A commentary by Elsie Hambrook, Chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, is a must-read.

When Doris Anderson, former and famed editor of Chatelaine and lifelong activist, came to Saint John on a stormy winter night in 2003, drawing hundreds of women to hear her speak on electoral reform, she confided something that, years later, still makes some of us think…

Getting the message out to the public [no matter what it is] is damn hard these days. Not just because the media and corporate and party elites are so strongly against democratic and electoral reform, but because, among other things, locations where people come together are increasingly not available for canvassing or soliciting.

For example, at the All Candidates Meeting in my community, I wanted to distribute Fair Vote Canada flyers on the seats in the theatre. I’d printed off 250 flyers, plus sheets of the FVC petition for candidates and audience members to sign (was hoping to ask a question at the mic on ER/PR).

When I arrived at the ACM venue, I asked permission of the manager to distribute my flyers on the theatre seats.

Denied.

So I asked permission to distribute the flyers outside, at the front of the building.

Denied again.

Even the purportedly public sidewalk fronting the building was off-limits….

Full article

Chris Warkentin, the incumbent MP for Peace River, was never the local Conservative party’s first pick for MP, even if he was former MP Charlie Penson’s pick.  At least, as I’ve mentioned before, his nomination raised enough ire within the party that in the last election, Grande Prairie town councillor Bill Given took him on as an independent, in large part because he didn’t get a chance to try for the nomination himself.  Given’s Conservative support helped him come in second in the last election, Warkentin’s closest competition by far with around 9800 votes.  Of course, compared to Warkentin’s almost 28,000 votes it wasn’t a close race whatsover.  (Incidentally, this election Given says he’s voting Green, an interesting choice since the Greens received only 2% of the vote last time, and have a very small, if dedicated, core group running their campaign.  Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun, however, has done well at forums and is both well-spoken and upbeat, and will likely get a boost from the popularity of leader Elizabeth May.) But what will happen to all of those disaffected and largely Conservative voters who voted for Given?  That’s 9800 voters who already broke with a long tradition of voting Conservative in the Peace River riding once in the past.  Will they mark their “x” by Warkentin’s name now, despite their dissatisfaction with him, out of party loyalty?  Or will they seek another alternative in this election?  Perhaps like Given, those voters will turn to the Greens, with their fiscal conservatism.  Or might they even turn to the NDP, third place after Given in the last election?

There are some other factors to consider too.  The nuclear issue continues to polarize the riding.  In Valleyview, a Conservative bastion where in my experience to be progressive was almost to be spit upon in the past, audience members at the recent forum stood up and called out to Warkentin to “take a stand, take a stand” on the proposed nuclear power plant, frustrated with his continued waffling (Warkentin has stead-fastedly refused to take a position on nuclear, saying either that it’s a provincial issue or that he has no personal opinion, and carefully saying nothing about his party’s support for nuclear energy in general).  If Warkentin said he supported nuclear, there are any number of people who would agree.  There are also those who would refuse to vote for him as a result.  But trying to straddle the fence doesn’t seems to be earning Warkentin any points, if the Valleyview forum was any indication.

 Another factor is Warkentin’s group of core supporters at the Peace River Bible Institute in Sexsmith.  They were out in force at the 2006 election forum in Grande Prairie, having travelled out together in several identical white vans to ask questions of candidates like why the government allowed nudity in art.  Yet they were conspiciously absent at the most Grande Prairie forum in this election (while nuclear protestors were there and asking questions).  It could be that the Bible College crowd doesn’t feel Warkentin needs any more extra help, now that he’s an incumbent and sure to win. Or could it be that they are upset with Warkentin for not doing more on their key issues, abortion and gay marriage? After all, it has been tough lately for Warkentin to walk this line as well.  His religious beliefs clearly include a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and if you press him personally, as I did after the Peace River forum, he will admit to having personal views to that effect.  But he hasn’t said so flat out while campaigning, and his religious supporters expect him to do actually something about it.

