Monthly Archives: May 2015

Cultural Ecocide, democracy

Walk for reconciliation draws thousands to downtown Ottawa

Leave a comment

Walk began Sunday in Gatineau, Que., passed Parliament Hill, ended at Ottawa City Hall

Debbie Stephens holds an eagle feather as she pauses before the start of the walk for reconciliation, part of the closing events of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Sunday in Gatineau, Que.
Debbie Stephens holds an eagle feather as she pauses before the start of the walk for reconciliation, part of the closing events of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Sunday in Gatineau, Que. (The Canadian Press)

reposted from CBC News, May 31, 2015

An estimated 7,000 to 10,000 people walked through downtown Ottawa-Gatineau in an effort to “transform and renew” the relationship between aboriginal people and other Canadians as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada prepares to release its final report on Tuesday.

Truth Reconciliation Walk 20150531
Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde (wearing a traditional headdress) and Justice Murray Sinclair (in front of him wearing sunglasses in a black suit) took part in the walk on Sunday. (The Canadian Press)

“It’s a dark chapter in Canada’s history, no question. It was cultural genocide,” said National Chief Perry Bellegarde, head of the Assembly of First Nations, who took part in the walk on Sunday.

“There’s a lot of young ones that didn’t come home to their families, communities. There’s a lot of death there. We’ve got to remember and honour those [deaths], that we learn from that and honour their spirits.”

The commission, struck in 2009, has been writing an exhaustive history of the residential school system. The commissioners interviewed more than 7,000 people across the country and the final report, which is expected to be released on June 2, will span six volumes and more than two million words.

At least 6,000 aboriginal children died while in the residential school system, according to commission chair Justice Murray Sinclair, though poor record-keeping has made an exact figure difficult to pinpoint.

Bellegarde said there’s a lot of rebuilding to do and many stories left to tell.

“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is six, seven years of listening to the truth … and even though it’s part of their closing ceremonies, it really is the beginning of rebuilding the relationship between First Nations, non-First Nations peoples in Canada,” he said.

“That’s what this walk is all about. … We have to tell the truth. The truth has to be told.”

‘We walk together’

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, who address the crowd at City Hall, said about 7,000 people made the walk. Justice Sinclair, meanwhile, estimated that about 10,000 people showed up.

Chief Robert Joseph, who attended residential school and helped create the organization Reconciliation Canada, said Sunday that he had been waiting to take part in Sunday’s walk for a long time.

Chief Robert Joseph Reconciliation Canada Ottawa walk May 31 2015
Chief Robert Joseph says he was inspired to see so many people come together to walk for reconciliation on Sunday. (CBC News)

“I never, ever envisioned that this would happen, that thousands of people would gather to give expression to the idea that we are … all one,” Joseph said.

“And that includes me, somebody who was so terribly beat up in these residential schools that I felt absolutely worthless, no purpose in my life. And now here I am and I see all this humanity, and I’m inspired to my soul that people care enough to come out and walk with us today. And we walk together,” he said.

“We’re going to create and define Canada in a way that it should have been defined in the first place: inclusive, equal, just, compassionate, all those wonderful words we subscribe to all the time.”

‘It’s about forgiveness and restoring Canada’

People came from many parts of Canada to take part in the walk, including Bernadette Dean from Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. She attended Akaitcho Hall residential school in Yellowknife, she said.

Dorene Bernard Walk for Reconciliation May 31 2015
Dorene Bernard said three generations of her family attended residential schools. (CBC News)

“It’s really good because, to me, it’s about forgiveness and restoring Canada. … I know [the commission] collected a lot of testimonies and I hope something good comes out of it,” Dean said.

Dorene Bernard, who came from the Indian Brook 14 reserve in Nova Scotia, said three generations of her family went to residential schools.

“I wanted to be part of history, the closing of the [commission], and to walk for survivors … and all my relatives from the east that attended residential schools,” Bernard said.

