Latest news with #AlbertaatNoon
CBC
02-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
After Liberal win, can Carney bridge longstanding divides with the West?
In the wake of Mark Carney's election win, several provincial leaders are calling for a political "reset" in how Ottawa engages with the West — particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where grievances over federal decision-making run deep. The federal government should "engage and consult" Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe said Tuesday. Carney should "reach out to our friends out West, and tell them how he's going to build that pipeline," Ontario Premier Doug Ford added. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith congratulated Carney but said in a statement she would not "permit the status quo to continue." She later told CBC's Power & Politics host David Cochrane that she believed there was a cross-partisan, national consensus emerging on energy corridors and market access. "I hope he captures that and is able to move forward with some of the changes he needs to make in order to turn that into a reality," she said. Carney has spoken of positioning Alberta as the heart of a new superpower in both clean and conventional energy. "My government will work with Indigenous peoples, with the provinces, and with the private sector to fast-track projects that build our energy security by displacing foreign suppliers such as the United States," Carney said at an election rally in Calgary last month. "Projects that diversify our export markets, so we rely less on the United States, and projects that enhance our long-term competitiveness, including with low-carbon oil and gas. I know that Alberta will be at the heart of all of these solutions." A list of demands Smith held a meeting with Carney before the campaign began and made a list of public demands, including ending Ottawa's proposed emissions cap, and warned that a national unity crisis could unfold should they not be met. On Thursday, she announced Alberta would seek a court ruling on the constitutionality of Ottawa's clean electricity regulations. Pollster and political analyst Janet Brown said on CBC Radio's Alberta at Noon that Smith's immediate reiteration of her pre-election demands signalled her strategy. "Danielle Smith is losing no time at all. And she's decided she's going to be on offence … she's going to go up to bat first," Brown said. "She didn't give [Carney] a couple days to settle in." The onus moving forward is on both politicians, Brown added. For Carney, it will be important to extend an olive branch to Alberta, she said. "[He'll need] to acknowledge that very few Albertans voted for him, but that he's working to acknowledge what Albertans value about their economy, and what needs to happen to have better relations," she said. Danielle Smith is losing no time at all. And she's decided she's going to be on offence. When asked on Power & Politics about a separatism push in her province, Smith said her government would not advance such an initiative but left the door open for a citizen referendum. "I believe that we've got to try to be on Team Canada, but my view has always been that Team Canada has to show that they're on Team Alberta, too," she said. "I think this is an opportunity for us to do that reset. I'm open-minded about it." Brown added that Smith appears to be setting the stage for separatist sentiment without pulling the plug herself. "Now forever after, she'll be able to say, 'No, no, I didn't call for this referendum, the public called for this referendum,'" Brown said, referencing recent legislation that lowers the threshold for citizen-led referendums. Danielle Smith says her Alberta government won't advance a separation vote 2 days ago Duration 8:09 The third-party option Some observers say the need for a reset isn't just about Ottawa but about how Alberta has approached the relationship itself. "If you think of the way that Premier Smith approached the election, you'll see that it was very different from, say, the way Premier Ford of Ontario or Premier [Tim] Houston of Nova Scotia, both conservative premiers, dealt with it," said David Stewart, a political science professor at the University of Calgary whose research is focused on Canadian politics. "They took a more neutral stance, while Smith went really all-in in support for the federal Conservative Party. So, the relationship with the federal government is challenged a bit by that." Stewart said he believes the Liberals have shown support for the energy industry, pointing to the Trudeau government's $34 billion investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. He warned that framing engagement with the federal government as involving a list of demands may undermine collaboration. "It's not the case that the federal government has been unwilling to move to help the provincial government to some degree. So I think that part of this is politics rather than policy," he said. Still, he said U.S. instability and trade concerns could represent a "unique opportunity" for collaboration. "This is an opportunity to move forward that was not present in the prior years. And