Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Trudeau tops leadership poll

Late last week, Harris-Decima released a new poll via The Canadian Press on the Liberal leadership race. The contest is still very much in its infancy (if it has even been born yet) but already the numbers are heavily favouring Justin Trudeau - just as they did for Thomas Mulcair throughout the NDP leadership race.
The poll shows that 36% of Canadians would be certain or likely to vote for the Liberals if Trudeau were their leader, a gain of three points since Harris-Decima last asked this question in June. That was double the number of his nearest (and most likely) competitor, Marc Garneau. He managed 18%, unchanged from June.

After Trudeau and Garneau, Mark Carney registered 16% certain or likely supporters, a gain of two points, while Denis Coderre (15%), Gerard Kennedy (14%), David McGuinty (13%), and Martha Hall Findlay (10%) all dropped two points each. They were followed by Deborah Coyne (10%), Martin Cauchon (9%), Geoff Regan (9%), David Bertschi (8%), and Joyce Murray (8%).

Based on the latest information, only Coyne, Bertschi, and Murray are good bets at a run against Trudeau and Garneau. Dominic Leblanc had 12% in this poll, but he has already ruled himself out as a candidate.

This poll would seem to suggest that any leader but Trudeau would cause a drop in support as compared to the 2011 election result, but things are rosier when you remove the "undecideds": 43% for Trudeau, 24% for Garneau, 22% for Carney, 21% for Coderre, and 19% for Kennedy. All the others result in a score of less than 19%.

The amount of data in the Harris-Decima report is relatively thin, but Trudeau is able to draw twice as much support from the New Democrats as he is from the Conservatives. Regionally, Trudeau scored 48% certain/likely voters in Atlantic Canada, 43% in Quebec, 40% in Ontario, 29% in British Columbia, 21% in the Prairies, and 14% in Alberta. These are not dissimilar results to the recent Forum poll.

Denis Coderre would get the support of 35% of Quebecers and Marc Garneau 25%, while Carney's best result was 21% in Atlantic Canada.

Not much contest for Trudeau, especially in Quebec where Garneau is not able to do much better than the Bob Rae-led Liberals. Of course, the leadership contest is just beginning and opinion will undoubtedly change as more candidates enter the fray and all of them, including Trudeau, are more thoroughly vetted. This is not about how Canadians would vote in 2015 but how they would vote now - and right now they would give Trudeau every opportunity to earn their support. Canadians might not know much about him yet, but arguably they know more about him than is usually the case for a new party leader. However, these sort of numbers for Trudeau are very near what looks like the Liberal ceiling - it will be a very difficult task to keep support this high if he does indeed win the race.


  1. When a poll mentions only one party, the results are questionable, not so much about the support of a candidate over other candidates in his own party, but as to his/her projected performance against other parties. I think the Liberals would be wise to hold off on the parade route just yet.


    1. Who says the poll mentioned only one party?

    2. I agree that I wouldn't take any of these numbers to the bank, but hardly because of the methodology of the polls.

  2. Might be the old ceiling, but is there any reason that support couldn't go even higher if he somehow manages to win over voters who didn't even show up to vote in the past?

    1. I agree. I think he'll appeal to a wide age range but Trudeau will likely get younger people excited. And those are the people usually less likely to vote. If he can stir them into voting, then we'll have an interesting election come 2015.

    2. I think Trudeau appeals more to older people's image of what young people like, rather than to young people themselves. He's much more 'establishment' and 'well turned out' - in the way a parent would approve of - than he is hip. Contrast with, for example, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois (who, admittedly, has the advantage of actually being young). I don't see any bounce in the youth vote because of Trudeau.

  3. Every one knows that Justin has it in the bag,
    the race is just a fluff for the coronation of the next LPC Roi et Empereur is decided. Like night follows day,Justin is the new King of the
    LPC Fact. But the small bit players must have their brief parts in the LPC leadership play. To make Cdns believe that it really is a race for all, and any candidate can win.

    1. People said the same thing about Brian Topp. I do think Trudeau will win in the end, but things are far from certain.

    2. I'm not sure I follow. Should the LPC deleguates not vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning? So what if that makes a candidate clearly outstripe his opponents? It's not a "coronation".

    3. Actually, if Carney runs there'll be a race that he's won. Let's wait and see...

    4. I wanted BoB Rae not to run, but now I'm kind of changing my mind - I wish he stayed in the race, that would be much more leveled ground with Justin Trudeau. Of course, if Bob Rae didn't step aside, JT would probably not run - and that's too sad. We need nicely contrasting visions from two or more strong candidates to have a positive impact on LPC fortunes.

    5. Carney isn't running. He's been perfectly clear on this point.

      The only way Carney runs is if the Harper government switches Canada to a fixed money supply, thus rendering the central bank irrelevant.

    6. I could see him running as a candidate once his term as BoC governor is done though.

  4. I heard this idea on a radio call in show. I'll dump it here for discussion.

    Justin actually doesn't have much if any experience at managing. So why not do a period as Asst. Leader to somebody like Garneau who does have management experience?

    Sounds almost like a win-win to me. And at the same time the necessary rebuilding of the party can proceed !!

    1. Garneau would be like having an empty suit as leader...

    2. Ouch! why do you say that?

    3. Since he became my MP two elections ago, he's been virtually invisible. And he might be the blandest man in Ottawa... I have no sense of a personality there. Incidentally, in May 2011, he only eked out a win against an unknown NDP candidate in the last few polls of the election, finally winning by just a few hundred votes. Even in 2008 he faced a minor challenge by Anne Lagacé-Dowson, running for the NDP at a time when the Orange Crush was still unthinkable.

  5. Anything could happen to Trideau during the leadership race.

  6. One thing really needs to be said: what would a Trudeau led Liberals have to say that is different from Mulcair's NDP?
    Other then playing into Harpers narrative of the NDP apparently pitting region vs. region (who knows if Justin will jump on the carbon tax bashing wagon), the two parties would be indistinguishable. Of course that would assume Trudeau would actually get his platform across to the pubic at at.

