I predict the following electoral outcomes in northeastern Ontario tonight:

1 Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing: This will be one of the closest races in the region. Carol Hughes of the NDP by a nose.

2 Nickel Belt: Another close race but the NDP’s Claude Gravelle will take it at the end of a long night.

3 Nipissing-Timiskaming:  An easy win for Anthony Rota with Conservative Sinicrope a relatively distant second.

4 Parry Sound-Muskoka:  The closest race in the country last time should see Conservative Tony Clement waltz to victory.

5 Sault Ste. Marie:  Tony Martin of the NDP appears to be a shoe-in in the Sault although not without a challenge.

6 Sudbury:  Diane Marleau of the Liberals is likely to hold this seat but it will be a lot tighter than an incumbent should have to face.

7 Timmins-James Bay:  An easy win for Charlie Angus who appears to be making this into an NDP stronghold.

Totals:  CPC: 1 seat; LPC: 2 seats; NDP: 4 seats; GPC: 0 seats

As the politicians make their final pleas for our votes, let’s remember that no matter who wins tomorrow life goes on. Canada will still be the greatest country in the world as long as we vote with conviction for our candidate and party of choice. Happy Thanksgiving! 

The financial meltdown has taken on epic proportions. The thought  is that it can be fixed quickly by intense government intervention. And I mean intense.  The verdict is not in. Not long ago talk of such intervention would have been laughed out of court by the market wizards . I don’t hear much laughter now. Not much mea culpa either.  What about climate change?  Strong government intervention in the tax/regulation system   in support of carbon reducation  is derided right now  by the same market wizards  who said let the markets do their thing as they bulked up on toxic securities based on predatory lending.  Looks like someone should ask them to eat their shirt? Anyone out there in this election doing that? If they are maybe we should vote for them?

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

There’s an excellent money-for-dummies article out today, written by an Associated Press writer, which explains a basic economic fundamental in plain terms. Once you understand that basic principle and begin extrapolating from it, you soon realize the broader implications for “ordinary Canadians” of Stephen Harper’s “great buying opportunities.”

Crossposted to Bow. James Bow.

Last but not least in my riding-by-riding profile of Waterloo Region is Cambridge. The riding of Cambridge takes in the city of Cambridge and the rural township of North Dumfries.

Cambridge has always been a world apart from Waterloo Region. Although it exists in the same same county as Kitchener and Waterloo, it was a reluctant partner in the creation of the region, and Highway 401 acts as an effective psychological barrier between it and Kitchener. Its own identity has been somewhat mixed up, as it is an amalgamation of three distinct towns with three distinct characters (Galt, Preston and Hespelar). The city has a large manufacturing base, but is also a growing bedroom community for Toronto, thanks to its proximity to the highway.

Although the NDP finished second here as late as 1988 (as well as in 1984, 1980 and 1979), the riding has shown a more conservative bent. From 1979 to 1993 it was held by the Progressive Conservatives and although the Liberals held the riding from 1993 to 2004, their primary competition has been either the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance.

Gary Goodyear beat Liberal MP Janko Peric in 2004 by just over 200 votes, after which he was named the Ontario chair of the Conservative Party caucus. Goodyear increased that margin to almost 6000 votes in the 2006 rematch against Peric. In that election, he received endorsements from Vote Marriage Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Goodyear is currently embroiled in a minor controversy surrounding the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. Originally selected to chair this committee, the opposition majority on committee voted him out in a motion of non-confidence, choosing Conservative MP Joe Preston instead. The work of the committee, which includes investigating the so-called “In and Out scandal”, was suspended on March 6, and the Conservatives refuse to allow it to continue until Goodyear is restored as chairman.

Goodyear returns this election, and faces off against newcomer Gord Zeilstra for the Liberals. Zeilstra has his own controversies to overcome. His nomination as candidate for the riding was hard fought, with some members of the riding association accusing his campaign of using improperly obtained membership lists. The central office investigated and, although it found an “unintentional breach” of the rules, “there is no evidence that Mr. Zeilstra obtained a numeric or tactical advantage through the use of riding membership forms.” He received a minor fine, but bad feelings remained. By and large, however, neither Goodyear nor Zeilstra’s controversies have been highlighted during this campaign.

