Опросы общественного мнения на федеральных выборах в Канаде в 2006 году.

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

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.

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 dateof polling Link LPC CPC NDP BQ GPC Marginof error Samplesize Polling method Lead Election 23 January 2006 30.2 36.3 17.5 10.5 4.5 N/A 14,817,159 6.1 Strategic Counsel22 January 2006PDF273719116± 2%2,500 10Nanos Research22 January 2006PDF30.136.417.410.65.6± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling) 6.3Ipsos Reid22 January 2006HTML273819124± 1.1%9,648 11Nanos Research21 January 2006PDF28.137.017.711.36.0± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling) 8.9Strategic Counsel21 JanuaryPDF273718116± 2.2%2,000 10Nanos Research20 JanuaryPDF29.436.217.311.06.1± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling) 6.8EKOS20 JanuaryPDF26.9 37.119.511.54.6 10.2EKOS20 JanuaryPDF24.4 38.419.811.95.4 14Ipsos Reid19 JanuaryPDF26 3819115 12EKOS19 JanuaryPDF27.0 37.119.711.24.5 10.1Strategic Counsel19 JanuaryPDF28 3817117 10Nanos Research19 JanuaryPDF29.0 35.518.811.15.6± 2.9%1,200 (1/3)Telephone (rolling)6.5EKOS19 JanuaryPDF27.3 37.420.810.13.9 9.9Strategic Counsel18 JanuaryPDF28 3716127 9Nanos Research18 JanuaryPDF30.7 37.016.610.74.9 6.3EKOS18 JanuaryPDF29.3 35.118.012.64.4 5.8Leger Marketing17 JanuaryPDF29 381711 9Strategic Counsel17 JanuaryPDF25 4117125 16Nanos Research17 JanuaryPDF31.5 36.917.610.04.0 5.4EKOS17 JanuaryPDF27.2 36.919.611.04.8 9.7Strategic Counsel16 JanuaryPDF24 4217125 18Nanos Research16 JanuaryPDF30 3718104 7EKOS16 JanuaryPDF29.6 35.819.411.63.4 6.2Decima Research15 JanuaryPDF27 371811± 3.1%1017telephone 10Ipsos Reid15 JanuaryPDF26 3819125 12Strategic Counsel15 JanuaryPDF27 4016116 13Nanos Research15 JanuaryPDF29 3718115 8EKOS15 JanuaryPDF27.2 38.618.610.64.4± 3.2968Telephone11.4Nanos Research14 JanuaryPDF30 3817106 8Strategic Counsel14 JanuaryPDF27 401611613Nanos Research13 JanuaryPDF29 38161179Strategic Counsel12 JanuaryPDF28 381611610Ipsos Reid12 JanuaryHTML293718105Nanos Research12 JanuaryPDF314014106 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)9EKOS12 JanuaryPDF28.337.618.111.63.7 ± 2.0 2,045EKOS12 JanuaryPDF27.438.118.111.54.5Strategic Counsel11 JanuaryPDF273916126Nanos Research11 JanuaryPDF293816125 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)9EKOS11 JanuaryPDF28.836.317.913.32.8Strategic Counsel10 JanuaryPDF283916121,500Nanos Research10 JanuaryPDF303916124 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)9EKOS10 JanuaryPDF29.937.117.611.63.2Strategic Counsel9 JanuaryPDF283816126Nanos Research9 JanuaryPDF313517135 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)4EKOS9 JanuaryPDF26.839.116.212.65.4Ipsos Reid8 JanuaryPDF263718135Decima Research8 JanuaryPDF273620115Nanos Research8 JanuaryPDF313417116 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)3Strategic Counsel8 JanuaryPDF293715136 ± 2.5 1,500 8Nanos Research7 JanuaryPDF323417116 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)2Nanos Research6 JanuaryPDF323517106 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)3Ipsos Reid5 JanuaryPDF313518105 ± 2.2 2,0044EKOS5 JanuaryPDF30.836.017.510.64.7 ± 2.21,968Strategic Counsel5 JanuaryPDF313317136Nanos Research5 JanuaryPDF333417115 ± 3.2 