Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)

[136or142]

32/30/26. QC: 30/27/22/18 among Francophones, 28/24/22/21 topline. Grits lead in BC/ON.

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/suivson_can_2015210.pdf]Breguet projects 40-54 NPD seats here.

The Liberals are all over the map in the polling here in B.C.  I have to say there is no way I can see the Liberals doing anything outside of parts of the Lower Mainland.  I doubt they even have much of an organization in the rest of the province.  I know the NDP won in Quebec in 2011, but that was a wave election.

[136or142]

My gift to Andrew Coyne.  My 17 member Canadian Federal cabinet and the Ministers I would choose from each party.

1.Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair
2.Finance/Treasury Board, Ralph Goodale, Tony Clement, Nathan Cullen
3.Industry and Trade, John McCallum, Ed Fast, Peggy Nash
4.Natural Resources, Kirsty Duncan, Gerry Ritz, Linda Duncan
5.Agriculture and Fisheries, Yvonne Jones, Gail Shea, Guy Caron
6.Environment and Parks, Stephane Dion, Leona Aglukuk, Megan Leslie
7.Transportation and Public Works, Scott Brison, Lisa Raitt, David Christopherson
8.Human Resources and Social Development, Chrystia Freeland, Kellie Leitch, Olivia Chow
9.Health, Carolyn Bennett, Rona Ambrose, Helene Le Blanc
10.Veterans Affairs, Kevin Lamoreux, Erin O'Toole, Peter Stoffer
11.Defense, Geoff Regan, Jason Kenney, Jack Harris
12.Foreign Affairs and International Development, Marc Garneau, Rob Nicholson, Paul Dewar
13.Citizenship and Immigration/Labour, Arnold Chan, Denis Lebel, Helene Laverdiere
14.Aboriginal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Joyce Murray, Bernard Valcourt, Niki Ashton
15.Solicitor General and Public Safety, David McGuinty, Steven Blaney, Randall Garrison
16.Attorney General, Sean Casey, Peter Van Loan, Francoise Boivin
17.Government House Leader, Dominic LeBlanc, Kerri Lynne Findley, Peter Julian
Chief Whip, Judy Foote, Diane Finley, Nycole Turmel

This is a similar cabinet to the U.S one
Obviously there is no Prime Minister in the U.S cabinet and the closest thing to a Government House Leader there is probably the Congressional Liason.  12 of the other 15 are basically the same:

1.Finance/Treasury Board = Treasury
2.Industry and Trade = Commerce
3.Natural Resources = Energy
4.Agriculture and Fisheries = Agriculture
5.Environment and Parks = Interior
6.Transportation and Public Works = Transportation
7.Health = Health and Human Services
8.Veterans Affairs = Veterans Affairs
9.Defense = Defense
10.Foreign Affairs and International Development = State
11.Solicitor General and Public Safety = Homeland Security
12.Attorney General = Attorney General

The only 3 cabinet positions in the U.S not here are
1.Labor
2.Housing and Urban Development
3.Education

[136or142]

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.

Liberal electoral reform would likely mean instant runoff elections which would likely destroy the B.Q.

[136or142]

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.

Liberal electoral reform would likely mean instant runoff elections which would likely destroy the B.Q.

That's assuming the NDP remains competitive in every part of Quebec. Or, Trudeaumania 2.0 doesn't both take NDP votes *and* re-reinvigorate Quebec nationalism.

Well, that's a fair point. But, it's too many ifs:
1.I believe you are referring not to whether the NDP remains competitive or not, but where the NDP voters go if they aren't in the top two.  So, that's one if.

2.It assumes the Liberals come to power and reinvigorates Quebec nationalism or that another Conservative government would reinvigorate Quebec nationalism.  We don't know how the Liberals would govern, so you can't assume that dislike in French Quebec for the Trudeau name would bring back seperatist sentiment.  So, that's two ifs.

3.Finally, it assumes electoral reform is implemented.  I don't see how the NDP or the Liberals could do that without holding a national referendum.  So, that's three ifs (of course, the need to hold a referendum is also an assumption on my part, but one backed up by what happened in the provinces.)  

It's safer to simply assume that a revived Bloc Quebecois on the basis of the Niqab issue will once again try to parlay 'winning conditions' into support for their provincial cousins. On this basis it would be that either a Liberal government won't implement anti Niqab laws or that the Conservative government laws don't go far enough, or that the Supreme Court strikes the federal laws down.  To me at this point, it looks like Harper has brought up an issue for cynical electoral purposes that is going to threaten one of the few genuine major accomplishments that happened on his watch.

[136or142]

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.

[136or142]

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.

