Chief Justice of the Federal Court Allan Lutfy plans to retire Sept. 30 after holding the position for eight years.
Lutfy, 67, advised Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson of his decision to resign on Tuesday. He has elected to be a supernumerary or part-time judge of the court.
He joined the Federal Court in 1996 and was appointed chief justice on July 2, 2003, by Jean Chrétien, who was then prime minister. Before that, he served as associate chief justice for three years.
The Federal Court is Canada's national trial court, which hears and decides legal disputes arising in the federal domain, including claims against the government of Canada, civil suits in federally regulated areas and challenges to the decisions of federal tribunals, according to the court’s website.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper already has two high-level court positions to fill. Supreme Court of Canada justices Louise Charron and Ian Binnie, both from Ontario, announced their retirements in mid-May. They will both step down on Aug. 30.
When Lutfy, who is from Quebec, departs at the end of September it will leave a third position vacant.
Before being appointed the judiciary, Lutfy specialized in civil litigation and administrative law in Quebec and Ontario.
He acted as counsel before a number of commissions of inquiry related to national security, the state of competition in the petroleum industry and the use of drugs in sports. He was also counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and to the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Between 1973 and 1979, he was a political adviser for the federal government.
Lutfy was born in Montreal and attended Loyola College. He graduated in civil law from McGill University in 1967.
He married his wife, Brigitte Lord, in December 1979, and they are the parents of three children: Pierre, Patrick and Caroline.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Ontario female voters Not Happy with Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak.!
Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak faces an uphill battle to win the trust of female voters in the upcoming election campaign.
In a new poll by Nanos Research, just under one in four voters describe Mr. Hudak as the most trustworthy leader. Among women, the numbers are even lower, with just one in five choosing him.
Poll: McGuinty ahead of Hudak on trust The Conservatives traditionally garner more support from men than women. Nevertheless, the lack of trust for Mr. Hudak indicates that Liberal attacks on him are causing voters to question his character, said pollster Nik Nanos.
“The Liberal attack ads have been a little more of a character assassination,” Mr. Nanos said.
The numbers leave Mr. Hudak, a rookie leader heading into his first campaign, trailing behind his main rival, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty. Among those polled, 29 per cent describe Mr. McGuinty, who is seeking a third consecutive term, as the most trustworthy. But he also scored lower among women, at 26.1 per cent. The overall trust number for Mr. Hudak is 23 per cent.
Mr. Hudak did slightly better on the question of which party leader has the best vision for Ontario’s future. Twenty-six per cent named Mr. Hudak, compared with 29 per cent for Mr. McGuinty.
The poll was conducted between Aug. 10 and Aug. 13, when Nanos Research contacted 1,000 Ontarians by telephone, with 830 of them having decided voting intentions.
The results are accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, when dealing with trust in leaders.
In a new poll by Nanos Research, just under one in four voters describe Mr. Hudak as the most trustworthy leader. Among women, the numbers are even lower, with just one in five choosing him.
Poll: McGuinty ahead of Hudak on trust The Conservatives traditionally garner more support from men than women. Nevertheless, the lack of trust for Mr. Hudak indicates that Liberal attacks on him are causing voters to question his character, said pollster Nik Nanos.
“The Liberal attack ads have been a little more of a character assassination,” Mr. Nanos said.
The numbers leave Mr. Hudak, a rookie leader heading into his first campaign, trailing behind his main rival, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty. Among those polled, 29 per cent describe Mr. McGuinty, who is seeking a third consecutive term, as the most trustworthy. But he also scored lower among women, at 26.1 per cent. The overall trust number for Mr. Hudak is 23 per cent.
Mr. Hudak did slightly better on the question of which party leader has the best vision for Ontario’s future. Twenty-six per cent named Mr. Hudak, compared with 29 per cent for Mr. McGuinty.
The poll was conducted between Aug. 10 and Aug. 13, when Nanos Research contacted 1,000 Ontarians by telephone, with 830 of them having decided voting intentions.
The results are accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, when dealing with trust in leaders.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has added her voice to the legal profession’s condemnation of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who sparked an uproar earlier this year on the issue of judicial independence.
HALIFAX — The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has added her voice to the legal profession’s condemnation of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who sparked an uproar earlier this year on the issue of judicial independence.
Speaking on the matter for the first time, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin applauded the Canadian Bar Association on Saturday for protesting comments Kenney made last winter, when he said Federal Court judges weren’t toeing the line of the Harper government’s immigration policies.