Closing ceremonies end Wednesday

Sunday’s walk was one of many events taking place from Sunday to Wednesday as part of a closing ceremony for the commission.

​The 4.7-kilometre walk crossed the Ottawa River along the Portage Bridge, passed Parliament Hill and the National War Memorial, and ended at Ottawa City Hall on Elgin Street.

The CBC’s Waubgeshig Rice covered the walk, and you can check out his tweets below.

Other events scheduled for the week include sharing circles, archival displays, film screenings and educational sessions.

On mobile? Check out the live blog here.

SOURCE

Related Stories

climate science, Ecocide, Ecocide ALert, Video

VIDEO: Arctic methane skyrocketing.

Leave a comment
Paul Beckwith

Video by Paul Beckwith, from YouTube, May 30, 2015

I discuss how ground level flask measurements of methane have been spiking upwards over the last few years. I analyze the implications to the breakdown of climate stability, causing jet stream fracturing and weather regime change. I believe that this behaviour will rapidly worsen as Arctic temperature amplification continues, leading our planet to a much warmer and unrecognizable climate over the next 5 to 10 years.

12m, 59 s

SOURCE

RELATED CLIMATE CHANGE:

With Global Warming, a future of Pacific Superstorms

Infographic - The effects of global warming

Global warming is damaging the Earth’s climate as well as the physical environment. One of the most visible effects of global warming can be seen in the Arctic as glaciers, permafrost and sea ice are melting rapidly. Global warming is harming the environment in several ways including:

  • Desertification
  • Increased melting of snow and ice
  • Sea level rise
  • Stronger hurricanes and cyclones
The effects of global warming.

Global warming is the current increase in temperature of the Earth’s surface (both land and water) as well as it’s atmosphere. Average temperatures around the world have risen by 0.75°C (1.4°F) over the last 100 years about two thirds of this increase has occurred since 1975. In the past, when the Earth experienced increases in temperature it was the result of natural causes but today it is being caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere produced by human activities.

Global warming is affecting many places around the world. It is accelerating the melting of ice sheets, permafrost and glaciers which is causing average sea levels to rise. It is also changing precipitation and weather patterns in many different places, making some places dryer, with more intense periods of drought and at the same time making other places wetter, with stronger storms and increased flooding. These changes have affected both nature as well as human society and will continue to have increasingly worse effects if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at the same pace as today.

Feel free to this infographic as a poster or graphic to spread the word! SOURCE

 

Cultural Ecocide, Preventing Ecocide, racism

Education a first step in ‘long journey’ to aboriginal reconciliation, commission chairman says

Leave a comment
Justice Murray Sinclair, head of the aboriginal residential schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission. says one of the most important messages that will come from his report is that the consequences of the school system are far more wide-reaching than many realize.
Justice Murray Sinclair, head of the aboriginal residential schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission. John Woods / For the Ottawa Citizen

By Chris Cobb, reposted from the Ottawa Citizen, May 31, 2015

The “secret” to reconciliation and mutual respect between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians lies in how parents and teachers educate their children, Manitoba Justice Murray Sinclair told a packed audience at the University of Ottawa Saturday.

Sinclair’s speech, which received a prolonged standing ovation, was a prelude to four days of activity in the National Capital Region to mark Tuesday’s release of the Truth and Reconciliation report into the treatment of aboriginal children at residential schools.

Sinclair chaired the commission.

For generations aboriginal children were taught that they were inferior to children of European immigrant families, he said.

“But it also had the effect of educating non-aboriginal children to believe that their cultures and ancestors were superior,’ he added, “when in some cases aboriginal societies were far superior in the way they functioned.”

The abuse suffered by tens of thousands of aboriginal schools has had a lasting effect not only on the survivors but deep into the fabric of aboriginal life in Canada, said Sinclair.

