Opinion polling for the 2006 Canadian federal election

Last updated

Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election of 2006 (held on 23 January 2006) showed a long period of variable support for the governing Liberal Party of Canada and opposition Conservative Party of Canada. Prior to and throughout much of the campaign, the Liberals held a small lead over the Conservatives; as of early January 2006, the Conservatives had taken the lead. This was confirmed on election day when the Conservatives won a plurality of votes and seats, being empowered to form a minority government in the 39th Canadian parliament.

Contents

Summary

In the leadup to the 2006 federal election, several opinion polls were commissioned to gauge the voting intentions of Canadians, particularly in the wake of Jean Brault's testimony at the Gomery Commission on 7 April 2005. The results of these polls showed a dip in support for the Liberals, which encouraged the Conservatives to seek an early election by tabling a non-confidence motion. However, Liberal support recovered following an agreement with the New Democratic Party (NDP) to support some changes to the federal budget and a number of incidents involving Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Gurmant Grewal that hurt the Conservatives. Consistently since the Brault testimony, the polls have indicated that an election would result in an increase in the number of seats for the Bloc Québécois and NDP, and cyclical gains and losses for the Conservatives inversely to the Liberals.

In November 2005, the first report by Justice John Gomery was released to the public; subsequently, the poll numbers for the Liberals again dropped. Just days later, a new poll (Strategic Counsel: 6 November 2005) showed the Liberals were already bouncing back. On 28 November 2005, the minority Liberal government succumbed to another Conservative non-confidence motion supported by the three opposition parties and the writs for an election were dropped. The Conservatives achieved near parity but, early in the campaign, again fell back behind the Liberals. Renewed accusations of corruption and impropriety at the end of 2005 – amid Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) criminal probes concerning possible government leaks regarding income trust tax changes and advertising sponsorships – led to an upswing of Conservative support again and gave them a lead over the Liberals, portending a possible change in government.

Polling figures for the NDP increased slightly, while Bloc figures experienced a slight dip; figures for the Green Party did not change appreciably throughout the campaign.

Poll results

Opinion polling for the 2006 Canadian federal election.svg

The dates listed are normally the date the survey was concluded. Most news and political affairs sources use the convention of using the last date that the poll was conducted in order to establish the inclusion/exclusion of current events.

