How parties are encouraging their supporters to vote

On voting day, political parties have just one goal: get their supporters to the polls.

Here’s a sampling of the e-mails Ontario parties have been sending today to supporters.

Ontario Liberals

It’s Election Day in Ontario.

We’ve campaigned hard for the last 36 days on the belief that government can be a force for good in people’s lives and that with the right team, we can move Ontario forward.

[Supporter name], you are a part of that Ontario Liberal team.

You’ve been right next to me every step of the way. And before you head out today to get out our vote, I want you to know that none of this would be possible without you. I’m so grateful for all that you’ve put into this campaign.

We’ve made our case to the people of Ontario. But now it’s up to you.

Every vote you pull today is one vote closer to victory. In a race this tight, one vote really could be the difference. We’re counting on you to help put us over the top. I believe we can do it.

I can’t think of a better team to get it done. We have the best ground team in the province. And I could not be more proud of you.

Now, let’s show our opposition how it’s done.

Yours,

Kathleen

Progressive Conservatives

We’re hours away from polls opening tomorrow morning, and I wanted to describe the lay of the land for you:

1. Polls have us closer to winning than we’ve been since 1999.

2. The Liberals and their special interest allies are going to extremes trying to cling to power.

3. Pollsters and pundits have called this election too close to call and one of the tightest races in Ontario’s history, but say our supporters are the most motivated to win.

We’ve seen the Liberals and their special interest union allies attack Tim Hudak and our Million Jobs Plan with negative TV ads, smear campaigns, offensive literature, even flat out lies and mistruths.

They are desperate to maintain their grasp on power so they can keep your taxes going up for THEIR benefit.

The truth is that they will do anything tomorrow to keep their costly stranglehold on government. It’s simple: if the Liberals win, taxpayers lose.

But you don’t have to listen to Kathleen Wynne’s fearmongering. You can make up your own mind with this simple question: Are you better off after 11 years of the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals?

Tomorrow, your vote will matter more than it has for the last 15 years.

Take a minute tonight and commit to vote tomorrow for a better future for Ontario.

It’s going to be a tight race, but we can rise above Kathleen Wynne’s message of negativity and get Ontario working better.

Have a plan, c ommit to vote, and help us bring hope to Ontario.

Ian Robertson
Ontario PC Campaign Manager

New Democrats

Friend —
I wanted to be the first to share this with you.
A new Ipsos-Reid poll released minutes ago shows that New Democrats have momentum all over Ontario.

This poll shows that in every community in Ontario, you vote New Democrat to stop Tim Hudak.
Polls open in just fifteen-and-a-half hours.
Please spread the word: Facebook and Twitter
And forward this email to a friend or two.
Together, we can do this.
-Andrea
Andrea Horwath, Leader
Ontario’s New Democrats

Ask The Globe: Is Harper correct in his assessment that “most” cases of murdered indigenous women are “solved”?

For the duration of the election, The Globe is answering your questions – from fact-checking leaders’ statements to digging deep into policies and promises. Have a question? Tweet it with #AskTheGlobe

JJ June poised this question: #AskTheGlobe Fact Check “Harper says ‘most’ cases of murdered aboriginal women are solved.” CP Oct. 6/15

Kathryn Blaze Baum, a national reporter who covers the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women for The Globe gave this response:

First, it is important to note that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s comment was made in the context of an inquiry into both missing and murdered indigenous women. Indigenous leaders and Canada’s premiers have been calling for a federal probe to better understand why aboriginal women are disproportionately more likely to disappear or be killed and also to determine how to tackle the violence.

In 2014, the RCMP released an unprecedented report looking at police-recorded incidents of missing and murdered indigenous women across the country. It found that between 1980 and 2012, there were 1,017 homicides and 164 outstanding missing-person cases. Within that time period, there are 225 unsolved cases: 105 women have been missing for more than 30 days and their disappearances are categorized as either “foul play suspected” or “unknown,” and 120 homicide cases have not been solved.

It is true, then, that most homicides involving indigenous women have been solved. As stated in the RCMP report: “The majority of all female homicides are solved (close to 90%) and there is little difference in solve rates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal victims.”

But this is not the whole picture.

It is important to understand what the RCMP means when it says “solved.” The report indicates that, for the purposes of the study, the term is used synonymously with “clearance rate.” Here is how clearance rate is defined, in one of the footnotes:

“Clearance refers to whether or not a homicide incident was cleared: (1) either by the laying, or recommending of a charge to the Crown; or (2) where at least one suspect has been identified and against whom there is sufficient evidence to lay a charge, but where the incident is cleared otherwise (e.g. the suicide or death of the chargeable suspect … ).”

This means that if police recommend charges but the Crown decides not to proceed, or if an accused is charged but later acquitted, the case is still considered solved. A killing, then, could be deemed solved without a conviction.

Put simply, the police might consider a case cleared, but the victim’s family may still be waiting for justice.

Furthermore, it is possible that some of the 105 unresolved cases involving missing indigenous women, whose disappearances are categorized as “foul play suspected” or “unknown,” are actually unsolved homicide cases.

Finally, a couple of questions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.

First Cdn Politico asks: @globeandmail Yes. Wasn’t Tom Mulcair in favour of TPP as recently as 2 months ago? #asktheglobe

One of our Ottawa corespondents, John Ibbitson, answers this question.

The NDP has traditionally opposed free trade agreements, saying that they lead to lower labour and environmental standards, job losses and foreign interference/loss of sovereignty.

