Green Party of Canada

2008 Canadian Federal Election: Results and Summary

Jay Makarenko — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:04:39 -0600

On October 14, 2008, Canadians returned Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to a second minority government. On the one hand, the 2008 election did little to change the Canadian political landscape, as the major political parties were returned to Parliament with similar seat totals and percentages of the national vote as in the previous 2006 election. On the other hand, the election saw several significant trends, such as a strengthening of the Conservative vote in Ontario, an overall decline in support for the Liberal Party, and key electoral gains for the New Democratic Party. This article provides a summary of the 2008 federal election, including an overview of the results, discussions of key factors/non-factors in the election, and an examination of the election’s impact.

2008 Federal Election Results

Second Conservative Minority Government

The 2008 federal election resulted in a second minority government for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, which won 143 of 308 seats in the House of Commons. This represented an increase in seats for the Conservatives, which garnered 124 seats in the 2006 election. Nevertheless, the Conservatives fell short of the 155 they needed to form a majority government.

The Liberal Party of Canada formed the Official Opposition, winning 76 seats in the House, the second highest seat tally of the remaining political parties. The Bloc Québécois won 50 seats (third highest total) and the New Democratic Party of Canada took 37 seats.

The 2008 general election also saw two independent MPs elected to the House of Commons. Independents are elected Members of Parliament who have no formal party affiliation. Bill Casey was elected for the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland―Colchester―Musquodoboit Valley. Casey, originally a Conservative MP, was dismissed from that party’s caucus after he voted against the government’s budget in 2007. André Arthur, the second independent, was elected in the Quebec City-area riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Arthur was first elected as an independent in the 2006 federal election; he has never had any affiliation with a federal political party.

2008 Election Results (Seat totals and Status by Party)

Party	2008 Election	Status	2006 Election	Seat Change
Conservative Party	143 seats	Minority Government	124 seats	+ 19
Liberal Party	76 seats	Official Opposition	103 seats	- 27
Bloc Québécois	50 seats	Opposition Party	51 seats	- 01
New Democratic Party	37 seats	Opposition Party	29 seats	+ 8
Independent	02 seats	-	01 seat	+ 01

Summary of National Vote

In terms of gains, the Green Party of Canada received the largest increase in national support of all the political parties. In 2006, the Greens won 4.5 percent of the national vote; in 2008, that total increased to 6.8 percent, a gain of 2.3 percentage points. This increase in support did not, however, translate into any seats in the House of Commons for the party.

In the 2008 vote, national support for the Conservative Party remained largely the same. In 2006, the Party received 36.27 percent of the national popular vote; in 2008, it received 37.63 percent ― an increase of 1.36 percentage points. This marginal increase, coupled with declines in Liberal Party support (see below), did result in significant increases in the party’s total seat count, as it won 19 more seats than in 2006.

Support for the New Democratic Party also remained almost the same. The party received 17.48 percent of the national popular vote in 2006. In the 2008 election, it increased its percent of the vote to 18.2 ― a gain of 0.72 percentage points. As with the Conservative Party, this small increase resulted in a significant gain in seat totals for the party; in 2008, the NDP won eight additional seats.

The Bloc Québécois incurred only a slight drop in its support. In 2006, the Bloc won 10.48 percent of the popular vote (all from the province of Quebec). In 2008 that support dropped by half a percentage point, to 9.97 percent of the vote. This, in turn, resulted in almost the same number of seats from the prevision election (51 in 2006 and 50 in 2008).

The Liberal Party experienced the largest decrease in support of all the political parties. In 2006, the Party won 30.23 percent of the national vote, while in 2008 that total fell to 26.24 percent. This represented a decline of 3.99 percentage points. Moreover, this drop resulted in a large decline in seat totals for the party, as it won 27 fewer seats than in 2006.

2008 Election Results (National Popular Support by Party)

Party	2008 Election	2006 Election	Vote Change
Conservative Party	37.63%	36.27%	+ 1.36%
Liberal Party	26.24%	30.23%	- 3.99%
Bloc Québécois	9.97%	10.48%	- 0.51%
New Democratic Party	18.20%	17.48%	+ 0.72%
Green Party	06.80%	04.50%	+ 2.3%

Key Factors in the 2008 Federal Election

The Economy

One of the most important factors in the 2008 election was the economy ― in particular, the highly publicized weakening of the international finance industry and the sharp drop in the stock market that coincided with the election period. While the economy was already a key concern for Canadians prior to the election, these specific events brought the parties’ economic policies even more to the forefront of the election debate.

The Conservative Party attempted to calm fears by suggesting that Canada’s economic fundamentals were strong and that the federal government’s best approach was to lower taxes and exercise fiscal restraint. The Conservatives also attempted to undercut support for the other parties by arguing they would damage the economy further by raising taxes. The other parties, by contrast, attacked the Conservatives for failing to have a real plan of action for addressing the new economic conditions. They also argued that this “do-nothing” approach indicated weak leadership and a failure to understand the gravity of the economic situation faced by Canadian families.

The drop in Liberal support may have been due in part to a concern over that party’s proposed environmental policy (known as the Green Shift) and its impact on the economy. On the other hand, the Conservatives failed to gain a majority, even though the economy was supposedly an area of strength. In the end, while the economy was a central focus of the election, the issue may not have been a singularly decisive factor for any of the political parties as Canadians cast their ballots.

Quebec and Newfoundland

Another key factor was the failure of the Conservative Party to gain any kind of traction in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador. This failure is very important, considering how close the Conservatives came to forming a majority government. In fact, following the 2008 election, Gilles Duceppe (leader of the Bloc Québécois) characterized his campaign as a success insofar as the Bloc was able to deny the Conservatives a majority government.