 It’s not that Warkentin hasn’t tried.  He has raised the issues in the House of Commons, memorably trying to focus on the alleged damage gay marriage does to children (his cries of “what about the children” were subsequently dubbed “the Lovejoy factor” by the Upper Canadian blog), and supporting a crime bill, C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Act), that might have reopened the abortion debate by giving special status to the life of an unborn child as a victim.  Which seems like a good point to note that Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada today for his role in making abortion legal in Canada, an award Warkentin also opposed.

 But Warkentin was dealt a blow when the Conservative Justice Minister dropped C-484 in August, right before the election.  The cynical, or the realistic, might say that the Harper government was afraid of being called anti-abortion during the election, a dangerous political position when polls consistently show Canadians remain supportive of legal abortion.  Warkentin was one of the few MPs who vowed to carry forward the bill despite his own government’s refusal to support it.  But with Harper and his spokesperson continuing to say another Conservative government will not support private members bills on abortion, does Warkentin really have a chance?  And will his statements in the House be enough for his religious supporters, or are they becoming frustrated with what, to them, may seem like a lot of talk and very little action, and a lack of support from Harper?

 There is one last change in the riding since the last election, and that is the introduction of candidates for two parties that have never had a presence before, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the Libertarians.  The votes they will draw will likely be small, but there is no question Peace River residents have more choice than ever before on their ballots.

 All of this may add up to a more interesting election result than expected, or it may amount to nothing more than a little more mild grumbling as people obediently mark their “x” for the Conservatives as they always have.  Fortunately, we’re only one long weekend away from finding out.

I went to North Vancouver’s all candidates meeting on Wednesday night and was left with a few impressions (side note: there’s a prediction on the winner of this – and several other – ridings at the end).

 1. Compared to the 2006 debate at the same venue, the crowd was incredibly respectful. Despite being marginally pro-Saxton (though from my vantage point I may not have been able to gauge audience reaction entirely accurately), there was only one moment of heckling, which was over before the debate was 5 minutes old.

2. Don Bell knows what plays and what doesn’t in the riding. Bell is an old pro, probably running his last campaign, who is putting up a heck of a fight in a right leaning riding. He can come off as awkward from time to time double checking his policy notes and stumbling over his words. However, the answers he does provide (including the best joke of the night) show an inherent knowledge of North Vancouver’s electorate. Don Bell knows North Vancouver and North Vancouver knows Don Bell.

3. All the subtleties that Don Bell knows about North Vancouver, Andrew Saxton doesn’t. He’s a new comer, it shows and North Vancouver doesn’t like newcomers – just ask Warren Kinsella. He was awkward, caught in contradictions once or twice and really fell off the wagon towards the end of the night as his jokes fell flat and his short, pointed answers, turned into meandering forays into a party platform he wasn’t entirely familiar with and a defensive answer about missing debates and failing to fill out questionnaires. Saxton has the potential to do well. He may win this election, but in a few more years he’ll be a much better candidate with a much better understanding of North Vancouver’s fussy electorate. Let’s hope that the local Conservatives don’t eat their own and give Mr. Saxton a second chance should he require one.

4. Jim Stephenson was not nearly as good as he was in 2006, but was still a pleasure to watch. A great understanding of his party’s platform and a very engaging style proved him to be the most likable candidate on stage. Perhaps resigned to a third place finish, the most interesting moments of the night were the little bones he kept throwing the Liberals.

5. I’m looking very much forward to the NDP candidates next film – he fought the good fight. He had nothing to lose and it showed, still good for him to show up. In 2006 the NDP candidate missed this debate because she was recovering from exhaustion in hospital. The Libertarian candidate, well, she sure didn’t hold back (and good on the audience for respecting her for that).

 6. This debate reminded me of why Don Bell won this riding in 2004 and 2006, and why he’s going to be the victor on October 14th, that’s right I’m calling it. Don Bell, North Vancouver – Liberal HOLD, but not by much.

7. While I’m here, I’ll also make a few more calls: West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast -STSC, oh the anticipation….John Weston, Conservative PICKUP by a country mile, but not a majority. Vancouver Centre…Hedy Fry Liberal HOLD, with a reasonable plurality – 2-4th may be seperated by no more than a point.

 If anything comes up in the next few days I’ll be back…

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).