Under Thomas Mulcair the party has modified its stance, supporting the free trade agreement with South Korea and supporting in principle the free trade agreement with Europe, although it is withholding full approval until it sees the final, legally-vetted document. The party had no stated position on the Trans Pacific Partnership other than it supports free and fair trade.

However, Mr. Mulcair has decided that this agreement would lead to lost jobs — especially in the auto sector — more costly prescription drugs, and the erosion of the supply management system that protects the dairy and poultry industry. The NDP opposes the TPP.

Finally joey wonders: if The NDP have said they won’t necessarily uphold an agreement PCs may reach in TPP. Have the liberals commented their stance? #asktheglobe

The Liberal Party fought the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, and only reluctantly endorsed the North American Free Trade Agreement the included Mexico, negotiated by the Mulroney government. However, the Chretien government did conclude a couple of small free-trade agreements, and Justin Trudeau has been supportive of the Harper government’s trade agenda, endorsing the agreement with the European Union. The Liberal Party, however, declines to take a position on the TPP until the full text of the agreement is revealed.

(Want to know more about the TPP? Our explainer can be found here.)

Ask The Globe: Answers to your questions on marijuana, the census and Liberal sponsorship scandal

By Chris Hannay

Spencer Smit asks: @globeandmail Harper saying cannabis is worse than tobacco, citing “evidence” please advise #AskTheGlobe

Mike Hager, a Globe reporter in Vancouver, recently looked into this:

The Canadian Cancer Society says smoking tobacco continues to be the leading preventable cause of premature deaths in the country, claiming about 37,000 lives each year. The non-profit organization says tobacco is the main risk factor for cancer, heart disease, stroke and lung disease in Canada.

In contrast, no deaths have been directly attributed to cannabis use or overdose, says Dr. Tim Stockwell, director of the University of Victoria’s Centre for Addictions Research. But it is likely a factor in “a few” fatal crashes and “a few” lung-cancer deaths each year, he said.

Elizabeth Jane Banks asks: #AskTheGlobe Please fact check Elizabeth May’s claim that almost no one completes the voluntary census. #cdnpoli #elxn42

“Almost no one” may be a bit strong, but experts have warned about the quality of the National Household Survey data after it was made voluntary in 2011. Previously the longform census, which asks for more detailed information and is sent to a fraction of households, was mandatory. The response rates for the voluntary form were about 70 per cent in 2011, whereas the response rate for the mandatory form in 2006 was 93.5 per cent.

Alex Dempster asks: @globeandmail Harper said of the Liberal sponsorship scandal that $40 million of Canadians taxpayers’ money lost. Accurate? #AskTheGlobe

Maybe? This one’s a bit tricky, and may be a case of fuzzy math in campaign slogans. But it may originate in the $40-million of government funds for contracts to a firm where there was no evidence of work done, etc.

(The Globe and Mail, incidentally, won the prestigious Michener Award for public service in journalism for its uncovering of the scandal.)

Nanos preferred PM poll: Harper 33%, Trudeau 27%, Mulcair 24%

Based on rolling three-day sample from September 28 to 30 of 1,200 Canadians reached by phone (cell and landline). Margin of error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Check out our Election Forecast for how party support translates into seats.

Ask The Globe: Your questions on citizenship, C-51 and refugees

By Chris Hannay and Evan Annett

Ben asks: #AskTheGlobe Can the government legally revoke someones Canadian citizenship? #MunkDebate

and Sarah asks: What conditions can a Canadian loose their citizenship, residency, or voting rights? Do refugees hafta pay interest? #AskTheGlobe

Let’s deal with these two together.

First, yes, the government can legally revoke citizenship if it was obtained fraudulently. The Conservatives also added another policy, which is that dual nationals can potentially lose their citizenship if convicted of terrorism or treason crimes. Depending on the circumstances, someone whose citizenship was revoked may be removed from the country.

On voting, the Conservatives did change the eligibility to vote for Canadian expats living abroad. Generally they lose their right to vote after five years, which Donald Sutherland was not very happy about.

Chris asks: Did Tom Mulcair really say different things about repealing C51? #AskTheGlobe

The NDP has never supported Bill C-51, the Anti-Terror Act. The New Democrats voted against the bill, which was supported by the Conservatives and Liberals. However, in interviews earlier in the year, leader Thomas Mulcair did change his tone. In February, Mr. Mulcair said he wouldn’t commit to repealing the bill if elected, though his party would definitely change it. Weeks later, in March, Mr. Mulcair committed to repealing the entire law.

Myles asks: Harper says ours response has been generous- is that true compared to past refugee crises? #MunkDebate #asktheglobe #futurevoter

It depends on what past refugee crises we’re comparing it to. In terms of numbers and speed of access for refugees, it’s much lower than Vietnam (when Joe Clark raised the target to 60,000 refugees). Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau at the Munk Debate brought up comparisons with Vietnam to accuse Harper of being stingy. What sets Syria apart from Vietnam is the rules Stephen Harper introduced about refugees needing their status approved by UNHCR or a third country, a rule that didn’t exist for the Vietnamese (and which the Kurdi family blames for the events leading to Alan’s death off the Turkish coast). If we’re comparing Syria with the Second World War, though – when we famously turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees in 1939, and were pretty hostile to Jewish refugees even during the war – our current response looks more generous. (Doug Saunders and Sean Fine have done really good historical analyses of Vietnam, the Second World War and our response to the Hungarian refugee crisis in the 1950s).

View all posts from Politics Live »