In Quebec, the Conservatives won 10 seats, the same as they won in 2006. More importantly, the party saw its share of the vote in Quebec drop from 24.6 percent in 2006 to 21.7 percent. The Conservatives had anticipated making large gains in Quebec due, in part, to long-term trends which had the Conservatives increase their popular support in that province over several elections. The Conservative government, helmed by Stephen Harper, had also attempted to make their party more attractive to Quebec voters. In 2006, the Harper government passed legislation recognizing Quebec as a “nation within a united Canada.” The Harper government had also attempted to meet financial demands from Quebec (as well as the other provinces) by addressing the perceived federal-provincial fiscal imbalance. Nevertheless, two key events derailed the Conservatives efforts to secure greater support in Quebec in 2008: there was a backlash over Conservative handling of arts and culture policy, in which the Party became perceived as under-appreciating the arts and cultural sectors; and the party gained an image as being overly socially conservative, with changes it had proposed to dealing with young offenders.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Conservatives lost all three seats they had won in 2006; they also saw their portion of the vote in that province drop from 42.7 percent to 16.5 percent. The Conservatives’ weakness in Newfoundland and Labrador stems from its cancelling of the Atlantic Accord (to which the previous federal Liberal government had committed), and dealt with equalization payments to the province. In 2006, the new Harper Conservative federal government unilaterally cancelled this Accord, resulting in a provincial backlash. The Conservative government later back-tracked from its original decision and negotiated a second deal with the provincial government, however voter disdain for the Conservatives did not subside. In the 2008 campaign, voters were reminded of all this by Danny Williams, the popular premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who actively campaigned against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives during the election with his “ABC” campaign (Anybody But the Conservatives).

Televised Leader Debates

Traditionally, the televised leader debates have minimal impact on the outcome of federal elections. The 2008 debates were projected to continue this trend, especially considering the English debate was to be held at the same time as the debate of the vice-presidential candidates in the US. Surprisingly, however, the debates had a much larger impact on the 2008 election than in previous years.

In the 2008 campaign, the debate ‘stakes’ were raised significantly, at the campaign’s outset, over the issue of whether or not Green Party leader Elizabeth May should participate. Previously, only the leaders of political parties with representation in the House of Commons had been allowed to participate in the debates. Even though the Green Party had one member in the House prior to the election call, the media consortium (which organizes the debates) had excluded the Greens. In addition, both Stephen Harper (Conservative Party leader) and Jack Layton (New Democratic Party leader) expressed the view that May should not be allowed to participate in the debate. Following public outcry over the exclusion, the broadcasting consortium reversed its decision, allowing May to participate in the debates.

While the debates did not decisively change the dynamics of the election, they did serve to have a significant impact on the campaign. Prior to both the French and English debates, the Conservatives enjoyed a large lead over the other parties in public opinion polls; at that time, the general consensus of pollsters was that the Conservative Party could win a majority government. By contrast, in the pre-debate period, the Liberals were mired at historically low levels of public support, at times near only 20 percent of popular support. Following the debates, however, the gap closed noticeably; support for the Conservatives began softening, while the Liberals enjoyed a slight boost. This may have been due to perceived weak performance by Conservative leader Stephen Harper during the debates and relatively strong performances by Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, NDP Party leader Jack Layton, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May (particularly, in the French debates). Also important to note is the increase in support for the Green Party. This may have been due, in part, to May’s participation in the debates, and the resulting national exposure.

The debates alone did not cause this shift in public support. Economic events, such as the collapse of major international financial institutions and weakening world stock markets, also coincided with the closing of the gap between the parties in the public opinion polls. Moreover, the Conservatives were already under public attack in Quebec over the party’s positions on the cultural arts and youth offenders. The debates, however, may have reinforced trends in voting behavior that were already ‘in play.’

Non-Factors in the 2008 Federal Election

The Environment

The environment was billed as a key issue in the 2008 election. Public opinion polls conducted prior to the election had suggested the electorate’s concern about the environment had increased significantly since the previous election in 2006. This coincided with greater public awareness about key environmental issues, such as global warming, and the rise of green politics at the federal level. The Green Party had emerged as a mainstream political party in Canadian politics, while the Liberal Party had chosen to make the environment a central plank of its election platform.

Nevertheless, it’s not clear that concern over the environment played a significant role in voting behaviour, at least not in a direct manner. The economy, instead, dominated political discourse during the election, with strong environment policy being portrayed as being in conflict with pressing economic realities. In this sense, the Conservatives may have been successful in suggesting to voters that the stronger environmental policies of their opponents, such as the Liberal Party’s Green Shift, would be detrimental to Canada’s economic stability and recovery. Further contributing to this was the inability of the Liberals to explain their Green Shift in an effective manner, so as to counter Conservative portrayals of this policy.

Military Mission in Afghanistan

Another significant non-factor in the 2008 election was the military mission in Afghanistan. Public opinion polls prior to the election had suggested that a strong majority of Canadians disapproved of Canada’s military actions in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report during the election in which he was critical of the government for misreporting the total cost of the military mission. Nevertheless, the Afghanistan mission was not a dominant issue in the election discourse ― nor was it likely a decisive issue in voter behaviour.

This may have been due to a number of factors. First, the Conservatives and Liberals both supported military action in Afghanistan, as well as the timeline for ending the mission. This partisan agreement effectively took the Afghanistan mission off the election table for both parties. Second, the fact that formal timeline for withdrawal exists may have reduced the significance of Afghanistan for Canadian voters. At the time of the election, the Conservative government had committed to withdrawing troops by 2011. The Afghanistan mission may have had a higher election profile if the government had left the timeline open, without a firm exit date.