In a speech to the CBA’s governing council, McLachlin said:
“I was certainly — and I think all judges were — very pleased when an issue arose earlier this year when a minister of the Crown seemed to suggest that some judges were insufficiently solicitous to government policy. We were very, very gratified to see your president writing a powerful public letter to the minister in question, reminding the minister of the importance of public confidence in an impartial judiciary, that bases its decisions on the law and not on government policy.”
In a controversial speech last February to the law faculty at the University of Western Ontario, Kenney said Federal Court judges, who preside over immigration cases, weren’t doing enough to help the government remove immigrants with alleged criminal pasts, and other unwanted refugees, from Canada.
He accused judges of delaying such cases in the court, and of “heavy-handed” interference in decisions made by immigration department officials.
The comments were loudly condemned at the time by immigration lawyers and by Rod Snow, the CBA’s president.
“Your public criticism of judges who follow the law but not the government’s political agenda is an affront to our democracy and freedoms,” Snow said in a letter to Kenney. “Judges cannot enter the public arena to respond to criticism.”
On Saturday, McLachlin entered the arena herself.
“We live in a society with a strong commitment to the rule of law, and one of the elements of our commitment to the rule of law is a deep, cultural belief in and confidence in the judiciary.
“This goes beyond a general idea that we have good judges of integrity, it’s the confidence that brings litigants to choose the courts as a forum for resolving their disputes … and it is what allows them to accept the resulting judgments.
“Citizens have to have the confidence that whatever their problem, whoever’s on the other side … they will have a judge who will give them impartial justice and not be subject to pressures to direct their judgments in a particular way.”
Speaking to reporters after her speech, McLachlin said she has not written or spoken privately to the government about Kenney’s comments, nor will she.
“It’s very important when the Bar speaks out and says this is an important, institutional, democratic value, an independent judiciary, and we need to preserve it. And we’re grateful to the CBA for doing that.”
The CBA is holding its annual meeting in Halifax this week and next.
Speaking on the matter for the first time, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin applauded the Canadian Bar Association on Saturday for protesting comments Kenney made last winter, when he said Federal Court judges weren’t toeing the line of the Harper government’s immigration policies.
In a speech to the CBA’s governing council, McLachlin said:
“I was certainly — and I think all judges were — very pleased when an issue arose earlier this year when a minister of the Crown seemed to suggest that some judges were insufficiently solicitous to government policy. We were very, very gratified to see your president writing a powerful public letter to the minister in question, reminding the minister of the importance of public confidence in an impartial judiciary, that bases its decisions on the law and not on government policy.”
In a controversial speech last February to the law faculty at the University of Western Ontario, Kenney said Federal Court judges, who preside over immigration cases, weren’t doing enough to help the government remove immigrants with alleged criminal pasts, and other unwanted refugees, from Canada.
He accused judges of delaying such cases in the court, and of “heavy-handed” interference in decisions made by immigration department officials.
The comments were loudly condemned at the time by immigration lawyers and by Rod Snow, the CBA’s president.
“Your public criticism of judges who follow the law but not the government’s political agenda is an affront to our democracy and freedoms,” Snow said in a letter to Kenney. “Judges cannot enter the public arena to respond to criticism.”
On Saturday, McLachlin entered the arena herself.
“We live in a society with a strong commitment to the rule of law, and one of the elements of our commitment to the rule of law is a deep, cultural belief in and confidence in the judiciary.
“This goes beyond a general idea that we have good judges of integrity, it’s the confidence that brings litigants to choose the courts as a forum for resolving their disputes … and it is what allows them to accept the resulting judgments.
“Citizens have to have the confidence that whatever their problem, whoever’s on the other side … they will have a judge who will give them impartial justice and not be subject to pressures to direct their judgments in a particular way.”
Speaking to reporters after her speech, McLachlin said she has not written or spoken privately to the government about Kenney’s comments, nor will she.
“It’s very important when the Bar speaks out and says this is an important, institutional, democratic value, an independent judiciary, and we need to preserve it. And we’re grateful to the CBA for doing that.”
The CBA is holding its annual meeting in Halifax this week and next.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Federal Court has ordered the government to reconsider its decision to withhold parts of a secret RCMP dossier on socialist trailblazer Tommy Douglas.
The Federal Court has ordered the government to reconsider its decision to withhold parts of a secret RCMP dossier on socialist trailblazer Tommy Douglas.
