This can be credited to a few things:

1) The strong Abrams Campaign: Abrams’ campaign was strong right out of the gate and had been active since January getting his name out there and attending events. I had the chance to see him on two occasions during this election, and it’s clear he is also quite impressive in person. He had a strong presence by winning the sign war, a billboard and radio campaign, and occasional media coverage (though some was pretty harsh as well).

2) The demographics of Kingston: Although Kingston has leaned Liberal for quite some time, there are demographics that trend towards the Conservatives. Lots of protestant suburban voters, seniors, military voters, rural voters and high-net-worth retirees all trend towards the Conservatives, especially in this election. This should account for much of the switch from Liberal to CPC.

3) Milliken himself: Milliken has taken quite a beating in the media, and more importantly in the coffeeshops, with his musings about not serving a full term if not given the speaker’s position again. He has claimed in the media that it was “misinformation”, but in my humble opinion, Milliken was given every opportunity to say outright “I WILL serve a full term” and never said it outright. This appears to have been a factor.

So what does the future hold for this riding? I can’t imagine Milliken will be the Speaker again. He was given the Speaker’s position because the CPC numbers in the 120’s made them concerned about losing the one vote and still being able to pass legislation with the support of the NDP. With 143 seats, this won’t be a factor anymore, and if the Conservatives are intent on governing with a stronger mandate (and one day a majority), they’ll need a Conservative member as Speaker. This will put the heat on Milliken and test whether he really was after only the Speaker’s chair or not.

As for Abrams, his strong showing positions him very well for another run. Whether it will be a byelection when Milliken retires, or as part of another likely election in the next couple of years, he will most certainly be a candidate again and must be considered a likely frontrunner if Milliken isn’t on the Grit ticket.

After 20 years, Kingston politics may have just entered the ‘exciting’ category once again.

PS – full disclosure, I voted for the Greens’ Eric Walton.

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

 I can’t find it online, and didn’t actually read the article (yes, they printed this, it wasn’t just a drunken journalistic escapade), but a reporter told me today that good ol’ John A. predicted 4 Green ridings. They had their eyes closed, they didn’t touch it, and John. A. predicted 4 Green ridings.

I can tell you now, I think two of them will be Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Guelph. Central Nova has a shot, Vancouver Centre has a shot, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country has a shot. There could be a ton of flukes and a ton of students who aren’t counted in polls (because its still illegal to poll cell phones, thank God) who could give surprise results if they actually get themselves out to the polls.

But John A. says four… it’s probably more than DemocraticSpace will give us.

Liberal supporters start gathering in anticipation of Dion’s arrival.

A canine supporter

Dion and Peterborough candidate Betsy McGregor kindly pose for a photo.

Dion waves goodbye as he gets back on the campaign bus.

(Cross-posted at my blog)

I’d come along to see what kind of reception Dion would receive from small town Ontario Saturday shoppers. He got a warm, even enthusiastic welcome, as a horde of Liberal volunteers surrounded him with placards and cheers as he made his way through the crowd.

Stephane Dion with Barrie candidate Rick Jones, left, and Simcoe North candidate Steve Clarke, right, showing appreciation for young musicians

Dion gave a good stump speech. He appealed for the “progressive vote” and told NDP supporters that they and the Liberals share the same social values but only a Liberal vote can stop Stephen Harper. That’s certainly true in this riding, at least.

“Stephen Harper is building his campaign on a lie. He will lose on a lie,” Dion told the audience.

He was referring to the oft-repeated Tory charge that Dion’s Green Plan will hurt Canadians because it includes a carbon tax. The fact the Green Shift includes income tax cuts is never mentioned by the Tories.

Dion threw in a good word for Elizabeth May, expressing the hope she’ll be elected in Central Nova.

Asked about whether the trembling economy would hold up implementation of Liberal promises, Dion said his party has a four-year plan. He committed himself to carrying out all its goals, including child care and a catastrophic drug plan, within that time frame. But there may have to be some delays in the first year or two, he said, depending on economic conditions.