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling)1Leger Marketing4 JanuaryPDF323416115Strategic Counsel4 JanuaryPDF323217136Nanos Research4 JanuaryPDF333515125 ± 3.2 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 2EKOS4 JanuaryPDF30.436.217.910.44.7 ± 2.7 1,386Strategic Counsel3 JanuaryHTML323217136 ± 2.5 1,500 0Nanos Research3 JanuaryPDF33 3615134 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 3Strategic Counsel31 December 2005PDF333117146 2Nanos Research30 DecemberPDF353514134 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 0Ipsos Reid30 DecemberPDF323318125 ± 3.1 1,000 Telephone 1Decima Research30 DecemberPDF32301814 Nanos Research29 DecemberPDF353414135 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 1Nanos Research28 DecemberPDF383214134 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 6Nanos Research23 DecemberPDF383115125 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 7Ipsos Reid22 DecemberPDF333216135 ± 3.1 1,000 Telephone1Strategic Counsel22 DecemberPDF362917135Nanos Research22 DecemberPDF392915125Environics21 DecemberHTML353017125 ± 3.1 1,0105Strategic Counsel21 DecemberPDF333018145Leger Marketing21 DecemberPDF362817125Nanos Research21 DecemberPDF372915126Strategic Counsel20 DecemberPDF343016155Nanos Research20 DecemberPDF373114136Strategic Counsel19 DecemberPDF332917156Nanos Research19 DecemberPDF372916135Strategic Counsel18 DecemberPDF342919135Pollara19 DecemberHTML37341710 Nanos Research18 DecemberPDF382916124Nanos Research17 DecemberPDF383015134Nanos Research16 DecemberPDF393114125Strategic Counsel15 DecemberPDF343018135Nanos Research15 DecemberPDF393312125Strategic Counsel14 DecemberPDF343017145Nanos Research14 DecemberPDF393212125Leger Marketing13 DecemberPDF352917126Strategic Counsel13 DecemberPDF342917146Nanos Research13 DecemberPDF383114125Strategic Counsel12 DecemberPDF333117136 2Nanos Research12 DecemberPDF383013145Ipsos Reid11 DecemberPDF362717145Pollara11 DecemberHTML38301512 Strategic Counsel11 DecemberPDF343016146Nanos Research11 DecemberPDF393114134Strategic Counsel10 DecemberPDF353015146Nanos Research10 DecemberPDF393214134Decima Research9 DecemberPDF362720134Nanos Research9 DecemberPDF393015114Strategic Counsel8 DecemberPDF362816146Nanos Research8 DecemberPDF412618114Ipsos Reid8 DecemberPDF343015145Leger Marketing7 DecemberPDF392716125Strategic Counsel7 DecemberPDF363015145Nanos Research7 DecemberPDF402618114Strategic Counsel6 DecemberPDF352916136Nanos Research6 DecemberPDF402817114Decima Research5 December34262014 Strategic Counsel5 DecemberPDF352916146Nanos Research5 DecemberPDF383016125Strategic Counsel4 DecemberPDF352916146Nanos Research4 DecemberPDF373016135Strategic Counsel3 DecemberHTML343016146Nanos Research3 DecemberPDF382915145Nanos Research2 DecemberPDF363114145Ipsos Reid1 DecemberPDF333117145Strategic Counsel1 DecemberHTML353016146Nanos Research1 DecemberPDF372915145EKOS1 DecemberPDF34.127.418.414.06.0Strategic Counsel30 NovemberPDF353017145Ipsos Reid28 NovemberHTML313118155Decima Research28 November36281912 Strategic Counsel27 NovemberPDF352917145Pollara27 NovemberHTML36311614 Environics25 November353020141EKOS24 NovemberPDF38.729.416.910.63.0Ipsos Reid24 NovemberHTML343016155Ipsos Reid15 November362716136Decima Research14 NovemberPDF33262213 Pollara13 November362820 Nanos