    1. Pretty sure the NDP got on that carbon tax bashing bandwagon way back in 2008.

    2. And that's why they propose cap and trade, simple as that.
      I'm simply trying to prove the point that rather than build on their own conversation the liberals are agreeing with Stephen Harper's ignorant and foolish accusations.
      - Taylor

    3. Taylor,

      There are many differences between the Dippers and Grits. For one the Dippers are republicans, the Grits are not. Secondly, the NDP calls for the abolition of the Senate whereas the Liberals want to follow constitutional procedures and negotiate.

      Although the mechanism of cap and trade vis a vis carbon tax are different they are essentially the same. Both put a price on carbon. One is a flat rate the other variable.

      Real environmentalists left the NDP years ago.

    4. "Real environmentalists left the NDP years ago." That. Every time there's been a concrete proposal to increase the cost of GHG emissions in Canada the NDP has opposed it. They opposed the Green Shift. They opposed the carbon tax in BC. In Ontario they even want special tax breaks for gasoline and heating oil.

      Cap and trade is just a more bureaucratic version of a carbon tax. Jack Layton's opposition to a carbon tax was both hypocritical and dishonest. Consumers are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions. The NDP's attempts to pretend that we can deal with climate change in any meaningful way without increasing the cost of polluting to consumers is dishonest.

    5. "Wonderful, now that I know the Liberals position on Constitution and Monarchy, I know what party I want to vote for to replace Harper!"
      Said no one ever.
      Real environmentalists also left the Liberals once they signed the Kyoto Accord and did nothing.
      And by the way, we have one regressive tax too many in this country, as someone who lives north of 60, I can already tell you that the cost of living IS ALREADY RIDICULOUS.

    6. The Green Shift and the BC carbon tax were both structured to be progressive, not regressive. The BC carbon tax included a modest shift of taxation from the poor to the rich. In the Green Shift it was more substantial.

      If you don't want to pay for the costs of climate change, that's fine. Just don't pretend to be an environmentalist.

    7. Oh my apologies Ryan, I forgot environmentalism was defined by a single position.
      Please, enlighten me on my own personal ideologies based on a single minor disagreement on policy.
      Maybe every other position the NDP has on the environment is a huge waste of time and effort. I guess then, the environment isn't an issue at all, since the other mainstream parties seem to have such a better platform and track record, why should be bother worrying.

    8. Taylor,

      To write: ""Wonderful, now that I know the Liberals position on Constitution and Monarchy, I know what party I want to vote for to replace Harper!"
      Said no one ever".

      Only 1 month after an election in Quebec where a major issue was the constitution it is somewhat your quote is baffling, and certainly demonstrates your less than full knowledge of Canadian politics. Most votes that went to the PQ were based on their constitutional position! The same may be said of the PLQ vote. Reform is another case in point. They derived a large segment of their support through constitutional issues such as a EEE Senate and "No special status for Quebec" So to say no one ever voted for a party due to their policies on the constitution is plain ignorant if not purposefully deceptive.

      The NDP are pro-environmental destruction so long as their union buddies are polluting the land or cutting the trees or dumping their effulence onto or into the Earth. Dippers need to act like a government in waiting instead of a rag-tag grouping of hypocrites! We know why the NDP oppose carbon taxes; they simply are out of ideas to change Government policy and consumers habits.

    9. The tax shift only benefited the lowest earning group in BC. Under 14,000per year. That is hardly progressive. Tell that to the family making 21,000year that have to pay the same taxes as someone making 210,000year.
      Taxing income is the most progressive way to tax. The carbon tax in BC just goes into general revenue, and does nothing, I repeat *NOTHING* to help the environment. It doesn't even reduce the use of cars.
      But hey, if you're a Green voter or Lib voter, I guess nothing is better than something.

    10. Anon:

      Of course it will reduce people's use of cars. As prices rise demand falls.

      If only the poorest benefitted from the tax shift (you say some $14,000 British Columbians) then it would be a progressive tax since it has redistributive properties.

      I think you should do some research before making incorrect statements

  7. Liberal bigwigs and the media might be wishing for Mark Carney enter the race, but I highly doubt a man of his stature would run at the moment. It would be interesting see a Trudeau vs Carney showdown. Also, Carney lacks roots in the Liberal party. A Carney-led Liberal party would not be ready for an election in two years. It will be a long-term investment. Maybe after his stint as the Bank of Canada governor and chairman of the financial stability board is over he may consider electoral politics.

    I think the Liberal leadership race will wind down to between Trudeau and Garneau, with the former representing the left-wing flank of the party and the latter representing the right-wing.

    1. Do we even know if Carney's a Liberal?

    2. He should run whether he is or not.

  8. Carney is not running. He hasn't made any statement with even the slightest indication that he's considering a bid, so his inclusion in the poll is completely irrelevant.

  9. Ok, lol, I had to post immediately after reading one of the first posts stating that "Trudeau will likely get younger people excited" and would like to mimic the game show buzzer that goes with the wrong answer.

    I'm sorry, but as a person who is only in his early thirties with many friends, acquaintances and family members in the 18-30 age group, I can say that people need to really stop assuming that Trudeau will somehow energize the youth into voting. Where does this notion even come from? Because he is younger and has good looks? I mean give the younger generation some credit. They can see past the smoke and mirrors of the new round of "Trudeaumania".

    Many young people don't care what age the politician is, as long as that politician is representing the views of the youth, which 90% of the time they are not. Trudeau will not be any different once he become leader of the Liberal Party. In fact, many young people continue to support the NDP only because time and time again, this political party is the only party, beside perhaps the Green Party that actually reflects the views of the youth in this country.

    Despite this being the case, has the youth vote increased significantly? No, because at the end of the day the youth are smart and know that once election day is over, governments engage in tackling issues that do not concern the youth of the country. Justin Trudeau will be no different. So I would really wish that people would stop saying that he is going to energize the youth and get them involved in voting and in politics like no other politician before him.

