Harper: Not bad considering he was being attacked by 4 leaders. Posture was better, but still a strange smirk on his face.

Duceppe: Not as effective in English. His arguments weren’t as clear as in French but were still strong.

Layton: Engaged Harper very well but only talked about corporate taxes & exxon mobil. That kind of talk is meant for socialist ears, not a good way to win Liberal-Conservative-Bloc moderate voters.

Dion: English skills were not a major problem, ideas were clear. Focused his own policies and let the others do most of the Harper-bashing, an effective strategy.

May: Very effective on policy matters tonight. Seemed to echo Dion a lot, maybe not the best idea for her own fortunes.

Tough to choose a winner tonight. I’d prefer to wait for polls to tell us that but here are my tentative picks:

1- Dion (got out the most policies the clearest)
2- Harper (emerged less bruised than in French debate)
3- May
4- Layton (would have won this if he had talked less about corporate taxes and more about other issues)
5- Duceppe

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

The riding of Nickel Belt, in northeastern Ontario, comprises a large swath of ground surrounding Sudbury Riding on three sides: the south, east and north. Nickel Belt is bordered to the west by Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, to the northeast by Timmins—James Bay, to the east by Nipissing—Timiskaming and to the south by Parry Sound—Muskoka. The riding was first constituted for the general election of 1953. Since then, the Liberals have won the riding twelve times and the New Democrats have taken it six times. Most recently, Liberal Ray Bonin has held the riding since 1993 but Bonin has retired and there is no incumbent this time.

The NDP candidate is Claude Gravelle, a retired machinist in his third run for the prize. Last time, he was defeated by Bonin by just over 2000 votes.

The Conservatives, who came a distant third last time, are being represented by Ian McCracken, an office equipment salesman. This is McCracken’s first attempt at seeking elected office.

The Liberal hopeful this time is Louise Portelance, a former Sudbury municipal councillor and Deputy Mayor. Portelance failed in her 2003 bid for the mayor’s office in Sudbury. This is her first foray into federal politics.

Steve Rutchinski is the Marxist-Leninist candidate. This is Rutchinski’s third consecutive attempt at capturing the seat. His best showing was 51 votes in the 2004 election.

Fred Twilley carries the Green Party banner into the fray this time. Twilley is a retired engineer and this is his first attempt at elected office. The Greens finished fifth in the last campaign with fewer than 1000 votes.

Independent Yves Villeneuve is seeking the seat in his first attempt. Villeneuve speaks in socially conservative terms: his website states that “Canada is founded on the supremacy of God.”

This is most definitely a two-horse race. Both Gravelle and Portelance have been pounding the pavement in the riding for several months. The result could be close this time but I’d venture that Gravelle has the early lead and momentum on his side. Whoever takes this seat, it may be a long night on the 14th as we wait for the last polls to return.

It was a helluva debate — and far more spontaneous, lively and revealing than that dull, scripted, teleprompter-type discourse that dominated the Biden-Palin debate south of the border.

I watched 90 per cent of the debate from Ottawa, and only a couple of minutes of the farce from St. Louis. It was enough. After that, I monitored online to keep track of the U.S. debate while watching our leaders.

The Canadian debate had everybody wondering whether Stephane Dion would be able to follow up his first-class performance last night in French. He didn’t, although he did manage to shake off that nerd look he’s often struggled with. Looked younger, almost eager.

Mr. Dion struggled with English in answering moderator Steve Paikin’s first question, outlining the 30-day action plan he introduced in the French debate. Stephen Harper struck back, accusing Dion of panicking by suddenly coming out with a new platform in the middle of the debate.

“We have not been following the same policies as the United States,” he added in response to remarks by Jack Layton. “Their policies have been irresponsible … we are still creating jobs … ”

“Yours is the only party that hasn’t put forth any platform to deal with the economy,” Elizabeth May charged.

“Your either don’t care or you’re incompetent,” Layton told the PM.

May kept hammering away at the PM. “You’re out of touch … your tax package cut the wrong taxes …”

Then it was Layton’s turn again. “How can you say people don’t worry about being thrown out of their jobs?” he asked the PM. “Take some responsibity here and don’t try to paper over what’s happening in people’s lives.”

The PM’s response: “We should recognize the strength of our economy. We brought in tax incentives for machinery and production equipment. ”

Gilles Duceppe threw a few haymakers, too. “I don’t know how you can say you’re helping the economy by cutting taxes on companies that aren’t making any profit, they’re not paying tax.”