previously, it was simply the provincial government and the federal government, to a degree, at loggerheads," he said. "Now, there's a third party that both the provincial government and the federal government have to deal with, so the situation is a little different than it's been in the past." Stewart added he believes Carney appointing an Alberta MP to cabinet could help to smooth out the relationship. "I think the step forward would be even greater if it was somebody from Calgary," he said. Alberta to send 2 Liberals to Ottawa Alberta remained solidly blue on election night, with the Conservative Party claiming all but three of the province's 37 ridings. The Liberals won in Edmonton Centre with Eleanor Olszewski and in Calgary Confederation with Corey Hogan, while the NDP won in Edmonton Strathcona with Heather McPherson. Hogan, who defeated Conservative candidate Jeremy Nixon in Calgary, said he agreed that a "reset" between Alberta and Ottawa was a good idea. "Let's work towards our common goals. And most of our goals are common, frankly. We quibble about the details, but the quibbling has become overwhelming," he said in an interview. "Now, it's got to be about what we can do together to build as strong of a country as possible." While Hogan said his primary role is to represent Calgary Confederation, he added he's also keen to be a pro-Alberta voice that's a strong voice for Canada. "My role is showing what a western Liberal is and can be," he said. "And that's somebody who's deeply connected to their community, who is interested in trying to build as good of a future for as many of us as possible, but also really cares about the economy and is very pragmatic in their approach." Areas of jurisdiction Still, frustration runs deep for some Albertans. One Edmonton caller to Alberta at Noon on Thursday said while he wasn't a separatist, he's long felt as though his province faces political obstruction, and wanted to consider what options might be best for his family. Gary Mar, a former Alberta cabinet minister who is president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, a public policy think-tank based in Calgary, said alienation with Liberal governments extends beyond Alberta's borders. He said similar sentiments are shared in other regions where resource-based industries are core to the economy. Mar argued that much of the alienation stems from what he describes as federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction. "If you look at things like the emissions cap, that is really a cap on production. Well, that's not your jurisdiction in the federal government, it is the jurisdiction of provinces," Mar said. Alberta has long held that the cap is a violation of the province's constitutional jurisdiction. Such provincial and federal standoffs tied to jurisdictional authority over emissions generated by Alberta's oilpatch have often landed in court. Mar added that with around 85 per cent of Canadians voting for either the Liberals or Conservatives, certain policy planks shared by both parties appear to have won widespread popular support. "It's a test of both [Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre] to see if they've got the best interests of Canada at heart," Mar said. "But it has to start, in my view, with Prime Minister Carney coming out West, and understanding that provinces in areas of their jurisdiction, like natural resources, they're not just stakeholders, they are partners." Carney's aim of "free trade by Canada Day" between provinces and territories is an example of an area where he could make progress, said pollster Brown. "Those are some of the moves that Mark Carney can make very quickly to sort of calm the waters down here in Alberta, and it would be difficult for the premier to fight him on those things," she said. Early signals encouraging, business leader says Business leaders are also watching closely. Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta, said Carney's early signals on energy are encouraging but optimism will last only if regulatory hurdles are addressed. "The ambition is there, but it's got to be backed up with some quick action on what I would call the environment of the investment ambition. And then we can actually see things happen," Legge told Alberta at Noon. Still, Legge said the business community was keen to work with Carney to understand his plans in-depth. "It's some very positive signals out of the gate, from our perspective," he said. Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney, previously at the helm of many of the province's fights with Ottawa over energy and environmental policy, has been vocal for weeks about the evolving dynamic. On Thursday, he wrote on X that Alberta had long "faced a government in Ottawa fundamentally hostile to our largest industry, one central to Canada's economy." "While I join most Albertans in being disappointed with Monday's election results, let's hold PM Carney to his words about making Canada 'a global energy superpower,' deregulating to build big projects, including pipelines," he wrote. "But if we turn inward in a pointless debate on the charade of separation, we will reverse that momentum.