    On a side note, have you not noticed how many people have said they would vote Trudeau because he is "good looking"? That can certainly only spell disaster for this country. He needs policies, not good looks, or smoke and mirrors to bring success to the Liberal party and so far he offers Canadians of all ages, absolutely nothing, but his father's legacy, which he refuses to even acknowledge for fear he would lose support.

    I honestly think Trudeau might be walking a thin line that may put an early end to what could have potentially been a great career in politics. All because he may have chosen to step forward at the wrong time. Then again, I can so totally be wrong.

    1. As a young voter I can speak for the majority of teenagers that not only is Trudeau's age and name a non factor, but that NDP and to a lesser extent green support among the youth demographic is fairly unshakeable. If you don't think I'm right then check out social media, polls, movements etc.
      So in short, Trudeaus youth enthusiasm is media hype.

    2. Good day:
      I agree that Trudeau will not necessary energize the youth vote. He have the image to do so, but not necessary the substance. So we have to wait & see.

      I do not agree with the motion that young people don't vote because they are smart & know the government will not care about their issues. I am a youth myself, politically engaged, & voted in every single elections that I have encountered so far. But I am a very tiny minority. Most of my friends & classmates don't vote not because they carefully examined all the option & made an educated decision to not vote, but rather because they couldn't care less about it! If they so desire change, & all voted, they can easily overturn many riding into NDP, but no they can't find time (a.k.a. they're lazy & couldn't care less). Of course, there are always an small bunch that do examine all the parties & issues, but they are a minority & they actually vote.

  10. Could we all just agree with the fact that the very young amongst us don't vote and that this is nothing new? Back in my day it was the same. I voted because I was a political animal at heart, but it was only limited. Nothing has changed and I for one do not blame the young for not voting, it has a parental responsibility to it and they are just able to take on so much at once when transitioning to adulthood. I don't think that any party can get the youth vote out, unless we see some sort of major unrest. When we do see them come out, it is time to listen.

  11. LeBlanc ruled himself out because he threw his support to Trudeau.

    1. That's too bad too, I was hoping LeBlanc would run this time out.

  12. speculatively, Denis Coderre may be aiming to become Mayor of Montreal. It is an almost shoe-in that Justin will win the leadership.
    Cauchon lost to Thomas Mulcair in Outremont, that is telling how he would fare in a Federal Election head to head as leader.

    1. Jack Layton lost 4 federal elections before he became leader and entered parliament in 2004. He seemed to do alright.

    2. Are we on the subject of Martin Cauchon? Even if he was an honorable justice minister, he did lose his 2011 comeback attempt in Outremont to Mulcair.

      Coderre is going to City Hall instead.

      Justin has the leadership in the bag.

  13. If you check Outremonts riding demographics you will see that it has a large allophone and significant anglophone population. If NDP gets exposed as a bloc Quebecois light. They can easily loose the riding. The Trudeau name has a resonance with the allophone communities and can easily turn the tide against mulclair. Furthermore, look there will be a reemergence of some of the Bloc Quebecois votes which will cut some votes to the NDP. Also don't discount possibility of conservative votes going back to Liberals in this riding. Its very possible Mulclair can loose this riding if the Liberals expose the NDPs Quebec platform.

    1. The NDP is exactly what the Quebec people seem to want, a leftist party with an anti elitist image and a nationalist streak. There's simply no reason to accuse the NDP of being seperatist plain as that. I'm sorry, but that's just not an argument.

    2. An anti-elitist image? This is a party that proposed government be run by a council of experts in their previous form!

      The NDP may not be separatists but, they certainly are not federalists. They believe, and many Quebec members want, Quebec to be able to separate with 50% + 1 vote. Even though this is against constitutional law, the Clarity Act and a number of court decisions! They are assuming a similar role to the ADQ. The ADQ was a separatist party-plain as that!

    3. I need to weigh in here because clearly William Bowser feels the need to call a federalist party a separatist party solely based on the fact that the NDP supports international recognition of a percentage required for a "people" to separate from another group of "people". The international community finds that 50% +1 is sufficient and so would Canada as long as the question posed to the people of Quebec was sufficiently understandable as opposed to confusing and outright incorrect, as past referendum questions have been.

      It took guts for the NDP to be the only federalist party to take the Supreme Court ruling as it was and state that it would recognize 50% +1 as long as the accompanying question was appropriate.

      Unlike the other federalist party that is purported to be popular in Quebec, the Liberal Party, the NDP has taken some initiative in this portfolio. The Liberals have merely left the whole issue up for debate as the one thing the Clarity Act does not do is inform Quebec people on what is a sufficient percentage that is required for them to separate. So much for clarity, William Bowser!

      Remember where the NDP was created before you go on a tirade of how the NDP are not federalist. The birthplace of the NDP was in Saskatchewan as the CCF and has basically been close to non-existent in Quebec until last May's election. Simply because they gained an incredible amount of support in Quebec last election, or because their leader is from Quebec, it does not give you the right to confuse people and suggest that the NDP are not federalist. It is an insult to the 50+ years this party represented this country as a federalist party, its current and past MPs who shaped this country into what it is, its supporters and its members.


    4. The ADQ and likewise the NDP are not seperatist parties. They are nationalist parties promoting self determination. If members of the ADQ were sovereignist then why would they promoting splitting their own vote?

    5. WB

      Could you expand on your first paragraph. I have no idea what you are talking about. What experts and what previous form???

    6. Anon: Oct. 13 02:54,

      Not until you get a pseudonym.

    7. Taylor,

      The ADQ was a separatist party. Re-phrase it all you want Marois Dumont was on the same stage promoting independence in 1995 with Lucien Bouchard! Eventually their position became we want expanded powers or independence.

      Why would you promote self-determnation if you do not want to separate? Is this what goes for logic nowadays?

      The NDP as found in the Sherebrooke Declaration is willing to break Canadian constitutional law in order for Quebec to separate. In other words they prefer an independent Quebec to following the rule of law in Canada ergo, the NDP is a separatist party!

