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! 

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…

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.

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)

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.

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.

(et je me positionne clairement)

Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de recevoir un appel de Meili Faille lundi après le travail.  En fait, le but premier des son appel était de répondre à mon interrogation sur les raisons qui l’avait poussée à se retirer du débat à la moitié de l’événement qui avait lieu vendredi dernier à Hudson.  Or, comme c’est fréquent dans une campagne électorale, l’horaire d’un candidat peut être modifié en tout temps.  C’est ce qui est arrivé à madame Faille.  La rencontre où elle devait faire une intervention juste avant le débat fut retardé et a duré plus longtemps que prévu;  Ce qui explique son arrivé tardive.  De plus, ses organisateurs ont préféré organiser une autre rencontre avec un regroupement, dont j’oublie la nature, avant que le débat se termine.  Madame Faille à jugée bon de poursuivre dans des rencontres qui lui seraient plus favorable.  Au final, j’approuve pleinement son geste, sachant que de toute façon, l’audience du débat à Hudson était plutôt « paquetée » du côté Fortier.  Meili Faille n’avait pas beaucoup à gagner, au contraire du débat qui aura lieu ce soir à la Cité-Des-Jeunes de Vaudreuil.  Malgré cela, elle m’a mentionné que les gens qui sont allé voir sa représentante à la fin du débat n’avaient que de bons mots pour elle.  Elle m’a même cité un ou deux regroupements de Hudson qui reconnaissent sont bon travail.  Sauf erreur, on m’a dit que Michael Fortier pourrait être absent ce soir.  Tenterait-il de limiter les dégâts en fin de campagne?  De toute façon, ils se retrouveront tous à RDI jeudi soir pour un autre débat.  Ce sera à surveiller. 

Par ailleurs, Meili et moi avons pris le temps de parler des différences entre sa campagne et celle de monsieur Fortier.  Nous avons convenu que le défi pour Fortier est plutôt d’aller chercher les votes du côté Libéral.  Ce n’est pas facile pour lui.  Je suis de celui qui croit que madame Brigitte Legault à la capacité, grâce à son charisme, son expérience et à cause de la tendance forte des anglophones et des non-souverainistes de la région, de conserver une bonne majorité des votes rouges.  Or, Meili Faille m’a confié que son noyau dur de supporteur dans la région est resté élevé et intacte, ce qui est une bonne nouvelle.  Par contre, selon elle, les résultats du sondage paru il y a plus d’une semaine lui paraissent un peu exagérés.  En effet, elle pense plutôt qu’un chiffre autour du 35%, après répartition des indécis serait plus juste; ce qui lui donne malgré tout une confortable avance sur ses adversaires.  J’ai même eu vent de la rumeur qui veut que Fortier sente tellement que sa campagne glisse vers le bas, que l’ancien premier ministre provincial et député de Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Daniel Johnson, viendrait lui prêter main forte sous peu (ceci sous toute réserve bien sûr). 

Enfin, et c’est la partie intéressante, nous avons discuté de ses méthodes de campagne et de son approche.  Elle m’a bien candidement mentionné que ce qui l’intéresse le plus, c’est le côté social et le fait de supporter des gens de la communauté de Vaudreuil-Soulange, au delà de leurs allégeances.  Elle m’a d’ailleurs rappelé sa présence à une rencontre avec les anciens combattants, au courant de son dernier mandat, pour une journée en leur honneur.  Le problème est qu’aucun autre représentant des autres partis fédéraux ne s’était présenté.  À bien y penser, le topo est assez paradoxal mais démontre l’universalité de Meili Faille.  En effet, au-delà de la basse partisannerie, il y a les humains et Meili Faille le comprends.  Il y a abondance d’exemple comme celui-là.  De plus, elle m’a confirmé que les organismes sociaux et autres groupes de la région ont commencé à voir Michael Fortier seulement lorsque la possibilité d’élection s’est fait sérieusement sentir.  Heureusement, les gens ne sont pas dupes.  Avant de voter, rappeler vous l’attitude de Fortier dans la présente campagne : arrogant, portant attention à ses intérêts supérieurs avant ceux de la région, contrôle des communications venant de son propre parti, opportunisme crasse, nonchalance face aux besoins des plus démuni et de la culture locale et j’en passe.  Je crois fermement que le vote de cette élection dépasse la basse partisannerie ou le simple fait d’avoir une représentante souverainiste dans le comté.  Ainsi, la question que je vous pose : Est-ce que nous avons besoin de quelqu’un qui sera là seulement quand le « Kodak » sera présent ou bien avons-nous besoin d’une personne qui est présente en tout temps pour ses citoyens et qui défendra bec et ongle les intérêts de sa communauté et du Québec à Ottawa?  Dans Vaudreuil-Soulanges, avons-nous besoin d’une star sortie de nulle part qui sera impliquée dans toutes sortes de projets qui vont souvent à l’encontre de nos intérêts et des besoins immédiats de la région?  Avons-nous avantage à voter pour quelqu’un qui défendra en premier lieu les intérêts de la région de Montréal?  Poser la question c’est aussi y répondre.