Polling firmLast date
of polling
Link LPC CPC NDP BQ GPC Margin
of error
Sample
size
Polling methodLead
Election 23 January 200630.236.317.510.54.5N/A14,817,1596.1
Strategic Counsel 22 January 2006 PDF 273719116± 2%2,50010
Nanos Research 22 January 2006 PDF 30.136.417.410.65.6± 3.1%1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)6.3
Ipsos-Reid 22 January 2006 HTML 273819124± 1.1%9,64811
Nanos Research21 January 2006 PDF 28.137.017.711.36.0± 3.1%1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)8.9
Strategic Counsel21 January 2006 PDF 273718116± 2.2%2,00010
Nanos Research20 January 2006 PDF 29.436.217.311.06.1± 3.1%1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)6.8
EKOS 20 January 2006PDF26.937.119.511.54.610.2
EKOS 20 January 2006PDF24.438.419.811.95.414
Ipsos-Reid 19 January 2006 PDF 26381911512
EKOS19 January 2006PDF27.037.119.711.24.510.1
Strategic Counsel19 January 2006PDF28381711710
Nanos Research19 January 2006 PDF 29.035.518.811.15.6± 2.9%1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)6.5
EKOS [3] 19 January 2006PDF27.337.420.810.13.99.9
Strategic Counsel18 January 2006PDF2837161279
Nanos Research18 January 2006PDF30.737.016.610.74.96.3
EKOS [3] 18 January 2006PDF29.335.118.012.64.45.8
Leger Marketing 17 January 2006PDF293817119
Strategic Counsel17 January 2006PDF25411712516
Nanos Research17 January 2006PDF31.536.917.610.04.05.4
EKOS17 January 2006PDF27.236.919.611.04.89.7
Strategic Counsel16 January 2006PDF24421712518
Nanos Research16 January 2006PDF3037181047
EKOS [3] 16 January 2006PDF29.635.819.411.63.46.2
Decima Research 15 January 2006 PDF 27371811± 3.1%1017telephone10
Ipsos-Reid15 January 2006 PDF 26381912512
Strategic Counsel15 January 2006PDF27401611613
Nanos Research15 January 2006PDF2937181158
EKOS15 January 2006 PDF 27.238.618.610.64.4± 3.2968Telephone11.4
Nanos Research14 January 2006PDF3038171068
Strategic Counsel14 January 2006PDF27401611613
Nanos Research13 January 2006PDF2938161179
Strategic Counsel12 January 2006PDF28381611610
Ipsos-Reid12 January 2006 HTML 2937181058
Nanos Research12 January 2006 PDF 314014106± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)9
EKOS12 January 2006 PDF 28.337.618.111.63.7± 2.02,0459.3
EKOS [3] 12 January 2006 PDF 27.438.118.111.54.510.7
Strategic Counsel11 January 2006 PDF 27391612612
Nanos Research11 January 2006 PDF 293816125± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)9
EKOS [3] 11 January 2006 PDF 28.836.317.913.32.87.5
Strategic Counsel10 January 2006 PDF 283916121,50011
Nanos Research10 January 2006 PDF 303916124± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)9
EKOS [3] 10 January 2006 PDF 29.937.117.611.63.27.2
Strategic Counsel9 January 2006 PDF 28381612610
Nanos Research9 January 2006 PDF 313517135± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)4
EKOS9 January 2006 PDF 26.839.116.212.65.412.3
Ipsos-Reid8 January 2006 PDF 26371813511
Decima Research8 January 2006 PDF 2736201159
Nanos Research8 January 2006 PDF 313417116± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)3
Strategic Counsel8 January 2006 PDF 293715136± 2.51,5008
Nanos Research7 January 2006 PDF 323417116± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)2
Nanos Research6 January 2006 PDF 323517106± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)3
Ipsos-Reid5 January 2006 PDF 313518105± 2.22,0044
EKOS5 January 2006 PDF 30.836.017.510.64.7± 2.21,9685.2
Strategic Counsel5 January 2006 PDF 3133171362
Nanos Research5 January 2006 PDF 333417115± 3.21,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)1
Leger Marketing4 January 2006 PDF 3234161152
Strategic Counsel4 January 2006 PDF 3232171360
Nanos Research4 January 2006 PDF 333515125± 3.21,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)2
EKOS4 January 2006 PDF 30.436.217.910.44.7± 2.71,3865.8
Strategic Counsel3 January 2006 HTML 323217136± 2.51,5000
Nanos Research3 January 2006 PDF 333615134± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)3
Strategic Counsel31 December 2005 PDF 3331171462
Nanos Research30 December 2005 PDF 353514134± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)0
Ipsos-Reid30 December 2005 PDF 323318125± 3.11,000Telephone1
Decima Research30 December 2005 PDF 323018142
Nanos Research29 December 2005 PDF 353414135± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)1
Nanos Research28 December 2005 PDF 383214134± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)6
Nanos Research23 December 2005 PDF 383115125± 3.11,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)7
Ipsos-Reid22 December 2005 PDF 333216135± 3.11,000Telephone1
Strategic Counsel22 December 2005 PDF 3629171357
Nanos Research22 December 2005 PDF 39291512510
Environics 21 December 2005 HTML 353017125± 3.11,0105
Strategic Counsel21 December 2005PDF3330181453
Leger Marketing21 December 2005PDF3628171258
Nanos Research21 December 2005 PDF 3729151268
Strategic Counsel20 December 2005PDF3430161554
Nanos Research20 December 2005 PDF 3731141366
Strategic Counsel19 December 2005PDF3329171564
Nanos Research19 December 2005 PDF 3729161358
Strategic Counsel18 December 2005PDF3429191355
Pollara 19 December 2005HTML373417103
Nanos Research18 December 2005 PDF 3829161249
Nanos Research17 December 2005 PDF 3830151348
Nanos Research16 December 2005 PDF 3931141258
Strategic Counsel15 December 2005PDF3430181354
Nanos Research15 December 2005 PDF 3933121256
Strategic Counsel14 December 2005PDF3430171454
Nanos Research14 December 2005 PDF 3932121257