    8. Anonymous,

      How will the NDP break Constitutional law in order for Quebec to separate when a) The NDP is foremost a federalist party and b) the Supreme Court ruled that a province cannot separate unless it presents a clear question that cannot lead to confusion and that it obtains a valid percentage to be deemed acceptable to separate. It does not offer what that percentage may be and in fact only suggests that 50% +1 may not be enough. It left it to the government to decide what that percentage may be.

      All the Sherbrooke Declaration does is recognize that 50% +1 is sufficient enough as per international recognition. now of course I am not quoting the Supreme Court decision or the Sherbrooke Declaration but that is the short of it.

      The NDP has no interest in Quebec separating and if anything, if they win the next Quebec election, they might be the first Quebec government in a long history to approach the federal government to negotiate its inclusion in the Canadian federation. In recent polls, the people of Quebec had in fact suggested that they would prefer that their own provincial government approach the federal government to discuss re-opening the constitutional talks. As opposed to the federal government re-opening. So far neither the provincial Liberal or Parti Quebecois have done that. So will it be up to the NDP to repair this federation? Probably, and they will be successful at it.


    9. I need to step in here because Darcey is posting some incorrect information as fact.

      The international community has never had a set position on separation. If they did why was Rhodesia’s UDI not recognised by many nations but recognised by a few or why did a war break out during the disintegration of Yugoslavia? To state the international community would recognise any territory that held a vote if it produced a 50%+1 majority for independence is simply wrong. Russia or China certainly would not recognise a former constituent part declaring independence or America! States give recognition based upon their own strategic interest not because 50%+1 of the population voted for it.

      Canada has never stated a simple majority would be sufficient for any province to separate. There are constitutional amending formulas in the Constitution that require as the Supreme Court has reiterated a negotiated settlement. Indeed the pre-amble to the Clarity Act makes this clear:

      “WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally”;

      Furthermore the Act debunks your theory a 50%+1 majority by referendum would be supported by Canada:

      “WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession”;

      Furthermore the Act gives Parliament the right to determine what is a clear majority on a clear question.

      So please do all of us and yourself a favour and research before you write statements that are false.

      Personally, I find it hilarious you support a party yet have almost no understanding of their policies. All your statements say is; the NDP is willing to risk the separation of Quebec to form government-Shameless!

    10. Darcey,

      Perhaps you should read the Clarity Act as well as the Constitution. The Clarity Act and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Both make clear a constitutional amendment is needed for a province to separate! Further, it gives the House of Commons the mandate to decide what is a clear majority on a clear question. A vote and separation or recognition pursuant to the Sherebrooke Declaration would break Canadian law. The short of it means Quebec would need to negotiate its sepoaration for it to be legal under Canadian law.

      The Clarity Act may not state the per centage but, clearly leans toward a majority larger than 50%+1:

      "(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

      (a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

      (b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

      (c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant".

      International law has never codified or otherwise determined 50%+1 is sufficient for a territory to separate from a country. Sometimes new states gain international recognition but most often newly independent territories must fight in order for international recognition to exist. A number of small states such has Tansdniestra exist where a majority have opted for independence yet, the "international community" has not given state recognition. Other countries such as Kosovo never receive complete international recognition as Russia and Serbia and a few other states continue to support Serbia's claim to the territory. In any case to try and state that an international law or convention exists in such matters is nonsense. States decide to recognize one another based on their own needs and wants. Sometimes recognition is beneficial sometimes not. Other states that have separatist minorities are not willing to side one way or another.

    11. All this Sturm und Drang is irrelevant, since separatism has never been less popular in Quebec than it is now.

    12. First,

      Bonhomme, I respect your response but the first thing I would like to deal with is your suggestion that I know nothing about the party for which I support or its policies. I've supported the NDP since before I was able to vote. When I got my BA in political science most of my research was done on the NDP.

      I would like you to read the following link of which Part 6 is perhaps the main part everybody uses to make the argument that the NDP wants Quebec to separate and such. I invite you to read the rest of the document. Doesn't sound like the NDP wants Quebec to separate at all, but that a new vision be built around how we can include Quebec within Canada as it currently is not a part of the country in terms of the 1982 Constitution. It provides possible solutions as opposed to constant bickering. The link is as follows:

      Even in Part 6, the only thing that the NDP is recognizing is that in its opinion, which is not law, Quebec has the right to pose its own question and with the support of 50% +1 it would accept it as is, nor will it use force to keep that part of the country from separating. Again, I am not quoting, I am summarizing, perhaps to my own detriment. Sounds pretty peaceful to me; if ever the event arises. The Clarity Act does not rule out use of force in comparison. Point is, you should read the declaration in its entirety as opposed to what they report in the media.

      Second, I must apologize if it appears that my words were implying that the international community would necessarily recognize a region who votes 50%+1 to separate. That was not my intent to imply that. What I was attempting to demonstrate is that the international community may be more likely to reflect and accept a vote of 50% +1 then anything less then that, and that a region does not necessarily have to obtain a greater percentage.

      Like both commentators stated and I agree with them, it is all in how the international community views the outcome of the vote.

      Even the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that this topic cannot be easily resolved. And that is why, like the two commentators have stated wars have broken out. Were you also aware that the Supreme Court also basically stated that this was a political jurisdiction as opposed to judicial on some of the questions that Liberals had put forward!?

      I recognize that this topic is a difficult one to discern a correct answer to. If the Supreme Court has difficulty with the topic, how can you possibly expect me to express my opinion without making errors or not taking the time to fully explain one or two items. I accept that I was not clear and I apologize.

      Lastly, I would like to make note that the constitutional validity of the Clarity Act has yet to be challenged. So despite the argument that it resolves everything and provides the correct solution is false. We just don't know as of yet, if it would be recognized. Also, the Sherbrooke Declaration does not break any Canadian law because as of yet it is not law, it is a policy statement within the framework of a political party. Even if it is law, the only differences between the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration is a) the latter allows Quebec to write its own question; b) Would recognize 50% +1 as acceptable; c) Would not use any kind of force to prevent Quebec from separating. The NDP follow up by stating that:

      "It would be to the federal government to determine its own process in the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling under international law, in response to the results of the popular consultation in Quebec."