The federal government funded the church-run Indian Residential Schools for more than 120 years during which children were systematically stripped of their language, culture and traditions.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established following the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

Sinclair did not reveal any of the report’s recommendations but gave a clear indication Saturday of what to expect when it is tabled:

  • Children were physically and sexually abused and their health neglected. Diseases were rampant in the schools and many children died.
  • Residential schools destroyed relationships between the resident children, their families and their communities.
  • Children were often disbelieved by their parents when they told them of abuse and many parents who did believe their children told them ‘don’t tell anybody because if you tell anybody you’re going to get even more punishment.’
  • Those people lost trust and sense of belief in their families, said Sinclair. “You can’t grow up in an institution – from being a young child to becoming a young adult — and have a sense of family. So knowing how to function in a family setting was a significant challenge for many.”
  • Children of survivors have also been affected. The commission heard many reports of lack of affection and love; of parents emotionally incapable of showing love to their children — sometime fearful of showing love. Some survivors told the commission that they were afraid to hold their child because it reminded them of how they were held by the people who abused them.
  • Substance abuse, mental illness and poverty were, and are, common in survivor families.
  • Survivors’ lack of faith in the education system has been passed through generations often resulting in a lack of education and lack of family support for subsequent generations.

The ongoing disappearance, abuse and murder of young aboriginal women is a direct result of an ingrained attitude dating back to the fur trade.

“It was part of the normal way of things, and that belief has permeated the thinking of many men is western Canadian society and western society generally: To think about indigenous women as being less than their counterparts. Victimization of young girls in residential schools occurred at a much more significant rate than young boys although victimization of both was serious.”

“The question now,” said Sinclair, is ‘what do we do about all of this?

“The first step is a need to inform ourselves,” he said. “The secret to reconciliation is how we educate our children to make sure they have a proper understanding. The ultimate goal is establishing a relationship of mutual respect. We have a lot of work to do.”

Post-secondary institutions have a special responsibility to ensure “that the academic freedoms they stand so proudly in defence of are extended to addressing the academic knowledge of indigenous people.”

Sinclair signaled that the commission report will be inadequate in its estimation of the numbers of missing children who attended residential schools.

“Children who were not able to make it home because they died in the schools or died in the way home,’ he said. “We have attempted to determine the numbers as best we can but our report is very incomplete.

“There is a crying need for more research into the question of how many children actually died in the schools so that we can help the aboriginal community – and non-aboriginal community — come to terms with this treatment in a meaningful way.

“Residential schools can’t be looked at in isolation,” he added. “They were part of an overall approach (of government and society) to force the assimilation of indigenous people into Canadian society.”

A ‘Walk for Reconciliation’ begins at noon Sunday from Gatineau’s École Secondaire de l’Île and will end at Marion Dewar Plaza at Ottawa City Hall via Portage Bridge and Victoria Island.

“Reconciliation is a process that involves everyone from all sectors, that is what this walk is about,” Sinclair said in an earlier statement. “It will take time and it will not be easy, but we need to start this journey today, so that our children and future generations can finish it.”

For more information on the entire four-day program go to www.trc.ca

SOURCE

 

Ecocide ALert, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

The Forgotten Electricity that Could Eliminate Need for Site C Dam

Leave a comment
:Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and US President Dwight Eisenhower at the signing of the Columbia River Treaty, 17 Jan 1961

By Emma Gilchrist, reposted from DeSmog.ca, May 28, 2015

On January 17, 1961, Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and United States President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Columbia River Treaty.

It was a landmark agreement that required Canada to build three dams to aid in U.S. flood protection and power generation. In exchange for taking on the impacts of these water storage projects, Canada was paid $64 million for 60 years of flood control benefits.

Canada also received an entitlement to one-half of the estimated additional hydroelectric generation capability at power plants on the Columbia River in the United States made possible by the operation of the dams in Canada.

This power is referred to as the “Canadian Entitlement” and since 2003 it has amounted to at least 1,176 megawatts of capacity and 4,073 gigawatt hours of energy a year.