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

The last two all-candidates meetings of this campaign will take place Thu 09 Oct. The hopefuls get an early start with a live debate on CKAT radio 600 AM. The program, hosted by Dean Belanger, gets under way at 08:00. The program will also be available via a live stream on the Internet. Voters can email questions to the candidates by mailing them to Belanger at CKAT in advance of the program.

Thursday evening, the Mattawa-Bonfield Chamber of Commerce will be hosting its all candidates meeting at the Champlain Theatre in Mattawa at 19:00.

All the candidates have confirmed for both events.

I attended a Candidates’ Meeting at Thornhill Secondary School on October 6, 2008. All four candidates attended – Susan Kakis (Liberal), Peter Kent (Conservative), Norbert Koehl (Green), and Simon Strelchik (NDP).

The format of the evening consisted of a brief introduction by each candidate, the opportunity for each candidate to ask a question of another candidate, and finally the candidates taking questions from voters.

Susan Kadis is the incumbent and has been an MP since 2004. Prior to federal politics she was a Vaughan councillor and school trustee. I’ve never had interaction with her but I understand she does pretty good constituency work.

Peter Kent, a former TV journalist, is the star candidate who has been parachuted into the riding. Though as he noted, he had moved into a heritage home in Thornhill over the summer. The home was purchased 2 years ago and has undergone considerable renovations since then. Kent ran against Carolyn Bennett in St.Paul’s back in 2006 and lost by 15,000 votes. The race is much closer in Thornhill.

Simon Strelchik is a community activist and a veteran of several municipal and federal campaigns. But he is barely 20 years old and frankly I am a little put off when a candidate that young runs for Parliament. Norbert Koehl is a local businessman who manages a commercial bakery in Toronto.

Each candidate pretty much stuck to their party’s platform which means all you need to do was go in the Internet and to get their position on issues. Therefore, I’m not going to bother reviewing their responses to questions and instead provide some general impressions.

Much of Strelchik’s responses were read from prepared notes. He sounded like a real ideologue except when he spoke without his notes. When he spoke without notes he actually had real passion to his voice instead of a theatrical tone. He seems very bright though on a question regarding equalization, he appeared not to understand the issue. After his response, the moderator repeated the question for all the candidates.

Koehl really connected with the audience. He is a soft spoken and thoughtful man who seemed to have a good grasp of the issues. He has the least amount of political experience which means he attempted to answer all questions directed at him. I quite liked him.

I did not care Kent. He avoided answering quite a number of questions and some responses were totally inappropriate. On a question regarding help for low income seniors who may not benefit from tax cuts (because their incomes are so low), he offered – income splitting! On the question regarding equalization, he used it to attack Premier McGuinty. I could only interpret his response to say that he would not be going to Ottawa to fight to protect the interests of Ontarian but only to help Peter Kent. When he had the opportunity to ask Koehl a question, he opened with some comment about how Elizabeth May was running as a Liberal because there is no Liberal candidate in Central Nova. What relevance that has in Thornhill escapes me.

Kadis seemed to switch back and forth between political rhetoric and meaningful information. She took ample opportunities to attack the Conservative government but she was that as skilled at going on the attack. Her strength was when she got to talk about key local issues – pollution, mass transit, infrastructure.

Kadis won in 2004 and 2006 by about 10,000 votes. However, this time around the contest will be very close race between the Liberal and Conservative candidates.

News Flash!

Conservative incumbent David Sweet representing the Hamilton area riding of Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale says that “Stephen Harper is not the bad guy some make him out to be”. I could follow that by saying something like “details at 11″…. but there aren’t many details…again.

True to form for this riding and in many other currently conservative enclaves, the incumbent said little of substance during an all candidates forum recently taped for the local cable TV outlet. When pressed about his government’s action on climate change he did make the relatively shocking statement that (presumably under Mr. Harper’s leadership) “Canada is working toward a global consensus on climate change”.

These comments come in the last week of an election campaign, for the duration of which the local conservative candidate has added to his record of relative silence and inactivity in his riding. Could this be because conservative members (who according to Sweet, Mr. Harper is “prepared to hear from at open mikes” during caucus meetings) seem to be on a short leash in public or is it because their platform was only released this week?

