Factbox-What are the key races in Canada's federal election?

OTTAWA (Reuters) - As Canada holds an election on Monday, Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals are ahead of Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives in national opinion polls. The New Democratic Party led by Jagmeet Singh is in a distant third place, while the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which only campaigns in the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec, is in fourth.
In a close race, votes in a few electoral districts, called ridings in Canada, could make all the difference in who is prime minister.
BURNABY CENTRAL, BRITISH COLUMBIA
The result here could help show whether the left-leaning New Democrats, who compete with the Liberals for the center-left vote, have a future. Burnaby Central is a new riding, replacing Burnaby South. This was held by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who kept former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's minority Liberal government in power for more than two years in return for more social spending.
Singh, who is the NDP candidate, says Canadians benefited because as a result of the deal, Liberals passed legislation increasing access to healthcare. But polls suggest he is running third in the new riding as left-leaning voters coalesce behind the Liberals.
2021 election result in Burnaby South – NDP 40.3%; Liberal 30.4%; Conservatives 22.4%.
AURORA—OAK RIDGES—RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO
Key to any victory is the so-called Golden Horseshoe, a riding-rich crescent that sits on Lake Ontario and includes Toronto as well as other cities. The Conservatives held Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill from 2018 to 2021. If they are to take advantage of unhappiness over living costs, immigration and a housing crisis – factors that dominated politics before U.S. President Donald Trump began threatening tariffs and annexation - the riding is a key target.
2021 election result – Liberal 45.2%; Conservatives 42.1%.
TROIS-RIVIERES, QUEBEC
Any party wishing to win power must also perform well in Quebec, which has the second-largest number of seats in the House of Commons. It is the only province with its own party, the Bloc, which is seeking independence for the province and whose fortunes can swing wildly. Trois-Rivieres is one of several in Quebec where three (and sometimes four parties) contend for the vote. The 2021 result was tight, with the Bloc winning by just 83 votes of the 58,110 that were cast.
2021 election result – Bloc Quebecois 29.5%; Conservative 29.4%; Liberal 28.6%.
EDMONTON SOUTHEAST, ALBERTA
The Liberals have traditionally fared poorly in the western oil-producing province of Alberta, thanks to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who introduced unpopular energy policies in the 1980s. Some of this enmity rubbed off on his son, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who at best only won a handful of Alberta seats. Now that Justin Trudeau is gone, the Liberals have a chance to repair their reputation. Ex-Liberal cabinet minister Amarjeet Sohi is running in the new riding of Edmonton Southeast, and if he wins, it will be a sign the party can succeed even in hostile territory.
CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA
The four provinces in Atlantic Canada, which contain a total of 32 seats and report their results first, often offer an early indication as to how the election might go. The region is politically volatile and results can swing broadly. The Liberals won Cumberland-Colchester by a few hundred votes in 2019 but lost it to the Conservatives in 2021.
2021 election result - Conservatives 46.0%; Liberals 34.2%; NDP 12.3%.
BURLINGTON, ONTARIO
This Ontario riding southwest of Toronto is the ultimate in Canadian bellwethers, having elected a legislator from the winning party for 12 consecutive elections going back to 1984.
2021 election result - Liberals 45.7%; Conservatives 37.3%; NDP 10.9%.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