That something isn't followed by powerful institutions in a society doesn't mean it isn't a value, just that such institutions aren't behaving in accordance with said value. Fairness doesn't stop being a cultural value just because someone are being treated unfairly. Doing things in the open, not being deceitful etc. can be found as an ideal long time back, it was part of the ideal of chivalry, but also of Germanic tribal law (swearing before your fellow man etc.) There is an old difference in Nordic law between murder (killing a man during sleep, by poison or from ambush) and killing them openly after stating your intent. Dunno whether that existed in English common law, but I think so.
Transparency in government has been an ideal since rationalism, with Sweden implementing free public access to public documents in the late 18th century as the first - based on the belief nothing the government does should be hidden (with national security an exception, but functioning as an ideal). Other countries have since enacted similar laws. The US Freedom of Information Act is an expression of this ideal.

tl;dr: openness and transparency are old Western ideals, even if not always followed.

If something is truly a value then it follows that it would be frequently followed. An ideal is much more than just a value.  Even if it is a value, then it stands to reason we should start with having greater transparency in things that actually effect people's lives, like open government and, as much as possible, open business.

That said, privacy is also a Western Value.  I.E the right to be forgotten court ruling in Europe as well as the basic notion that privacy, far more than transparency, is a basic right.

Finally, their is also a Western Value that people should be free to do what they like as long as they don't directly harm anybody else. In this regard, it seems that Canada is actually finally starting to realize this value with court rulings striking down marijuana laws (at least against medical marijuana), striking down the prostitution law (though not on the basis of lack of harm, but on the basis that the law creates an even greater harm), and finally striking down laws on assisted death.

If you can show me cases where transparency has been a concern of anybody except at election time, you might start to make a case that this is truly a Western Value.  Even most laws on open government came in after a government was newly elected after making a promise to bring them in and, which you neglected to mention, ever since then, the elected governments have been trying to find ways to get around these laws (at least in Canada and the U.S) through either declaring practically everything as 'a state secret' making the cost to access documents freedom of information requests so onerous that practically nobody can afford them or by simply keeping meetings strictly verbal, which seems to be a hallmark of the Christy Clark government here in B.C.

[136or142]

EKOS: 33.4/26.7/25.6.

That's not as strange as I thought it would be. The way Graves was talking, I thought he'd have the Tories at 40%

Cons are down two percent in this poll from the previous EKOS survey.

[136or142]

Stephen Harper's flip flops on Niqabs, religious accommodation and Canadian values.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's Feb. 16 Response to Same-Sex Marriage Bill C-38

1.When it came to same sex marriage, Stephen Harper argued that issues like that were basically a distraction:

"I also want to express today my disappointment in a sense that we are having such a debate. As we all remember, the expectations for the Prime Minister during the leadership race were very high. I will refer to that leadership race in a few moments.

What do we have today? We have no agreement on child care. We have a phantom deal on infrastructure. We have missing policy reviews on defence and foreign affairs. We have none of that famous fixed for a generation in health care. We have holes in federal agencies, the same old democratic deficit in the Senate, unaccountable foundations and, on the first day of a major environmental and economic accord to which the Prime Minister committed this country, we have no plan whatsoever and the Prime Minister does not speak about it. His only speech is on his new-found passion for same sex marriage because it is the only proposal of significance he has been able to lay before the House of Commons."

2.Stephen Harper argued that there was no definition of Canadian Values (more or less)
"The greater tragedy is the greater message in his speech, that if we do not accept his particular views on this legislation, then we are not truly Canadian. That is something that this party will never accept."

3.Most importantly Stephen Harper argued that when it came down to it, it was Canada that should adopt to the views of immigrants:

"In particular, it has been unforgiveably insensitive with regard to all cultural communities in this country for which marriage is a most deeply rooted value.

Nowhere have the Liberals been more vociferous in their attempts to link same sex marriage to minority rights than among Canada's ethnic and cultural minority communities. Yet at the same time, they have clearly wanted these communities excluded from this debate. Why? Because, to their embarrassment, the vast majority of Canada's cultural communities, setting aside those groups dependent on Liberal funding, see through the Liberals' attempt to link basic human rights to the government's opposition to their traditional practices of marriage.

Many new Canadians chose this country, fleeing regimes that did and do persecute religious, ethnic and political minorities. They know what real human rights abuses are. They know that recognizing traditional marriage in law while granting equal benefits to same sex couples is not a human rights abuse akin to what they may have seen in Rwanda or China or Iran.

What these new Canadians also understand, and what this government does not, is that there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad. New Canadians know that marriage and family are not the creature of the state but pre-exist the state and that the state has some responsibility to uphold and defend these institutions.