As the debate went on, Mr. Harper appeared to become more defensive, although he recovered fairly strongly at the end.

The PM was harshly criticized for denying that people are suffering from job losses. “There’s a kind of cold-hearted attitude that we’re going to let everybody sink or swim,” Mr. Layton charged.

“We need to cut taxes on our savings and income and shift it (taxes) to pollution,” Mr. Dion said.

May a bright spot

Elizabeth May was at the top of her form. She demanded policies to reduce the Canadian dollar, and bring back jobs in pulp and paper, forestry, and the auto sector.

Mr. Dion’s English got better as the debate went on, but faltered toward the end, as he apparently tired.

(more…)

Chantale Bouchard face au Ministre du Travail au Cégep de Jonquière

Jean-Pierre Blackburn avait vraiment l’air d’avoir plus d’expérience que sa jeune opposante. C’était aussi son principal défaut.

Elle ne répondait pas toujours adéquatement aux questions, ne parlait pas toujour du sujet précis. Mais elle générait pas mal plus d’enthousiasme. Pas capable de chiffrer, de concrétiser son programme concrètement non plus, mais elle a, avec habileté, fait ressortir les points faibles de l’orientation du Parti Conservateur et les contradictions dans le discours actuel du Ministre sur l’avortement: même s’il dit que l’avortement est l’affaire des femmes, il a toujours voter pour restreindre ce droit.

Des interventions moins concrètes, plus philosophiques, que celles du Ministre, mais pas mal plus mobilisatrices. Le Ministre lui, n’a pas tellement soulevé les âmes en proposant la construction de la prison de Roberval et le développement de la base militaire de Bagotville comme modèle d’entrepreneurship pour la jeunesse.

La soupe doit être vraiment chaude: les maires de la région ont annoncé aujourd’hui qu’ils prendraient position pour le PC demain, selon le bulletin de nouvelles de la radio de  Radio-Canada de 17h.

Sylvain Gaudreault, député du PQ dans Jonquière assistait. Normal. Lui et Alexandre Cloutier appuie Chantale Bouchard, comme le souligne Corus.

Vous retrouverez ici les répliques les plus marquantes qui ont été échangées par les principaux chefs de partis lors du débat en français.

Note : Malgré un effort certes louable de sa part, Mme May n’est pas présente ici en raison de la qualité déplorable de son français. C’est regrettable pour le Parti Vert et ses sympathisants, mais il y a des limites à vouloir être équitable ou, pour employer une expression populaire, à vouloir « accommoder raisonnablement. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Dion

À M. Duceppe : « Quand est venu le moment de reconnaître la nation québécoise, le bureau de M. Harper m’a consulté et nous avons fait cela de manière à montrer que l’on peut aussi faire partie de la nation canadienne; ce qui est un problème pour M. Duceppe. »

À M. Harper (à propos des mesures environnementales qu’il propose) : « Je pense qu’on perd notre temps à discuter du faux plan de M. Harper. Il n’y a pas un seul expert qui a dit que c’était un plan sérieux. »

À M. Layton (qui dit vouloir rapatrier les troupes d’Afghanistan dès maintenant) : « On a pris un engagement. Nos alliés comptent sur nous (…) C’est une responsabilité qu’on a, comme quand on a pris nos responsabilités pour Kyoto, c’est la même chose. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Duceppe

À M. Dion : « Nous avons proposé des projets, par exemple que le français soit la langue de travail dans les banques, les ports, les aéroports, les télécommunications. Le NPD nous a appuyés, mais pas les libéraux qui pourtant reconnaissent que la loi 101 est une grande loi canadienne. »

À M. Harper : « Tout ce que vous avez trouvé à faire ce sont des politiques qui enrichissent les pétrolières. Semble-t-il qu’aux dernières nouvelles, elles n’ont pas de misère à terminer leurs fins de mois. »

À M. Layton (qui l’accuse de vouloir privatiser la santé) : « Moi je veux que ce soit un système de santé publique, mais c’est au Québec de décider en tout temps. Je pense que les Québécois sont capables de prendre eux-mêmes leurs décisions et ils n’ont pas besoin du reste du Canada pour venir leur dire quoi faire. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Harper

À M. Dion : « Vous proposez d’augmenter les taxes avec votre nouvelle taxe sur le carbone. C’est une politique qui va détruire l’économie. »

(more…)

Some 100 supporters greeted Ed Broadbent as he arrived at party headquarters from teaching his course on citizens and democracy at Queens University. Rick Downes, the Kingston and the Islands NDP candidate, introduced Broadbent. Downes said that Broadbent was the face of the NDP when he grew up. Broadbent said that the NDP has grown as it has attracted people from other parties. Even his own father, who was a Tory, saw the light in the 60s and joined the NDP.