      Ultimately, it is of my opinion, that their statement in entirety and I invite everyone to read it in entirety and not just part 6, is a lot more progressive and provides a better framework for working towards including Quebec within Canada. In fact, it is far better than what any other political party has chosen to give Quebec to maul over.


    13. Darcey,

      First off your writings were specific;

      "All the Sherebrooke Declaration does is recognize that 50% +1 is sufficient enough as per international recognition".


      "The international community finds that 50% +1 is sufficient and so would Canada"

      To back away from such statements now is very convenient although I recognize mistakes do occur.

      Secondly, and most importantly, no doubt exists as to the constitutional validity of the Clarity Act. That is why there was a Supreme Court reference. Even without the Clarity Act or references there is absolutely no doubt Parliament is well within its right to legislate on such a matter. Parliament has the final say on the wording of any referendum question (and provincial legislation in general) through its powers of disallowance and reservation!

      The Supreme Court did note that primarily the execution of independence is political not judicial in nature- they do so to frame their reasoning that negotiation not a simple majority and UDI is required for a province to become independent under Canadian law. It is for these reasons that S.6 of the Sherebrooke Declaration is ultra vires and would violate Canadian constitutional law if put into effect. Indeed, its mention of international law may make it invalid since it supposes international law trumps Canadian law in such matters.

      Anon 12:57 put it well when she/ he stated: "In other words they prefer an independent Quebec to following the rule of law in Canada ergo, the NDP is a separatist party"!

      In fact what S. 6 does is abrogate Canada's responsibility and gives those duties to the international community through international law and the electorate of Quebec. It is troubling the NDP has disregarded Canadian law in the framing and writing of the Sherebrooke Declaration.

      Frankly people need to take responsibility for their writings. You are the one who in response to W. Bowser wrote:

      "I need to weigh in here because clearly William Bowser feels the need to call a federalist party a separatist party solely based on the fact that the NDP supports international recognition of a percentage required for a "people" to separate from another group of "people". The international community finds that 50% +1 is sufficient and so would Canada as long as the question posed to the people of Quebec was sufficiently understandable as opposed to confusing and outright incorrect, as past referendum questions have been".

      Your next paragraph is simply a misunderstanding of the reference case. In fact if anything the Supreme Court hints that a simply majority on a clear question would not be sufficient.

      We now know the reasoning behind your defence of the NDP toward W. Bowser is flawed. That the international community has no set standards, that the Supreme Court did not agree 50%+1 is sufficient for a province to separate.

      I understand sometimes one may not have enough time to research and errors naturally occur but, there is a difference between stating an opinion and producing writing as fact. You have written as if you were stating fact and in doing so have written factually incorrect statements. Since your writing contains within it many errors and inconsistencies one needs to ask what are the motives behind your words? Is it to purposely deceive in order to make the NDP look good?

      Everyone is allowed to express their opinions including W. Bowser but, if your aim is to refute or disprove another’s statement(s) then you better be damned sure what you write is correct! That is not too much to ask.

  14. Goaltender Interference12 October, 2012 10:42

    An interesting stat on voter participation is available at:

    It shows that, while the percentage of registered voters actually voting has sharply dropped sharply from the historical average for the last 20 years, the percentage of the census population voting has simply reverted to mean established since the 1930 after a temporary jump during the Mulroney era.

    That's remarkable because there has been an only modest extension of the franchise since the 1930s (status Indians got the vote in 1960 and the voting age was reduced by 3 years in the early 1970s). So it's not simply that people have been added to the voters list who aren't voting.

    Perhaps part of it is that the permanent voters list, introduced in the early 1990s, is becoming gradually more and more inaccurate? I remember in the Quebec 1995 referendum, which was the first one using the permanent voters list (essentially reusing the list for the 1994 election), I noted as a poll captain that people I knew who had moved out of Quebec were still on the list. I can only imagine that the number of inaccuracies on the voters list keeps increasing every year.

    So maybe the drop in voter participation has at least something to do with the fact that the voters register has a certain percentage of people on it who are dead or have moved away without telling the government.

  15. Wrong. The NDP platform is EXACTLY what Quebecois want which is a Quebec where the % of Francophones and the % of Francophone business and the % of French spoken continues to rise and te % of English continues to fall within Canada. They want an "entity" that is 'as French as France' in which a unilingual French speaker has no barriers to advancement compared to an English speaker or a bi-lingual person.

    Trudeau was naive to want "mass bilingualism". The French want what Andre Lauendeau of the Bi Bi Commission said was the best outcome "a French Quebec within an English Canada."

    The political party that sees that will win.

    Doug Little

  16. The soon to be Genie Award winning biopic Smilin' Jack should improve the NDP numbers over Trudeaumania.

  17. @doug little

    The NDP platform is exactly what the Quebecois nationalistes want but not necessarily what the allophone and anglophone constituents of the the riding want. As i mentioned earlier the faultlines of the NDP aren't being exposed to the electorate. The NDP could loose most of the allophones and anglophone support in Quebec if it decides to adapt its pro Quebec Nationalist platform in the open, as well as that in the rest of Canada and if it decides to tone down openly its pro Quebec nationalist platform it will loose its Quebec nationalist support. Whatever the NDP decides it will loose support if their Quebec platform is exposed.

    Many traditional allo/anglo liberal voters voted NDP in many cases to get rid of the Bloc as their MP. Would they really want a federal party with a similar platform in power? Furthermore there was alot of apathy towards the liberals because of the media emphasizing the liberals and scandal. That aspect won't be there for the next election.

    With the advent of Trudeau the allophone and anglophone vote will abandon the NDP and Thomas Muclair can loose his seat.

    1. JST,

      Where are you from exactly? I have read many studies on Quebec and your analysis of why they voted for the NDP in the last election is a bit skewed and greatly misinformed. Your understanding of the NDP's position on Quebec and its place in Canada is extremely flawed.