Of the two remaining candidates, Max Lombardi is competing for the New Democrats, and Scott Cosman for the Greens.

Here’s the full list:

Gary Goodyear, 50, (Conservatives): Gary Goodyear has an MP website which is separate from his campaign website, which tells us a bit more about the man and the riding; certainly more than what we’ve received from Peter Braid and Stephen Woodworth’s campaign sites.

Goodyear was born in Cambridge and educated at the University of Waterloo, majoring in Biomechanics and Psychology, becoming a doctor of chiropractic medicine. He developed his practise up to 2004 when he gave it up to run for office. He has also maintained connections with the immigrant community, working to get the Canadian government to formally recognize the Armenian genocide, chairing hte Canada-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group and acting as an executive member of the Canada-Portuguese Group.

Recently, Goodyear has promised to become one of the first Members of Parliament to go carbon neutral, with the carbon emissions of his Cambridge and Ottawa offices offset through the planting of trees through Cambridge and North Dumfries.

Gord Zeilstra, 36, (Liberal): With the departure of Janko Peric, the Liberals have turned to a young businessman working in Waterloo Region’s tech sector. He is one of the founding employees of the job-finding site Monster.ca and is currently a regional vice president of Vurv Technology, a company which finds qualified new hires for high tech companies. Outside of his work, Zeilstra calls himself “a participant in many campaigns”. His degree is a Bachelor of Arts in communications and political science. He’s young, energetic, but inexperienced. Conservative party supporter Greg Staples said of him during a recent all-candidates’ debate: “he was a bit unsteady in his answers, being a rookie, but the Liberals should not be embarrassed with him as their flag bearer. Once he grows into the role he will be a tough opponent next time around.”

Zeilstra is married to his wife of fourteen years and has two young daughters.

Max Lombardi, 40, (New Democrats): It’s proven hard to get detailed information about Max Lombardi and his contributions to the political life of Cambridge. The NDP website barely calls him more than “a long-time Cambridge resident”. He currently works as an Information technologist for NEBS Payroll Service Limited. The bulk of his campaign has been about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, which should get a receptive ear from the large manufacturing sector in Cambridge.

Scott Cosman, 55, (Green): Cosman has lived in Waterloo Region since 1955, graduating from Wilfred Laurier University with a business administration degree. He has worked for thirty years in sales and marketing for such firms as Neilson’s Ltd, Carnation Inc, and Bell Mobility. His most recent work has been for Miser Lighting, a company dedicated to selling high efficiency lightbulbs to businesses.

Given Gary Goodyear’s advantage of incumbency, and the riding’s conservative character of late, I expect that this one will remain in the Conservatives’ column this election.

• Greg Staples reviews the Cambridge all-candidates’ debate.

Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.

Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?

We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.

The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)       3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating  and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.

The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

Predicted winner – Liberal

Liberal Charles Hubbard has held the seat since 1993. He’s considered by many to be a good MP who generally takes a centrist stand on issues. He was against the gun registry due to the rural nature of his riding but the National Gun Registry still was located in his riding along with the jobs that go with it. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

X-Factor – Disdain, distrust or a lack of understanding of the Liberal’s carbon tax might eat into some of Hubbard’s support but he has a weak competition this time around which should more than make up for any losses.

Crossposted – Spink About It

Say I support a party and want it to govern. I want it to win seats this election. My vote supports it financially, and money is the lifeblood of politics. Under the political financing law, each vote provides the party $1.75/year. So 1 million votes gives my party $7.5 Million dollars over a four year term. That goes a long way to providing my party the resources to grow support in the near term, and over time, hopefully lead to forming a government.

But what if my party’s candidate has no chance of winning in my riding? Do I vote “strategically” (really tactically) to stop my least favorite outcome? This not only deprives my party of money and gives it to my opponents, but if I make this choice in election after election, likely reinforces the perception in the general electorate that my party is a fringe party, with no chance of winning and not worthy of support. This perception becomes self perpetuating, and my party likely never gets elected. Am I prepared to continue working for and supporting such a party?

