Opinion polling for the 2006 Canadian federal election explained

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.

__TOC__

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

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 firm	Last date of polling	Link	LPC	CPC	NDP	BQ	GPC	Margin of error	Sample size	Polling method	Lead
Election			30.2	36.3	17.5	10.5	4.5	N/A	14,817,159			6.1
Strategic Counsel		PDF	27		37	19	11	6	± 2%	2,500			10
Nanos Research		PDF	30.1		36.4	17.4	10.6	5.6	± 3.1%	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		6.3
Ipsos-Reid		HTML	27		38	19	12	4	± 1.1%	9,648			11
Nanos Research		PDF	28.1		37.0	17.7	11.3	6.0	± 3.1%	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		8.9
Strategic Counsel	21 January	PDF	27		37	18	11	6	± 2.2%	2,000			10
Nanos Research	20 January	PDF	29.4		36.2	17.3	11.0	6.1	± 3.1%	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		6.8
EKOS	20 January	PDF	26.9		37.1	19.5	11.5	4.6					10.2
EKOS	20 January	PDF	24.4		38.4	19.8	11.9	5.4					14
Ipsos-Reid	19 January	PDF	26		38	19	11	5					12
EKOS	19 January	PDF	27.0		37.1	19.7	11.2	4.5					10.1
Strategic Counsel	19 January	PDF	28		38	17	11	7					10
Nanos Research	19 January	PDF	29.0		35.5	18.8	11.1	5.6	± 2.9%	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		6.5
EKOS	19 January	PDF	27.3		37.4	20.8	10.1	3.9					9.9
Strategic Counsel	18 January	PDF	28		37	16	12	7					9
Nanos Research	18 January	PDF	30.7		37.0	16.6	10.7	4.9					6.3
EKOS	18 January	PDF	29.3		35.1	18.0	12.6	4.4					5.8
Leger Marketing	17 January	PDF	29		38	17	11						9
Strategic Counsel	17 January	PDF	25		41	17	12	5					16
Nanos Research	17 January	PDF	31.5		36.9	17.6	10.0	4.0					5.4
EKOS	17 January	PDF	27.2		36.9	19.6	11.0	4.8					9.7
Strategic Counsel	16 January	PDF	24		42	17	12	5					18
Nanos Research	16 January	PDF	30		37	18	10	4					7
EKOS	16 January	PDF	29.6		35.8	19.4	11.6	3.4					6.2
Decima Research	15 January	PDF	27		37	18	11		± 3.1%	1017	telephone		10
Ipsos-Reid	15 January	PDF	26		38	19	12	5					12
Strategic Counsel	15 January	PDF	27		40	16	11	6					13
Nanos Research	15 January	PDF	29		37	18	11	5					8
EKOS	15 January	PDF	27.2		38.6	18.6	10.6	4.4	± 3.2	968	Telephone		11.4
Nanos Research	14 January	PDF	30		38	17	10	6					8
Strategic Counsel	14 January	PDF	27		40	16	11	6					13
Nanos Research	13 January	PDF	29		38	16	11	7					9
Strategic Counsel	12 January	PDF	28		38	16	11	6					10
Ipsos-Reid	12 January	HTML	29		37	18	10	5
Nanos Research	12 January	PDF	31		40	14	10	6	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	9
EKOS	12 January	PDF	28.3		37.6	18.1	11.6	3.7	± 2.0	2,045
EKOS	12 January	PDF	27.4		38.1	18.1	11.5	4.5
Strategic Counsel	11 January	PDF	27		39	16	12	6
Nanos Research	11 January	PDF	29		38	16	12	5	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	9
EKOS	11 January	PDF	28.8		36.3	17.9	13.3	2.8
Strategic Counsel	10 January	PDF	28		39	16	12		1,500
Nanos Research	10 January	PDF	30		39	16	12	4	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	9
EKOS	10 January	PDF	29.9		37.1	17.6	11.6	3.2
Strategic Counsel	9 January	PDF	28		38	16	12	6
Nanos Research	9 January	PDF	31		35	17	13	5	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	4
EKOS	9 January	PDF	26.8		39.1	16.2	12.6	5.4
Ipsos-Reid	8 January	PDF	26		37	18	13	5
Decima Research	8 January	PDF	27		36	20	11	5
Nanos Research	8 January	PDF	31		34	17	11	6	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		3
Strategic Counsel	8 January	PDF	29		37	15	13	6	± 2.5	1,500			8
Nanos Research	7 January	PDF	32		34	17	11	6	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	2