Credit to Green Party Candidate Peter Ormond for raising the question of muzzling of conservative MPs by party leadership when it comes to Climate Change and Global Warming. The entire country has been muzzled it seems, not just conservative MPs.

For example Andrew Weaver a world renowned Canadian Climate Scientist has stated that there has been a “war against science” carried out by the the Harper Conservatives. You may recall that Weaver a member of the Nobel winning IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was snubbed by Prime Minister Harper who refused to attend a Parliament Hill event held earlier this year to recognize the IPCC’s Nobel prize. Weaver is not alone. The recently produced Health Canada report on the effects of Climate Change has been withheld and the public engagement process meant to go along with it cancelled by the Harper govenrment.

With NDP candidate Gordon Guyatt away in Europe at a medical conference, it seems that the riding is shifting into the widely endorsed hands of Liberal Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek. The broad spectrum of support for her comes from within the riding as well from outside where climate change experts and concerned Canadians agree that the Liberal platform continues to hold out the greatest opportunity at the intersection of the environment and the economy.

 North Vancouver

Capilano College Debate
When: 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Tuesday, October 7th
Where: Cedar Theatre – Cedar Bulding (across from the library), Capilano University, 2055 Purcell Way

North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Debate
When: 6:30pm – 9:00pm, Wednesday, October 8th
Where: Highlands United Church, 3255 Edgemont Boulevard

Parkgate Debate

When: 7:30pm – 9:00pm, Thursday, October 9th
Where: Mount Seymour United Church, 1200 Parkgate Ave.

West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country:

Powell River All Candidates’ Meeting
When: 7:00 to 9:00pm, Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Where: Evergreen Theatre, 5001 Joyce Ave Powell River

West Vancouver All Candidates’ Meeting
When:7:00pm, Thursday, October 9, 2008
Where: Kay Meek Centre 1700 Mathers Avenue, West Vancouver

The Conservative candidate David Anderson in Cypress Hills – Grasslands scuttled an All Candidates forum in Assiniboia, SK after he refused to attend. That’s according to Duane Filson’s campaign office. The Chamber of Commerce in that town had planned to hold a forum during the election, but decided not to have one after only the Conservatives decided to boycott. Anderson also was the one candidate of the four invited to an agricultural forum in Swift Current to not show up during the campaign.

Anderson has not avoided all chances to speak with the public as he was this past week on CKRM 620AM radio with Amber Jones of the Greens, Nettie Wiebe of the NDP, and a Liberal candidate (whose name escapes my memory) discussing strictly agricultural issues. Anderson was not debating against the other parties nominees from Cypress Hills – Grasslands riding in that radio program.

Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

I got a strange phone call this afternoon, from a local number I didn’t recognize. I picked up the phone and said hello, and a nervous woman’s voice said, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

I was a little taken aback, especially since I hadn’t heard the question clearly, so I asked the caller to clarify if Michelle was asking if I’d vote for her. The woman confirmed that’s what she said, so I gave my honest answer.

“No. You cannot count on that, because Mrs. Hunter didn’t even show up to an all candidates forum I attended at the UofR, and when I emailed her to ask why, I never got a reply.”
“Oh. I’ll let her know that,” the apparently startled woman responded. *click* – she hung up.

Two minutes later my phone rang again and it appeared to be the same number phoning back. Good, I thought, a little worked up now that the woman hadn’t even asked for my phone number to confirm they could get back in touch with me should Michelle actually want to respond to my question (yeah, right!). And this was what I heard in response to my next, “Hello?”:
“Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

“I just told you that I would not be voting Conservative because Michelle didn’t even respond to my email. And you have a problem with your phone system because you just phoned here.” “Oh, okay, thanks.” *click*

*sigh*

And I wonder if the supreme irony could be that my phone number ended up on their call list because I’d emailed it to the Conservative campaign office asking them to call it with an answer to where I could hear Michelle speak in public. I’ve spoken with the other 3 parties candidates in Wascana, in public, but have yet to hear Michelle speak for herself. Twice, I’ve had different people speak to me on her behalf.