Malgré le fait que j’aime bien l’attitude de madame Brigitte Legault du parti Libéral et que j’ai énormément d’affinité avec Jean-Yves Massenet et les politique du parti Vert, cette élection demande aux citoyen de réfléchir aux conséquences désastreuse pour le Québec advenant qu’un Michael Fortier et les Conservateurs prennent la majorité du gouvernement. C’est pourquoi mon vote ira du côté de Meili Faille et du Bloc Québécois mardi prochain.

********************

Petite prédiction du jour

Comme je l’avais fait lors des dernières élections provinciales, je me suis prêté au jeu des prédictions. Je répète l’exercice maintenant, sachant fort bien que ce ne sont que des prédictions un peu biaisée.

Meili Faille (Bloc) = 38%
Brigitte Legault (Libéral) = 25%
Michael Fortier (Conservateur) = 24%
Jean-Yves Massenet (Vert) = 9%
Maxime Héroux-Legault (NPD) = 4%

Taux de participation = 69%. Faite le calcul du nombre de vote pour chacun.

Qu’en pensez-vous? Surprenant non? Je crois fortement qu’effectivement, Michael Fortier ira gruger les votes destinés aux Libéraux pour passer de 19% à la dernière élection, à plus de 24% pour cette fois. Il serait intellectuellement malhonnête de croire que monsieur Fortier ferait pire que lors des dernières élections fédérales. Voyons voir si je changerai ces pourcentages avant le 14 octobre.

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.

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.

Finalement, nous voici arrivé à l’heure du premier débat pour nos cinq candidats dans Vaudreuil-Soulange. Ce face à face aura lieu au centre communautaire de Hudson et sera modéré par deux journalistes du Hudson Gazette, Jim Duff et Matthew Brett. Je ne sais si les questions du public seront permises mais il est évident qu’il serait intéressant de connaître la stratégie des différents candidats en relation avec ce qui se passe au États-Unis et aux dommages collatéraux qui suivront. Ne me parlez pas d’aide aux jeunes ménages pour une plus grande accession à une maison. Cette attitude se traduit par un accès privilégié vers l’endettement. Ainsi, j’aurai la possibilité de filmer l’intervention et de probablement mettre les moments plus savoureux ici même sur ce blogue au courant de la semaine prochaine.

***************************

Avant de vous laisser pour le weekend, j’aimerais vous diriger vers un site très intéressant (cliquez ici). En effet, c’est un site qui regarde les possibilités de voter pour le parti Vert. Afin de vérifier s’il cela est possible, ils font la démonstration de l’état des choses dans toutes les circonscriptions du Canada basé sur tout le sondage effectué pour le comte de la circonscription. Ce regroupement indépendant fait l’analyse suivante : si dans votre comté, un candidat est assuré de la victoire, pourquoi ne pas voter selon vos convictions, car de toute façon, un vote contraire aura probablement peu d’impact sur le résultat final.

Or, pour Vaudreuil-Soulange, selon ce site, le risque que Michael Fortier passe le fil d’arrivé en premier reste encore possible, à deux semaines des élections. Ainsi, il est encore recommandé de voter de façon stratégique afin d’empêcher Michael Fortier de gagner la circonscription de Vaudreuil-Soulange. Le problème avec la situation potentiellement favorable pour Meili Faille est que certaine personne seraient tentée de laisser tomber, pensant que la victoire Bloquiste est acquise. C’est totalement faux. Une baisse de garde donnerait un avantage à Michael Fortier, qui récolte les votes de citoyens aux allégeances Libérale qui sont tentés par l’apparence de pouvoir et par la perte de confiance envers un Stephane Dion non-convaincant. Il est surprenant de voir, selon les derniers résultats, que madame Brigitte Legault prend place juste avant Michael Fortier. Je constate donc que le vote anglophone traditionnellement Libéral de la région ne se divise pas tant que ça. J’ai peine à croire que Fortier sera capable de remonter cette pente.