Traditional Policy Issues

It is worth noting that several policy issues, which tend to be at the forefront of Canadian federal politics, did not play a significant role in this election. The first of these issues was health care. Traditionally, health care is a central plank of the parties’ election platforms, with each party highlighting how it would address deficiencies in the system (such as waiting times) and advocating reforms, be it through stronger public support of the system or greater participation by the private sector. The 2008 election discourse, however, rarely focused on the issue of health care.

Another traditional issue that was absent from the 2008 election campaign was Quebec separatism. Even in Quebec, where the Bloc Québécois tends to focus voting patterns on the Quebec separatism, the issue had very little traction. Election dynamics in Quebec, instead, seemed to be influenced by Conservative policies on the arts and young offenders. The Bloc Québécois intentionally based its campaign on these issues. Interestingly enough, its success in the 2008 election was more about the party’s ability to capitalize on anti-Conservative sentiments rather than any public support for Quebec separatism ― the party’s raison d’être.

Beyond the 2008 Federal Election

Continued Minority Government

The most direct impact of the 2008 election result is continuing minority government at the federal level. This is the third minority government elected by Canadians since 2004, marking one of the longest periods of minority government in post-Confederation history.

Duration of Minority Governments (1867-2008)

Political Party	Prime Minster	Term	Duration
Liberal	William Mackenzie King	1922-1925	1,277 days
Conservative	Stephen Harper	2006-2008	888 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1966-1968	826 days
Liberal	Lester Person	1963-1965	846 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1973-1974	490 days
Liberal	Paul Martin	2004-2005	421 days
Conservative	Arthur Meighen	1926-1926	176 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1962-1963	132 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1957-1958	110 days
Progressive Conservative	Joe Clark	1979-1979	66 days

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

As the Conservatives do not enjoy a clear majority in the House of Commons, they will need to rely on the other parties to pass government legislation. This may result in greater cooperation between the Conservatives and at least one other party, either in an ongoing basis or a case-by-case basis. Following the election, Conservative Party leader, and prime minister, Stephen Harper indicated a willingness to work with the other parties. Considering the large ideological differences that separate the Conservatives from the other political parties, however, it’s not clear how such a relationship might work.

One advantage for the Conservative government will be a weakened Liberal Party (see below for more). With the Liberals looking inward at their leadership and policy direction, they may not be inclined to challenge the Conservatives in the immediate future, or to consider forcing another election anytime soon. This may, in turn, allow the Conservative government to push forward with its own agenda without great concern over losing the confidence of the House.

Growing Conservative Strength in Ontario

One of the more important results of the 2008 election was the growth of Conservative support in the province of Ontario, once a fortress of Liberal power and electoral support. Since the 2000 election the conservative support in Ontario has steadily grown, translating into a greater number of seats and share of the popular vote share. By contrast, the Liberals have seen their electoral fortunes steadily decline. The 2008 election is a significant milestone, in that it saw the Conservatives take top spot ― as the preferred federal political party of choice in Ontario ― for the first time in several decades.

Liberal Party Support vs. Conservative Party Support in Ontario (2000-2008)

General Election	Liberal Party		Conservative Party
General Election	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote
2000*	100	51.5	02	25.8
2004	75	44.7	24	31.5
2006	54	39.9	40	35.1
2008	38	33.9	51	39.2

*2000 figures for the conservatives based on the combined numbers of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, which subsequently merged into the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is unclear, however, what this trend means for the long term. On the one hand, it may suggest a changing of the guard, in terms of the preferred political party in Ontario, away from the Liberals and towards the Conservatives. Considering the historic influence of Ontario on the overall results of Canadian federal elections, this may further suggest the entrenchment of the Conservative Party as the new party of government in Canada, at least for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, it’s not clear that Conservative support in Ontario is stable. As the 2008 campaign clearly demonstrated, Conservative support outside Western Canada is vulnerable to sharp declines over relatively minor issues ― as evidenced by the party’s poor showing in Quebec. There, Conservative support at the beginning of the election bled away not only to the Bloc Québécois, but also to the Liberals. If Conservative support in Ontario is similarly soft, the Liberal Party may be able to recapture some of its past support under different leadership and/or with a different policy focus and platform.

Continued Liberal Weakness in Western Canada

In Western Canada, political observers have long recognized the weakness of the Liberal Party, which has been systemic since the days of the Trudeau Liberals in the 1980s. Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, the Liberal Party was largely able to rely on its massive support in central Canada to form governments.

Liberal Support in Western Canada (2000-2008)

General Election	British Columbia		Alberta		Saskatchewan		Manitoba
General Election	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote
2000	5	27.7	2	20.9	2	20.7	5	32.5
2004	8	28.6	2	22.0	1	27.2	3	33.2
2006	9	27.6	0	15.3	2	22.4	3	26.0
2008	5	19.3	0	11.4	1	14.9	1	19.1

As the Liberal Party can no longer depend upon massive support in Ontario, it may have to look to growth in the west as a key element in the party’s revitalization. This, however, would be difficult; since 2000, the Liberal Party has steadily seen both its seat totals and percentage of the popular vote steadily decrease in the west (see above table). In 2000, for example, the party won 14 seats, with popular support in each of the western provinces above 20 percent. In 2008, the Liberals won only seven seats and fell below 20 percent in each province. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, support for the Liberal Party fell to lows of 11.4 and 14.9 percent respectively. It also bears noting that the Liberals have not elected a member of parliament from Alberta since 2004.