Leger Marketing13 December 2005PDF3529171266
Strategic Counsel13 December 2005PDF3429171465
Nanos Research13 December 2005 PDF 3831141257
Strategic Counsel12 December 2005PDF3331171362
Nanos Research12 December 2005 PDF 3830131458
Ipsos-Reid11 December 2005 PDF 3627171459
Pollara11 December 2005HTML383015128
Strategic Counsel11 December 2005PDF3430161464
Nanos Research11 December 2005 PDF 3931141348
Strategic Counsel10 December 2005PDF3530151465
Nanos Research10 December 2005 PDF 3932141347
Decima Research9 December 2005PDF3627201349
Nanos Research9 December 2005 PDF 3930151149
Strategic Counsel8 December 2005PDF3628161468
Nanos Research8 December 2005 PDF 41261811415
Ipsos-Reid8 December 2005 PDF 3430151454
Leger Marketing7 December 2005 PDF 39271612512
Strategic Counsel7 December 2005 PDF 3630151456
Nanos Research7 December 2005PDF40261811414
Strategic Counsel6 December 2005 PDF 3529161366
Nanos Research6 December 2005 PDF 40281711412
Decima Research5 December 2005342620148
Strategic Counsel5 December 2005PDF3529161466
Nanos Research5 December 2005 PDF 3830161258
Strategic Counsel4 December 2005PDF3529161466
Nanos Research4 December 2005 PDF 3730161357
Strategic Counsel3 December 2005 HTML 3430161464
Nanos Research3 December 2005 PDF 3829151459
Nanos Research2 December 2005 PDF 3631141455
Ipsos-Reid1 December 2005 PDF 3331171452
Strategic Counsel1 December 2005 HTML 3530161465
Nanos Research1 December 2005 PDF 3729151458
EKOS1 December 2005PDF34.127.418.414.06.06.7
Strategic Counsel30 November 2005 PDF 3530171455
Ipsos-Reid28 November 2005HTML3131181550
Decima Research28 November 2005362819128
Strategic Counsel27 November 2005 PDF 3529171456
Pollara27 November 2005HTML363116145
Environics25 November 20053530201415
EKOS24 November 2005PDF38.729.416.910.63.09.3
Ipsos-Reid24 November 2005HTML3430161554
Ipsos-Reid15 November 20053627161369
Decima Research14 November 2005PDF332622137
Pollara13 November 20053628208
Nanos Research13 November 2005 PDF 3428201446
Ipsos-Reid10 November 2005 PDF 3428191446
EKOS9 November 2005PDF33.027.920.913.14.95.1
Leger Marketing8 November 2005 PDF 3426181178
Decima Research7 November 2005PDF333020143
Strategic Counsel6 November 20053528161387
Strategic Counsel3 November 20052831201373
Ipsos-Reid2 November 2005313019131
Nanos Research27 October 2005PDF40281512412
Ipsos-Reid27 October 200538261811512
Pollara17 October 20053830178
Decima Research17 October 2005PDF352917136
Environics16 October 20053827201011
Strategic Counsel13 October 2005PDF3825151413
Pollara2 October 2005363019116
Ipsos-Reid29 September 2005 PDF 37271714410
Decima Research26 September 2005PDF362917137
Praxicus 23 September 20053329204
Strategic Counsel13 September 20053528171377
Leger Marketing11 September 2005PDF40241513516
Ipsos-Reid22 August 20053628171168
Strategic Counsel15 August 20053628178
Nanos Research8 August 2005PDF3925191314
Environics28 July 2005HTML343120113
Decima Research25 July 2005PDF3924191415
Pollara18 July 20053827151311
Strategic Counsel16 July 20053526191379
Pollara28 June 2005362918117
Ipsos-Reid28 June 20053527181368
Decima Research20 June 2005PDF3725201312
Ipsos-Reid20 June 20053429161265
Strategic Counsel11 June 20053426191398
Pollara6 June 20053827191311
Decima Research5 June 2005 PDF 3723211314
Decima Research22 May 2005 PDF 362721139
Leger Marketing22 May 2005 PDF 382717124± 2.6%1,50911
Ipsos-Reid20 May 200534281766
Strategic Counsel18 May 20053330191263
COMPAS 17 May 2005 PDF 293817139
EKOS17 May 2005 PDF 34.728.318.412.65.66.4
Environics17 May 2005333122102
Decima Research15 May 2005 PDF 323119141
Ipsos-Reid14 May 20052731191364
Strategic Counsel10 May 20052731201474
Decima Research8 May 2005 PDF 372818129
Ipsos-Reid7 May 20053231161251
Nanos Research5 May 200536.129.517.912.24.36.6
Pollara4 May 2005313617155
Decima Research2 May 2005 PDF 322920153
Ipsos-Reid28 April 2005 PDF 303317125±3.1%1000Telephone3
EKOS28 April 2005 PDF 32.530.519.012.05.52
GPC P.A.28 April 200533301313103
Strategic Counsel28 April 200530281816102
Ipsos-Reid24 April 2005 PDF 313418115±3.1%1000Telephone3
Decima Research24 April 2005 PDF 273221155
Ipsos-Reid21 April 2005 PDF 303518125±3.1%1000Telephone5
Pollara21 April 2005313518124
Nanos Research18 April 200531.637.914.911.93.86.3
Decima Research17 April 2005 PDF 283518147
Ipsos-Reid14 April 2005 PDF 273615107±3.1%1000Telephone9
COMPAS14 April 20053034181514
Environics14 April 20052733241126
Environics12 April 20053630191146
Leger Marketing11 April 2005 PDF 31341813± 2.5%1,504Telephone3
Ipsos-Reid10 April 2005 PDF 273019127±3.1%1000Telephone3
Decima Research10 April 2005 PDF 313219141
EKOS9 April 2005 PDF 25.036.220.512.65.011.2
Ipsos-Reid7 April 2005 PDF 343015107±3.1%1000Telephone4
Last election 28 June 2004HTML36.729.615.712.44.37.1
  1. ^ Strategic Counsel polls from 27 November onwards are multi-day polls. Each new poll removes approximately 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  2. ^ Nanos polls from December onwards are 3-day polls. Each new poll removes the 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  3. ^ Various EKOS polls contain results from a single night of polling only. They have fewer respondents than most other polls and, thus, EKOS notes that they are not as credible; however, they are intended to provide a general indication of daily polling trends.
  4. ^ This Compas poll was taken over the course of a single day.
  5. ^ Polling for this data mostly occurred before Jean Brault's Gomery Inquiry testimony was released.

