood of success? Pretty good, actually. In fact, I’d say that of each of the four parties, the Greens are the most likely to walk away from this election happy.  The fact that NDP candidate Duncan is a well-known environmentalist will almost certainly still prevent the Green surge we’ll see in the rest of the province, but the Green vote is soaring across the country right now, and it would surprise me a great deal if they didn’t gain at least a little bit of ground in Edmonton-Strathcona.

Further reading:
Edmonton-Strathcona: a snapshot
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Conservatives
Edmonton-Strathcona: the New Democrats
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Liberals
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Greens