The Liberals know their only chance of forming a minority government is to stop the siphoning off of left-of-center votes. The Greens have probably been the major factor so far in the Liberals having dropped in the polls from their 30 per cent level in the 2006 belection. The Conservatives are down also, but if only one voter in three marks their ballot for a Tory on Tuesday, Harper will have won.

Won what? That’s the question. He’ll have to take more seats than the Liberals and the NDP combined, in order to withstand an immediate test in Parliament.

From the looks of the campaign in Simcoe North, one of those close Ontario battleground seats, it’s going to be a squeaker between Clarke and Tory incumbent Bruce Stanton. The 1,200-vote edge by which Stanton won in 2006 (out of 60,000 votes) is no assurance the Conservatives can hold this seat. That’s why Dion was here today.

I saw Green party candidate Valerie Powell hanging around the edges of the rally. She managed to snag an interview with a couple of the national media. Powell could be the king-maker in Simcoe North on Tuesday, depending on how many people are resistent to Dion’s plea for a united “progressive” vote.

“I’ll be the greenest prime minister Canada ever had,” Dion likes to tell his rallies. He repeated that claim here today. Will it be good enough for those tempted to vote Green?

We’ll know Tuesday night. Clarke is a popular local businessman. He runs the Brewery Bay cafe on Orillia’s main street. Stanton’s case for re-election rests in part on the funding he says he’s been able to bring into the riding for public works. A good example of old fashioned stump politics. But as of right now, I’m calling Simcoe North to switch to the Liberal column when the votes are counted.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

Comprenons-nous bien : la performance de l’actuel premier ministre, quoique très ordinaire depuis le débat des chefs, n’est pas catastrophique. Dans la moyenne pour être exact. Mais ce n’est pas là-dessus qu’il sera jugé.

Les conservateurs, comme la majorité des mouvements de droite, veulent des résultats. Les coupures aux subventions dans le domaine culturel et dans le développement économique des régions sont des exemples bien réels de cette idéologie politique. Si le retour sur l’investissement n’est pas bon, on coupe ou on remodèle le programme. La logique peut tenir.

Stephen Harper a décidé d’utiliser un des échappatoires de sa propre loi sur les élections à date fixe pour se lancer dans une campagne électorale qui n’avait pour but que d’aller chercher les sièges manquants à une majorité conservatrice. L’opportunisme politique avec un grand O, quoique le seul reproche qu’on puisse lui faire est d’avoir voilé sciemment l’esprit de la loi qu’il a mis en place.

Le résultat net, en date d’aujourd’hui, est que le Parti conservateur a fragilisé sa place à la Chambre des Communes. Après avoir créé de toutes pièces le personnage de Stéphane Dion, il a laissé les autres partis redéfinir son image. Il les a même aidés, par exemple avec sa position face à la situation économique mondiale. On ne se donne pas de chances lorsqu’on dit aux Canadiens d’investir dans la Bourse, alors que ceux-ci ne cherchent qu’à se faire rassurer. Pas plus qu’en présentant une plate-forme électorale (qui, malgré certains bons côtés, avait plutôt l’air d’un plan B fabriqué à la va-vite)… après le vote par anticipation.

Que feront les militants conservateurs après l’élection? Attendons les résultats, mais Stephen Harper devra répondre de ses actes. Si le résultat net de l’élection est le retour à la case départ, c’est que le premier ministre aura échoué son plus gros test politique.

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.

Bonjour my friend, how are you mon ami ?

Il faut avouer que le bilinguisme des chefs des cinq principaux partis politiques varie énormément d’un à l’autre. Et si le français de Jack Layton est de loin supérieur à celui d’Elizabeth May, il est permis de s’étonner des propos de Stephen Harper dont le français est relativement du même calibre que l’anglais de Stéphane Dion.