CBC
30-04-2025
- Health
- CBC
Health teams scramble to contain spread of measles in central and southern Alberta
Calling the measles outbreaks "concerning," the medical officer of health for central Alberta says a flurry of work is going on behind the scenes to rein in cases and prevent deaths. As of midday Wednesday, Alberta had reported a total of 170 cases since the outbreaks began in March. The highest concentration of cases are in the central zone, south zone and north zone — parts of the province with the lowest vaccination rates. The central zone now has 65 cases. The south zone has reported 74 cases, and the north zone has 21. Calgary and Edmonton zones have each reported five cases. "The main thing we're trying to prevent is deaths," said Dr. Ifeoma Achebe, the lead medical officer of health with Alberta Health Services in the central zone. As of Monday, two people had been hospitalized, and later released, since the outbreaks in the central zone began, she said. Provincial data, which was last updated April 19, shows a total of nine people hospitalized across Alberta since the cases began in March. There have been no deaths as a result of Alberta's measles outbreaks this year. "I'm quite concerned. That's why we're taking all the measures that we're taking to address the situation," said Achebe. The central zone emergency operations centre is holding regular meetings to discuss the measles outbreak. A key focus for public health teams is contact tracing and ensuring contacts, who are not immunized, isolate to prevent further spread. "I can tell you the volume is quite high," said Achebe, noting people can start spreading the virus before they even develop symptoms. Another complicating factor is that measles is highly contagious. It can hang in the air for up to two hours after an infected person leaves a location. "Whenever there's a case there's usually a high number of contacts that have been previously exposed before the person even knows he or she was a case. That's a lot of work. Sometimes hundreds of individuals needing to be contacted and isolated." AHS is working to boost vaccination rates in the zone. "We're seeing the outbreak in areas where we have … low immunization rates," said Achebe. Immunization clinics in Two Hills and Vegreville have expanded access, offering appointments on evenings and weekends, she said. Public health teams are also reaching out to schools and communities where the measles cases are centred, she said. "Measles is such an infectious pathogen … that we will see these numbers climb more despite huge efforts by public health to contain this," said Dr. Cora Constantinescu, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Alberta Children's Hospital, speaking on CBC Radio's Alberta at Noon on Wednesday. According to Constantinescu, when an exposure occurs in a region where vaccination rates are low, you can have an explosion of cases. "You see a little bit of that, too, in the way it has spread across our province," she said. "Our south zone and central zone numbers are the highest and when you look, historically, that's where some of the lowest immunization uptake rates are. Whereas in Calgary and Edmonton, we have higher immunization rates and you see the numbers are a bit lower." Provincial data from 2023 shows that 57.7 per cent of two-year-olds in the central zone were up-to-date with two doses of the measles vaccine. Some more local geographical areas were much lower. In Two Hills, for example, it was 24 per cent. In the south zone, 59.6 per cent of two-year-olds were up-to-date that year. The north zone had 57.5 per cent coverage for children in that age cohort. Infectious disease experts say an overall 95 per cent coverage is needed for population-level protection against measles. Constantinescu said a number of factors will impact the size of the outbreak, including the public health efforts, whether people are coming forward when they have symptoms and whether they stay home when asked to isolate. The south zone has confirmed 74 cases so far this year. "When we see these numbers, obviously it does create a bit of alarm," said Shannon Vandenberg, the assistant dean of nursing in the faculty of health sciences at the University of Lethbridge. According to Vandenberg, a nurse educator who has researched vaccine hesitancy, there are a number of reasons people opt not to immunize their children, including unwarranted fear about the ingredients, peer pressure among groups of people and the rise of misinformation. Addressing those concerns on an individual family level takes time, she said. "It's not just a simple conversation with someone to say, 'OK, let's get you to immunize.' It's a lot of conversations over a long period of time," Vandenberg said. "We're not going to magically raise our immunization rates … to 95 per cent in a week, right? We just aren't. So that's the challenge. Can we raise them enough to curb the spread, to slow the spread, to prevent it from spreading into new communities?" Zahra Shajani is urging Albertans to reach out for information from reliable sources such as public health nurses, family doctors and governments. "One of the biggest pieces is understanding and getting the right information from the right sources," said Shajani, an associate dean in the faculty of nursing at the University of Calgary who has worked as a public health nurse. "There's a lot of misinformation, perhaps some myths out there, especially