Elizabeth May

The mess in Ottawa is an opportunity for the Greens, but....

Harold Jansen — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:18:12 -0700

I think it's safe to say that none of Canada's four political parties in Canada are looking especially good right now: the partisan bickering and yelling, the political manouevering and scheming, the constitutional brinkmanship. There are lots of Conservatives upset with Stephen Harper, many Liberals disgusted with Stephane Dion, and even more Canadians just annoyed with everyone.

This is a potential gold mine for the Green Party. They're not there. In the next election, they have an opportunity to make the case for change. If this is the way these four parties behave, they can say, why not bring someone in who is a real break with the past? Unfortunately for the party, Elizabeth May has cuddled up with the coalition. It's a bit surprising, really. Although the coalition may advance some environmental policies the Green Party would like, the Greens as a party don't benefit from the coalition, so some distance might position the party better. Furthermore, as Canadian politics polarizes between the coalition and the Conservatives, the Greens could find themselves squeezed. And if there is any truth to the (as of now ubsubstantiated) rumours that Elizabeth May would accept a Senate post so that she can serve in the coalition cabinet, any reasonable claim to be a party of change would be lost.

The Greens often face a tension between achieving policy goals and advancing their goals as a party. It seems to me that Elizabeth May's instincts are to take the former over the latter. Her response to the coalition seems to be more evidence of this.

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

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.

English debate preview: pressure on Dion and Layton

Harold Jansen — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:36:15 -0600

Tonight is the big show: the English language debate at 9 Eastern/6 Pacific. The dynamics here are a little different than in French. The Conservatives are in a stronger position outside of Quebec, so Harper mainly has to stay out of trouble. I imagine we'll see the relaxed prime-ministerial sweater vest version of Stephen Harper again. All four leaders will be gunning for Harper again. I don't expect we'll see the NDP and Liberals squabble too much over who is the real opponent to Harper. The way the Conservatives are poised to break through in British Columbia means they both have to dump on Harper big time. Harper just has to weather the storm. It's pretty much impossible for an incumbent prime minister to "win" the debate; you win by not losing, which is about the best you can hope for.

Duceppe is pretty much irrelevant tonight, but he's a good debater, so he will likely mostly just irritate Harper. May is a bit of wild card. I thought she was surprisingly good in the French debate. She has nothing to lose really and I suspect she'll be pretty effective, but any gains are marginal in the election.

That leaves Dion and Layton as the leaders who have to perform well. Dion comes off of a decent performance in the French debate, but will obviously be hampered by the fact that English is his second language. He benefits from the fact that many people have written him off without actually listening to him speak. If people listen, they might be surprised to find out that he's actually a pretty bright guy. Layton also needs to do well. Right now, the NDP is in the annoying position of being up in the polls over last election, but not enough to translate into many seats. The debate could help Layton get over the bubble. In past debates, Layton has been a bit too over-eager and comes off a bit rehearsed as he launches into various set pieces; if he can resist those tendencies, he could do all right.

Any guess as to viewership? The Biden-Pallin debate will be tough competition. I know I'm going to have trouble resisting a peak over at American networks to see how it's going. At least I don't have to choose between the debate and The Office. That would be a tough one.

During the Leaders Debate, Will the Economy Bore all the Leaders but Harper?

Greg Farries — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:08:42 -0600

In the News: Recycling old policies, divisive issues and May opens flat

Tammy McCausland — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:25:01 -0600

Driving home from work, I listened to the 6:00 pm news on CBC radio. While the United States' imploding financial system dominated the news, I took note of coverage of the Canadian election campaign. First up: promises by the Liberals and NDP for new childcare spaces, 125,000 and 150,000, respectively. Hmmm... haven't we heard this issue before? I think it was a policy put forward and started by the Liberals a decade ago. Will either party really follow through if elected? I'm not convinced.

The second issue: PM Harper's efforts to get tough on crime with mandatory prison time for gun offences (I forget the exact wording). Legislation, he says was not supported by the Liberals and NDP. With gun-related crime an almost-daily occurrence in Toronto, this is an easy issue to earn votes because the issue of crime is divisive. The Prime Minister seems to be doing a good job of pointing out what the opposition parties haven't done, slyly deflecting on what he and his government have failed to do. I will give Harper kudos for his apology to Aboriginal Canadians over the residential school fiasco, for giving Mayar Arar a settlement for the travesty of his imprisonment and beating in Syria, and even for cutting the GST to 5% (it's always nice to pay less at the cash register). But what about his poor performance, for example, concerning the environment, his disregard of global warming and climate change as important issues?