This all contrasts sharply with the extremely high numbers traditionally charted by the Conservative Party across the western provinces. Moreover, in the 2008 election, the Liberal Party trailed well behind the New Democratic Party as the second major contending party in each western province. A perfect example of this is British Columbia, where the Conservatives took over half the seats and almost half the popular vote, while the New Democratic Party was the second strongest party in the province.

Party Support in British Columbia (2008 General Election)

Party	Seats	% of Vote
Conservative Party of Canada	22	44.4
New Democratic Party of Canada	09	26.1
Liberal Party of Canada	05	19.3
Green Party of Canada	00	09.4

Growing New Democratic Party Electoral Success

While the New Democratic Party remained the fourth party in terms of seat totals, it nevertheless scored an important victory in the 2008 election. The Party significantly increased its overall seat count, winning its largest number of seats in the House of Commons since 1988. Since the 2000 election, the NDP has steadily increased both its seats in the House and its portion of the national vote.

New Democratic Party Support (2000-2008)

General Election	Seats	% of Vote
2000	13	8.5
2004	19	15.7
2006	29	17.5
2008	37	18.2

During the election, the New Democrats adopted the strategy of presenting themselves and their leader, Jack Layton, as a legitimate government alternative. This is in contrast with previous tactics adopted by the party, where New Democrats portrayed themselves as simply a social democratic voice in Parliament. It’s important to note that in the 2008 campaign the Party was able to increase its seat count even with strong growth by the Green Party of Canada ― support which likely came at the cost of traditional NDP votes.

It is, however, unclear what this trend may suggest for the long-term. While the New Democrats almost doubled their seats between 2004 and 2008 (from 19 to 37 seats), their portion of the national vote has only increased marginally during the same period (from 15.7 to 18.2 percent). This may suggest the Party has a ceiling in its electoral support and that current electoral gains have been based on dissatisfaction with the Liberal Party in its current form rather than stable, committed support for the NDP. Nevertheless, the 2008 election results are very important, considering that in 2000 the Party was on the verge of becoming an irrelevant force in national politics.

Declining Voter Turnout

Another important result of the 2008 election was the extremely low voter turnout. In the 2008 election, only 59.1 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot ― the lowest voter turnout for a federal election in Canadian history. Overall, voter turnout for federal elections in Canada has steadily declined since the late 1980s.

Voter Turnout for Federal Elections (1988-2008)

Year	1988	1993	1997	2000	2004	2006	2008
Voter Turnout	75.3%	69.6%	67.0%	61.2%	60.5%	64.7%	59.1%

This long-term, declining rate of democratic participation has been attributed to a number of factors, including a lack of interest in the electoral process, dissatisfaction with the candidates/political parties, and a lack of confidence that one’s vote mattered.

For more information on voter turnout:

Mapleleafweb: Voter Turnout in Canada

More Interesting Campaign Signs in Montreal

Melanee Thomas — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:17:53 -0600

I've noted earlier in the campaign how different and interesting campaign signs are in Quebec. A few more have gone up in the neighborhood that warrant mention.
My local Green candidate *finally* got signs up for the last week of the campaign. They are very pretty, featuring the Green candidate in a nice park (probably Parc LaFontaine, being in the riding and all). What makes it interesting is that there's a tag line on the sign referring to personal environmental sovereignty. The Green candidate ties support for Quebec sovereignty with environmental support.
New signs are up for the NDP, calling people who are/to be progressive first (in French, of course) and vote for the local NDP candidate. They are effectively placed immediately beneath the original campaign signs, and I've only seen on them on the pedestrian part of Prince Arthur. This is important: the placement indicates that the NDP is deliberately placing the signs where foot traffic truly dominates: people will see the signs and have time to read them.
By contrast, the Green signs are in parts of the riding where car traffic is the norm, and I'm not sure many will be able to read the sovereignty tag line.

Will the NDP wake up and respond to the threat the Greens pose?

Harold Jansen — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:15:41 -0600

It's been interesting listening to the post-debate analyses. One theme keeps coming up and that is that Elizabeth May impressed a lot of people. As Andrew Coyne pointed out in the CBC's post-debate "At Issue" panel, the debate cemented the Greens' place on the national stage. Talking to people around here, I'm surprised to hear the chord that the Greens seem to be striking with a lot of people. Some of this is a "none of the above" vote; the Greens have never been in power anywhere and are fresh and new, so people see this as a way of registering dissatisfaction. Other people find their policies refreshing: it's pro-environmental and socially progressive without without the baggage of the traditional NDP.
Thinking back to the debates, I've been struck with how little the other leaders engaged her. There was the odd "Elizabeth is right" as a preface to a statement, but generally they didn't argue with her or challenge the Greens. Right now the polls have the Greens at around 10%. These are votes that could be going to the Liberals and especially to the NDP. Since this level of unconcentrated support means the GPC will likely not elect anyone, these votes are essentially lost. I'm very surprised we haven't seen Jack Layton or Stephane Dion not explicitly calling for people not to waste their votes by voting Green. Dion's alliance with May probably rules that our for the Liberals, but Jack Layton is not bound by any such arrangement. It seems the NDP's response to the Greens (besides disdain) has been to ignore them in the hope that they will just fade away.
Given that the party was a non-entity in 2000, its growth has been explosive. Even if the party doesn't win a seat, it will be difficult to exclude its leader from the next leaders' debate. Going into this election, there was some speculation about the NDP supplanting the Liberals on the left. It's possible that when we look back at 2008, the story might be that the Greens took a big step towards supplanting the NDP.

2008 Election Campaign Political Party Platforms

Jay Makarenko — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:24:31 -0600

Find a summary of the major political parties’ election platforms and key election promises for the 2008 federal election in Canada. Links to the official party platforms for the Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Canada, and the Green Party of Canada are also available.