Research13 NovemberPDF342820144Ipsos Reid10 November PDF342819144EKOS9 NovemberPDF33.027.920.913.14.9Leger Marketing8 NovemberPDF342618117Decima Research7 NovemberPDF33302014 Strategic Counsel6 November352816138Strategic Counsel3 November283120137Ipsos Reid2 November31301913Nanos Research27 OctoberPDF402815124Ipsos Reid27 October382618115Pollara17 October383017 Decima Research17 OctoberPDF35291713 Environics16 October38272010 Strategic Counsel13 OctoberPDF38251514 Pollara2 October36301911 Ipsos Reid29 SeptemberPDF372717144Decima Research26 SeptemberPDF36291713 Praxicus23 September332920 Strategic Counsel13 September352817137Leger Marketing11 SeptemberPDF402415135Ipsos Reid22 August362817116Strategic Counsel15 August362817 Nanos Research8 AugustPDF39251913 Environics28 JulyHTML34312011 Decima Research25 JulyPDF39241914 Pollara18 July38271513 Strategic Counsel16 July352619137Pollara28 June36291811 Ipsos Reid28 June352718136Decima Research20 JunePDF37252013 Ipsos Reid20 June342916126Strategic Counsel11 June342619139Pollara6 June38271913 Decima Research5 JunePDF37232113 Decima Research22 MayPDF36272113 Leger Marketing 22 May 2005PDF382717124± 2.6% 1,509 11Ipsos Reid 20 May 2005342817 6 6Strategic Counsel 18 May 2005333019126 3COMPAS 17 May 2005PDF29381713 9EKOS 17 May 2005PDF34.728.318.412.65.6 6.4Environics 17 May 200533312210 2Decima Research 15 May 2005PDF32311914 1Ipsos Reid 14 May 2005273119136 4Strategic Counsel 10 May 2005273120147 4Decima Research 8 May 2005PDF 37281812 9Ipsos Reid 7 May 2005323116125 1Nanos Research 5 May 200536.129.517.912.24.3 6.6Pollara 4 May 200531361715 5Decima Research 2 May 2005PDF32292015 3Ipsos Reid 28 April 2005PDF303317125±3.1%1000Telephone 3EKOS 28 April 2005PDF32.530.519.012.05.5 2GPC P. A. 28 April 2005 3330131310 3Strategic Counsel 28 April 2005 3028181610 2Ipsos Reid 24 April 2005PDF313418115±3.1%1000Telephone 3Decima Research 24 April 2005PDF27322115 5Ipsos Reid 21 April 2005PDF30 3518125±3.1%1000Telephone 5Pollara 21 April 200531351812 4Nanos Research 18 April 200531.637.914.911.93.8 6.3Decima Research 17 April 2005PDF28351814 7Ipsos Reid 14 April 2005PDF273615107±3.1%1000Telephone 9COMPAS 14 April 2005303418151 4Environics 14 April 2005273324112 6Environics 12 April 2005363019114 6Leger Marketing 11 April 2005PDF31341813 ± 2.5% Telephone 3Ipsos Reid 10 April 2005PDF273019127±3.1%1000Telephone 3Decima Research 10 April 2005PDF31321914 1EKOS 9 April 2005PDF25.036.220.512.65.0 11.2Ipsos Reid 7 April 2005PDF343015107±3.1%1000Telephone 4Last election 28 June 2004HTML36.729.615.712.44.37.1
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. 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. 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. This Compas poll was taken over the course of a single day. 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.

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. ProjectorConservativeLiberalNDPBQOtherFinal Results HTML12410329511ElectionPrediction. org11810429561democraticSPACE. com1289429561UBC Election Stock market 1279333541jord. ca1357238621Loblaw Election Pool1368926570Laurier University 1407833561Andrew Coyne 1408131542TrendLines Federal & Provincial Riding Projections1407535571ElectionPolls1417930581PinnacleSports. com1467431570Ipsos Reid 148–15262–6634–3856–60