      I think perhaps you are one of those people that actually believe that the majority of Quebec citizens voted for the Parti Quebecois during the last provincial election, because the separatists are rising. The reality is Quebec is tired of the Liberal Party both at the provincial and federal levels. At least at the federal level the province and its people now have a new federalist party they can turn to and that is the NDP.

      Provincially, during the last election what other federalist party did it have the choice to choose from? None, so no wonder they chose the Liberal party. Will that all change when the NDP runs in the next provincial election?

      I think it is pretty bold to say that the people of Quebec will come running to the Liberal Party in 2015 based on rhetoric that the Liberal Party continues to dish out of the NDP is being secretively separatist.

      Look at what happened to the Kitchener-Waterloo by-election (Ontario) when the great Justin Trudeau started making last minute telephone calls to the people of that city prior to the polls closing. He suggested to the people of that riding that the NDP was pro Quebec and sovereignty. Yet, that blew up in his/the party's face as the people became outraged and more people voted NDP and they managed to win the seat.

      People are not stupid, they know how to read and research political parties and their stance on issues. The NDP will work hard to bring la belle province back into Confederation. Did you ever think about what would happen if the NDP won provincially in Quebec and then federally? As you see it, it would spell the end of Canad, which is so wrong.

      The truth is it would spell the end of the sovereignty movement and a new era of a united Canada. Or maybe that is what the Liberals are ultimately afraid of, that a true federalist party (the NDP) fixes what the great Pierre Trudeau muffed up badly. Now perhaps that would give way to the ultimate demise of the Liberal Party.

      You gave everyone something to ponder here, JST.


  18. Also wanted to add, Smilin Jack had to leave Hudson, Quebec and move to Toronto to get into his political career. Hopefully that will be emphasized and focused on as well.

    1. First, Jack Layton left Montreal for Toronto to do his PhD at U of T... it had nothing to do with starting his political career.

      Second, your assertion that "traditional allo/anglo liberal voted NDP in many cases to get rid of the Bloc as their MP" makes absolutely no sense since those voters never voted BQ anyway. In 2011, BQ ridings went NDP because BQ supporters switched to the NDP. Liberal ridings (overwhelmingly ridings inhabited by allo/anglo voters) went NDP because Liberal supporters switched to the NDP. Clearly, most people in Quebec are comfortable with the NDP'S loose stance on sovereigntism - one principal reason being : sovereigntism/separation has never been less important to Quebeckers than it is now. That is a point that the mainstream media (and their uncritical readers) willfully ignore in their rush to find fault with the NDP, with Quebeckers, and with anyone they can describe as "left".

  19. Chimurenga,

    We will see in the next election what will happen to the NDP in Quebec. The NDP have done a cover up on their soft sovereignty. I guess you will dismiss the provincical election results for the recent Quebec election. There wasn't much room for the Quebec Solidaire an NDP type party in areas like Outremont. The election was all about minority rights and sovereignty.

    NDP supporters love to ignore the faultlines and NDPs less then enthusiastic communication of its pro Quebec nationalist platform.

    1. It's absurd to say the NDP has a policy of "soft sovereignty" and even more absurd to allege a cover-up.

      For the record, I'm at best a grudging NDP supporter, they remain too mainstream for my liking. That doesn't prevent me from rationally analysing and criticising them, nor also from giving them their do where deserved.

    2. Jarry Street, you said:

      "I guess you will dismiss the provincical election results for the recent Quebec election. There wasn't much room for the Quebec Solidaire an NDP type party in areas like Outremont."

      Although Quebec Solidaire started as the NDP so many years ago it is considered Quebec Solidaire for one very important reason and that is the NDP officially cut its ties to the provincial "party" because it declared itself a separatist party. As the NDP has and always will be federalist it had immediately severed its ties with the people running the show in Quebec and sued the party organizers for using the NDP brand initially. Do not get Quebec Solidaire and NDP mixed up!

      Also, the last provincial Quebec election was mainly called for two reasons, tuition hikes, and lack of confidence in the Charest government due to construction contracts. Just because Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois made the election into minority rights and/or sovereignty, does not mean that is why the election was called nor why the Quebec people voted the way they did!

      I ask that you provide links and proof of this so called "soft sovereignty" and "NDPs less then enthusiasitic communication of its pro Quebec nationalist platform." Oh and please don't use Quebec Solidaire or the Sherbrooke Declaration as examples as I explained both of those positions in this or earlier replies. You need to come up with something more concrete. Otherwise your allegations will remain as simple fear-mongering.

    3. Here you go anon 00:28,

    4. Jarry Street,

      Did you read the entire first article? Also, I noticed that the article has a typo it states "As proof, he wants to put in place the 'winning conditions' for Quebec to find its place within the Quebec federation." That makes absolutely no sense. I do believe it is supposed to read "Canadian federation". I mean finding winning conditions for Quebec to find its place within Quebec federation doesn't even make sense for separatists.

      If you read the french version of the article that the globe and mail quoted this line from, you will see that it says the following.

      "Alors que Stephen Harper brandit l'épouvantail d'une coalition libérale appuyée par des «séparatistes», Jack Layton présente le NPD comme le seul parti pancanadien qui épouse les valeurs québécoises. Pour preuve, il veut mettre en place des «conditions gagnantes» pour que le Québec trouve sa place dans la fédération canadienne."

      The last two words of that quote are the two words that should have been found in the globe and mail article and in english reads "Canadian federation". If you can read French, I would suggest that you take the time to read the original article that was written in La Presse on April 01 2011. Here is the link to read it in French where words will not be misconstrued!

      Also, I did a little background check on William Johnson, the individual who wrote the Globe and Mail article and I found that he donated $250.00 in 2011 to the Liberal Party. So I find it funny that he has joined the ranks of Stephane Dion and Justin Trudeau at misquoting Jack Layton, the NDP and its supporters and they are getting away with it because people are not doing their own research.