Conservative Party of Canada Platform

The Conservative Party’s 2008 election platform was released in a policy document titled The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper’s Plan for Canadians. The Party’s website also list eight key policy priorities on its website: sovereignty, leadership, the environment, health care, lower taxes, child care, tackling crime, and accountability. The website also provides a backgrounder on the Conservative government’s February 2008 budget, which is titled Responsible Leadership for Uncertain Times. The following provides highlights of these various policy documents.

Economy: Central to the Conservative economic strategy is tax reduction. This includes previously announced tax reductions, such as the lowering of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from seven to five percent, as was as reducing personal income and corporate taxes for individuals and businesses. New proposals include lowering taxes on diesel and aviation fuel by half and further reductions in corporate taxes for small and medium-sized business. Other economic policies include reducing the regulatory burden for small businesses and northern development; a new $75 million venture capital fund to help businesses commercialize new technology developments; a $900 million Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative and a $250 million Automotive Innovation Fund to support these industrial sectors; a $1 billion Community Development Trust to support communities and workers in struggling industries; a commitment to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers by 2010; pursuing new trade agreements with emerging markets; as well as a reorganization of federal regional development strategies.

Environment: The Conservatives have committed to reducing Canada’s greenhouse gases by 20 percent below 2006 levels by 2020, and cutting air pollution by 50 percent by 2015. There targets will be achieved through government laws imposed on industries, as well as national caps for industrial emissions commonly associated with smog and acid rain. Other environmental policies include promoting smarter energy use through the ecoEnergy Initiative; a Chemical Management Plan to regulate chemicals harmful to human health and the environment; $1.5 billion over seven years for the production of renewable fuels; a commitment to ensure that 90 percent of Canadian electricity needs are generated through non-emitting sources by 2020; and additional government funding to acquire and preserve ecologically sensitive lands.

Health care: The Conservative Party remains committed to Canada’s system of public health care. Specific policies proposed or introduced by the Conservatives include Patient Wait Time Guarantee agreements with the provinces and territories; continued implementation of the 10-year $41.3 billion Plan to Strengthen Health Care (the plan was introduced by the previous Liberal government in 2004); establishing the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer to implement a national cancer strategy; increased funding for new training of doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals; increased investment in the Canada Health Infoway to develop electronic health records.

Social Justice: Conservative policies for social justice include a combination of targeted tax reductions, new spending programs, and new justice-related legislation. Specific policies include a Canada Employment Credit and Tax Fairness Plan to reduce taxes for working families and seniors; tax credits for public transit, kid’s sports, textbooks, tools, and apprentices; increased support to the provinces and territories to create new child care spaces; increasing the Senior Age Credit amount by an additional $1,000; and allowing income splitting for caregivers of family members with disabilities. Also social policies include introducing stiffer punishments for serious crimes, including changes to Canada’s youth offender laws and ending house arrest for some crimes; increased spending for police and security services to reduce crime.

Liberal Party of Canada Platform

The Liberal Party has outlined its 2008 election platform in a policy document entitled Richer, Fairer, Greener: An Action Plan for the 21st Century. Core planks of the platform include the economy, the environment, social justice, and foreign policy. Highlights of the document include:

Economy: A key component of the Liberal Party’s economic policies is the encouragement of a green economy through the development of environmentally-friendly industries and jobs. The Liberals are also committed to reducing income and corporate tax rates and balanced federal budgets as means of spurring economic growth. The Liberals have also targeted infrastructure and education as critical to continued economic prosperity. Specific policies include a 10-year $70 billion plan to invest directly in Canada’s infrastructure; increased support for university-based research; simplifying tax support for students; and reforms to student loan initiatives. The Liberals have also promised to create a $1 billion Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund to assist manufacturing industries and workers facing economic difficulties.

For more information on the Liberal Party’s economic policies:

Liberal Party of Canada: Jobs Today, Jobs Tomorrow: A Liberal Plan for a More Prosperous Canada (PDF)

Environment: The Liberals have adopted the Green Shift as the core of their environmental policies. Central to the Green Shift is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent by 2035, and 60 to 80 percent by 2050. These goals will be achieved through a progressive carbon tax system, which place levies on carbon emissions. The Liberals are also committed to creating a national carbon trading system, enabling companies to trade emission credits in order to meet targets. Other Liberal environmental policies include a Renewable Power Production Incentive to encourage the development and use of non-carbon-emitting energy sources; providing incentives to Canadians for green home renovations; stiffer fuel efficiency standards for automobiles; the introduction of higher water and air quality standards to reduce pollution; a Toxic Substance Reduction Strategy to safe food products; and the development of a National Ecosystem Stewardship Strategy to protect Canadian wilderness, oceans, and endangered species.

For more information on the Liberal Party’s environmental policies:

Liberal Party of Canada: A Greener Canada (PDF)

Health Care: The Liberal Party has promised to maintain and improve Canada’s public health care system. Specific policies include a Doctors and Nurses Fund to increase training capacity for new health care professionals; working with Aboriginal communities to close the gap in the health status of Aboriginal peoples; and the introduction of a drug plan to ensure Canadians have access to catastrophic drug coverage.

Social Justice: The Liberal Party is committed to a fairer Canada. Specific policies include the 30-50 Plan to Fight Poverty, which is committed to reducing the number of people living below the poverty line by 30 percent and the number of children by 50 percent; an Affordable Housing Plan; pursing the long-term goal of a national high-quality, universal, community-based, early education and child care system; increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement by $600 per year for low-income seniors; and creating a new relationship with Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis peoples, including re-instating the Kelowna Accord.