7 hours ago

• Yahoo

Liberals' major projects bill passes House of Commons with Conservative support

The Liberal government's major projects legislation passed in the House of Commons on Friday evening as MPs wrapped up the spring parliamentary sitting. Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, essentially gives cabinet the ability to pick certain projects to speed through the regulatory process, with an eye to projects that can deliver an economic boost to Canada, help strengthen the country's autonomy and resilience, "advance the interests of Indigenous peoples" and contribute to "clean growth." The legislation was a priority for Prime Minister Mark Carney who promised to "build big, build bold" during the spring election campaign. Once a project is deemed in the national interest, the legislation would allow the government to skirt certain laws — such as the Impact Assessment Act — in order to get construction underway. The legislation passed fairly quickly, having only been introduced earlier this month. The Conservatives supported the bill as a whole, while the NDP and Bloc Québécois backed a part of the bill that removes internal trade barriers. Liberal backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who had previously called on the government to allow for more time to study the bill, also voted against the legislation. The government hasn't said what exactly would be fast-tracked under this legislation — and there are no specific projects mentioned in the bill itself — but Carney has signalled support for new energy "corridors" in the east and west, which could include pipelines and electricity grids, new and expanded port facilities, mines and other resource-related initiatives. After Friday's vote, Carney crossed the House floor to shake hands with a number of Conservative MPs. Despite the bill passing in the House in less than a month, it isn't without its critics. WATCH | Carney on Indigenous consultation: Indigenous and environmental groups, along with MPs — some within the Liberal Party — and senators, raised concerns that the bill is being rushed through Parliament and will grant cabinet sweeping powers to override other laws to plow ahead with industrial projects favoured by the government of the day. Those criticisms prompted Carney to hold a news conference immediately after the bill passed. "These projects will build our national economy — and through Indigenous equity and resource management, these projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities," he said outside the House chamber. "This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself." The legislation itself states the government will recognize, affirm and "respect" Indigenous peoples' constitutional rights when considering a project. But there's a fear among some leaders that the consultation process with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities will be inadequate. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, national chief of The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), told the House transport committee on Tuesday that the bill was being rushed through Parliament without giving First Nations communities time to have their questions answered and concerns heard. "We all need more time and opportunity to speak to this legislation and get answers," she told MPs on the committee, saying she's hearing these concerns from multiple chiefs. WATCH | Grand chief says bill won't apply on First Nations territory: The government sent letters to Indigenous communities last month, outlining what the legislation would look like before the bill was tabled. But Woodhouse Nepinak and other leaders who appeared at the transport committee said the consultations have been inadequate. "The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations," Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond told the same committee on Wednesday. "The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak," Haymond cautioned, referring to the movement that began in 2012 and led to countrywide protests, including road and rail blockades. Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, who represents 49 First Nations in northern Ontario, wants the Governor General to step in before giving the legislation royal assent — an unlikely and constitutionally dubious proposition. "I'm hoping she's paying attention to what's happening here so that she can think about intervening," he said. When asked Friday about those concerns, the prime minister said moving forward in partnership with Indigenous communities was always the intention of the bill. But he said that message might not have been articulated "as clearly and as structured" as it could have been at the start. Carney promised Friday to hold "summits" regarding the legislation with Indigenous leaders starting next month. The legislation is supported by the business community and building trades, who testified to Parliament that it can take longer to get projects approved than to get them built. Other government legislation that the House was examining hasn't yet made it to the finish line, and therefor will need to wait until MPs return to Ottawa in September. Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 were both seen as government priorities that the Liberals were pushing to get through fairly quickly. C-4 primarily would have brought the Liberals' proposed income tax cut officially into law. But even though the bill hasn't passed, the government can move forward with the tax cut starting July 1, thanks to the passage of a ways-and-means motion earlier this month. The government's Bill C-2 focuses on strengthening Canada's borders, but advocates and some opposition MPs have raised concerns that the legislation would create new surveillance powers infringing on personal privacy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy commissioner also raised concerns with some of the provisions in C-4. The Senate will continue to sit next week after agreeing to examine C-5. The House is scheduled to return Sept. 15.