      I'm telling you right now, the French article that William Johnson uses to make a foundation for his argument is not being used appropriately and I am shocked, no wait I am not shocked at all, that the Globe and Mail would even publish it. In fact, I will be writing to the Globe and Mail after this to have them correct it.

      Again, read the original French article to understand the NDP and Jack Layton's view of Quebec in Canada.

      Darcey, or as you referred to me as anon 00:28

      I admittedly forgot to add my name at the end last night.

    5. As for your link to the article on the Sherbrooke Declaration, I have already explained the NDP position and that link explains it well. I also noticed something about that article, which I had read when it was first published and that is Bob Rae stating that he wasn't sure where the NDP or Thomas Mulcair stood on the topic and yet he still attempts to make jabs at the party without fully understanding where the political party stands.

      I would much prefer that you look at the NDP website, their platform and provide direct links as opposed to jibber jabber links that provide no new insight and links that are altogether misinformed information written from Liberal supporters out to write commentaries that confuse the electorate into believing the Liberal vision is the only vision for a united country that includes Quebec.

      Lastly, what is the Liberal party so afraid of when it comes to the NDP dominating in Quebec? It fears it will really lose its core base of support.

      If it continues to espouse using lies to gain support from the electorate well then they will only get more people like myself actively seeking to correct them and put them in their place by not voting for them in the next election.


  20. Also why do you want me to not bring up the sherbrooke declaration.

    The NDP has abided by it when voting for bills in the house of commons. Is it Ok for you to ask me to ignore policy planks the NDP has adopted so you can make it more difficult to prove my point?

    Unfortunately for the NDP is it behaves very similar to the way Anon 00:28 does and has been lucky that it able to have it Quebec nationalist support not emphasized in the media.

    Do you think any political party will ignore this potential fault line in the next election?

    I for one think this NDP surge is a one time wonder, similar to the earlier surge ED broadbent was able to bring about.

    1. Sir,

      I explained to you why you don't need to bring up the Sherbrooke Declaration, as I have explained it in several replies now and it is getting tiresome to have to continuously correct people who are trying to misinform the general population of what the Sherbrooke Declaration represents.

      If anything, it sets something firmly in place within a political party (remember this policy is a party policy) It does not mean the Sherbrooke Declaration will ever become law.

      Jarry, I am asking you to prove your point in better ways then saying "what about the Sherbrooke Declaration". Go one step further and prove how the NDP is officially a separatist party according to you and how it will ultimately use the Sherbrooke Declaration to cause this country to separate. It is pretty brazen for you to suggest a federalist party that has existed for 50+ years and has played an integral part in creating the Canada we now live in is somehow separatist based on a simple policy that the Liberal party has failed to adopt for itself for fear it would somehow be negatively effected come election time.

      How am I behaving Jarry Street? How is educating myself and correcting misconceptions a very bad thing? I gave you a perfect example of how people will lie to gain points in this country's political system with my first reply of your links. How is that a bad thing? Are you telling me that I or anybody else shouldn't educate ourselves and take everything that everybody says at face vaule!?

      The problem I have right now is you are basically telling me what the majority of Canadians do now. They watch TV and the news and take everything that is being said at face value. I love politics, and thus when I read or hear something on TV that I find odd, I open a book, I look on the internet, I research what has been said. A lot of times words are misconstrued, misinterpreted, or out right wrong.

      For you to say that a federalist party is all of a sudden separatist is exact proof of this.

      What is worse, is that you are taking the time to point me out, to alienate me, because I take the time to dig further and find out that what some people are claiming to be the truth is in fact a lie. That my friend, is a dangerous thing to do in a society full of lies and misdeeds.

      We all owe it to ourselves to get informed and do our best to correct those who are in error. I'm sorry if this bothers you, but I'm tired of hearing lies on several forums. Why can't we speak the truth. I mean this is more than just opinion here.

  21. Darcey,

    Has the NDP ever declared the Sherbrooke declaration invalid. Yes or No?

    Can you please find links to refute what I have said?

    Here are some other links,

    I've provided at least 4 links? There were even more articles about NDPs Quebec nationalist stance. Just google it yourself.

    Also can you say that the NDP is forthcoming outside of Quebec what its policy plank towards Quebec?

    In Montreal the NDP did not provide its policy planks towards Quebec in anglophone and allophone neighborhoods. I even recieved a bilingual flyer from the Laurier Dorion Quebec Solidaire Candidate in the recent Quebec provincial election, but nothing from the NDP during the federal one. I asked many of my friends in other districts and they said the same. In the west part of Laurier Dorion I saw signs with just the NDP/NPD and the Candidates name.

    I am saying brazenly that the NDP is willing to sell out minority rights, Federalism and Equality of the provinces to win an election and can throw out its principles in a heartbeat.

    The most disturbing part of what I mentioned above is a party that has an image of being on the side of the small guy went brazenly against bill 103 that was very important for the Anglophone and some allophone minorities. The very survival of the English school system in Quebec was at stake.

    So yes please refute me with facts, not your emotional drivel, Darcey and/or some other anon.

  22. Jarry Street,

    I am ending this right now because I think this is getting out of control. In fact, I think it is absolutely pointless to explain NDP policy to you because you are failing to listen. You initially provided two links to which I dismissed the information that was submitted in both of them. I have also provided a link in one of my other replies about the Sherbrooke Declaration and invited everybody to read it in its entirety.

    You keep sending me links to newspapers. The first link you sent me was a commentary saturated with opinion and false claims against the NDP. As well, the opinion was written by a Liberal supporter from Quebec.

    Now you are providing yet another opinion piece that was published in Macleans. Opinion and fact are two very different things my friend, I thought I had proved that already for you with the first links you provided. Apparently you don't care to research things a little more for yourself. Instead you pull opinion pieces to make your argument.

    I have to apologize as I only read through about half of the second link you provided from the Orangeville Citizen because I couldn't stand to read through another opinion piece. How does winning a majority of seats in Quebec and offering an alternative solution to the constitutional crisis in this country a bad thing? Are you oppose to the status of Scotland and Wales in the UK? Why can't that sort of thing happen here in Canada? Again, I must reiterate they are providing a possible solution to the Quebec people, and as such at least they are making an effort. Simply because it does not fall into what you call normal does not give you the right to suggest the NDP is now a separatist party? It is absolutely absurd! But again, it is your opinion and I will respect that. But please, do more research before posting it again.