Being an east coaster Newfoundlander originally, my political perspectives were shaped somewhat differently than that which I am accustomed to in the Riding of Skeena- Bulkley Valley. In Newfoundland a radical might be one who considered serious campaigning on the Sabbath. Well in this riding, lets just say the idea of British Columbia laying claim to more relevant political extremes, is not a myth.

The Friday all candidates meeting seemed to show the diversity well in the forefront, as all six candidates struck a claim to their ideological tent that provided varying degrees of comfort to the realities of the day.

The newest candidate in the riding is none other than Mary Etta Goodacre of the fringe Canadian Action Party. Her candidacy is noteworthy by virtue of her family affiliations. Her husband Bill is a current councilor and Mayoral candidate in Smithers for the upcoming November municipal elections. Her ideological bent can be best typlified as being left of left. Her major platform consisting of trying warn the electorate of the 9-11 conspiracy which was ” mastermined by a cabol of the very rich and wealthy” You can see that her platform is less resonant with even the extreme fringes of the riding. Still her spunk and determination to tell her narrative is inspiring for those who believe in the democratic space of our nation.

To the right of her was the Liberal candidate Corriane Morhart a social worker and a firm believer in the “Smithers is hockeyville” movement as she donned the sweater which acted as the shield to our towns claim to the title a few years back. She was probably the least polished of any Liberal Candidate I ever encountered. Along with her attire she used most of her closing remarks to request a moment of silence in memory of the hiway of tears victims. One of the family members in a question, posted pictures of a few of the missing girls on the stage in a further touching moment in their memory.

In addition two more of the also-rans in the meeting were the Green and Christian Heritage candidates Hondo Aarnot and Rod Taylor respectively. While both are not contenders to the MP prize, their visions were more palatable to the extremes in the theater and riding. Hondo Arenot, in addition to tabling the green agenda made a impassioned plea to the electorate to cast a vote to the Greens as the ” NDP of the 21st century” Taylor a well respected mill worker, is also a candidate for the CHP’s National Leadership. His interaction with the audience was well received even if not convincing. His usage of strong language such as ” demographic winter” in discussing our aging population was very insightful. While many may not vote for either candidate their story left all with food for thought.

From here it leaves the two contenders Conservative Sharon Smith and NDP MP Nathan Cullen. Both presented their and their parties vision for the riding but Cullen offered the most realistic resume for the future as he offered his qualms regarding the Blue Pearl mining project off Hudson Bay Mountain. The project is believed to be fast tracked without proper vetting from all stakeholders. His call on the company to further engage the locals appeared polished and well-engaging to appeal to the broader audience. Smith’s passionate plea for all stakeholders fisherman, experts, communities and Aboriginal groups offered her a outlet to engage to her electorate. Still she seemed to be more concerned in not going to far away from the Harper agenda and it showed in some of her pauses in conversation.

In a nutshell in addition to the audience questioning, which included a lady launching a speech that included ” believing that all third boys should have a vasectomy” the exercise probably changed few minds. Still the all-candidates meeting served its purpose to give all candidates a voice that can be heard. Moreover, it is gratifying that the meeting was held on Friday rather than Sunday for example, as that would of left those like CHP’s Rod Taylor to skip in reverence to the Sabbath. Although , as the campaign heads to the homestretch the electoral winter as approaching many who are wishing for a day of rest. And that perhaps will be a thanksgiving for all.

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

I’ve now read the postings of several pundits both within and without DemocraticSpace about the format of tonight’s leaders debate. Specifically, most people preferred the fact that the leaders were sitting about an elliptical table rather than standing at podia.

I thought there may be some of you out there who would like to hear a candidate’s perspective on the issue. I’ve attended quite a number of debates as a federal election candidate. I estimate that about one-fifth of those debates had me standing at a podium for the entire time. The rest had us standing for opening and closing remarks and sitting for the rest of the time.