Speaking of the environment, Elizabeth May unveiled the Green Party platform today in Nova Scotia. I plan to look at her party's platform in greater detail, to see how her plan differs from the Conservatives and the Liberals. Interesting point: she was heckled by someone during the press conference, which appeared to fluster her. She disregarded the man, stating that he didn't have media credentials. This is a prime opportunity for May to show Canadians what her party has to offer, to finally, perhaps, have elected representatives in Parliament. But if she can't stand being heckled by one man, I wonder how she can possibly handle herself during the political debates when she faces not one man but four? I believe she has a right to be part of the debate -- and I expect a lot.

Impressions from Week One

Royce Koop — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:44:04 -0600

First: Elizabeth May deserves congratulations for gaining entry to the leaders' debate. I'm not so sure that she should be so happy over this, however. Many people think that May has a good speaking style. This may be true in some contexts, but I'm not sure if she will perform well in a debate with four other party leaders. Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe all have significant experience in Parliament and the first three have already participated in televised debates. May has no similar experience. "Elizabeth May," argues Kevin Libin, "talks faster than an auctioneer on a caffeine buzz." And we've already seen that her tendency to talk quickly can get her into trouble. As Harold Jansen observed, it may be Harper who benefits from May's inclusion in the debate, as he is left to look prime ministerial as the other four leaders natter away.

In any case, even if May does perform well, so what? Is there a single seat where the Greens can actually win in this campaign? I doubt it. At least if she had been excluded from the debate, May could have justified a poor result. But her participation will raise expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and which may cost May her job.

Second: Harper was mostly engaged last week in moving issues off the table. It's hard to call Harper a Republican-wannabe when he's an Obama-booster. And it's hard to bring up the Afghanistan issue when Harper has committed to pulling out Canadian troops. The Liberals have to find a way to deal with this, because once all the unfavourable issues are slid off the table by Harper, all there is left is the distinction between the strong leader Harper and the puffin pooped on Dion.

Third: I notice that some of the NDP's ads and some hand-held signs are making reference to Layton as a strong leader. What's the angle here?

Fourth: The Liberal Party has won 69% of the national elections held since expansion of the Canadian franchise in 1918. This obviously means that Conservative leaders should never take it easy on the party, even when it seems (as it currently does) that the Liberals are down and out. Harper understands that he needs to stay on the attack, but the party has to find some kind of balance between tenaciousness and the goofy mistakes that we saw last week. The Edmonton Journal gets this:

"...you sense that certain younger, ambitious party types...have been sent conflicting messages by the prime minister's inner circle. Urged (ordered?) to be tough, partisan and relentless when it comes to media and the opposition, they're never offered a guidebook on how far they're meant to go."

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.

Recent Federal Electoral History in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:22:57 -0600

Here you will find information on Canadian federal electoral history from 2006-2008, including 2006 general election results, changes in party leadership, and party standing prior to 2008 general election.

2006 General Election Results

The last federal general election was held in 2006, with the Conservative Party of Canada, helmed by Stephen Harper, winning a minority government. The Liberal Party of Canada, led by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, came in second, forming the Official Opposition. Other parties winning seats in the House of Commons included the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

Overall Results of the 2006 Federal Election

Political Party	% Vote	Seats	Status
Conservative Party of Canada	36.3	124	Government (minority)
Liberal Party of Canada	30.2	103	Official Opposition
Bloc Québécois	10.5	51	-
New Democratic Party of Canada	17.5	29	-
Green Party of Canada	4.5	-	-
Independent	-	1	-

(Source: Globe and Mail, 2008)

The 2006 election was significant in that it ended 12 years of rule by the federal Liberal Party (10 years under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and two years under Paul Martin). It also saw the rise to power of the new Conservative Party, which was formed following the merger of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.

Furthermore, the 2006 election results saw important trends in the national political landscape. Once a powerhouse in central Canada, the Liberals suffered significant declines in their support. In the 2000 general election, for example, the Party won 36 seats (44 percent of the popular vote) in Quebec and 100 seats (51 percent of the vote) in Ontario. In the 2006 general election, however, the Liberals only won 13 seats (20 percent of the vote) in Quebec and 54 seats (40 percent of the vote) in Ontario.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party (in particular, its former Canadian Alliance component) had traditionally been a western-based party, with little support outside of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In the 2006 federal election, the Conservatives were able to expand their support into central Canada, winning 10 seats (24 percent of the vote) in Quebec and 40 seats (35 percent of the vote) in Ontario.

Another important trend was the resurrection of the Bloc Québécois. The Quebec-based separatist party had seen its support gradually decline during the late-90s and early in the 2000s. In 1993, the party won 54 seats and 50 percent of the popular vote in Quebec. By the end of the 2000 election, however, those numbers had dropped to 39 and 40 percent, respectively. In the 2004 and 2006 elections, however, the party returned to its early levels of support, winning 54 and 51 seats, respectively. It is important to note, however, that the Bloc Québécois’ popular vote did slip slightly in the 2006 election, from approximately 50 percent (2004 election) to 42 percent. This has been attributed in part to the rise in support for the Conservative Party in the province of Quebec.