That just so happens to be nearly identical to the amount of electricityB.C. could create via the controversial $8.8 billion Site C dam — the most expensive public project in B.C. history.

The B.C. government gave Site C the go-ahead in December 2014, but the third dam on the Peace River is facing several court challenges from landowners and First Nations who oppose flooding 83 kilometres of the Peace Valley.

This week, a U.S. energy economist said the power from the dam isdramatically more costly than previously thought. The B.C. government has argued the dam is the most cost-effective way to meet the province’s electricity needs and has rejected repeated calls for an independent review of costs by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Failure to Consider Columbia River Power ‘Inexplicable’: Panel Chair

Harry Swain, the chair of the joint federal-provincial panel that reviewed Site C, panned the B.C. government’s actions on the dam in March, in comments called “unprecedented” by environmental law experts.

“To say we will not consider our entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty is inexplicable,” Swain told DeSmog Canada.

In recent years, B.C. has been selling off the Canadian Entitlement to the tune of $100 to $300 million annually. From 2010 to 2012, the province recieved about $30 per megawatt-hour for that power. Meantime, the cost of power from the Site C dam is estimated at $83 per megawatt-hour.

“On the face of it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to be building new sources at $83 (per megawatt hour) and continuing to export at $25 or $30 or $40 per megawatt hour,” said Philip Raphals, an energy analyst hired by the Treaty 8 Tribal Association to provide expert testimony during the Site C hearings. “Why not just use our own inexpensive resources instead of selling them off for so little?”

Using Columbia River Power Would Save B.C. $2 Billion: Treaty 8

In a 20-page letter to the B.C. government, the Treaty 8 Tribal Association made the case that taking into account just 50 per cent of the Canadian Entitlement would defer the need for new electricity capacity in the province to 2034.

“We have estimated the potential benefits to ratepayers of enacting such a regulation to repatriate the Canadian Entitlement to be at least $2 billion compared to the Site C portfolio preferred by BC Hydro,” said the letter sent in Dec. 2014 to Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett and Minister of Finance Mike De Jong.

Days after the letter was sent, the B.C. government announced it intended to move ahead with the Site C project.

Canadian Entitlement ‘Fell Between Cracks’: Energy Expert

The panel that reviewed the Site C dam was not allowed to consider the possibility of repatriating the Canadian Entitlement, nor did BC Hydro bring it forward as an option.

Why not? B.C.’s Clean Energy Act.

The act includes a self-sufficiency requirement, which requires that BCHydro be able to produce enough electricity to satisfy provincial electricity demand. It was designed so BC Hydro can’t rely on market purchases, particularly imports of high-polluting power, for planning purposes.

“The Canadian Entitlement, however, consists of hydropower, the environmental costs of which are already borne by British Columbians,” reads the Treaty 8 letter. “Adopting a regulation allowing the import of the Canadian Entitlement (for planning purposes) could not be seen as compromising B.C.’s climate polices or its goal of energy self-sufficiency.”

Because of this requirement, BC Hydro never examined the possibilities of using the Canadian Entitlement to meet B.C.’s needs, Raphals says.

“How, then, would the provincial government ever become aware that it could avoid the environmental and treaty infringement consequences of the Site C project, avoid borrowing billions of dollars and avoid major rate impacts by repatriating BC Hydro power, if BC Hydro believes it is barred from even mentioning this possibility unless explicitly asked to do so by the government?” the Treaty 8 letter to government said.

The panel’s mandate was to work within existing laws, regulations and policy, which meant the Columbia River power only came up as an aside during the environmental review.

“The downstream benefits are off of everyone’s radar … It seemed to us that it’s a solution that has fallen between the cracks,” Raphals said.