Nanos Research	6 January	PDF	32		35	17	10	6	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		3
Ipsos-Reid	5 January	PDF	31		35	18	10	5	± 2.2	2,004			4
EKOS	5 January	PDF	30.8		36.0	17.5	10.6	4.7	± 2.2	1,968
Strategic Counsel	5 January	PDF	31	33	17	13	6
Nanos Research	5 January	PDF	33		34	17	11	5	± 3.2	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		1
Leger Marketing	4 January	PDF	32		34	16	11	5
Strategic Counsel	4 January	PDF	32	32	17	13	6
Nanos Research	4 January	PDF	33		35	15	12	5	± 3.2	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	2
EKOS	4 January	PDF	30.4		36.2	17.9	10.4	4.7	± 2.7	1,386
Strategic Counsel	3 January	HTML		32		32	17	13	6	± 2.5	1,500		0
Nanos Research	3 January	PDF	33		36	15	13	4	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		3
Strategic Counsel	31 December 2005	PDF		33	31	17	14	6					2
Nanos Research	30 December	PDF		35	35	14	13	4	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	0
Ipsos-Reid	30 December	PDF	32		33	18	12	5	± 3.1	1,000	Telephone		1
Decima Research	30 December	PDF		32	30	18	14
Nanos Research	29 December	PDF		35	34	14	13	5	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		1
Nanos Research	28 December	PDF		38	32	14	13	4	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)	6
Nanos Research	23 December	PDF		38	31	15	12	5	± 3.1	1,200 (1/3)	Telephone (rolling)		7
Ipsos-Reid	22 December	PDF		33	32	16	13	5	± 3.1	1,000	Telephone		1
Strategic Counsel	22 December	PDF		36	29	17	13	5
Nanos Research	22 December	PDF		39	29	15	12	5
Environics	21 December	HTML		35	30	17	12	5	± 3.1	1,010			5
Strategic Counsel	21 December	PDF	33	30	18	14	5
Leger Marketing	21 December	PDF		36	28	17	12	5
Nanos Research	21 December	PDF		37	29	15	12	6
Strategic Counsel	20 December	PDF		34	30	16	15	5
Nanos Research	20 December	PDF		37	31	14	13	6
Strategic Counsel	19 December	PDF		33	29	17	15	6
Nanos Research	19 December	PDF		37	29	16	13	5
Strategic Counsel	18 December	PDF		34	29	19	13	5
Pollara	19 December	HTML		37	34	17	10
Nanos Research	18 December	PDF		38	29	16	12	4
Nanos Research	17 December	PDF		38	30	15	13	4
Nanos Research	16 December	PDF		39	31	14	12	5
Strategic Counsel	15 December	PDF		34	30	18	13	5
Nanos Research	15 December	PDF		39	33	12	12	5
Strategic Counsel	14 December	PDF		34	30	17	14	5
Nanos Research	14 December	PDF		39	32	12	12	5
Leger Marketing	13 December	PDF		35	29	17	12	6
Strategic Counsel	13 December	PDF		34	29	17	14	6
Nanos Research	13 December	PDF		38	31	14	12	5
Strategic Counsel	12 December	PDF		33	31	17	13	6					2
Nanos Research	12 December	PDF		38	30	13	14	5
Ipsos-Reid	11 December	PDF		36	27	17	14	5
Pollara	11 December	HTML		38	30	15	12
Strategic Counsel	11 December	PDF		34	30	16	14	6
Nanos Research	11 December	PDF		39	31	14	13	4
Strategic Counsel	10 December	PDF		35	30	15	14	6
Nanos Research	10 December	PDF		39	32	14	13	4
Decima Research	9 December	PDF		36	27	20	13	4
Nanos Research	9 December	PDF		39	30	15	11	4
Strategic Counsel	8 December	PDF		36	28	16	14	6
Nanos Research	8 December	PDF		41	26	18	11	4
Ipsos-Reid	8 December	PDF		34	30	15	14	5
Leger Marketing	7 December	PDF		39	27	16	12	5
Strategic Counsel	7 December	PDF		36	30	15	14	5
Nanos Research	7 December	PDF		40	26	18	11	4
Strategic Counsel	6 December	PDF		35	29	16	13	6
Nanos Research	6 December	PDF		40	28	17	11	4
Decima Research	5 December			34	26	20	14
Strategic Counsel	5 December	PDF		35	29	16	14	6
Nanos Research	5 December	PDF		38	30	16	12	5
Strategic Counsel	4 December	PDF		35	29	16	14	6
Nanos Research	4 December	PDF		37	30	16	13	5
Strategic Counsel	3 December	HTML		34	30	16	14	6
Nanos Research	3 December	PDF		38	29	15	14	5
Nanos Research	2 December	PDF		36	31	14	14	5
Ipsos-Reid	1 December	PDF		33	31	17	14	5