Toujours selon Gilles Duceppe, « M. Dion fait des efforts pour parler en anglais et je pense qu’il a progressé. On demande beaucoup plus aux francophones de bien parler anglais qu’aux anglophones de bien parler français. Il y a deux poids, deux mesures. »

À ce propos, il est indéniable que le bilinguisme canadien n’existe que sur papier. En effet, selon Statistique Canada (chiffres de 2007), seulement 17% des Canadiens sont bilingues. Or, cette donnée masque le véritable écart qui existe entre le Québec et le ROC. En effet, si l’on fait exception du Nouveau-Brunswick où il atteint 33,4% – principalement en raison de la population acadienne –, le taux de bilinguisme est beaucoup moins reluisant dans le ROC, où il varie de 4 à 12%, qu’au Québec où il atteint 40,6%.

Baignant dans une Amérique en grande majorité anglophone, il est généralement admis que les Québécois d’origine francophone ont tout à gagner à maîtriser l’anglais.

Cela dit, en ce qui a trait au « bilinguisme canadien », ces derniers n’ont pas de leçons à recevoir de CTV, de Stephen Harper, ni même de l’ensemble ROC.

C’est un fait que certains sondages effectués en Ontario ces derniers jours indiquent que les libéraux ont repris le dessus (32% selon Harris/Decima et 39% selon Nanos) sur les conservateurs (28% selon les deux firmes). Résultat : les conservateurs n’auraient désormais plus au pays qu’une avance de quatre ou cinq pour cent sur les libéraux. Qu’il s’agisse d’un vote prolibéral ou anticonservateur, un fait demeure : Stéphane Dion, celui-là même dont on annonçait la fin de la carrière politique il y a deux semaines à peine, a désormais des chances – si minimes soient-elles – de devenir le premier ministre du Canada.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it

Mais qui dit premier ministre du Canada, dit aussi premier ministre de tous les citoyens, les Québécois y compris. Or, pour ces derniers, le père de la loi sur la clarté référendaire (C-20) – celle-là même qui a été rejetée du revers de la main par les trois principaux partis au Québec – représente une menace réelle pour la paix constitutionnelle. Mise de côté depuis la dernière élection au Québec, la souveraineté n’a en effet besoin que d’une simple étincelle pour enflammer à nouveau l’électorat québécois. On peut compter sur le PQ et le Bloc québécois à ce sujet pour faire leurs choux gras des positions constitutionnelles de Stéphane Dion s’il devait un jour être élu premier ministre.

Des positions qui pourraient aussi entrer en conflit avec les demandes à saveur nationalistes récemment formulées par Jean Charest. Si Gilles Duceppe appuie ces dernières avec vigueur, pour Stéphane Dion, elles donnent lieu à une fin de non-recevoir.

Stephen Harper reconnaît de son côté qu’il ne peut satisfaire toutes les demandes du Québec, mais il continue à marteler que sa vision du fédéralisme asymétrique demeure la meilleure approche pour le Québec.

Jack Layton a quant à lui affirmé durant le débat des chefs qu’il était ouvert à discuter de ces questions, notamment de la souveraineté culturelle du Québec, avec le gouvernement Charest et à cet égard, il demeure de loin le chef le plus ouvert des trois partis fédéralistes.

De Layton, Harper et Dion, ce dernier est au final le seul des trois qui risque de jeter de l’huile sur le feu souverainiste. Le seul qui a le pouvoir de garantir la présence du Bloc à Ottawa pour les années à venir. Et possiblement le seul qui soit en mesure de ramener l’échéance référendaire au calendrier des Québécois. Une évidence que le ROC semble avoir perdu de vue à force de prôner, « Anything but conservative ».

Comme quoi le mieux est souvent l’ennemi du bien.

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).

But when I heard on the news this morning that Britain was pouring $200 billion into taking over its biggest banks, and that central banks around the world were cutting interest rates, it was clear that no matter where I went, I wouldn’t escape the turmoil.

We boarded the Segwun at Gravenhurst just before noon, with a slight drizzle in the air. You couldn’t avoid hearing the election being discussed. Complimentary copies of the Toronto Star were being handed out:

Once on board, I chatted up a local man who was showing a German visitor the beauty of the Muskoka district. On the financial crisis, he had a comment of considerable wisdom: “Nobody knows what’s really going on.”