Federal Court Justice Simon Noel has given Library and Archives Canada 90 days to consider what additional information it ought to release in response to a request by The Canadian Press.
Noel said the archives did not live up to its obligations under the Access to Information Act when journalist Jim Bronskill requested files on Douglas six years ago.
“It is disappointing that the act’s intent and the (archives’) mandate have not been given their true scope, notably as this file concerns an influential and prominent Canadian, Mr. Thomas Clement Douglas,” Noel concluded in a 90-page ruling issued Thursday.
Noel raised doubts about the government’s argument to block the release of the documents — that it would compromise national security and encumber the work of Canada’s spy agency.
“It is clear that this decision should in no way be interpreted as downplaying concerns about the identification of human sources or important national security concerns such as current operational interests,” the ruling states.
“Rather, this case addresses how the passage of time can assuage national security concerns. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of transferring information to the public domain for the benefit of present and future Canadians as well as our collective knowledge and memory as a country.”
The federal government has refused to fully disclose the file on the former Saskatchewan premier and one-time federal NDP leader, who is widely seen as the father of Canada’s public health care system.
The archives, which hold the 1,142-page file, initially released about 400 heavily censored pages in response to a request under the Access to Information Act.
Bronskill went to court to force greater disclosure after the federal information commissioner agreed with the government that most of the dossier should be kept under wraps.
The government partially lifted the shroud of secrecy before a February court hearing by releasing hundreds of additional pages, although they too were heavily edited.
The material released to date shows the RCMP Security Service shadowed Douglas for decades, attending his speeches, analysing his writings and eavesdropping on private conversations.
The Mounties, who were responsible for domestic security until Canadian Security Intelligence Service was created in 1984, tracked Douglas from the late 1930s to shortly before his death in 1986.
His links to the peace movement and Communist party members were of particular interest.
The government maintained that full disclosure of the Douglas file would jeopardize the country’s ability to detect, prevent or suppress “subversive or hostile activities” and could give away secrets of the spy trade.
Douglas’s daughter, the actress Shirley Douglas, supported Bronskill’s court challenge.
“It is clear that both history and Canadians from coast to coast have much to learn about Mr. Douglas and this application can be seen as contributing in this respect,” Noel wrote.
“It can also be said that access to information, whether the subject of the request is well-known or not, benefits all Canadians.”
Federal Court Justice Simon Noel has given Library and Archives Canada 90 days to consider what additional information it ought to release in response to a request by The Canadian Press.
Noel said the archives did not live up to its obligations under the Access to Information Act when journalist Jim Bronskill requested files on Douglas six years ago.
“It is disappointing that the act’s intent and the (archives’) mandate have not been given their true scope, notably as this file concerns an influential and prominent Canadian, Mr. Thomas Clement Douglas,” Noel concluded in a 90-page ruling issued Thursday.
Noel raised doubts about the government’s argument to block the release of the documents — that it would compromise national security and encumber the work of Canada’s spy agency.
“It is clear that this decision should in no way be interpreted as downplaying concerns about the identification of human sources or important national security concerns such as current operational interests,” the ruling states.
“Rather, this case addresses how the passage of time can assuage national security concerns. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of transferring information to the public domain for the benefit of present and future Canadians as well as our collective knowledge and memory as a country.”
The federal government has refused to fully disclose the file on the former Saskatchewan premier and one-time federal NDP leader, who is widely seen as the father of Canada’s public health care system.
The archives, which hold the 1,142-page file, initially released about 400 heavily censored pages in response to a request under the Access to Information Act.
Bronskill went to court to force greater disclosure after the federal information commissioner agreed with the government that most of the dossier should be kept under wraps.
The government partially lifted the shroud of secrecy before a February court hearing by releasing hundreds of additional pages, although they too were heavily edited.
The material released to date shows the RCMP Security Service shadowed Douglas for decades, attending his speeches, analysing his writings and eavesdropping on private conversations.
The Mounties, who were responsible for domestic security until Canadian Security Intelligence Service was created in 1984, tracked Douglas from the late 1930s to shortly before his death in 1986.
His links to the peace movement and Communist party members were of particular interest.
The government maintained that full disclosure of the Douglas file would jeopardize the country’s ability to detect, prevent or suppress “subversive or hostile activities” and could give away secrets of the spy trade.
Douglas’s daughter, the actress Shirley Douglas, supported Bronskill’s court challenge.