(more…)

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.

The riding of Nickel Belt, in northeastern Ontario, comprises a large swath of ground surrounding Sudbury Riding on three sides: the south, east and north. Nickel Belt is bordered to the west by Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, to the northeast by Timmins—James Bay, to the east by Nipissing—Timiskaming and to the south by Parry Sound—Muskoka. The riding was first constituted for the general election of 1953. Since then, the Liberals have won the riding twelve times and the New Democrats have taken it six times. Most recently, Liberal Ray Bonin has held the riding since 1993 but Bonin has retired and there is no incumbent this time.

The NDP candidate is Claude Gravelle, a retired machinist in his third run for the prize. Last time, he was defeated by Bonin by just over 2000 votes.

The Conservatives, who came a distant third last time, are being represented by Ian McCracken, an office equipment salesman. This is McCracken’s first attempt at seeking elected office.

The Liberal hopeful this time is Louise Portelance, a former Sudbury municipal councillor and Deputy Mayor. Portelance failed in her 2003 bid for the mayor’s office in Sudbury. This is her first foray into federal politics.

Steve Rutchinski is the Marxist-Leninist candidate. This is Rutchinski’s third consecutive attempt at capturing the seat. His best showing was 51 votes in the 2004 election.

Fred Twilley carries the Green Party banner into the fray this time. Twilley is a retired engineer and this is his first attempt at elected office. The Greens finished fifth in the last campaign with fewer than 1000 votes.

Independent Yves Villeneuve is seeking the seat in his first attempt. Villeneuve speaks in socially conservative terms: his website states that “Canada is founded on the supremacy of God.”

This is most definitely a two-horse race. Both Gravelle and Portelance have been pounding the pavement in the riding for several months. The result could be close this time but I’d venture that Gravelle has the early lead and momentum on his side. Whoever takes this seat, it may be a long night on the 14th as we wait for the last polls to return.

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.

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!

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.

One of the big disappointments of the campaign, given all the controversies over the past year, is the lack of discussion by the parties about our democratic freedoms slipping away. I am speaking of course about Canada’s so-called human rights commissions and their attempt to censor ordinary Canadians.

This isn’t just about Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and Maclean’s Magazine. From small pub owners with heart conditions spending tens of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their business for enforcing a ban on marijuana smoking, to Christian pastors being silenced from the pulpit, to doctors being investigated for declining to operate when they lack the medical background to do so safely, Canada’s human rights commissions have created a culture of fear and distrust among ordinary Canadians

Canadians should be concerned with stripping away of our freedoms and civil liberties, which are the foundation of every vibrant democracy. With the federal election underway, I can think of no better time to discuss government censorship and Canada’s human rights commissions. It is time for our politicians to show leadership and insure the rights of every Canadian are respected.

Which is why Kathy Shaidle and I have today released a book on Canada’s human rights commissions, entitled Tyranny of Nice. Mark Steyn has kindly written the introduction. You can find out more about the book by visiting TyrannyOfNice.com.

The polls suggest the current electoral system favors the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc at the expense of the NDP and Greens. Some argue this discourages people from voting, and propose proportional representation (PR) as the solution. Perhaps it is part of a solution. But a real issue which is never discussed is lack of representation by population (Rep by Pop), which causes some votes to be worth more than others.

If anyone should be discouraged it is residents of Ontario, Alberta and BC. These have 1 MP for every 120,000 in population. All the other provinces are over-represented, from the extreme case of PEI which negotiated a great deal at Confederation (4 MPs for a population of 140,000) to Quebec (1 MP per 103,000). So at this election, the 4 Maritime provinces will elect 32 MPs as BC elects 36, even though BC has double the population. This isn’t fair.

 Electoral reform, combining Rep by Pop with some form of PR (say 1 for every 2% of the vote, or 50) will solve part of the voter turnout issue by making sure every vote matters equally. The greater responsibility falls on politicians. Get voters engaged by proposing and debating ideas instead of launching personal/negative attacks or bickering. Voters are disenchanted with politicians. If the politicians change the way they behave, maybe voters will as well.