Strategic Counsel	1 December	HTML		35	30	16	14	6
Nanos Research	1 December	PDF		37	29	15	14	5
EKOS	1 December	PDF		34.1	27.4	18.4	14.0	6.0
Strategic Counsel	30 November	PDF		35	30	17	14	5
Ipsos-Reid	28 November	HTML		31	31	18	15	5
Decima Research	28 November			36	28	19	12
Strategic Counsel	27 November	PDF		35	29	17	14	5
Pollara	27 November	HTML		36	31	16	14
Environics	25 November			35	30	20	14	1
EKOS	24 November	PDF		38.7	29.4	16.9	10.6	3.0
Ipsos-Reid	24 November	HTML		34	30	16	15	5
Ipsos-Reid	15 November			36	27	16	13	6
Decima Research	14 November	PDF		33	26	22	13
Pollara	13 November			36	28	20
Nanos Research	13 November	PDF		34	28	20	14	4
Ipsos-Reid	10 November	PDF		34	28	19	14	4
EKOS	9 November	PDF		33.0	27.9	20.9	13.1	4.9
Leger Marketing	8 November	PDF		34	26	18	11	7
Decima Research	7 November	PDF		33	30	20	14
Strategic Counsel	6 November			35	28	16	13	8
Strategic Counsel	3 November		28	31	20	13	7
Ipsos-Reid	2 November			31	30	19	13
Nanos Research	27 October	PDF		40	28	15	12	4
Ipsos-Reid	27 October			38	26	18	11	5
Pollara	17 October			38	30	17
Decima Research	17 October	PDF		35	29	17	13
Environics	16 October			38	27	20	10
Strategic Counsel	13 October	PDF		38	25	15	14
Pollara	2 October			36	30	19	11
Ipsos-Reid	29 September	PDF		37	27	17	14	4
Decima Research	26 September	PDF		36	29	17	13
Praxicus	23 September			33	29	20
Strategic Counsel	13 September			35	28	17	13	7
Leger Marketing	11 September	PDF		40	24	15	13	5
Ipsos-Reid	22 August			36	28	17	11	6
Strategic Counsel	15 August			36	28	17
Nanos Research	8 August	PDF		39	25	19	13
Environics	28 July	HTML		34	31	20	11
Decima Research	25 July	PDF		39	24	19	14
Pollara	18 July			38	27	15	13
Strategic Counsel	16 July			35	26	19	13	7
Pollara	28 June			36	29	18	11
Ipsos-Reid	28 June			35	27	18	13	6
Decima Research	20 June	PDF		37	25	20	13
Ipsos-Reid	20 June			34	29	16	12	6
Strategic Counsel	11 June			34	26	19	13	9
Pollara	6 June			38	27	19	13
Decima Research	5 June	PDF		37	23	21	13
Decima Research	22 May	PDF		36	27	21	13
Leger Marketing		PDF		38	27	17	12	4	± 2.6%	1,509			11
Ipsos-Reid				34	28	17		6					6
Strategic Counsel				33	30	19	12	6					3
COMPAS		PDF	29		38	17	13						9
EKOS		PDF		34.7	28.3	18.4	12.6	5.6					6.4
Environics				33	31	22	10						2
Decima Research		PDF		32	31	19	14						1
Ipsos-Reid			27		31	19	13	6					4
Strategic Counsel			27		31	20	14	7					4
Decima Research		PDF		37	28	18	12						9
Ipsos-Reid				32	31	16	12	5					1
Nanos Research				36.1	29.5	17.9	12.2	4.3					6.6
Pollara			31		36	17	15						5
Decima Research		PDF		32	29	20	15						3
Ipsos-Reid		PDF	30		33	17	12	5	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		3
EKOS		PDF		32.5	30.5	19.0	12.0	5.5					2
GPC P.A.				33	30	13	13	10					3
Strategic Counsel				30	28	18	16	10					2
Ipsos-Reid		PDF	31		34	18	11	5	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		3
Decima Research		PDF	27		32	21	15						5
Ipsos-Reid		PDF	30		35	18	12	5	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		5
Pollara			31		35	18	12						4
Nanos Research			31.6		37.9	14.9	11.9	3.8					6.3
Decima Research		PDF	28		35	18	14						7
Ipsos-Reid		PDF	27		36	15	10	7	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		9
COMPAS			30		34	18	15	1					4
Environics			27		33	24	11	2					6
Environics				36	30	19	11	4					6
Leger Marketing		PDF	31		34	18	13		± 2.5%		Telephone		3
Ipsos-Reid		PDF	27		30	19	12	7	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		3
Decima Research		PDF	31		32	19	14						1
EKOS		PDF	25.0		36.2	20.5	12.6	5.0					11.2
Ipsos-Reid		PDF		34	30	15	10	7	±3.1%	1000	Telephone		4
Last election		HTML	36.7	29.6	15.7	12.4	4.3				7.1