“It is clear that both history and Canadians from coast to coast have much to learn about Mr. Douglas and this application can be seen as contributing in this respect,” Noel wrote.
“It can also be said that access to information, whether the subject of the request is well-known or not, benefits all Canadians.”
Saturday, August 13, 2011
A Toronto judge has blasted police tactics during last year's G20 summit. : Puddy's arrest, he wrote, was "completely unjustified."
A Toronto judge has blasted police tactics during last year's G20 summit.
Lawyers defending some of the people charged with offences in connection with last year's summit say a Toronto judge's ruling this week is going to have "an enormous impact" on their cases.
The case in question involved Michael Puddy, who took part in a demonstration on Saturday June 26, at the corner of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West.
Puddy was on his way to a concert when he decided to join the peaceful protest.
Minutes later he had been pushed to the ground and cuffed with plastic restraints. He was held in custody for two days.
Police testified Puddy had a 15-centimetre knife attached to his belt.
Puddy, 32, from London, Ont., was eventually charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon.
The first two charges were dismissed three months ago. On Thursday Puddy was found not guilty on the third charge.
His lawyer, Adam Goodman, said Puddy had "no intention to obstruct the police or cause any trouble," yet he was arrested.
The arrest of a man during last year's G20 summit in Toronto was 'completely unjustified,' a judge says. Justice Melvyn Green accepted Puddy's defence that he was not carrying the knife as a weapon and further ruled that since the arrest was illegal, so too was the search that uncovered the knife.
Puddy's arrest, he wrote, was "completely unjustified."
Green's judgment caused a stir because of its harsh criticism of police tactics. He said police officers acted as the aggressors that evening.
"The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators," Green wrote.
He went on to say that the "zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other."
Defence lawyer Howard Morton, who has two clients still facing G20 charges, said he thinks the ruling is "going to have an enormous impact."
"For the first time we have the outrageous conduct of the police that weekend being examined in a judicial setting in a criminal trial," said Morton.
"The judge called it what it was, outrageous police conduct."
Lawyers say the Ontario Court of Justice ruling will not set a precedent, but it will help to bolster defence arguments in future cases.
Lawyers defending some of the people charged with offences in connection with last year's summit say a Toronto judge's ruling this week is going to have "an enormous impact" on their cases.
The case in question involved Michael Puddy, who took part in a demonstration on Saturday June 26, at the corner of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West.
Puddy was on his way to a concert when he decided to join the peaceful protest.
Minutes later he had been pushed to the ground and cuffed with plastic restraints. He was held in custody for two days.
Police testified Puddy had a 15-centimetre knife attached to his belt.
Puddy, 32, from London, Ont., was eventually charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon.
The first two charges were dismissed three months ago. On Thursday Puddy was found not guilty on the third charge.
His lawyer, Adam Goodman, said Puddy had "no intention to obstruct the police or cause any trouble," yet he was arrested.
The arrest of a man during last year's G20 summit in Toronto was 'completely unjustified,' a judge says. Justice Melvyn Green accepted Puddy's defence that he was not carrying the knife as a weapon and further ruled that since the arrest was illegal, so too was the search that uncovered the knife.
Puddy's arrest, he wrote, was "completely unjustified."
Green's judgment caused a stir because of its harsh criticism of police tactics. He said police officers acted as the aggressors that evening.
"The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators," Green wrote.
He went on to say that the "zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other."
Defence lawyer Howard Morton, who has two clients still facing G20 charges, said he thinks the ruling is "going to have an enormous impact."
"For the first time we have the outrageous conduct of the police that weekend being examined in a judicial setting in a criminal trial," said Morton.
"The judge called it what it was, outrageous police conduct."
Lawyers say the Ontario Court of Justice ruling will not set a precedent, but it will help to bolster defence arguments in future cases.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Failed refugee claimants only allowed a 'half appeal'? The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
Jason Kenney and Amnesty International Canada have been going back and forth lately over the government's push to deport people linked to crimes against humanity.
The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
One of the citizenship and immigration minister's points is that the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, has found reasonable grounds that each of the 30 men on the list to be "complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime."
"These findings were based on evidence -- including, in many cases, voluntary admissions -- after formal proceedings during which these men had the right to be represented by counsel," the minister writes.
"The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) does not make allegations or accusations -- it makes formal findings of fact and its decisions may be appealed to the federal courts."
However, as some have pointed out, those facts can't be the basis for the appeal -- only errors of law.
And one of Amnesty's concerns is that "reasonable grounds" is a far lower standard than you'd see in a court trial.