For more information on the Liberal Party’s social justice policies:

Liberal Party of Canada: A Fairer Canada (PDF)

New Democratic Party of Canada Platform

The New Democratic Party has released a document outlining is 2008 election platform. The document focuses on three key policy areas: the economy, health care renewal, and the environment. Highlights of the NDP’s election platform include:

Economy: The NDP promises to promote Canadian jobs and make life more affordable for Canadian families. Specific policies include encouraging job creation and innovation in the new energy economy; improving the fairness of employment standards (including re-establishing the National Minimum Wage; reversing “tax giveaways” to corporations; introducing and maintaining balanced budgets; protecting Canadians from “price gouging” by businesses; implementing income stabilization programs for farmers; promoting long-term economic and environmental sustainability of marine and forestry resources; and re-investing in education, skills training and apprenticeships to help Canadians succeed in the economy.

For more information on the NDP’s economic policies:

New Democratic Party of Canada: Making Life More Affordable for Families – Creating Jobs

Health Care: Central to the NDP’s renewal strategy for health care is a commitment to maintaining and improving the public health care system. Particular policies include training and hiring more doctors and nurses; improving home care; establishing a national prescription drug program; and promoting good health through physical fitness and amateur sport programs.

For more information on the NDP’s health care policies:

New Democratic Party of Canada: Hiring More Doctors and Nurses and Renewing Health Care

Environment: The NDP promises to cut Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This will be accomplished through a combination of a “cap and trade” carbon pricing system, mandatory vehicle emission standards, and investing in renewable energy production and consumption. The NDP has also pledged to protect Canada’s water resources by placing some restrictions on the export of bulk water, encouraging more efficient water consumption, and improving water quality through stronger regulations. The NDP has further pledged to: complete the National Parks System; ensure the integrity of parks and protected areas is not compromised by industrial activity or inappropriate development; improve endangered species protection; and establish an Environment Commissioner as an independent Officer of Parliament to provide oversight on the government’s environmental performance.

For more information on the NDP’s environmental policies:

New Democratic Party of Canada: A Plan for the Environment that Will Really Work

Social justice: The NDP promises to: establish and fund a national child care and early learning program; end poverty in Canada by 2020; reform the Employment Insurance system to ensure fairness; implement a comprehensive and fully-funded affordable housing strategy; invest $5 billion over five years for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples to improve health services, housing, water services, and local infrastructure; and improve fairness for women in the workplace through initiatives such as strengthening pay equity provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

For more information on the NDP’s social justice policies:

Bloc Québécois Platform

The Bloc Québécois have released their 2008 election platform in a series of French-only documents. For more information on the Bloc Québécois’ election platform and promises:

Bloc Québécois: Enjeux

Green Party of Canada Platform

The Green party released its 2008 election platform in a document entitled Looking Forward: A Fresh Perspective on Canada’s Future. Highlights of the Green Party’s election platform include:

Economy: The Green Party promises to create “healthy” businesses. This includes ensuring Canadian businesses are strong, as well as working to promote the development of new green industries. Specific measures include renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); assisting small business through Green Venture Capital Funds and tax shifting; encouraging the production and consumption of Canadian agricultural products; protecting fish stocks and promoting sustainable aquaculture; and working with the forestry industry to protect jobs and develop value-added products.

For more information on the Green Party’s economic policies:

Green Party of Canada: Economy

Environment: A central policy priority of the Green Party is the environment. In this context, the party is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050; introducing a carbon tax (to be offset by cuts in personal and corporate taxes); expanding research and development of low-carbon technologies; improving energy productivity through smarter regulation of large appliances and vehicles, as well as a national program to retrofit existing buildings; and participating constructively in global negotiations concerning environmental issues.

For more information on the Green Party’s environmental policies:

Green Party of Canada: Environment

Taxation: As far as government taxation, the Green Party promises to: introduce a $50 per tonne carbon tax while simultaneously reducing personal and corporate taxes; provide tax breaks to corporations that reduce their carbon emissions; return the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to six percent and to invest the additional government revenue into infrastructure; and eliminate income taxes for those earning less than $20,000.

Health care: The Green Party is committed to protecting Canada’s universal, single-payer public health care system. In addition, the party has pledged other key health-related initiatives, such as limiting the commercialization of genetically modified crops; developing national goals for pre-natal care; reducing cigarette smoking through education and taxes; and promoting healthy eating and physical activity.

For more information on the Green Party’s health care policies:

Green Party of Canada: Health Care

Social justice: The Green Party is committed to making Canada a more equitable society. Key policies include introducing a Guaranteed Annual Income; ensuring universal access to quality childcare and early childhood education; cutting debt for post-secondary students; honouring the Kelowna Accord with Aboriginals; expanding the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual Canadians; and easing the income support levels required for immigrant family sponsorship.

Income Splitting from the Greens?