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]

Projector		Conservative		Liberal		NDP		BQ	Other
Final Results HTML	124	103	29	51	1
ElectionPrediction.org	118	104	29	56	1
democraticSPACE.com	128	94	29	56	1
UBC Election Stock market http://esm.ubc.ca/CA06/index.php	127	93	33	54	1
jord.ca	135	72	38	62	1
Loblaw Election Pool	136	89	26	57	0
Laurier University http://info.wlu.ca/lispop/main.htm	140	78	33	56	1
Andrew Coyne https://web.archive.org/web/20060219092415/http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/last-call.php	140	81	31	54	2
TrendLines Federal & Provincial Riding Projections	140	75	35	57	1
ElectionPolls	141	79	30	58	1
PinnacleSports.com	146	74	31	57	0
Ipsos-Reid http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2949	148–152	62–66	34–38	56–60	-

See also

• 2006 Canadian federal election
• Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008
• Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011
• Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015

External links

• Letter from the editor in chief of CBC News entitled, "Beyond polls: Shining a light on public policy" (16 January 2006). Feedback requested.
• Election Prediction Project
• Pollingreport.ca
• Election Almanac – Canada Federal Election
• democraticSPACE Poll Projections
• democraticSPACE Predictions
• Nomination Watch
• Politics Canada
• Hill and Knowlton election predictor
• Canada elections links wiki via Democracies Online
• Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy: Votes Into Seats: House Projection

Notes and References

1. Web site: 2005-12-10. CBC – Canada Votes 2006 – Voter Toolkit. https://web.archive.org/web/20051210084303/http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/pollfaqs.html. dead. 2005-12-10. 2021-04-21.
2. Web site: 2006-02-19. andrewcoyne.com: Last call. https://web.archive.org/web/20060219092415/http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/last-call.php. dead. 2006-02-19. 2021-04-20.