online, related to measles and about vaccine safety." It's important, she said, that parents understand how dangerous measles can be. "This isn't like a flu or cold. It's a virus that's being misunderstood." Measles can lead to serious complications, including pneumonia, brain swelling and even death. According to the provincial government's website, between one and three out of every 1,000 people with measles will die. Earlier immunizations for infants Babies living in central, south and north zones are being offered an early dose of the measles vaccine at six months of age due to the outbreaks. The Alberta government's website says measles is "highly preventable," noting immunization is the most important form of protection. Two doses of the measles vaccine, it states, offers nearly 100 per cent protection. The province recommends people who cannot be immunized — including young babies, pregnant Albertans and those who are immunocompromised — take steps to protect themselves. "You can reduce the risk of acquiring measles by avoiding communities with significant measles spread, only socializing with people who you know are immunized, and avoiding indoor gatherings." AHS said public health teams in the central zone have seen a significant increase in inquiries about measles immunization. Appointments increased 40 per cent during the first three weeks of April compared to March Meanwhile, in an effort to keep potential measles cases out of the hospital and prevent spread to vulnerable Albertans, AHS is also planning stand-alone measles assessment centres in the northeastern part of the zone, where a lot of the cases are located, according to Achebe. Measles symptoms include: High fever. Cough. Runny nose. Red eyes. Blotchy, red rash that appears three to seven days after the fever starts. In darker skin colours, it may appear purple or darker than surrounding skin. Alberta Health provides detailed information on measles case counts, symptoms, free immunizations and possible exposure locations here.
CBC
19-04-2025
- Health
- CBC
Q&A: What are the pros and cons of Alberta's plan for involuntary addiction treatment?
A potential new law introducing involuntary drug treatment in Alberta would become the first of its kind in the country. Premier Danielle Smith says the point of the proposed Compassionate Intervention Act is to help severely addicted people who are at risk of hurting themselves or someone else. Some parents who have watched their child struggle with addiction want involuntary treatment legalized, while critics of the bill question whether it will be effective and what exactly should be done if a person cannot give informed consent to get treated. Psychiatrist Dr. Rob Tanguay is the interim senior medical lead for compassionate intervention with Recovery Alberta and is the doctor overseeing this potential new law for the province. He's also a psychiatrist, teaches at the University of Calgary and he's a clinician who treats people with addictions. Dr. David Crockford is a clinical professor at the U of C, and is also a practising psychiatrist treating people with addictions. Tanguay and Crockford joined Alberta at Noon host Ted Henley on Thursday to discuss the nuances of involuntary treatment for addictions. The following discussion has been edited for length and clarity. CBC: As an example, [let's say] I am a person who wants to exercise the Compassionate Intervention Act when it becomes law. How would it work? Dr. Rob Tanguay: First of all, the goal is to access voluntary services. There's areas in this province that significantly lack access points to treatment, there's areas in this province where we have absolute access on demand for individuals. The first thing that occurs is: an application is submitted, and that application — which is done by an adult family member, a guardian, a health-care professional, police or peace officer — is then reviewed by a statutory director and delegated team. So you know, you can't April Fools your buddy into this kind of program. The application will be fully reviewed, and then within 72 hours, an assessment will be done to determine if the application and the individual even meet that criteria. If they are met, a commission member issues an apprehension order and an assessment order. And if not, the application is dismissed and the applicant will be provided with information on alternative care plans. After the apprehension and conveyance, the police would locate and transport them to the compassionate intervention centre, where they would be assessed. Patients are under the care of a medical treatment team, they will receive full medical support for withdrawal or detox, they will be initiated and receive stabilization, treatment, screening, physical examination, psychiatric examinations — really to determine what's going on for that individual. That information will be gathered, the statutory director and the delegated team will compile all supporting documentation as well as police records, health records and impact statements. Then there's a commission hearing. This is a three-person commission panel that's independent from the treating team, which will include a lawyer, a physician and a member of the public. They will review everything, they're going to determine if the patient is even eligible. If they are someone who would require this treatment, they will go into two treatment plans — either a secure care plan, which is