The joint review panel did comment on the self-sufficiency requirement briefly, saying:

“Taken literally, this means a B.C. disconnected to the outside world, a vision of autarchy truly strange for a province that relies on trade, and a long way from its recent history …. Minor relaxations could mean being connected for reliability or for diversity exchange …”

The consequences of the self-sufficiency requirement were also evaluated in a 2011 BC Hydro review. That panel wrote:

“The panel recognizes that the economic and energy situations have changed, and that the existing self sufficiency definition may be overly conservative and place an undue burden on ratepayers. The panel recommends that BC Hydro and the province evaluate alternative definitions and timelines for self-sufficiency that meet the needs of the province and ratepayers in a way that is sustainable for the long term.”

Re-Negotiation of Treaty Creates Too Much Uncertainty: B.C. Government

Given these well-documented concerns and the low market rate of electricity, why hasn’t the B.C.government considered using the Columbia River power to defer the need to build more expensive sources of power, such as the Site C dam?

In low water years, B.C. currently may import up to 10 per cent of annual demand, according to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

“Meeting new B.C. demand by relying on the Canadian Entitlement instead of building new sources of power in B.C. would increase this exposure,” a ministry spokesperson said in a written response to DeSmog Canada. “While BC Hydro is comfortable with a 10 per cent level of exposure, a higher level of exposure would introduce risks regarding the ability of the market to reliably meet B.C.’s electricity needs under certain conditions.”

In addition to that, the treaty is up for re-negotiation.

“It is also not a long-term resource as either country may unilaterally terminate the treaty with 10 years notice,” the spokesperson said.

Raphals argues that, given the importance of the treaty for U.S. system operations, it is “implausible” that the U.S. would simply abrogate it.

“It is, however, entirely possible that the amount of the Canadian Entitlement will eventually be reduced,” he said.

And that’s why, when modeling the impact of the Canadian Entitlement, Raphals limited the downstream benefits to half of what is currently available.

Raphals argues that taking the Canadian Entitlement into account allows B.C. to delay the need to build new projects and ultimately make smarter planning decisions.

“There is no need for BC Hydro to make firm decisions in 2014 on how to serve its loads 20 years from now,” Raphals said. “The world today is very different than it was 20 years ago, and there is every reason to believe it will be very different as well, in very unpredictable ways, in 2034.” SOURCE

 

 

 

Fascism/Corporatism, Politics

Amnesty wants Ottawa to reveal details of $15-billion Saudi arms deal

Leave a comment
Saudi forces in a graduation ceremony in Riyadh on Tuesday. Amnesty International is pressing the Conservative government for information on an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. (FAISAL AL NASSER/REUTERS)
x Saudi forces in a graduation ceremony in Riyadh on Tuesday. Amnesty International is pressing the Conservative government for information on an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. (FAISAL AL NASSER/REUTERS)

By STEVEN CHASE, reposted from the Globe and Mail, May 29, 2015

A leading human-rights watchdog is pressing the Conservative government to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding a $15-billion arms deal Ottawa has inked to sell fighting vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country notorious for its treatment of women, dissidents and offenders.

The Harper government has stunned rights advocates by refusing to divulge how it is justifying this massive sale to Saudi Arabia under Ottawa’s strict export control regime. It is by far the largest military export contract brokered by the Canadian government, and federal rules oblige Ottawa to examine whether arms shipments would further endanger the civilian population in countries with poor human-rights records.

The Conservative administration says it must protect the commercial confidentiality of the arms manufacturer, which in this case is General Dynamics Land Systems Canada.

Amnesty International Canada attacked this rationale in an open letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson, asking him to intervene to ensure Canadians are apprised of Ottawa’s deliberations on the sale of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia.

“There can be no secrecy when it comes to protecting human rights, no matter the country; no matter the context,” wrote Alex Neve, the English-branch secretary general for Amnesty International Canada, and Béatrice Vaugrante, secretary general for the French-language branch. “There is no need to reveal sensitive or competitive commercial aspects of the deal. But it is of inescapable importance that the deal’s human rights implications be fully assessed and the results shared openly with Canadians.”