Now, I’m not the most fit physical specimen but neither am I the sort of person who prefers to sit for long periods of time. I’m the sort who likes to sit for a while and then stand. As a consequence, I found the debates where we had to stand at a podium for two to three hours at a time to be very tiring. I’d get a sore back. Some of the podia have a little bar on the podium to place my foot; such a thing would provide me some relief but it would still be painful and tiring by the time we were done.

I’ve been told that Ms May has recently had a hip replacement and that she’s still convalescing from that. If that’s the case, I think it incredibly fortunate for her that the debate format was changed to allow the candidates to be seated.

Aside from the general consensus that the round table format allowed better interaction among the various players, I’m sure it made for a more relaxed and spontaneous interchange.

Of course, this is just one candidate’s impression. Your mileage may vary…

The candidates got together Tuesday evening (30 Sep) for their most important debate of the campaign. The North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce debate typically attracts about 300 people, and last night was no exception. In addition, the debate is carried live on local television and radio. This year, for the first time, it was also available on streaming audio on the internet. The local cable station tends to replay it, in its entirety, every three or four days, as well, so this is make or break time for candidates.

Instead of trying to recount the minutiae of the proceedings, I’ll try to summarise the main thrusts and parries of each candidate.

The New Democratic Party candidate in this riding is Dianna Allen. Allen turned in a solid performance, appearing well briefed on the issues. She managed to score a major point when the Liberal candidate went on at some length about a private member’s bill he had introduced. Allen managed to cut in and pointed out that the bill was actually copied from an earlier bill introduced by New Democrat Tony Martin. Allen scored well with the crowd when she attacked the government, especially with her comments about the secretive nature of the Conservatives and their refusal to allow for public scrutiny of the negotiations around the North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Craig Bridges represented the Green Party in the debate. The youngest face on the slate, Bridges nevertheless appeared more than competent in handling the various questions asked of the candidates. His passion for the environment shone through as he asked the crowd, again and again, not to be deceived by the government’s admonition that the false choice is a strong economy or a healthy environment. Bridges also scored solid hits against theLiberals by pointing out that, despite their attractive rhetoric, they failed to get the job done when they had the chance.

Dr Andrew Moulden is a physician who has returned to North Bay to represent the Canadian Action Party. Although Moulden left no doubt about his passion and his commitment to the electorate, his major challenge appeared to be the somewhat unitary focus of his campaign. At the end of the night, it appeared that every question elicited a similar response that was clearly meant to demonise big Pharma. The candidate went on at length about vaccines and his view that they are “killing our children”. Moulden succeeded in scoring a few points with the crowd when he waxed eloquent about the Conservative government’s Bill C-51 which, in his words, will “kill thousands of people by denying them the natural medicines they need to cure disease”. The crowd also appeared mildly receptive to his criticisms of the international banking “conspiracy”, reviving, for the elders and historians in the crowd, many of the old Social Credit positions on debt and debt financing.

The Liberal candidate is the incumbent Anthony Rota. Rota’s been the MP for the riding since its inception in 2004. His experience and preparation showed and he was definitely the most polished candidate on the podium. Interestingly, although he did defend the Green Shift, he did so while barely even mentioning the name of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. Rota was running on Rota’s record and, if the overtly partisan crowd was any indication, he was well positioned to do so. Rota managed to score a big point against Conservative Joe Sinicrope when he said that one “catches more bees with honey than with vinegar” and not by bullying people like another person who “I won’t name but who is well known to” Sinicrope. At one point, the largely Liberal crowd became nearly giddy when Rota waved a document he claimed to have just received through an access to information request that clearly put the lie to Sinicrope’s constant denials that the Conservatives had cut any money from the FedNor regional economic development budget.

Joe Sinicrope, the Conservative candidate, was clearly loaded for bear and his sights were set squarely on the Liberals. In sum, he really provided nothing new; every one of his comments stuck very closely to the tried and true Conservative talking points that we hear in the nightly news. Sinicrope elicited some sparks from the crowd when he gave a solemn promise to see that the local 3000 metre airport runway would be repaved by the feds, a commitment the Conservative Finance Minister refused to give when he passed through the riding just days ago. Sinicrope also was the brunt of a few hostile jeers when he was asked what his position was on therapeutic abortion; he failed to directly answer the question, choosing instead to tell the crowd what Harper had said at some time in the past. Outside of the debate venue, the riding is rife with rumours about internal strife within the Conservative riding association. A person close to the campaign suggested that “the old guard are staying home this time”.