Gravenhurst is in the Parry Sound riding that Health Minister Tony Clement won by a razor thin margin in 2006. We had come up from Lagoon City, in the adjoining Simcoe North riding, where Tory Bruce Stanton is fighting to hold the seat against a strong challenge from Liberal Steve Clark.

As an indication of how winnable the Liberals think Simcoe North is, Stephane Dion has scheduled a visit to Orillia for Saturday morning.

A few tourists filled out the on-board complement on the Segwun. Here’s one:

On our return to Lagoon City, the news was all about Stephane Dion’s speech in Toronto today. His best line, apparently, was:  “We need to change course, we need to change the captain, we need to change the whole crew.”

Globe and Mail editorialist Adam Radwanski, blogging Dion’s speech, had this verdict: “The right speech to give right now.”

With the polls so volatile, it’s beginning to look like we’ll watch the election results from the edges of our chairs.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

In some ways this is how special-interest groups operate in order to drive public debate on their pet issues. They keep shining the spotlight on an issue in the hope of influencing people’s behaviour or attitudes. This, for example, is how wearing real fur has come to be considered gauche, and the global warming movement has been planting similar seeds in people’s minds.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has been driving his own mind-and-behaviour-altering campaign by talking incessantly about how sick the Canadian economy has become. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, realizing the effect that this could have on people and the economy, retorted that Mr. Dion was panicking and might actually trigger an economic crisis by repeatedly talking it down. It is for this reason that Mr. Harper has assumed a position some consider standoffish and even cold. When one political leader runs around like a headless chicken screaming “The sky is falling”, the other must step in and counteract any negative effect this will invariably have.

Canada’s economy is doing quite well, despite Mr. Dion’s best efforts to bring it down. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has just confirmed in a new report that economic growth in Canada will continue along just nicely and top all other G7 countries in 2009.

Still, there are sectors that are suffering, such as the manufacturing and auto sectors in Ontario. But theirs is a problem that has very little to do with the current subprime crisis in the U.S. Both sectors have been in decline for at least four years. The cause of the troubles is structural, not cyclical, and reflects a general shift that in all likelihood is irreversible.

Thousands of jobs have already been lost in Ontario as a result, and they will be lost forever. Nothing will ever bring them back. Apart from the sea-change gripping the industry, there is also a bit of that self-fulfilling prophecy in here. With environmental groups chanting the same global warming hymns over and over again, it was only a matter of time before their message would change people’s behaviour – and change it did. Car makers saw their sales of such moneymakers as pickup trucks and other expensive gas guzzlers crater.

More and more manufacturing jobs, therefore, have been shipped overseas to low-cost countries and, thus, away from Ontario’s labour unions and their unrealistic demands that have been instrumental in wrecking the industry in the first place.

Mr. Harper, so as not to appear too cold-hearted, has announced extended assistance and subsidies for Ontario’s auto makers. But this will only delay the inevitable, and not solve the problem at all. On the contrary, it is quite counterproductive.

For those who lose their jobs, there is unemployment insurance and welfare, as well as, at the provincial level, retraining opportunities. Mr. Harper’s additional funds, however, do not go to those affected, the workers, but the companies. In other words, it is a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

What is needed are two things. First, both Ontario and the federal government must realize that this sector has had it. Second, instead of propping up companies that are going nowhere, both levels of government must provide universally accessible education and training opportunities – through colleges, universities and vocational schools. The workforce must be empowered to acquire the necessary skills required in the 21st century, so that they can move on to new careers.

Besides, there is a “Why-not-me?” factor to all this. Canadians not employed in the auto sector will wonder why public assistance goes to this one sector, but not to them. If the economy tanks, everyone is in the same boat. Why, then, would the government bail out and grant special tax privileges to the car industry only, but not waitresses, writers or window washers?