Both the government, which is the prime contractor on this sale, and General Dynamics refuse to reveal details about the vehicles being sold to to the Saudis for what they call an “Armored Brigade Program.”

General Dynamics, which displayed its LAV 6.0 fighting vehicle at an arms fair in Ottawa this week, describes this machine as having “effective firepower to defeat soft and armoured targets.” It says options for mounted guns include a 25-mm cannon and 7.62-mm machine guns and smoke grenade launchers.

The company touts this LAV as a Canadian icon, displaying the LAV 6.0 on a poster along with such classic symbols of Canada as a Mountie, poutine and hockey players, with the slogan “Canadian without Compromise.”

The Harper government makes no apologies for selling to a human-rights pariah such as Saudi Arabia. Asked for comment on Amnesty International’s letter, Mr. Nicholson’s office avoided responding to the watchdog’s request and instead played up the economic benefits of the deal.

“This export contract, which is the largest in Canadian history, will create and sustain more than 3,000 direct jobs in the advanced manufacturing sector in Southwestern Ontario,” spokeswoman Johanna Quinney said. “It will also create thousands of indirect jobs throughout southern Ontario and across Canada by way of a 500-firm supply chain, stretching from coast to coast to coast.”

The deal is coming under increased scrutiny after much-publicized incidents of torture and mistreatment by the Saudis, including the flogging sentence for blogger Raif Badawi, whose family obtained refuge in Canada.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, by its own stated rules, is required to screen requests to export military goods to countries “whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens.” It must obtain assurances “there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.” SOURCE

RELATED

Head of Crown agency calls Middle East ‘strategic region’ for arms sales

Ecocide ALert, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics

Canada Helps Block UN Plan To Rid World Of Nukes, Citing Israel Defence

Leave a comment

By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press, reposted from the Huffington Post, May 26m 2015

CPOTTAWA - Israel has expressed its gratitude to Canada for helping to block a major international plan towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Elsewhere, however, there was widespread international disappointment that Canada and Britain supported the United States in opposing the document at the United Nations review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The document called on the UN to hold a disarmament conference on the Middle East by 2016. Such a conference could have forced Israel to publicly acknowledge that it is a nuclear power, something the Jewish state has never done.

Adopting the document would have required a consensus, but since none was reached, that means nuclear disarmament efforts have been blocked until 2020.

In a weekend phone call, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Stephen Harper for what he called Canada’s principled stand, Harper’s office in Ottawa said in a statement.

“Prime Minister Harper reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation, including within the framework of the NPT,” the statement said.

“He also stressed Canada’s belief that a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone can only be truly effective if all countries in the Middle East participate freely and constructively in its establishment.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson said Canada’s decision “sends a strong message about Canada’s resolve not to compromise the integrity of a treaty to which we remain fully and deeply committed.”

But there was widespread opposition and disappointment expressed by several countries that addressed the conference, which wrapped Friday after four weeks of meetings.

Austria, which spoke on behalf of 49 countries, said the result spoke to the wide divide over what nuclear disarmament should mean. “There is a realty gap, a credibility gap, a confidence gap and a moral gap.”

The delegate to South Africa added: “There is a sense in which the NPT has degenerated into minority rule similar to what we had in South Africa under apartheid — the will of the few will prevail regardless of whether it makes moral sense.”

It’s disappointing that Canada helped scuttle the four weeks of negotiations that led up to Friday’s result, said Beatrice Fihn, spokeswoman for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of 400 non-governmental organizations in 95 countries.

“Three countries take their cue from a non-state party — Israel isn’t even part of the treaty — and thereby have this final say,” Fihn said.

But former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy supported the Conservative decision, saying that dragging the Middle East issue into the talks was a ploy by some countries to embarrass Israel.

“There was a distinct effort, whether it was by Egypt or others, to present a package that they knew certain countries — including our own — would not agree with,” Axworthy said in an interview.