up to three months inside of the compassionate intervention centre, or the community care plan which is up to six months in a community-based setting. And then from there goes into aftercare. The failure of addiction treatment is often no follow-up and we're very aware of that. Dr. Crockford, what's wrong here then, with the program that's been outlaid by the province? Dr. David Crockford: There's a few concerns with it. They put out criteria which are attempting to identify the most severe [cases], the criteria are a little bit vague. It's hard to actually spell it out entirely, they're quite broad. It won't be clear for families, health-care providers or police as to who meets the threshold for severity for apprehension. It's going to require a certain amount of testing and they probably will have to develop an information sheet for people, so that way they get a sense as to who will meet these kinds of thresholds. They're going to be very different. The most severe are probably going to go to a compassionate intervention site. The problem with that, is that the most severe will tend to have the most treatment-resistant conditions and the highest levels of comorbidities or complexity or other problems — they're gonna have lots of cognitive problems, they're gonna have lots of psychiatric problems, they're gonna have lots of medical problems. The facility will have to almost function like a forensic facility, there's gonna have to be high observation security because there's gonna be severe aggression risk and potential suicide risk, and then be able to manage complex psychiatric and medical issues in people with addiction. So, the devil's gonna be in the details, I think, with a lot of it. Another potential concern is, addiction is a chronic disorder. I think Dr. Tanguay spoke about this — people aren't gonna leave compassionate intervention without some sort of a plan, and there needs to be some sort of opiate-agonist therapy if their primary drug of use is an opioid. The problem is, we don't have a lot of medications for all the other substances. There's some oral medications for alcohol, some oral medications for tobacco, but that's it. A lot of the problems that we're seeing in the streets right now with aggression and violence is methamphetamine. And there's no evidence-based medications for this, they generally tend to be much more talk therapies, and trying to do talk therapy with a person who's unwilling is kind of like taking a horse to water, right? You can have Evian in there, but the horse isn't going to necessarily drink. So that's gonna be the hard group, in particular, to try and treat. You have to be a minor under the age of 18, unconscious or mentally incapable of making decisions, that's the criteria where you can give treatment to someone, even if they say no. Can you speak to that Dr. Tanguay? When in an addiction is somebody considered mentally incapable of making a decision for themselves? RT: That's a complex answer. I mean, look, if they're intoxicated and unwell, there's Step 1. If they're in a frank psychosis — where one of the country's leading experts is Dr. Crockford — that is another one. But when we're talking about somebody whose addiction has taken over absolutely everything in their life, where everything is about getting their next opportunity to not get sick or to get high — in many cases these individuals don't get high anymore, they're just really not getting sick — then we have to really look at, is this person making decisions that someone of so-called sound mind would make? But, it gets really tricky and complex, and the health-care system does this all the time. People like to think that our Mental Health Act is nice, cut and dry — it's not. A lot of it comes down to the assessment of the psychiatrist in house, the balance of risks and harms of admitting versus discharging, even if they're suicidal or using drugs or unwell, we discharge a lot of people. And it would be great to admit every single person, but if you come in due to a substance, you will be discharged, and that is a problem. And even if we don't have capacity, we'll just keep you overnight until the substance is worn off a bit, then we'll discharge you, even though everyone around you is saying 'this person is going to die.' When somebody has regained what we call recovery capital, which is, they've regained all aspects of their life that makes sense, from their social connections to their emotional functioning to their financial capacities, all of these aspects come into play. The last thing this is about is keeping someone under some sort of treatment for the rest of their lives. Dr. Crockford, what do you see is the biggest risk here, or challenge, of making someone go to receive treatment for their addiction? DC: I think at the beginning, when a person often lacks capacity, as Dr. Tanguay was describing, when they're acutely intoxicated or when they're in withdrawal, the early stages, the addiction is essentially making the decisions and the person less so. The tricky part is going to be within a few days, few weeks when they are clear and they have the capacity to make decisions. The legislation is proposing that people can be held either in secure care for three months or bed-based in the community for up to six months. It does get reviewed every six weeks, the care plan, which is good, but you're gonna have a bunch of people who will clear, will say the right thing, because