 Electoral success is the result of conviction and persistence over a number of years. Strategy by definition means a long term perspective.  There are 35% of Canadians who didn’t vote in the last election. Perhaps as my party grows its support and get its message out, these voters may find my party offers them a real choice they want to support. But they won’t have this choice if my party becomes irrelevant. Voting with conviction for my party is the best strategic vote I can make. If I don’t support my party, how can I expect others to do it.

Predicted Winner – NDP

Called the giant killer for beating Liberal Cabinet Minister Doug Young in 1997, NDP MP Yvon Godin has now won four consecutive elections in a province which generally doesn’t support the NDP provincially or federally. He won the last election with 50% of the vote.

X-Factor – None. This one is in the bag for Godin.

Crossposted – Spink About It

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.

I always try to offer up my predictions before an election. My blogging colleague NB Politico does some extensive predictions which fluctuate a bit as time goes by based on a number of factors. Mine are based on what I’ve read, people I’ve talked to throughout the province from various political backgrounds (and sometimes none) and my own experience. These aren’t wish lists of mine. They are simply how I think things will go.

Overall, like many, it’s hard to believe Stephen Harper won’t be Prime Minister after the election. It’s simply a matter of whether he’ll have a minority or majority, making New Brunswick’s ten seats important.

I’ll run through all 10 New Brunswick ridings over the new week. Some of the commentary will be quite short, others longer. There are a few ridings which are fluctuating quite a bit which I’ll hold off until closer to the end to make a call. Your take as always is welcomed.

Crossposted – Spink About It

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.

Dans la région, le NPD n’est présent que sur la liste des candidats et dans les fichiers d’Élections Canada.

Hier, Jean-François Paradis, candidat dans Jonquière – Alma, a justifié son absence au débat organisé par l’Association des étudiants du Cégep de Jonquière en disant qu’il s’était présenté par défaut. Originaire du Saguenay il vit à Montréal. Et il travaille “très fort” pour faire élire Thomas Mulclair, transfuge du PLQ et principal porte-parole du Parti au Québec.

Tellement absent de la campagne régionale que le journaliste de CBJ n’a pu parler à personne d’autre que M. Paradis et que François Privé, le candidat du Parti dans Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean en 2006. Et ce dernier s’est empressé de lancer un appel au vote stratégique pour battre Jean-Pierre Blackburn, le “Ministre le plus visible” du gouvernement Conservateur. Et selon le reporter de la première chaîne, Catherine Forbes, candidate dans Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean, “fuit les journalistes comme la peste”!

Le PVC lui est encore plus absent. Dans Jonquière il n’a même pas de représentant dans le fichier d’Élections Canada.

Situation idéale d’échange de vote pour les partisans du NPD, du PVC et du PLC du comté qui veulent aider au financement de leur Parti et contribuer à la défaite du Ministre Conservateur. Voir un des sites qui organisent l’échange sur le site Voter pour l’environnement. (Merci Sébastien Roy)

Chantale Bouchard face au Ministre du Travail au Cégep de Jonquière

Jean-Pierre Blackburn avait vraiment l’air d’avoir plus d’expérience que sa jeune opposante. C’était aussi son principal défaut.

Elle ne répondait pas toujours adéquatement aux questions, ne parlait pas toujour du sujet précis. Mais elle générait pas mal plus d’enthousiasme. Pas capable de chiffrer, de concrétiser son programme concrètement non plus, mais elle a, avec habileté, fait ressortir les points faibles de l’orientation du Parti Conservateur et les contradictions dans le discours actuel du Ministre sur l’avortement: même s’il dit que l’avortement est l’affaire des femmes, il a toujours voter pour restreindre ce droit.

Des interventions moins concrètes, plus philosophiques, que celles du Ministre, mais pas mal plus mobilisatrices. Le Ministre lui, n’a pas tellement soulevé les âmes en proposant la construction de la prison de Roberval et le développement de la base militaire de Bagotville comme modèle d’entrepreneurship pour la jeunesse.

La soupe doit être vraiment chaude: les maires de la région ont annoncé aujourd’hui qu’ils prendraient position pour le PC demain, selon le bulletin de nouvelles de la radio de  Radio-Canada de 17h.

Sylvain Gaudreault, député du PQ dans Jonquière assistait. Normal. Lui et Alexandre Cloutier appuie Chantale Bouchard, comme le souligne Corus.