“I wish there had been more countries saying so, with some of the NGOs so quick to condemn, because the reality is if you’re going to do diplomacy it has to be feasible and realistic.”

The United States accused Egypt and other countries of trying to “cynically manipulate” the review process.

Axworthy said the NPT conference missed a chance to deal with serious nuclear proliferation issues, including Iran’s alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

“The way in which the ongoing Middle East-Israeli-Palestinian issue was introduced into the package was clearly designed to be disruptive.”

But New Democrat foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar accused the government of playing the role of international spoiler.

“When it comes to the Middle East, many have said this is the most dangerous place in the world to have nuclear weapons,” said Dewar.

“If we can get other countries to abide by nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East, then that can advance the cause globally.” SOURCE

 

democracy, Politics

The EKOS poll: Canadians warming to the idea of coalition government

Leave a comment

Mar.250066

By Frank Graves, reposted from iPolitic, May 29, 2015

The national pre-election polling scene looks like three men trying to push through the same revolving door at the same time. The trends of recent weeks have settled into a three-way deadlock. What’s most striking about this ‘new normal’ in federal politics is how none of the parties seems to be generating much enthusiasm among voters.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.28.36 AM

The NDP is the clear mover and prime beneficiary of the changes over the past few months, but it’s still sub-thirty and slightly below its 2011 result. The Liberals are up significantly from 2011, but have fallen back from a clear lead last fall and are now drifting listlessly in the 27 to 30 point range. The Conservatives similarly find them mired around or under the 30-point barrier, well short of their almost forty-point result in 2011.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.28.47 AM

As this pattern solidifies, we see signs that voters are increasingly receptive to some new approaches. Most voters do not support the Harper government; only 36 per cent of voters disagree with the argument that it is time for Stephen Harper to follow his lieutenant Peter MacKay into retirement. Frustration with the fragmentation of the center-left may be making voters more receptive to things that they did not find acceptable in 2011 — such as coalition government. As more Canadians realize that no party is in a position to form a majority, we see rising support for both coalition government and strategic voting. In fact, these options may be emerging as the best tools to serve the interests and values of a frustrated majority.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.28.57 AMScreen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.29.07 AMScreen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.29.16 AM

The newfound strength of the NDP reflects their recapture of the labour and university-educated vote. Many of those voters are more upset with the current government than they are attracted to either the NDP or the Liberals. Moreover, we don’t see much evidence that either party is poised for a pratfall.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.29.36 AM

The graph above shows that Canadians’s previously strong aversion to a coalition government — which may have been critical to Mr. Harper’s late drive to a majority in 2011 — has softened dramatically. In the lead-up to 2011, voters were even divided between a preference for a Harper minority or for a coalition. Today we see a profoundly different picture: By a margin of almost two-to-one, the voters of today would send Mr. Harper packing in favour of a coalition. The government’s marketing line about the need for a “strong, stable Conservative government” is being greeted with deep skepticism.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.29.27 AM

Who would be in a position to lead such a government — Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau? The NDP has been climbing back to the support levels it enjoyed in 2011, but both a Liberal or NDP government remain live options. While a slim plurality of voters think the Conservatives will win, almost as many predict a Liberal victory — and now the previously unthinkable prospect of an NDP victory has squarely entered the realm of plausibility for voters.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.29.45 AMScreen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.30.00 AM

For voters, it’s all as clear as mud. They have no real idea who is going to win, and they don’t think anyone is likely to achieve a majority. The sharp rise in support for a coalition is one interesting response to this political dilemma. Another would be the use of strategic voting to more efficiently fashion a non-Conservative government of some sort.

As Mulcair’s NDP is the only party with wind in its sails right now, we need to understand how the public would view the prospect of either a Trudeau-led or Mulcair-led coalition. Here we encounter an interesting finding which may serve as a source of uplift to a pretty listless voter outlook on Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party.