    I cannot speak to what happened in Montreal, as you suggest, as I do not live there. But I will suggest one thing, visit their website, look up their policies online. Perhaps because the NDP has only ever won one seat in Quebec, it chose to use cost saving measures and publish its pamphlets and brochures in french only. Though something tells me that is not the case. Is that why you chose not to vote for the NDP in the last election? Because you did not get a pamphlet in the language of your preference? I live in a bilingual riding and I received statements from the candidates of the NDP in both French and English. And I live in Ontario! Olivia Chow and some other NDP candidates even offer them in minority languages such as Chinese. So to claim they did not provide them in English somewhere in the riding is highly suspicious.

    Either way, you should be more active in looking for the answers to your questions yourself instead of relying on newspapers especially when they can get very opinionated.

    1. I have a lot of respect for someone who argues with someone else who refuses to listen, this is a conversation worth having because some people are just here to force their opinions. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the separatist demagogues here were the same person.

    2. Darcey and or Anon 13:45 x 2

      1. It might end right now but I see there is a 2nd post underneath this one, the only reason it will end is because you can't refute anything I have said.

      2. I have read the Sherbrooke declaration in its entirety I am aware of exactly how it is drafted. As I mentioned before did the NDP ever declare any portions invalid? No they have not.

      3. At least I've sent you some links that point towards what I have said of the NDP. You haven't sent ONE link to the contrary.

      4. I can oppose the special status for Quebec because as a member of a minority group I already have experience with my freedoms and rights being directly effected by successive Quebec governments.

      5. You say the NDP is not a sovereignist party, but its actions and voting record points otherwise.

      6. The measures were not cost cutting measures because in previous elections even there were bilingual NDP flyers and posters in areas where their were significant anglophones and allophones. Before Thomas Muclair the NDP candidate Phil Edmonston won in a solidly anglophone during by-election in 1990. Turned out Phil Edmonston was Quebec nationalist as per the Wikipedia article. Yet do you think like today, that the NDP had not campaigned bilingually or even mentioned policy planks that would go against the majority of the ridings interests? Typical NDP behaviour even today.

      7. I live in a bilingual riding in Quebec and I didn't get one bilingual flyer from the NDP. Should I be less deserving to get a bilingual flyer then a someone in a bilingual riding in Ontario? According the NDP yes. So I guess the NDP might believe there are 2nd class voters in this country.

      8. I don't have to look for information on why not to vote for the NDP. The NDP through its actions and words have provided me quite a few. So have you Darcey.

  23. I might respond with emotional drivel because it upsets me to which length some people will paint the NDP one way but are apparently blind to the lies brought forward by the other political parties. I also get emotional because unlike many people I do not base my opinion of the other political parties on other people's opinion. I look up facts, I research them. Would you believe that I also supported the Jean Chretien Liberals? I have several books on Jean Chretien and the Liberals. Though, I did not vote for them at election time, I still supported many of the things they did for this great country.

    Lastly, if you find anything disturbing about a political party I invite you to actually contact that party as opposed to point a finger at it. Learn to better understand the point of views of everybody regardless of what party they support and when giving opinion base your opinion on fact not on the opinions of newspaper columnist or party supporters. Look into why the NDP supported Bill 103, you might be surprised why they chose to do so. And finally, the NDP, just like any other political party does not have to be forthcoming about any policy. It is up to you, me and everybody else who is eligible to vote to take the initiative to read up on policies ourselves, to interpret them as we desire. That is the fault inherent in our electoral system. Everybody wants someone else to tell them what the truth is. Problem with that is everybody has an opinion and everybody will twist the truth to fit the needs of their opinion. So for the last bit of advice I give on this topic, and my last reply on this "Trudeau" forum, research the political parties and their policies on your own and throw the newspapers and editorials out the window!



  24. 1) The second part was a continuation of the first part.

    2) If you had read the Sherbrooke Declaration in its entirety you would then realize that it as a policy for the NDP strives to do what it can as a political party to keep Quebec a part of this country, regardless of what that means in the long term (ie: having the status similar to Scotland has in the UK) and if all else fails then to morally recognize Quebec's decision to separate if so decides to do so.

    3) I don't have to send you a single link, because it is up to you to look up the information yourself. You already stated you read the Sherbrooke Declaration in its entirety and yet you missed the entire concept of the Declaration and believe me it is pretty clear: Do everything possible to keep Quebec within a united Canada. Your links were opinion pieces written by Liberal supporters. They are hardly pieces of evidence. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence from within the NDP party and its platform/policies that demonstrates that it is separatist.

    4) You have the provincial Liberal and Parti Quebecois parties to blame for that, not the NDP. The NDP have never governed at either the federal level, nor the Quebec provincial level. So if anything, your hate on should be towards the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Parti Quebecois. If you want to bring the NDP in the fold then lobby them to protect your rights as it appears others are failing at that task.

    5) Educate yourself on their voting patterns. Educate yourself on their 50+ years of history in Canada, then tell me again if they are a sovereignist party.

    6) You remind me of people who believe in UFOs, you will try and drum up every conspiracy theory to try and prove a point. There were english or bilingual flyers somewhere in your riding, if you didn't get one you should have looked for one or asked for one.

    7) Again, as per above. Additionally, hard for me to prove otherwise, I don't live in your riding. As per my previous reply, the point is if every other riding in this country received different language pamphlets then so did your riding.

    8) Demonstrating that you clearly do not have the capacity to think for yourself and are again making decision based on the views of others.

    And now, done!

  25. Sorry I was wrong about Phil Edmonston. I remember he was living in beaconsfield and thought that as he defeated clifford lincoln that he was doing the same riding. I admit I had gotten wrong information. I apologize. Though the other information I rechecked at it accurate.


COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.