Dion’s best 2 hours of campaign. He performed well above expectations: relaxed, clear, emotional. Will ensure Montreal area seats lost in last election return to Liberals. (A)

Duceppe is a master in this format, smooth and well prepared. Solidified his credentials as defender of Quebec likely limiting Conservative gains in regions. (A)

Harper underwhelmed. Calm and priministerial is one thing, but passionless and sleepwalking is something else! Sure he was under attack from the other 4 leaders, but he seemed unprepared. That majority may have just slipped away. (C)

Layton did good job of presenting himself as alternative to Dion and Harper, but did not show distinction between NDP and Bloc, often citing they agreed. Perhaps ups his vote count with left, at worst reinforced that NDP is legitimate player. (B)

May was sometimes incomprehensible, was largely ignored by others, but effectively returned all discussion to environmental issue. Blunt attacks on Harper, cheered on by others. (D)

As for format, not really a debate, more a Q&A session with Harper doing all the answering. To be expected, but how do you distinguish between the opposition parties who rarely took each other on. For those who didn’t watch original French, French language fluency coincided with scores above. Need more one on one, or 2 minutes vs 45 seconds to give answers, and allow leaders to ask each other questions.

Kitchener-Conestoga is the main rural riding of Waterloo Region, wrapping around the east, north and west of the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and swallowing a bit of suburban Kitchener on its southwest side. While the area was represented by Liberal Lynn Myers from the nineties up to 2006, Conservative Harold Albrecht defeated Myers in the last election by just 1,400 votes.

Albrecht is on record as opposing same-sex marriage, but he won the riding in 2006 by downplaying his opposition to the measure, only responding when asked by reporters, and tempering his defence of traditional marriage with talk of civil unions. This contrasts with the 2004 election when Conservative candidate Frank Luellau got into hot water for anti-gay comments made at a local all-candidates’ meeting.

Since the 2006 election, Albrecht has represented his riding quietly, without controversy. In Ottawa, he chairs the BioCaucus, a group of MPs promoting the production of agricultural and renewable technologies, and he sits on the Government Operations and Estimates committee and the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development committee. He favours stiffer sentences for youth offenders committing violent crimes.

Notable by their absense in this riding, almost, are the New Democrats. The party only managed to nominate Rod MacNeil eight days after the election was called. And while the other parties were busy plastering the roadsides with big campaign signs, New Democratic signs were nowhere to be seen. When MacNeil’s campaign workers finally managed to get some signs up on the arterials, they unfortunately selected small, garden-style signs rather than the larger ones the other three parties were using. As a result, the New Democrats look dwarfed here.

The New Democrats’ loss might be the Green Party’s gain, as their candidate Jamie Kropf roared out of the gate on the date of the election call, and got large Green Party signs up as fast as Albrecht’s campaign workers could get Conservative blue signs to match. The subconscious appearance of a three-party race here could well elevate Kropf to third place come election night.

The Liberal candidate, Orlando DaSilva, was a little slow in starting his campaign, but caught up, matching Albrecht and Kropf sign for sign. Now, heading out along Homer Watson, Courtland Avenue or Ottawa Street, you can typically see patterns of Blue, Red and Green, Blue, Red and Green, with occasional specks of orange.

But Kitchener-Conestoga has been the one riding in the area that I’ve noticed significant campaign sign vandalism (in my admittedly limited experience). DaSilva’s signs would appear to be the target more often than not, suggesting that the fight for the riding is still quite passionate.

Here’s a list of who all is running

Harold Albrecht, 58 (Conservatives): Albrecht has lived in Kitchener all his life. He is a former pastor, educated at Waterloo Lutheran University (now Wilfred Laurier) and has also owned a private dental practise for 27 years. He left dentistry to become a pastor for the Brethren in Christ church, and left that job in 2005 to seek the Conservative Party nomination for the riding. Albrecht has also gone on a number of Christian missions to the third world. He is married and has three adult children and seven grandchildren. He also owns and operates a 75 acre farm.