Accompagné par Gilles Duceppe à l’Université de Montréal, Pauline Marois a prononçé que le Bloc est utile parce qu’il poursuit le même but que le PQ : la souveraineté du Québec. Est-ce le point important dans la présente élection fédérale ? Je suis plus intéressé à savoir le plan l’économique du Bloc et ce qu’il propose de faire pour appuyer notre système de santé. Le NPD et les Conservateurs offrent des options très différentes. En termes pratiques, qu’est-ce que le Bloc nous offre ?

Michael Byers, (NDP Candidate – Vancouver Center), very passionately told an audience today the tar sands should be shut down. It is not the official position of the NDP, who want a moratorium on the pace of the tar sands development, pending studies on the environment.

However, there are many voices in this country, sending distress signals using the internet, that want the tar sands development to stop, yes stop, now, because it has become “the dirtiest oil on the planet”.

If one pauses before thinking the thought “that no matter what the cost, the world needs oil and Canada needs to be richer in the world”, then maybe it is possible to think about the kind of planet this will be if we ruin it for our children and theirs.

Surely if humans survived on this planet in previous centuries and millenia without such a huge dependence on oil, we can figure out a way to do it again before it is too late…

Nous le savons tous, Harper et sa bande d’inculte ont la culture loin dans leur priorité. Il est même permis de croire, entre autre à cause des récentes coupures en culture, du projet de loi C-10, de la réforme possible de Radio-Canada, qu’ils veulent imposer leur vision « Canadian » de la culture. J’y reviendrai mais cela ouvre les portes toutes grandes à la caricature. Qu’est-ce que la culture « Canadian » au juste? À voir le ROC (Rest of Canada) se gargariser de culture Américaine, ça fait un peu peur. Revenons à nos moutons. Stefen Harper et Josée Verner prétendent que l’électeur moyen est totalement désintéressé du sort des artistes. Avons-nous ce type de citoyen dans Vaudreuil-Soulange? Probablement. Or, quelle sont les principales préoccupations des citoyens de la circonscription? Si l’on se fit au fait que la grande majorité de la population locale est active sur le marché de l’emploi et qu’une bonne proportion doit traverser le pont de L’Île-Aux-Tourtes et le Pont Galipeau chaque matin, il ne serait pas faux de dire que les aléas de la vie familiale, de l’heure de pointe, de la pratique de hockey et des devoirs après le souper prend une place plus qu’importante dans cette communauté. Par contre, sont-ils incultes pour autant?

Permettez-moi d’en douter. Par exemple, il m’est arrivé très souvent de devoir faire la queue pour les films de répertoire présentés dans deux salles pleines à craquer le lundi au cinéma de Dorion. Par ailleurs, la bibliothèque municipale de Vaudreuil est parmi les plus dynamique que j’ai vu depuis longtemps avec ses collections tournantes d’œuvres diverses, ses expositions d’artistes locaux, ses conférences plus que sollicitées, ses soirées de lecture à « guichet fermé » et j’en passe sont une fierté dans le coin. De plus, sans nécessairement être bondé de monde, le musée régional offre aussi des expositions ou l’on favorise les artistes d’ici. Par ailleurs, je peux vous confirmer que ce ne sont pas que têtes blanches qui participent à la vie culturelle de la communauté. La stratégie de Harper est bien simple : frapper sans arrêt sur le clou de l’ignorance du peuple afin de faire croire que les seules préoccupations des gens résident dans le prix de l’essence, le métro-boulot-dodo et dans le bling bling de certains médias. Quelle condescendance et quelle atteinte à l’intelligence de l’électorat. Monsieur Haper joue au père (dictateur) de famille qui impose à ses enfants ses valeurs morale de droite, sa façon de penser ignare, sa suffisance à faire vomir. Cette attitude est très pernicieuse. Effectivement, les gens pour qui la politique n’a aucun intérêt et dont les petits travers les font s’éloigner du seul acte démocratique accessible à cette échelle, leur antenne pourrait capter ce genre de discours. Par contre, je ne crois pas, et ce sans fausse modestie, que les gens du comté goberont ce boniment réducteur. C’est un discours de « mononcle » destiné à une minorité de grosses bedaines assis devant leur télé qui sont de toute façon inflexibles et bien ancrés dans l’immobilisme et les préjugés face aux artistes; le genre qui pense que Céline a la vérité absolue… mais je m’égare un peu ici. Ce ne sont pas ceux-là qui vont voter massivement de toute façon…

(more…)