The Hill

8 hours ago

• The Hill

Iran unsure it can trust US after Israeli strikes: top official

Iran's foreign minister told NBC News Friday that Tehran was not sure it could trust the United States in the wake of numerous Israeli attacks on Iran. The airstrikes from Israel, which have targeted Iranian military and nuclear facilities, came just days before American officials were scheduled to hold nuclear talks mediated by Oman. The U.S. has said it was not involved in the operation, although Trump was notified of the strike beforehand by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the interview, Araghchi suggested that the United States was not legitimately interested in diplomacy and was only using the talks as a 'cover' for future attacks. 'They had perhaps this plan in their mind, and they just needed negotiations perhaps to cover it up,' Araghchi said. 'We don't know how we can trust them anymore. What they did was in fact a betrayal to diplomacy.' 'We're not prepared to negotiate with them anymore, as long as the aggression continues,' he added. The State Department did not immediately return a request for comment. Araghchi's comments mark another deterioration in the chances for diplomacy between the United States and Iran, and come as President Trump is weighing a strike on the country that could damage one of its most significant nuclear facilities that is still standing after Israel's attacks. Trump has repeatedly said that he hopes for a diplomatic solution and does not want to involve the United States in another war in the Middle East. But he also approved of an airstrike in private, the Wall Street Journal reported, although he held off on giving a final order. Now, Trump has attempted to give himself more room for negotiations, saying that he will make a decision within two weeks. Nuclear talks between Iranian, German, French, and British diplomats are now occurring in Geneva, although they did not produce any breakthroughs on their first day. During the interview, which occurred after the end of the talks on Friday, Aragchi said that Israel had to halt its attacks in order to continue negotiations, and that he was unwilling to give up uranium enrichment entirely. 'This is an achievement of our own scientists. It is a question of national pride,' he said.

Boston Globe

8 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Supreme Court allows vape companies to pick courts to hear challenges

Advertisement Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion, which sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. Jackson wrote that the majority's opinion allows Reynolds to make an 'end run around … venue restrictions.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The FDA had told the justices that R.J. Reynolds and other electronic cigarette manufacturers were gaming court system rules by filing the vast majority of product-denial appeals in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, even though they were based in other appeals court circuits. The tactic was hindering the FDA's ability to regulate vapes that are used by hundreds of thousands of teenagers, the agency said. In the case before the justices, the 5th Circuit — widely seen as more sympathetic to the companies' arguments than other circuits — overturned the FDA's denial of an R.J. Reynolds application. Advertisement The electronic cigarette ruling was one of six decisions issued Friday, with at least a week left in the Supreme Court's term. Ten decisions remain, including cases involving the legality of age-verification laws to access online pornography and nationwide court orders blocking President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. In addition to the vape decision, the Supreme Court on Friday revived lawsuits brought by US victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a 2019 federal law passed in response to attacks that allows Americans to sue. The court said that law does not violate the rights of the PLO. In a 7-2 decision, the justices also cleared the way for fuel producers to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over California's stricter standards for vehicle emissions. California's efforts are already in flux after being targeted by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must get FDA approval to sell some existing products, as well as new products, that are marketed in more than one state. The Vuse line of menthol vapes are the ones in question in the R.J. Reynolds case. Ryan J. Watson, who is representing R.J. Reynolds, told the justices at oral arguments that the company was permitted to file a challenge in the 5th Circuit because the act allows 'any person adversely affected' by a denial to file a challenge in the District of Columbia Circuit or the 'circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.' Advertisement R.J. Reynolds partnered with a Texas vape store and the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association to bring the challenge to the FDA ruling. The 5th Circuit covers Texas and Mississippi, while R.J. Reynolds is in the 4th Circuit. Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government, said Congress never meant for retailers or their representatives, rather than manufacturers, to be parties to such litigation when it passed the act. He pointed out that retailers aren't notified when the FDA rejects manufacturers' applications to market vaping products and said the tactic defeats the venue restrictions laid out in the law. But the Supreme Court said Friday it has long established a broad interpretation of what it means to be adversely affected by a law, including in the category anyone even 'arguably within the zone of interests' that the statute regulates. Vape industry groups applauded the ruling. Watson, the attorney for R.J. Reynolds, said the court 'recognized that federal agency action can have downstream effects that can be devastating for parties that are not the most direct target of the agency's action.' The ruling ensures that 'the courthouse doors are not closed for those adversely affected parties,' he said. Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the decision will bolster efforts to market addictive products to young people. The ruling 'gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products,' she said. In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Jackson noted that two other appeals courts had rejected similar challenges filed by other manufacturers of flavored electronic cigarettes before R.J. Reynolds filed its appeal to the 5th Circuit. Advertisement 'It thus became (perhaps) imperative from RJR Vapor's perspective that its own lawsuit challenging the FDA's denial of its flavored e-cigarette marketing applications be filed somewhere else,' Jackson wrote.