New Canadians know that their deeply held cultural traditions and religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman will be jeopardized by a law which declares them unconstitutional and brands their supporters as human rights violators.

New Canadians know that their cultural values are likely to come under attack if this law is passed. They know that we are likely to see disputes in the future over charitable status for religious or cultural organizations that oppose same sex marriage, or over school curriculum and hiring standards in both public and private religious and cultural minority schools.

New Canadians, many of whom have chosen Canada as a place where they can practise their religion and raise their family in accordance with their beliefs and without interference from the state, know that these legal fights will limit and restrict their freedom to honour their faith and their cultural practices.

Of course, in all of these cases, courts and human rights commissions will attempt to balance the basic human rights of freedom of religion and expression with the newly created legal right to same sex marriage, but as our justice critic has remarked, we have a pattern: wherever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights seem to trump.

The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.

All religious faiths traditionally have upheld the belief that marriage is a child-centred union of a man and a woman, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. All of these cultural communities, rooted in those faiths, will find their position in society marginalized."

http://members.shaw.ca/brian.bogdan/blog_images/february/harper.htm

[136or142]

Man, imagine how high the liberals would be in Ontario if Tim Hudak had won the last election?

One good thing about Tim Hudak (and surprising as well) he's a big fan of Billy Bragg's music.

[136or142]

Sad. Canada seemed to be the one country where conservatives, no matter their flaws, were at least egalitarian enough to have a diverse base. Deeply disappointing.

They did have a diverse base.  They've blown it so far by demonizing Muslims and East Indians.

[136or142]

At this point, I wonder if it's worth speculating on who'd be Mulcair's successor.  (FWIW, I've long thought of Charlie Angus in future-leadership terms.)

The high profile young members would probably be the front runners.
1.Nathan Cullen
2.Niki Ashton
3.Guy Caron (If reelected)
4.Megan Leslie

[136or142]

The anti-weed campaign is really stupid. What on earth does Harper think he's doing? This is not the way to win the elections.

I'd suggest two possibilities:

1) The Tories are trying to use it as a wedge to win over ethnic minorities (Optimistic answer)

2) The Tories feel they are in trouble and are trying to turn out their base (Pessimistic answer)

Either way, they are probably hoping that pro-weed people either don't care enough to change their vote or are so pro-drug that they'd never consider the Tories anyway. This sort of thing can work,  although I'm inclined to think its a bad idea in this case.

1) Why would minorities be anti-weed? Even if they are "socially conservative", this seems like one of these issues most people with a foreign background don't really care about.

 2) Hmmm. It seems like they're using it to look really "ideological", which doesn't make any sense because they don't face any threats to their right, and I doubt they should worry about turnout among steadfast conservatives - it's rather moderate voters who could also vote for the Liberals they should worry about, and this seems like the exact wrong tactic to convince these people. It seems like Harper and his advisors truly don't know what they are doing.

Don't know about most South Asians, but Chinese in particular tend to be very anti illegal drugs due to their countries experience with opium and probably the Opium Wars.  I don't know how many Chinese Canadians actually care about this, but the CON Party thinks it's a big deal to them, and Chinese Canadian CON M.Ps are strongly anti marijuana legalization.

[136or142]

Meh, I don't hate the Liberals that much. In office, they seem mostly bland and useless, but not actually harmful - and certainly not as harmful as Harper has been in the past decade. Biebertrudeau seems like an empty suit, but in the past they had pretty good leaders even from a left-wing perspective.

Come now Tony, most of our hatred of the Liberals has nothing to do with policy. It has everything to do with their arrogance and the fact that they are an amorphous, unideological, centrist blob that keeps stealing our (either NDP or Tory) platform

Most platform planks come from research by university professors and other researchers.  The idea that any party owns policies is silly.

[136or142]

Most platform planks come from research by university professors and other researchers.

Oh boy, I wish this were true...

Fair point. I should have said that most policy planks originate from research highlighted by university professors and other researchers.  What the political parties do with that evidence sometimes has no relation to the proposals suggested by that research.

A good example of that is the P.Q government taking the findings from the Charles Taylor commission and doing the exact opposite of what he recommended.

[136or142]

I'd wager that much of policy implemented by modern government stems from corporate lobbying. The US obviously being one of the most egregious examples. Aside from that, parties and other interest groups also have their own agency. Researchers only come far behind.

Other than the Liberals and the C.D Howe Institute, I don't believe either the Conservatives or the NDP have had their own research institutions for very long.  Even the C.D Howe Institute is more independent than aligned with the Liberals.  It was one of the 'other' types of research groups I was referring to.