For party seat and popular vote tallies by province and territory:

Globe and Mail: Decision 2006: Election Results

Changes in Canadian Political Party Leadership

Of the five major political parties—Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, and Greens—the Liberals and the Greens have had a change in leadership since the 2006 general election.

In March 2006, following his party’s change from governing party to the Official Opposition, then Liberal leader Paul Martin resigned the Party’s top post. Bill Graham served as interim party leader until a leadership convention was held in December 2006. At the convention, Stéphane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party, defeating several high-profile candidates, including Gerard Kennedy, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. One of Dion’s strategies during the contest was to present himself as a “green” leader who will make the environment a central political issue. Since becoming leader, Dion has faced several challenges, such as overcoming negative ads released by the Conservative Party portraying him as a “weak” leader, as well as maintaining support from an often divided party caucus.

For more information on the 2006 Liberal leadership convention:

CBC News: Liberal Party: 2006 Leadership Race

In April 2006, Jim Harris announced that he would not stand for re-election as leader of the Green Party at its national convention in August. Harris had held the post since February 2003. At the national convention, the Green Party selected Elizabeth May as their new leader. May won the leadership decisively, winning a majority on the first ballot of voting. In 2007, she received public attention after announcing an election deal with the Liberal Party of Canada. Under the deal, the Liberals agreed not to run a candidate in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova, which May plans to contest. In return, the Green Party agreed not to run a candidate in Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s riding. It is important to note that the riding of Central Nova is currently held by the Conservative minister Peter MacKay.

In 2007, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, announced that he would likely move to Quebec provincial politics and seek the vacant leadership of the Parti Québécois (PQ). Shortly after making the announcement, however, Duceppe withdrew his candidacy for the PQ, deciding to stay on as leader of the Bloc Québécois. Duceppe threw his support behind Pauline Marois, who was subsequently selected leader of the Parti Québécois. In a public statement, Duceppe asserted that “It’s time for a woman, and one of quality, to come to lead the Parti Québécois, then Quebec” (CTV, 2007). Duceppe further noted that a rapid swell of support for Marois had also helped his decision.

Party Standings Prior to the 2006 Election

Prior to the 2008 general election call, the party standings in the House of Commons were as follows:

Political Party	Seats	Status
Conservative Party of Canada	127	Government (minority)
Liberal Party of Canada	95	Official Opposition
Bloc Québécois	48	-
New Democratic Party of Canada	30	-
Green Party of Canada	1	-
Independent	3	-
Vacant	4

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

Since the 2006 general election, the Conservative Party has gained three seats, the Liberal Party has lost eight seats, the Bloc Québécois has lost three, and both the New Democratic Party and the Green Party have gained one seat each.

These changes have resulted from several factors. In some cases, they were caused by Members of Parliament (MPs) leaving one political party for another, or to sit as an independent. In this context, the Conservative Party came out more favourably than other parties. While it lost two MPs, it gained three. The Liberal Party, by contrast, lost four MPs, while only gaining one.

It is important to note that the Green Party of Canada gained its first ever member of parliament in this manner. In August 2008, MP Blair Wilson, who represents the riding of West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country (British Columbia), joined the Green Party. Wilson was originally elected as a Liberal MP, but left that party’s caucus in October 2007. Prior to joining the Green Party, Wilson sat in the House as an independent.

MPs which Switched Parties or Became Independents (2006-2008)

Name	Former Political Party	New Political Party
David Emerson	Liberal Party	Conservative Party
Garth Turner	Conservative Party	Liberal Party
Wajid Khan	Liberal Party	Conservative Party
Joe Comuuzzi	Liberal Party	Conservative Party
Louise Thibault	Bloc Québécois	Independent
Bill Casey	Conservative Party	Independent
Blair Wilson	Liberal Party	Green Party

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

In other cases, changes were due to resignations and subsequent by-elections. Since the 2006 election, 13 MPs have resigned their seat, with by-elections held in nine of the vacated ridings. In most cases, the incumbent party was re-elected to the seat.

There have, however, been several notable exceptions. In September 2007, three by-elections were held in Quebec ridings. Outremont, previously a Liberal riding, was won by the New Democratic Party, while Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, previously a Bloc Québécois riding, was won by the Conservative Party.

In March 2008, four by-elections were held in British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, all involving seats previously held by the Liberal Party. While the Liberals retained three of the seats, they lost the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in Saskatchewan to the Conservative Party.