Peter Showler, who was the IRB chair from 1999 to 2002, says the federal court appeal Kenney refers to, is more like a "half-appeal."
The federal court review is a judicial review, which looks at errors in law. The only way someone can challenge their finding of inadmissibility is to find a legal error in the IRB decision and challenge that.
"You only get to overturn it if they've made a real error of law," Showler said.
"You really don't get a judge to look at and overturn the decision because it's just unreasonable."
"He's taking advantage of the layperson's language, which means if there's some other court or body that can review, it's an appeal," added Showler, who's now director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa.
No one is disputing that the 30 men in question are in Canada illegally. They had no right to continue to live in Canada once their claims were dismissed by the IRB, and deportation is the government's legal recourse.
But Amnesty says that billing them as war criminals may be inaccurate -- it argues that we just don't know. The government has not provided information showing that the men have been convicted of war crimes, citing privacy -- another point addressed by Kenney in his letter.
In one case, an expert in crimes against humanity in Haiti had reportedly never heard of the Haitian man on the list.
If the men had new evidence to offer after they were deemed inadmissible, there's no hearing where they could present it.
"(The Conservative government is) using language to make these people seem as frightening and evil as possible simply because it makes headlines, but it has nothing to do with the practicality of who needs to be removed from the country," Showler said.
There is a refugee appeal process coming under legislation passed last year, but Showler says he and other experts are concerned it will only give 15 days for appellants to get their cases together -- a timeline he says would be like giving Canadians only 12 hours to prepare their taxes.
The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
One of the citizenship and immigration minister's points is that the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, has found reasonable grounds that each of the 30 men on the list to be "complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime."
"These findings were based on evidence -- including, in many cases, voluntary admissions -- after formal proceedings during which these men had the right to be represented by counsel," the minister writes.
"The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) does not make allegations or accusations -- it makes formal findings of fact and its decisions may be appealed to the federal courts."
However, as some have pointed out, those facts can't be the basis for the appeal -- only errors of law.
And one of Amnesty's concerns is that "reasonable grounds" is a far lower standard than you'd see in a court trial.
Peter Showler, who was the IRB chair from 1999 to 2002, says the federal court appeal Kenney refers to, is more like a "half-appeal."
The federal court review is a judicial review, which looks at errors in law. The only way someone can challenge their finding of inadmissibility is to find a legal error in the IRB decision and challenge that.
"You only get to overturn it if they've made a real error of law," Showler said.
"You really don't get a judge to look at and overturn the decision because it's just unreasonable."
"He's taking advantage of the layperson's language, which means if there's some other court or body that can review, it's an appeal," added Showler, who's now director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa.
No one is disputing that the 30 men in question are in Canada illegally. They had no right to continue to live in Canada once their claims were dismissed by the IRB, and deportation is the government's legal recourse.
But Amnesty says that billing them as war criminals may be inaccurate -- it argues that we just don't know. The government has not provided information showing that the men have been convicted of war crimes, citing privacy -- another point addressed by Kenney in his letter.
In one case, an expert in crimes against humanity in Haiti had reportedly never heard of the Haitian man on the list.
If the men had new evidence to offer after they were deemed inadmissible, there's no hearing where they could present it.
"(The Conservative government is) using language to make these people seem as frightening and evil as possible simply because it makes headlines, but it has nothing to do with the practicality of who needs to be removed from the country," Showler said.
There is a refugee appeal process coming under legislation passed last year, but Showler says he and other experts are concerned it will only give 15 days for appellants to get their cases together -- a timeline he says would be like giving Canadians only 12 hours to prepare their taxes.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
With less than two months to go before the Ontario election, a poll released Wednesday suggests that although Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak still remains ahead in popularity, Premier Dalton McGuinty is narrowing the gap.
With less than two months to go before the Ontario election, a poll released Wednesday suggests that although Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak still remains ahead in popularity, Premier Dalton McGuinty is narrowing the gap.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News, Global Television and CFRB NewsTalk1010 found 38% of respondents think Hudak would make the best premier out of all the of party leaders, compared with 33% who believe McGuinty should be re-elected for a third term. These latest numbers indicate a four-point jump for the premier, an improvement from an eight-point gap a year ago.
Hudak only gained one point.
“While the Conservatives have the edge, this is going to be a tightly fought campaign,” said pollster John Wright. “It’s going to matter what messages and policies either the opposition or the government will take to the people.”