Orlando DaSilva, 40 (Liberals): This long-time Liberal has served as a legal representative in the Ontario ministry of the Attorney General. Born and raised in Kitchener to a Cape Breton mother and a Portuguese father, DaSilva helped found Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving while still in high school. His work since has remained in the legal field, including acting as treasurer for the Ontario Bar Association and a founding member of the Portugese Canadian Lawyers Association. Da Silva is married and has a 9-year-old daughter.

Rod MacNeil, 48 (New Democrats): A long-time Kitchener resident, MacNeil only became a card-carrying member of the NDP a year ago. He and his wife Suzy own two businesses, Karaoke Kommotion and Curious Creations, and he is a certified reflexologist. The New Democrats quickly built a web page for him, but he clearly speaks from his heart when describing why he’s running.

Jamie Kropf, 55 (Greens): Kropf has also lived in the area all his life, working in sales and management within the information technology sector for thirty years. He graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Bachelor of Mathematics, and has a Masters of Business Administration from Wilfred Laurier. With his wife of 32 years, he has three adult children and one grandchild. His website looks a little thrown together, but at least he has one, and at least it is detailed.

I expect that Albrecht will hold this riding, despite a strong challenge from DaSilva. More interesting will be where Kropf places against MacNeil.

Further Reading

• A similar interesting battle was had for Kitchener-Conestoga during the 2007 provincial election. In that case, the Liberal won.

It was a different seat for Stephen Harper this time around, being the incumbent PM and having to defend his policies instead of attacking others. How good a job did he do?

The beginning topic, the Economy, found Harper in general denial that Canada’s economy is anything but strong. As the subject of taxes on gasoline came up, Dion seemed to be intent on telling us how the demand from other countries would keep prices high, while Layton spoke about the need to help industries that are dependant on petroleum products to survive. Harper told us that he had done well by cutting the consumer taxes (GST), and Elizabeth May said this has done “nothing” for the consumer. My comment: “Yes, right, saving 2% on every litre of gas really deals with the incredible increase in the price per litre!”

There was a question about the listeriosis issue and food inspection. The high point in this part of the debate was when Gilles Duceppe asked Harper why the standards for exported foods were different (less frequent) for foods destined for distribution in Canada…

On the Environment issue, a questioner asked about having an independent agency created to deal with it. The overwhelming response from the others was about “leadership”, afterwhich May, Dion, Duceppe and Layton all complained about how Canada’s “leadership” on the issue is suspect among almost all other world leaders.

On Ethics in Politics and the House: This was the most fun part of the debate, that each one at the table look to the left and say something positive about the other potential leader sitting beside them and their experience with trying to work together. Poor Elizabeth May had Harper and had a difficult time trying to find something positive to say. The moderater had to cut her off, not because she was trying to be mean, but because she just came up empty. It was also entertaining to witness Steven Harper telling Jack that they had indeed found “some common ground”.

On Crime, the question was from a teacher from Dawson College, about gun control. While Harper, after fending off Layton on the issue, quickly changed the focus of the question towards his new crime bill, it set off another heated debate about the Conservative approach. Dion wanted to know HOW provinces would find the money to put more youth offenders in prisons, when there is already an issue over the number of prisons in each province lacking enough space and funding. May finished up by saying that it is funny that Harper wants to be tough on youth breaking laws, but he (Harper) only obeys the ones he agrees with. (She mentioned Kyoto and his own Fixed Election Law as examples).

On Healthcare: The debate became quickly about the fact that many Canadians do not have a family doctor. I guess this is the way to reduce hospital and emergency rooms problems. So all parties then focussed on the training and incentive issues for Canada to get more doctors. Elizabeth May brought up the issue of banning all chemicals which harm our health. Harper said he is on top of all of these issues. No one mentioned the issue for many immigrants to this country. How to make sure that qualified immigrants can efficiently cut through the present red tape to practice their professions when they arrive in Canada. This was a letdown for me….

Afghanistan: I do not think any leader said anything that has not been already heard a thousand times on this issue already.

Who won? Well I think it is sad that if you are a francophone in Québec, that if three out of five leaders are speaking in their second language, that some voters will pick the top two because of language. This language issue is what keeps dividing Canada, but it is also what makes us different than the United States, where debates happen in one language only. I love our bilingual and bicultural Canada! I love also, being a citizen of the World!

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.