The absolutely unacceptable moderating job turned in by the Chamber 1st Vice-President Derek Shogren was a major distraction for those who came out to hear the various candidates although, for the committed Liberal or Conservative supporters in the crowd, it may not have been quite as overt. On several occasions, Shogren said “I’m going to ask Mr Rota and Mr Sinicrope to answer this and then we have to move along.” After the debate, two of the candidates mentioned to me that they felt they’d been passed over and had been short-changed in the time to respond, sentiments which appeared to me to be justified.

In summary, no single candidate scored the knockout punch they may have been looking for. Rota, as the incumbent and front runner, emerged relatively unscathed which is probably what his campaign had hoped for. In my last post, I indicated that I feel this riding is Rota’s to lose. Nothing I saw on Tuesday evening changed that opinion. Unless Rota makes a serious gaffe, he’ll walk to victory on the 14th.

Last night, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) was sponsoring a debate between the candidates in Gatineau.  The candidates had all accepted to attend with the exception of the Conservative candidate, Denis Tassé.  The Conservatives were claiming, credibly I think, that the PSAC is bias and that it would be an unfair forum.

But just as the debate was about the begin Denis Tassé came in and announced he would indeed be participating.  He still said the union’s leaders were bias and he accused them of actively campaigning against him by urging members to vote for anybody but the Conservatives.  He declared that he said “yes” to government workers but “no”to the Alliance (I’m sure that brings a tear to your eyes ).

I’m not really sure what to think about this.  On one end, I’m sure there’s no love lost between the PSAC leadership and the Conservative, but on the other end why would the guy change his mind about this sort of thing five minutes before the debate started?

Personally, I still think it’s not the job of a union to tell its members for whom to vote.

As part of Radio One’s coverage of the federal election, candidates from Surrey North were invited to a live discussion/debate this morning. Candidates from the Greens, Grits and NDP were in attendance; Tory candidate Dona Cadman was not.

For those unfamiliar, Cadman is the widow of Chuck Cadman. Chuck led a grassroots movement here in BC to update the Young Offender’s Act after their son was murdered by another youth. When the Reform Party was gathering steam out West, Chuck was one of a number of locally respected activists who were recruited for their hard work. And populist appeal.

Chuck served in Parliament from 1993 until his death from cancer in 2005. Over those 12 years he was a Reform, Alliance, and ultimately independent MP. When the right merged into the current Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Cadman lost the CPC nomination–but easily won as an independent. Many outside BC first became aware of him when he voted with the Martin Liberals to prevent an election a few months before his death.

Dona Cadman endorsed her friend Penny Priddy for the NDP in the last election and Priddy won easily; Dona’s support no doubt helped, but Priddy has been a powerful and popular figure for years.

Dona has also alleged the Harper Tories tried to “buy” Chuck’s support in Parliament, offering inducements such as a life insurance policy. I’ve no idea about these allegations’ credibility. But I do know this: Dona is now the candidate for the very party she accused of being unethical. Bizarre. Priddy has declined to run for re-election as well, making Surrey North all the more interesting.

Dona’s either been Harped into a muzzle or has decided to avoid reporters. She did do an all-candidates meeting last night though. But her communication skills and lack of a populist bent are almost anathema to her husband. Or….she went for the nomination to sabotage Harper. Haven’t seen any polls yet, but the buzz is, the Tories are out of this one already.

Will the NDP hold the seat? Will it be a Liberal pick-up? Or will vote splitting between the 2 hand it to the Invisible Womanâ„¢? Oooooh…..exciting!

Congrats to Layton and Harper for proposing more time to discuss the economy. Let’s build on this idea for future election campaigns: have 4 debates, one a week on a major issue. Fifteen minutes is not enough time to explain a policy on the environment, healthcare, etc. but 2 or 3 hours should be. Hold one debate in each of the different regions of the country with one French language debate in Quebec. Our democracy would be better for it.