Harold Jansen — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0600

Green leader Elizabeth May unveiled her party's platform yesterday and besides the expected range of environmental policies, there is a promise to bring in income-splitting. For those happy people who don't follow the nuances of tax policy, income-splitting would allow families to pool their income and report it jointly for tax purposes. If a person makes more than her spouse, she could transfer that money over to him, where it would be taxed at a lower rate. This would mean significant tax savings, expecially for families where one person does not earn any income.
That this is now on the table for debate is not a surprise; what's a bit odd is that it is not the Conservatives who are proposing it, but the Green party. This would seem to be more in keeping with conservative ideas in that it seems to support a more traditional family unit, where one parent stays home (such as in the "beer and popcorn" money that parents received as a result of the party's 2006 election promise). The Conservatives have already introduced this in a limited form for seniors, a policy which was brought in to mollify them after the decision to tax income trusts. It constitutes one of those great Big Ideas that appeals to middle and upper middle class families that are one of the bedrocks of Conservative support.
So why aren't the Conservatives behind it? Well, it would be a huge hit to the federal treasury. And the Conservatives have already eaten into a lot of federal revenue by their cuts to the GST. In fact, the way the Green party is proposing to pay for this is through a carbon tax (anathema to this government) and by bringing the GST back to 6% from 5%. Or, flipped around, a carbon tax and a GST increase allows the Greens to do this. But, whichever way you see it, without tax increases elsewhere, it just isn't going to happen. Because of past fiscal decisions, the Conservatives don't have room to do this.
It puts the Green party in an interesting position: this is a party that sees itself as socially progressive, but it's now espousing something that would be seen as small-c conservative by many analysts. This will confirm the suspicions of NDPers who are suspicious of the Greens' progressive credentials, but it will buttress the arguments of Green supporters who argue that their party is something different, something that transcends older left-right debates. In any case, it brings an important policy debate to the table.

2008 Canadian Election Issues and Events

Jay Makarenko — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:58:11 -0600

Find out more on key issue areas and events in the 2008 federal election, including the minority/majority government question, the economy, leadership, the environment, and Canada in Afghanistan.

Minority or Majority Government?

One of the central questions of the 2008 election is whether Canadians will return a minority or majority government to power. Since 2004, Canada has elected two successive minority governments: first, a minority Liberal government, helmed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then the Conservative minority government helmed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that fell when the Prime Minister asked Canada’s Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, to dissolve the last Parliament and Canada’s 40th federal election got underway. The Conservative minority has been the second longest in Canadian history, lasting 888 days (2 years, 5 months, 4 days). The longest was the 1922-25 Liberal minority government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, which lasted 1,277 days (3 years, 5 months, 28 days).

Duration of Minority Governments (1867-2008)

Political Party	Prime Minster	Term	Duration
Liberal	William Mackenzie King	1922-1925	1277 days
Conservative	Stephen Harper	2006-2008	888 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1966-1968	826 days
Liberal	Lester Person	1963-1965	846 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1973-1974	490 days
Liberal	Paul Martin	2004-2005	421 days
Conservative	Arthur Meighen	1926-1926	176 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1962-1963	132 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1957-1958	110 days
Progressive Conservative	Joe Clark	1979-1979	66 days

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

Public opinion polling during the summer of 2008 placed the Conservatives and Liberals in a virtual dead heat, leading most to speculate at the time that if an election were held there would be a third minority government. Polls taken during the first week of the election campaign, however, have suggested a widening lead for the Conservatives and the possibility of a majority government ― a goals that has forever seemed beyond the party’s grasp since it took power in early 2006. Much, however, will depend how well the two parties campaign during the election, and how that public support takes root in the 308 local campaigns across the country.

Whether a minority or majority government is elected will have important implications for Canada. As a minority government for the past three years, the Conservatives could not govern with complete independence for fear of losing a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons. If, however, the Party is able to gain majority government status, then it will enjoy a great deal more freedom in pursuing its policies and programs.

For more information on minority governments:
Mapleleafweb: Minority Governments in Canada

The Canadian Economy

One of the issues at centre stage in Canada’s 2008 election campaign is the economy. Canada had enjoyed strong economic growth throughout the late 1990s and into the early years of the new millennium. Beginning in 2007, however, the country’s economic performance began to slow, due in large part to a struggling US economy. The subsequent impact, from a Canadian lens, has been particularly evident in Ontario and Quebec, the manufacturing hub of the Canadian economy, as the economies of both provinces are closely tied to the financial well-being of the US.

In this context, early public opinion polling has shown that Canadian voters view the economy as the highest-priority issue in the 2008 election. In a September 2008 poll released by the Strategic Counsel, 20 percent of Canadians regarded the economy as the most important issue, up from only seven percent in the 2006 election. By contrast, health care, which was the number one issue in that election, dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent.

For more information on the Strategic Counsel poll:

Strategic Counsel: 2008 Federal Pre-Election: What are the Perceptions of Canadians on the Eve of the October Election? (PDF)

All of this suggests that it is the political parties which demonstrate the best ability to handle economic issues that will stand the best chance of electoral success. As the 2008 campaign continues to unfold, the political parties and their leaders will continue to place an emphasis on their economic policies and credentials, while, at the same time, working to downplay and discredit the plans of their opponents.

For more information on the major parties economy policies:

Political Party Leadership

Another core issue of the 2008 election campaign is political leadership or, more specifically, public confidence in the abilities of the party leaders to govern the country. While political leadership is typically an important aspect of any Canadian election, it has taken an even more pronounced place in the 2008 election. This is due, in large part, to public opinion polls and the resulting election strategies of the two political parties in particular ― the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Polls have suggested that Canadians have stronger confidence in Conservative leader Stephen Harper than Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. (In some cases, polls have shown the electorate has more confidence in New Democratic Party leader, Jack Layton, than Dion.) As such, the Conservatives have attempted to make the election, at least in part, about who would make the best prime minister. The Conservatives have tried to undercut Dion’s image by portraying him as a “weak” or “risky” leader, unfit to lead the country. Moreover, they’ve attempted to strengthen the image of their leader, Stephen Harper, by presenting him as an experienced and level-headed prime minister. Early in the election, the Conservatives have also tried to soften their leader’s image by showing him in a more casual and personable light.