The Conservatives have the Preston Manning thing which also isn't officially aligned plus groups like the Fraser Institute, The National Citizens Coalition and the Atlantic thing which also aren't officially aligned.

The NDP and affiliated groups recently started the Broadbent Institute. The only thing that existed on the left nationally before that was the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives which started up as a counterbalance to the Fraser Institute.  Here in B.C there is also Smart Growth B.C, though that may be more of a lobbying outfit.

Most of these groups primarily focus on economic policy and to a lesser extent social welfare policy.  When it comes to things like health, transportation, the environment and probably even foreign policy, I'd say that most research and raw policy ideas still come from universities and officially non partisan (as opposed to non aligned) research institutions and think tanks.

[136or142]

That Tory candidate has been repudiated, but he'll still be on the ballot.

Robert Fisher says the campaign reminds him of ON 1999.

The Liberal Party removed Cheryl Thomas of Victoria B.C from their list of candidates on their website. Will the Conservatives do the same?

[136or142]

1.The NDP fortunes in Quebec in 2011 shot up after Jack Layton went on some incredibly popular talk show in that province and wowed practically every citizen there.

2.The NDP campaign team that is regarded as bumbling incompetents in this election is the same team that managed Jack Layton's campaign when they were regarded as geniuses.

3.We are seeing a converging of all the polls in Canada, is it possible all the firms are 'massaging' the numbers to achieve similar results as some firms were accused of doing in the United States?

I know a lot of the regional results are still quite different in each poll, but, it's the national numbers that, rightly or wrongly, most people pay attention to.

[136or142]

The federal NDP learned nothing from Andrea Horwath's stunning failure in 2014: why is Mulcair touting fiscal responsibility and budgetary balance? Why does the NDP yearn to express itself as a centrist party? No one gravitates towards the NDP because it's a pillar of respectability or whatever, soft left types look to the NDP as a principled party that embodies consistent left-wing values.

I watched the Globe and Mail debate. Trudeau was far more bold than Mulcair in terms of his rhetoric, policy vision and his willingness to argue for the left against Harper.

Do you think the NDP struggles in part because of their brand. People in seat rich BC and Ontario still have negative memories of past NDP governments. I am only asking this because it seems that the NDP has hard time finding a balance from left-to center left, in order to get elected. Instead the Liberals in this election and past elections have had success moving to the left. 

Provincially and more or less federally, the NDP is back at its traditional level of support in B.C and has been so provincially since 2005.  I don't know that the NDP governments of the 1990s here resonate much with people who regularly vote NDP, though they may have been one of the reasons the provincial NDP lost the 2013 election due to the reaction of swing voters.

In Ontario, it has taken the NDP longer to recover there both provincially and federally but they are now back to their traditional level of support of around 25% in the most recent elections.  (They were at higher levels provincially in the 1970s and early 1980s when they were led by two rather extraordinary politicians: David McDonald and then Stephen Lewis), however, it should not be forgotten that at the time the provincial Liberal Party was still a mostly right wing rural based party, and the center party was the P.Cs led by Bill Davis.  Only under the leadership of the psychiatrist Smith (Stuart Smith?) did the provincial liberals become the centrist, or center left party they are now and he was dogged by perceptions that his party was right wing, and by having a caucus comprised of mostly right wing rural members.

[136or142]

    For all of the discussion about the Conservatives and BQ going to the right on the immigration issue, just how much of this is in fact symbolic only.  In real terms, have either party endorsed Canada changing policy and lowering total amounts of immigrants allowed into Canada? IMHO, that would amount to really going to the right on the issue, not the Niquab issue.

Conservatives have increased the number of immigrants admitted to Canada per year since coming to power.  I don't think they'd change that if reelected.  Bloq likely has no opinion as they can't form government.  I'm sure they'd like to see Quebec be able to restrict the number of immigrants it admits per year, though I don't know that for sure.  Of course, as Quebec is part of Canada restricting where any person in Canada can and can't move to is obviously unconstitutional.

[136or142]

    For all of the discussion about the Conservatives and BQ going to the right on the immigration issue, just how much of this is in fact symbolic only.  In real terms, have either party endorsed Canada changing policy and lowering total amounts of immigrants allowed into Canada? IMHO, that would amount to really going to the right on the issue, not the Niquab issue.

Conservatives have increased the number of immigrants admitted to Canada per year since coming to power.  I don't think they'd change that if reelected.  Bloq likely has no opinion as they can't form government.  I'm sure they'd like to see Quebec be able to restrict the number of immigrants it admits per year, though I don't know that for sure.  Of course, as Quebec is part of Canada restricting where any person in Canada can and can't move to is obviously unconstitutional.