they do have the capacity, but then go back to what they were doing. It's going to be very challenging to balance rights with the need for treatment, and I don't think there's a great answer. I know people will be going to a commission, and the commission is a lawyer, a person from the public and an addiction medicine physician who will be making treatment decisions or saying where they need to go for treatment. The only problem with that is, that only one of them actually has training, and then you'll have one person's opinion, which might not be the best and there might be more oversight which is required. It's a very complicated issue, and unfortunately people tend to look at involuntary treatment as being 'OK, we can fix it.' And it's like, well, it's not gonna necessarily fix it, it's a component of care. The treatment of addiction is always to focus on the four pillars, which, enforcement is one of them, which this largely represents. But treatment as well as prevention as well as harm reduction all have to be equally addressed. Dr. Tanguay, why mandate treatment when we could just improve access to voluntary treatment? RT: We need both. We are the hub for the community in Calgary, but other cities in Alberta don't have that. And so while here, if you're struggling or you want to talk to someone or you want to talk to someone about your loved one, you can walk in and get support. It may not happen in Lethbridge, it may not happen in Edmonton, it may not happen in Milk River. Proof of concept has already occurred in Calgary, we've expanded it now to Red Deer. We'll look at seeing it throughout the province. And I agree with everything Dr. Crockford just said about capacity, but we have more than 500 beds coming online in the next two years, brand new beds, eight new recovery facilities to support someone for one year. We're making it easy for individuals, making it easy for the emergency doctor to refer, making it easy for the family doctor to refer so that we're not just giving people pamphlets and saying 'good luck.' Imagine showing up to emerge and your chest hurts, and the emerge doc gave you a pamphlet and said, 'there's some cardiologists on there, good luck.' That's how addiction has been treated in this country for many, many decades. Calgary was the first to truly turn this around and we'll see it throughout the province. Dr. Crockford, just picking up on that 'needing both' notion. Why not have the involuntary treatment option running parallel to the voluntary options out there? DC: I think it's a component, much like the Mental Health Act for people with severe and persistent mental illness. It does parallel a lot of that. The nice thing about some of the treatments for mental illness is that we do have a little bit more resources and we do have a little bit more treatments that we can provide. Whereas with addiction, often there's limited medications that we can offer, and those medications have their pros and cons. I don't disagree that there probably is a role for some people. I think the challenge will be in anticipating potential hurdles and troubles that may come with matters, particularly if a person all of a sudden has a very negative experience and they just don't want to seek care. A lot of the people that we see don't have a lot of trust in the health system, don't have a lot of trust in our government. If they feel like their rights are taken away, that'll just be reinforced and they won't accept care thereafter. Trying to figure out how this involuntary care also applies to community-based programs or non bed-based programs. How you continue to — for lack of a better word — capture those people, because I don't know how it will be implemented. I know they've tried that in different jurisdictions as far as mandating it as part of people's probation and people will tick the box, but it doesn't necessarily alter outcomes. Again, the devil is in the details of how this is rolled out.
CBC
28-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
From taboo to tactic: How strategic voting could shake up this election
West of Centre is a weekly podcast about the priorities, preoccupations and politics of Canadians living in the West. Listen here or wherever you find your podcasts. Alvin Finkel still remembers the day he was kicked out of the NDP. The lifelong New Democrat from Edmonton had been running a website during Alberta's 2012 provincial election to consolidate progressive votes behind certain Liberal, NDP and Alberta Party candidates. His hope was that "strength in numbers" might help turn the tide against the then-dominant Progressive Conservatives and their rising rival, the Wildrose Party. About 50 like-minded volunteers joined his cause, obsessing over polling data and fanning out across key ridings in Edmonton and Calgary to count lawn signs for each party, pinpointing non-conservative candidates with a real shot at victory. The argument was simple: if left-of-centre urban voters concentrated their ballots behind one person, rather than splitting between three parties, they stood a better chance of winning. It's a much-maligned practice known as strategic voting — and among smaller political parties, it's borderline heresy. "All parties have this notion that you're supposed to park your brains at the front door and assume that your party could win," he said. "It's a fairy tale." For his efforts, Finkel was given the orange boot — for a while anyway. He