The Liberals must deal with the leadership issue by taking a completely different approach. One of the major obstacles they must overcome is the seemingly negative perception the public has of Stéphane Dion; they’re attempting to do this by asserting him as a decisive and strong political leader, and by showcasing him as an “average citizen,” rather than a politician who has been regarded as a somewhat-distant intellectual. The Liberals have also attempted to counter the image of Prime Minister Stephen Harper put forth by the Conservative Party, instead portraying him as a controlling and secretive leader with a hidden agenda, and attacking his judgment by tying him to past Conservative scandals, such as the Cadman affair, alleged spending misconduct in the last election, and the conduct of Maxime Bernier, the former Conservative minister of foreign affairs.

The Environment

While the economy may be the most important policy issue in the election, the environment will also be critical. Public opinion polling has shown that the electorate’s concerns about the environment have increased significantly since the 2006 election. The Strategic Counsel poll referenced earlier, for example, found that 15 percent of voters ranked the environment as the most important issue, up from three percent in the last election.

This rise of the environment as an election issue is due to a number factors, including greater public interest in environmental issues (such as global warming) and the appearance of green politics at the federal level. The Green Party, which is grounded in pro-environment policies, has grown into an established political party in Canada. At the same time the Liberal Party, and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, have made environmentalism a major component of their election platform through a policy initiative known as the Green Shift ― an initiative that was the source of considerable discussion and debate in the lead-up to the election.

As with the economy, it is the political parties that gain public confidence in this issue area which stand to enjoy a better chance of electoral success. It’s important to note, however, the tension between these two issues. For many Canadians, pro-environment policies are viewed as being “bad” for the economy. (Whether this is truly the case is open for debate.) As such, those parties stressing the economy first and foremost will attempt to maintain the perception that stronger environmental policies will place the livelihood of Canadians at risk. On the other hand, those parties stressing the environment will attempt to overcome this image, arguing that changes to Canada’s environmental policy are not only paramount, but economically feasible.

For more information on the major parties environmental policies:

Canada in Afghanistan

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan has traditionally been a high-profile issue in Canadian politics. Moreover, a September 2008 article by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported that the number of Canadians who disapprove of the Afghanistan mission was at its highest point since 2002. Overall, 56 percent of those polled disapproving of the mission (34 percent “strongly disapproved,” while 22 percent “somewhat disapproved”).

The Afghanistan mission, however, has not registered as a major issue in the 2008 election. This may be due to a number of factors, such as general agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberals on the nature and duration of the mission, reluctance on the part of the public to “politicize” the issue out of respect for the soldiers, or the public perception that the mission is “far away” and “distant” from their everyday lives.

Nevertheless, the issue of Afghanistan has the potential to severely impact the election campaign. This would likely be the case if Canada experienced high casualties or a major military defeat while the election campaign is in play. The Afghanistan issue may also receive heightened attention if either the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois choose to make this issues a central part of their election campaigns, as neither party supported the extension of the mission.

The 2008 US Presidential Election

Many have commented that the US presidential election may impact the Canadian federal election, particularly as Canadians often know just as much about American electoral events as their own. In this regard, public opinion polls have shown that Canadian support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his message of change is extremely high. As such, some have suggested that Canadians may support domestic political parties and leaders that resemble Obama’s image, while turning away from incumbent parties and leaders.

Such a trend is plausible, especially considering Canadian exposure to American media and knowledge of US electoral events. However, the Canadian polity differs significantly from the American tradition and it may be too much, or too simplistic, to assume that Canadian views or trends would simply mirror those in the US. In this context, it may not be the case that support for the Democrats would translate into support for the Liberals or the New Democrats, parties that share similar values and approaches. Similarly, generally unfavourable Canadian views of the Republican Party and US President, George W. Bush (Republican) may not necessarily impact support for the Conservative Party or Prime Minister Stephen Harper, parties/leaders that are also akin.

Predictive Stockmarkets Favouring Conservatives Over Liberals

Greg Farries — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:05:36 -0600

A quick glance at the two major predictive stock markets have Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada leading by a considerable amount. The 2008 UBC Election Stock Market and the Intrade Prediction Market both place a Conservative plurality (meaning, either a minority or majority) at 80% or greater.

May Excluded from Leaders' Debate

Harold Jansen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:41:34 -0600

The big news on day one of the campaign was that Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, would not be allowed to participate in the leaders' debates. It's easy to see why the other parties wouldn't want her to participate. The Conservatives are weak on environmental issues and they know it, so having a leader wel versed on those issues would only show up their weakness in that critical policy arena. The NDP didn't want her in because they're worried about bleeding votes that way. The only one who seemed willing to have her participate was Stephane Dion and the Liberals, who have developed an understanding with the Greens.
That said, I'm not sure it should have been as clear-cut as that for the other leaders. All eyes will be on Stephen Harper during the debate. The more other people that are on the stage, the more confused and diffuse the attack will be. Remember Jean Chretien during the 1997 and 2000 debates? He'd just sit back and listen with a smirk grin on his face. The Conservatives could have benefitted from having the others argue over who is the real opposition to them. As for the NDP, the Greens are a threat because they are fishing from the same pool of voters. Part of the Greens' mystique, however, is that people don't know much about their policies other than that they are pro-environment somehow. Having May in the debate would allow for a more detailed examination of their policies. Although getting to the debate would have been a huge coup for May, her exclusion can help to reinforce her image as being anti-establishment.
The larger question here, though, is why a consortium of broadcasters gets to determine the rules for inclusion and why the other party leaders get to choose who they debate with. This is a dangerous precedent. What next? Stephen Harper saying he won't come if the debate asks any questions on climate change? The reality is that the television debate is the central event of the campaign. Democracy is better served when there are many voices being heard. Over 660,000 people voted Green in 2006; if the polls are right, even more will do so this time. This was the wrong decision and one that doesn't serve the needs and interests of voters.