NDP leader Andrea Horwath also showed a three-point surge in popularity, with 24% of those polled believing she would be the best person to run the province.
Green Party leader Mike Schreiner came in at five per cent, down eight points from last year.
Wright expects the poll numbers to sway back and forth once the writ drops in September and the election campaign officially begins.
“The electorate isn’t engaged yet in the campaign because it hasn’t really gotten underway,” he said. “What the numbers are showing is that all parties are still in the game, all parties in the hunt and there is some movement going on.”
In a flash sample poll conducted last weekend on 400 decided voters, Ipsos Reid found that the gap between Hudak and McGuinty continues to narrow. Of those polled, 38% say they would vote for Hudak and the Conservatives if an election were held tomorrow, while 36% would stick with McGuinty and the Liberals.
Despite these findings, the poll also discovered Ontarians are divided on whether they think the province is headed in the right track.
Fifty-one per cent responded yes, while 49% believed no, a drop of 19 points from last year.
Although attitudes about the province have vastly improved, 66% believe “it’s time for another political party to take over,” compared with 34% who say the “McGuinty government has done a good job and deserves re-election.”
According to the poll, Hudak still maintains a slight lead over McGuinty in most positive leadership attributes, including having a vision for the province, managing the province’s health care system and someone who is open to the ideas of others.
Those surveyed also believed McGuinty only fared better than Hudak in one leadership quality: someone who has a hidden agenda. The premier garnered 46% in this area, while Hudak came in at 35%, Horwath at 14% and Schriener at six per cent.
This was a large improvement for McGuinty who dropped 10 points in this poll compared to when the same question was asked last year, according to Ipsos Reid.
“No party should take anything for granted here,” said Wright. “It’s not a stretch to say that any of the parties can form a government. The NDP are in the hunt to, not to run the province, but they are viable spoilers and people are willing to take a listen.”
The findings in this survey were gathered from online responses between July 29 and Aug. 4 from a sample of 899 Ontario residents. The estimated margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News, Global Television and CFRB NewsTalk1010 found 38% of respondents think Hudak would make the best premier out of all the of party leaders, compared with 33% who believe McGuinty should be re-elected for a third term. These latest numbers indicate a four-point jump for the premier, an improvement from an eight-point gap a year ago.
Hudak only gained one point.
“While the Conservatives have the edge, this is going to be a tightly fought campaign,” said pollster John Wright. “It’s going to matter what messages and policies either the opposition or the government will take to the people.”
NDP leader Andrea Horwath also showed a three-point surge in popularity, with 24% of those polled believing she would be the best person to run the province.
Green Party leader Mike Schreiner came in at five per cent, down eight points from last year.
Wright expects the poll numbers to sway back and forth once the writ drops in September and the election campaign officially begins.
“The electorate isn’t engaged yet in the campaign because it hasn’t really gotten underway,” he said. “What the numbers are showing is that all parties are still in the game, all parties in the hunt and there is some movement going on.”
In a flash sample poll conducted last weekend on 400 decided voters, Ipsos Reid found that the gap between Hudak and McGuinty continues to narrow. Of those polled, 38% say they would vote for Hudak and the Conservatives if an election were held tomorrow, while 36% would stick with McGuinty and the Liberals.
Despite these findings, the poll also discovered Ontarians are divided on whether they think the province is headed in the right track.
Fifty-one per cent responded yes, while 49% believed no, a drop of 19 points from last year.
Although attitudes about the province have vastly improved, 66% believe “it’s time for another political party to take over,” compared with 34% who say the “McGuinty government has done a good job and deserves re-election.”
According to the poll, Hudak still maintains a slight lead over McGuinty in most positive leadership attributes, including having a vision for the province, managing the province’s health care system and someone who is open to the ideas of others.
Those surveyed also believed McGuinty only fared better than Hudak in one leadership quality: someone who has a hidden agenda. The premier garnered 46% in this area, while Hudak came in at 35%, Horwath at 14% and Schriener at six per cent.
This was a large improvement for McGuinty who dropped 10 points in this poll compared to when the same question was asked last year, according to Ipsos Reid.
“No party should take anything for granted here,” said Wright. “It’s not a stretch to say that any of the parties can form a government. The NDP are in the hunt to, not to run the province, but they are viable spoilers and people are willing to take a listen.”
The findings in this survey were gathered from online responses between July 29 and Aug. 4 from a sample of 899 Ontario residents. The estimated margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)