NB: The margin of error in these surveys is typically between 2.5 and 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. See the links for actual error values associated with particular surveys. Because these figures are national percentages, they may not reflect the expected number of seats won by each party. Indeed, the sample size in many polls is not sufficient to give a statistically accurate prediction in individual ridings, and hence the expected number of seats.

All polling companies rely on cooperation from individuals contacted over the phone. The major companies claim a typical response rate is between 20 and 35 percent. [1]

Seat predictions

Several websites, polling firms and notable Canadians devised various method of projecting the final election result. Included below are those cited in Andrew Coyne's blog. [2]

ProjectorConservativeLiberalNDPBQOther
Final Results HTML12410329511
ElectionPrediction.org11810429561
democraticSPACE.com1289429561
UBC Election Stock market 1279333541
jord.ca1357238621
Loblaw Election Pool1368926570
Laurier University 1407833561
Andrew Coyne 1408131542
TrendLines Federal & Provincial Riding Projections1407535571
ElectionPolls1417930581
PinnacleSports.com1467431570
Ipsos-Reid 148–15262–6634–3856–60-

See also

References

  1. "CBC – Canada Votes 2006 – Voter Toolkit". 10 December 2005. Archived from the original on 10 December 2005. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
  2. "andrewcoyne.com: Last call". 19 February 2006. Archived from the original on 19 February 2006. Retrieved 20 April 2021.