No. Immigration is partly devolved to Quebec and you must get a Selection Certificate to immigrate there. Quebec already selects its immigrants.

Thanks. I stand corrected. I assume that is only for immigrants though and not for citizens of Canada.

[136or142]

Anybody think what happened to the Liberals in Nova Scotia in 1997 could happen to the NDP in Quebec?  In 1997 the Liberals were basically in a three way tie in Nova Scotia's popular vote, they ended up in third in the popular vote receiving 2.4% less of the vote than the first place P.Cs at 30.8-28.4%.  In seats though the NDP won six seats and the P.Cs 5, while the Liberals were shut out as they likely came in second place in nearly every riding.)

I obviously don't think the NDP won't win any seats in Quebec, but I'd say there is a remote but real possibility they could come fourth in seats while winning the most votes.  This is basically because the NDP doesn't seem to be in first in pretty much any region.

The only region the NDP is likely in first place in Quebec is the Outaouais.  

The Liberals are in first place in Montreal, though the NDP may still be in first in Eastern Montreal.

The Conservatives are in first place in Quebec City, parts of the Eastern Townships (or L'Estrie if you prefer) and parts of rural Eastern Quebec north of the Townships.

The B.Q are likely in first place in the other parts of L'Estrie and points north.  The B.Q are likely either in first place or are now likely in a close battle with the NDP in all the other rural parts of Quebec:  Saguenay, Central Quebec, the Laurentides and Northern Quebec (The other parts of Northern Quebec not including Saguenay.)

The only areas I don't know about are the Montreal suburbs (though apparently the Liberals are rising quickly through much of the Montreal region and that probably includes the suburbs) and the city of Laval.

Outside of L'Estrie and points north where most ridings there are likely now a Conservative-B.Q battle (except for Beauce which should be overwhelmingly Conservative and, for all I know maybe Brome-Missisquoi which in recent history has been the most Liberal riding in that region and not that many years prior to that was a stronghold for P.C star M.P Heward Grafftey) I would expect the NDP to come in second in nearly all the ridings they don't win.  So, this is obviously the same situation the Liberals saw in Nova Scotia in 1997, except they narrowly came in third in the popular vote, while I would still expect the NDP to come in first, based on present trends.

I think there is also a possibility that the NDP could bounce back into a fairly solid first place in Quebec between now and election day.

If I were them, I would run ads featuring quotes of all the times Conservative cabinet ministers spoke out against passing laws against the Niqab in public sector workplaces and I would especially  film a commercial using that speech I posted quotes from earlier during the 2005 same sex marriage debate in Parliament where Harper spoke out in favor of minority rights on the issue of religious accommodation and essentially said that Canada should move to accommodate the religious views of immigrants and not the other way around, I can just imagine how badly that would go down in Quebec right now.  I would especially tie that in with reusing the line from the very effective ad the P.Cs ran in the last couple weeks of the 1988 free trade campaign where they went after Liberal leader John Turner personally with the line "The only job John Turner is concerned about is his own."

[136or142]

The Star will endorse Justin tomorrow.

And another star will rise in the morning.

[136or142]

Latest polls
EKOS, October 8, Cons 33.7%, NDP 20.4% Lib 33.8% B.Q 3.5% Green 7.2%
Angus Reid, October 9, Cons 33% NDP 25% Lib 31% B.Q  6% Green 3%
Nanos, October 9, Cons 28.6%, NDP 24.9%, Lib 34.8% B.Q 5.5% Green 5.4%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

[136or142]

Australian Broadcast Corporation Program "Rear Vision" on the Canadian election.  Seems to be a week behind, and they interview Canadians but it's interesting to her the perspective of what those Australians find to be the most important things regarding the Canadian election.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/canadian-elections/6809706

[136or142]

Will the bloc actually rebound in seats? Ugh.

Eh, 2011 was still probably a mortal blow even if the Bloc does rebound now (the way 1993 was a mortal blow to the PCs, even though they rebounded in 1997 and stayed in Parliament until 2003). Discounting 2011, the Bloc's worst-ever performances were 38 seats (in 2000), 10.0% of the all-Canada vote (in 2008), and 37.9% of the Quebec vote (in 1997). Those were their worst performances, and they are nowhere near any of those numbers.

Yes, but there won't be any Quebecers who vote for any B.Q M.P (except maybe 1) not because they support the party, but because they like that person as an M.P.  So, I would expect their vote to be a lot more concentrated this time around.  As I've said before,  most polls are showing them with a lead in Central and Northern Quebec (except for North East Quebec where they seem to be in a battle with the Conservatives.)