was eventually let back into the party in 2016. So imagine his bewilderment this month when he heard about Cheryl Oates's appearance on CBC Radio, where she openly mused about voting Liberal in the upcoming federal election. Oates, who served as a top aide for Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley from 2015 to 2019, admitted during an Alberta at Noon call-in show that she'd consider voting strategically to block a Conservative win. "I've been an NDP supporter for a really long time," she said on March 10. "But I really, really don't want Pierre Poilievre to be the next prime minister." Finkel says he never expected that sentiment from hardcore party faithfuls like Oates because "those are the kinds of the people who threw me out of the NDP." Yet as the federal campaign heats up, the perennial debate over strategic voting — choosing a less-preferred party to block a more-disliked one — has resurfaced. If current polling holds, it could loom larger on voting day. Finkel believes his 2012 initiative helped the Alberta NDP narrowly capture two of its four seats that year. But some observers say a similar strategy might now boost Mark Carney's Liberals at the expense of the NDP on the federal stage. Just this week, former federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair wrote an editorial in Bloomberg urging voters on the left —including those who normally vote NDP, Bloc or Green — to consider this election a two-party race. "One thing is clear is this election is more and more shaping up to look like it's a binary choice," said Calgary-based pollster Janet Brown about the choice between Poilievre and Carney. "The NDP has got to just focus on … saving the deck chairs, making sure they come out of this with official party status," she told CBC host Kathleen Petty on West of Centre. In the last federal election, 217 of 338 ridings were won with less than 50 per cent of the vote. That suggests the numbers exist in many districts for strategic voting to make a difference. Polarization, tight race and high stakes Sometimes, voters don't choose the party they like best. They pick their second — or even third — preference if it helps defeat their least-favourite option. While skepticism abounds regarding the practicalities of strategic voting, those who have studied the phenomenon in Canada agree this election might have set the right conditions for it to play a role in the outcome. Razor-thin margins, polarization and concerns over U.S. policy are all potential motivating factors, said Jean-François Daoust, who teaches political science at the University of Sherbrooke. He co-wrote a 2020 paper on the motivations behind strategic voting, using provincial survey data from Ontario in 2011, Quebec in 2012 and federal data from 2015. His study suggests that while only around seven to 12 per cent of voters fit the "strategic" definition overall, that small group can tip close races. "They tend to come from small parties. So even if it's a few percentage points, if it's a tight race, it can be important," he explained to West of Centre, adding that those voters are especially motivated if they severely dislike the alternative frontrunner. In practice, the study suggests this could translate to a concentrated 20 to 35 per cent of "non-viable" party supporters engaging in strategic voting. Daoust says when it's a close race — especially with two major parties at the top — strategic voting tends to rise because voters don't want to "waste" their ballot. In the current election cycle, he said, a key question then becomes whether the NDP under Jagmeet Singh has become "non-viable." Recent polling data suggests NDP support has dropped sharply since Justin Trudeau resigned as Liberal leader. Already, the Liberals have recruited notable New Democrats, including former Vancouver mayor and NDP MLA Gregor Robertson and Alberta NDP MLA Rod Loyola, possibly signalling to NDP supporters they're free to switch parties. Political strategist Jean-Marc Prevost, who worked as a staffer for NDP provincial governments in Alberta and Manitoba, says the move also allows the Liberal Party to evoke a sense of stability for voters. "That's hearkening to a more stable time — remembering the faces that we used to see around the cabinet table or in politics at a time when things seemed more certain in the world," he said on the West of Centre podcast. What about right-of-centre parties? Those who switch between voting Liberal and Conservative go by many names: centrists, "red Tories," "blue Liberals," fiscal conservatives, pragmatists and so on. They are, however, not typically considered the same kind of strategic voters as those on the farther ends of the political spectrum, since neither of their top choices — Conservative or Liberal — is generally viewed as "non-viable," except in a few historic blips and parts of the country. In other words, though these "squishy middle" voters may feel they're making a strategic choice, they're simply voting for a party that best represents them at a moment in time. Theoretically then, it's those who support a smaller party ranking in third place or lower who "strategically" park their vote with a different party. However, choices are slimmer for conservative or farther right-of-centre voters following the "unite the right" merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance in 2003. A far-right voter might choose the Conservatives over the People's