While Canadians express a clear preference for a coalition led by either Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Mulcair over four more years of Stephen Harper, it’s Trudeau who has a clear advantage here. His 56/35 advantage is nearly double the 51/39 advantage that Mr. Mulcair enjoys. Given the obvious momentum advantage for the NDP, this is a mildly curious and possibly important finding. Perhaps the public prefers to tilt to the center in anchoring any future progressive coalition. Or perhaps they simply haven’t caught up with the new polling position of the NDP. This will bear careful watching.

Some of these same forces are at play when we look at strategic voting.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.30.09 AMScreen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.30.19 AM

We can see that there is rising support for strategic voting. Among the majority of Canadians who want to retire Mr. Harper, most would hold their noses and vote for the most plausible progressive option to defeat a Conservative candidate. While this approach hasn’t been terribly effective in shaping electoral outcomes in the past, support for it is now stronger and the technology and resources are in place to actually guide strategic voting in the next election. If the numbers remain this tightly bunched, we fully expect to see strategic voting applied, and with some success, in the fall election.

Last week, we conducted what is called a trade-off analysis on how the federal government should spend one billion dollars over the next ten years. Respondents were presented with pairs of choices from a list of 15 items; rather that ask them to assign some arbitrary rating for each one, we asked them to choose between the two. In a world where wants are infinite but resources are limited, a forced-choice exercise is a good tool for disciplining choices, creating an hierarchy and a highly accurate picture of the hard choices that Canadians would make.

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 11.30.30 AM

The figures in the chart above represent how often each item was selected over the other items tested. A score of more than 50 indicates that the option was selected over other options the majority of the time and is therefore a relative ‘winner’. Conversely, a score of under 50 suggests a relative ‘loser’. Each respondent was presented with three pairs, for a total of 8,802 responses.

Urban infrastructure and home care dominate the list, followed closely by investing in a post-carbon economy and targeted tax relief for the middle class. The relative strength of paying down the debt is unusual (fiscal issues typically rank quite low on Canadians’ list of priorities ) but this could reflect skepticism about the government’s ability to get things done.

What is perhaps most interesting is the stark difference between the vision the government is presenting to Canadians and what Canadians actually want. Indeed, many of the key pillars of the current government’s platform — tax cuts, income-splitting, combating terrorist threats and new military purchases — find themselves at the bottom of this list.

photo-Graves-2015-3Frank Graves is founder and president of EKOS Polling.

Methodology:

This report draws on data from two separate surveys. The first survey was conducted using High Definition Interactive Voice Response (HD-IVR™) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the keypad on their phone, rather than telling them to an operator. In an effort to reduce the coverage bias of landline only RDD, we created a dual landline/cell phone RDD sampling frame for this research. As a result, we are able to reach those with a landline and cell phone, as well as cell phone only households and landline only households.

The field dates for the first survey are May 20-26 2015. In total, a random sample of 2,934 Canadian adults aged 18 and over responded to the survey. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The second survey was conducted using EKOS’ unique, hybrid online/telephone research panel, Probit. Our panel offers exhaustive coverage of the Canadian population (i.e., Internet, phone, cell phone), random recruitment (in other words, participants are recruited randomly, they do not opt themselves into our panel), and equal probability sampling. All respondents to our panel are recruited by telephone using random digit dialling and are confirmed by live interviewers. Unlike opt-in online panels, Probit supports margin of error estimates. We believe this to be the only probability-based online panel in Canada.

The second survey involved an online only sample of 2,116 Canadians. While panellists are randomly recruited, the survey itself excludes the roughly 1 in 8 Canadians without internet access. The results should therefore be considered generalizeable to Canada’s online population. The field dates for this survey are May 12-19, 2015. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Please note that the margin of error increases when the results are sub-divided (i.e., error margins for sub-groups such as region, sex, age, education). All the data have been statistically weighted by age, gender, region, and educational attainment to ensure the sample’s composition reflects that of the actual population of Canada according to Census data. SOURCE