Government cannot pour out its cornucopia of goodies over specific groups or sectors, without drawing ire and fire from all others. A line must be drawn somewhere, and calling for urgent help for one sector, as the opposition leaders have done without even understanding first what is actually going on, is a prescription for destroying an otherwise healthy economy.

It is a shame that Mr. Harper should have given in to pressure, instead of staying the course. As a result, the problems in the manufacturing and auto sectors in Ontario will continue and get worse, while the already-suffocating taxpayer will be poorer for it.

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.

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.

Conservative Fréchette in Hull-Aylmer a former Liberal

It was reported in Le Droit today that Conservative candidate Paul Fréchette was formerly a member of the Liberal Party until January 2006. In fact, he contributed $300 to Marcel Proulx’s campaign in 2004.

Fréchette says that he left the party because of the sponsorship scandal, but considering he left only in January 2006 (when Liberal fortunes took a turn for the worst) that reasoning sounds a little unlikely.

More likely is Proulx’s hypothesis, which is that Fréchette switched to the Conservatives because he saw an opportunity in the wake of Lawrence Cannon’s success in Pontiac.

Mulcair in Gatineau

Thomas Mulcair, the only New Democrat MP from Quebec, was in Gatineau this morning in support of local NDP candidate Françoise Boivin. This just demonstrates how seriously the NDP considers its chances in the riding. I imagine that, after Outremont, this is where the NDP thinks it could take a second seat in Quebec.

Conservative Candidate in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and his Religious Views

Le Droit also reported on Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux’s campaign in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the Eastern Ontario riding where I grew up.

Apparently, Lemieux thinks neither his fervent Catholicism nor his opposition to gay marriage and abortion will hurt his chances against Liberal Dan Boudria.

Fervent, says I? Well, Lemieux has a picture of the Pope (yes, the Pope) in his Parliamentary office. And in his former place of employment he had a statue of the Virgin Mary.

He has participated in several anti-choice rallies on Parliament Hill during his tenure as MP, and one of his daughters was master of ceremonies for some sort of National Pro-Life Walk.

Taking all of this into account, does anyone seriously believe that Pierre Lemieux can separate his faith – which is not shared (and especially practised) by all his constituents – from his political decisions?

Hopefully, this riding will re-elect the Liberals.

Cross-posted to Sovereignty en Anglais.

It has been worth the effort from the CPC point of view to door knock all homes – including ones with Liberal Bonnie Brown signs. It feels like panning for gold. For the most part, the reception is polite – even at homes with Liberal signs. Sometimes CPC supporters are found in those homes. In any case, the CPC teams are able to canvass areas fairly quickly because they have many volunteers.

Candidates have All Candidates Meetings to attend that pull them away from meeting and swaying undecided voters.. They may be useful for getting quotes in the local media but as far as being informative, many to most people who attend All Candidates Meetings are active partisans there to cheer on their candidate.

Terrence Young has come out with a new piece of literature that debunks certain claims made by the Liberals. It has some amusing jabs. Some of Bonnie Brown’s previous statements have been shown to be ridiculous.

Terrence Young has been helping out people in Oakville over the last two years while working at his day job. He has had a degree of flexibility that Bonnie Brown’s office lacked. Not everybody in Oakville lives in palatial lakeside mansions.

Up in Halton, which includes the norther part of the municipality of Oakville, Liberal Garth Turner is holding on primarily due to fluctuating national and regional trends. CPC candidate Lisa Raitt would serve the Halton riding well if elected but Turner is fighting for his political life here. During the dying days of the 1993 PC debacle, Turner managed to fire one more torpedo into the sinking SS Kim Campbell when he made pro Liberal remarks. Raitt might benefit if Turner fires another torpedo with the safeties disengaged so that it comes back and blows his own campaign out of the water.

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.

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.

As a result, Jack will miss the only opportunity that his constituents have to engage him in direct dialogue before the election.

My next blog post will be to report on what happens at tomorrow evening’s Toronto-Danforth all-candidates meeting.

In the meantime, learn more about Jack’s misadventures everywhere except Toronto-Danforth by visiting www.wheresjack.ca.

Gord Crann