Party of Canada (PPC) to stop a Liberal or NDP candidate. Daoust said it comes down to "the ideological gap between my strategic option and the worst option I'm trying to block." In 2021, the increase in support for the PPC, from 1.6 per cent to 4.9 per cent of the vote share, failed to win the party any seats in Parliament, but it didn't stop pundits from speculating that it may have cost the Conservatives a dozen or so ridings because of vote splitting. In fact, during the campaign, former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole equated a vote for the PPC to a throwaway vote for Liberals — effectively asking PPC supporters to vote strategically for his more mainstream party. But while strategic voting can help narrow the margin on either side, there is greater risk on the left for the move to backfire due to more fractured options, and therefore potential outcomes. Public opinion researcher Mario Canesco, who runs Vancouver-based Research Co., points to several ridings in his jurisdiction — including Granville and Kingsway — where if enough NDP supporters decide to switch their vote to Liberal, it could contribute to their opposite desired outcome. "So you could have a situation where if you're urging people to vote for a specific candidate or the other, the Conservatives could come through the middle and essentially win," Canesco said. "This was definitely more likely to be a factor when the Conservatives were riding significantly higher levels of public support." Plenty of skeptics Not everyone is convinced that strategic voting meaningfully alters election outcomes. Trevor Harrison, a retired political sociologist at the University of Lethbridge, argues the efficacy of the practice can be overstated — especially when voters lack reliable, riding-level data to inform their choice. "First, the people themselves who are voting aren't actually really sure," he said, noting that most Canadians only see national polling numbers, which can bear little resemblance to on-the-ground realities. "They don't have great information about the accuracy of the polls," he said. "And they are also voting locally." Without credible local surveys, voters can't reliably deduce which non-preferred candidate actually stands a better chance of beating the contender they dislike the most. That makes strategic voting a gamble — not a precise calculation. "It's really complicated because you're trying to do all this in your head without actually having very much information," Harrison said. In places where a party consistently dominates — such as many rural areas in Alberta that vote Conservative by wide margins — no amount of strategic voting can tip the scales. Conversely, in a close three-way urban race, strategic balloting might matter, but only if voters can accurately guess which candidate is truly viable. Malcolm Bird, who teaches political science at the University of Winnipeg, is similarly cautious about reading too much into dramatic polling shifts. He points to the NDP's history of ups and downs — and questions the assumption that left-leaning voters will line up neatly behind the Liberals to block a Conservative win. "I think for your average public sector, urban woman voter — OK, you're going to be able to convince her to vote [Liberal]," Bird said. "The bigger question for the progressives is actually getting working people to vote for them." He says any "fear factor" around Poilievre or the Conservatives may not seal the deal. Bird also points to the number of variables that are underrepresented in polling data, including the voting patterns of new Canadians living in suburbia. "They tend to be more family-oriented ... more faith-oriented, and the Conservative Party is the only party that even has a place for people of faith," he said. Poilievre says it's election day result that matters, not polling 12 hours ago Duration 1:51 Divining one's own riding Back in Edmonton, Finkel didn't let his NDP expulsion keep him from promoting strategic voting in the next provincial election. He was back at it in 2015. That year, Notley's NDP unexpectedly formed government — ironically less from left-wing unity than a split in support between the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party. Once those two parties merged into the United Conservative Party, it reclaimed a majority in 2019. Finkel, a retired Athabasca University history professor, stayed dedicated to rallying votes against conservative candidates on all levels of government because, in his words: "I'm left-wing and want to preserve our social, environmental programs." But he says anyone trying to make their ballot count strategically must focus on their own riding, especially in the final week of campaigning. "This isn't like a [U.S.] presidential race," Finkel said. "We don't vote nationally in Canada." This time, he's volunteering for the local NDP incumbent Heather McPherson, not the Liberals, because he believes the NDP is more viable in his riding of Edmonton Strathcona. "There's a Calgary riding right now that has a Liberal MP. If I lived there I'd be tempted to vote for that fellow even though I don't think he's a great MP," he said. "But in my riding, the NDP has the best chance of winning here." In other words, one of Alberta's best-known champions of strategic voting — and a one-time outcast from his own party for urging progressives to unite — won't be checking the Liberal challenger's box on April 28.