Riding Resignations and By-elections (2006-2008)

Riding	Former MP/Party	New MP/Party
Repentigny	Sauvageau (BQ)	Gravel (BQ)
London North Center	Fontana (Lib)	Pearson (Lib)
Outremont	Lapierre (Lib)	Mulcair (NDP)
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot	Loubier (BQ)	Thi Lac (BQ)
Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean	Gauthier (BQ)	Lebel (CPC)
Toronto Centre	Graham (Lib)	Rae (Lib)
Willowdale	Peterson (Lib)	Hall Findlay (Lib)
Vancouver Quadra	Owen (Lib)	Murray (Lib)
Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River	Merasty (Lib)	Clarke (CPC)
Westmount—Ville-Marie	Robillard (Lib)	By-election not held
Saint-Lambert	Kotto (BQ)	By-election not held
Guelph	Chamberlain (Lib)	By-election not held
Don Valley West	Godfrey (Lib)	By-election not held

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

Sources Used in this Article

“Decision 2006 Canadian Federal Election: Election Results.” Globeandmail.com. 02 September 2008. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/elections/fed2005/fragments/results/federalResults.html>
“Green Party Strategist Resigns Over Pact.” Thestar.com. 17 April 2007. 02 September 2008. <http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203833>
“BQ's Duceppe Withdraws from PQ Leadership Hunt.” CTV.ca. 12 May 2007. 02 September 2008. <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070512/duceppe_out_070512/20070512?hub=TopStories>
“Party Standing in the House of Commons (Unofficial).” Parliament of Canada. 07 September 2008. <http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/lists/PartyStandings.aspx?Menu=SEN-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb&Gender=&Language=E>

Elizabeth May

Greg Farries — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:13:19 -0600

Elizabeth May is leader of the Green Party of Canada. Currently, she does not hold a seat in the House of Commons.

May, best known as a longtime environmental activist, was voted leader of the Green Party of Canada on August 26, 2006. Often regarded as a one-issue party, the Green Party has yet to win a seat in the House of Commons despite fielding candidates across Canada in several federal elections. At its core, the Green Party promotes economic well-being, but not growth for its own sake. The Party advocates for a sustainable and inclusive Canada, with a healthy environment at its core; it also supports participatory democracy and strongly supports social justice.

As Party leader, May has argued that climate change is the most significant threat to Canada’s future. She also contends new strategies are needed to protect jobs in remote, one-industry communities. In addition, she asserts that Canada’s growing number of poor and homeless must be addressed, and that Canada’s foreign policy is too closely associated with that of the United States.

In April 2007, the Green Party received a boost when May negotiated an agreement with Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion that would allow her to run in Nova Scotia’s Central Nova riding unopposed by a Liberal candidate. A victory in Central Nova may be difficult for May to achieve, however, since the riding is traditionally Conservative, and is currently held by Peter MacKay, Canada’s Minister of National Defence. The negotiated deal was highly criticized.

Previously, May ran in the federal by-election for London North Centre (Ontario) held on November 27, 2006. She surprised many with by placing second behind the Liberal Party candidate. Percentage-wise, May’s results were the best ever achieved by the Green Party of Canada.

Environmentalism and Activism

Prior to May’s foray into politics, she was executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a position she held from 1989 to 2006. In that role, she worked diligently to create a national, grassroots network dedicated to protecting the integrity of the world’s ecosystems.

In 2001, May went on a 17-day hunger strike to protest the continuing contamination of neighbourhoods around Sydney, Nova Scotia, caused by the local Tar Ponds, reservoirs of contaminated soil and sediment resulting from steel and coke production in the Sydney area. The hunger strike, held outside Parliament Hill, lasted until the federal government promised that families would be relocated.

From 1989 to 1994, May also served as executive director of Cultural Survivor Canada. Prior to that she served as a senior policy advisor to Tom McMillan, federal Minister of the Environment from 1986 to 1988.

May has been deeply involved in the environmental movement since 1970, being part of many campaigns for causes she has considered important. For example, she has campaigned against aerial insecticide and herbicide spraying on Cape Breton Island, as well as against uranium mining in Nova Scotia. She has also worked extensively on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy. May has authored five books on environmental topics.

She has served on numerous boards of environmental groups and advisory bodies to universities and governments in Canada. Presently, she is a member of the board for the International Institute for Sustainable Development and Prevent Cancer Now! She is also a member of the Earth Charter International Council, co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. May is a former vice-chair of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy.

A Personal Snapshot

May was born on June 9, 1954 in Hartford, Connecticut. She attended a prestigious private academy in Connecticut and, in 1983, graduated from Dalhousie Law School. May is a member of the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario.

May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She has received numerous environmental awards during her career, and has also been awarded honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University, the University of New Brunswick, and Mount Allison University. In 1998, Dalhousie University created the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” in her honour. In 2005, she was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada, the country’s highest civilian honour, which recognizes a lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation.

May lives in Ottawa, Canada with her daughter, Cate.