The social and economic problems we face now, Broadbent said in a rousing speech, started with the Liberals. In 1993 they were facing deficits and, unlike Clinton who raised taxes on the most wealthy and did not cut programs, Chretien slashed the programs that have yet to recover, he said. He ran in 2000 because he saw the effects of what the Liberals had done. When revenues returned tax breaks for the wealthy were given, the debt was paid down, but there was no action on many fronts, especially health and the environment.

Even now 7000 people in Ottawa are waiting for affordable housing. There is no national housing strategy. Why should anyone vote Liberal now, he said. He supported Jack Layton as a candidate early on as he was aware of his activism in Toronto on the housing and environmental fronts: “Jack was there on the environment before the Greens”. Broadbent said targeted tax cuts are needed in combination with an industrial strategy. Simply cutting corporate taxes, as the Tories are doing, does not help the economy, he said. He pointed to sectors like forest products and automotive as needing to be targeted. In closing he said that the NDP has had the best record of fiscal management. One need only look at the provinces where there have been NDP governments.

Dion’s best 2 hours of campaign. He performed well above expectations: relaxed, clear, emotional. Will ensure Montreal area seats lost in last election return to Liberals. (A)

Duceppe is a master in this format, smooth and well prepared. Solidified his credentials as defender of Quebec likely limiting Conservative gains in regions. (A)

Harper underwhelmed. Calm and priministerial is one thing, but passionless and sleepwalking is something else! Sure he was under attack from the other 4 leaders, but he seemed unprepared. That majority may have just slipped away. (C)

Layton did good job of presenting himself as alternative to Dion and Harper, but did not show distinction between NDP and Bloc, often citing they agreed. Perhaps ups his vote count with left, at worst reinforced that NDP is legitimate player. (B)

May was sometimes incomprehensible, was largely ignored by others, but effectively returned all discussion to environmental issue. Blunt attacks on Harper, cheered on by others. (D)

As for format, not really a debate, more a Q&A session with Harper doing all the answering. To be expected, but how do you distinguish between the opposition parties who rarely took each other on. For those who didn’t watch original French, French language fluency coincided with scores above. Need more one on one, or 2 minutes vs 45 seconds to give answers, and allow leaders to ask each other questions.

I’m at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, listening to a discussion on the federal election led by two Maclean’s magazine writers, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells. It’s the night of the French language leaders’ debate in Ottawa.

Andrew is his usual erudite self, while Paul continues to zip off amusing one-liners, as irascible as ever.

But what I find really interesting is how both are frustrated, and maybe feeling a little bitter, at how poorly the media are covering this election.

“We in the media are once again disgracing ourselves,” Andrew says. “We’re materially affecting the outcome, and we shouldn’t be doing that. We’re blowing it.”

Coyne goes on to discuss the need to radically change the way elections are run in Canada. “Tory demagoguery has been shameless. They hit the Liberal Green Plan but they don’t talk about their own plan.”

He says there’s no real difference in the cost of Dion’s Green Plan and the Tory Cap and Trade program.

Nobody understands either, because the Conservatives don’t want to talk about their scheme. Prime Minister Harper, Coyne adds, has no hidden agenda because he doesn’t have an agenda, period.

Paul rings in with a couple of zingers. He asserts that the quality of questions asked at an all-candidate meeting he attended “are way above what we ask at scrums.”

“The questions are policy-based, and the people feel strongly about the issues.” The journalists, Paul seems to be saying, don’t give a damn about the issues and merely want to ask “gotcha” questions that will stir up a meaningless headline.

The audience here is mostly university post-graduate PolSci students. They listen respectfully, and ask good questions.

Coyne makes the point that there’s little difference in the spending programs of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

“Over the next four years, total projected program spending by the Conservatives is $930 billion; by the Liberals $940 billion.”

Watching the Debate

I hurry out to catch the leaders’ debate on TV.

Harper goes out of his way to stress the different economic situation between the U.S. and Canada.

“The big challenge is to stay on the right track,” Harpert says in response to the first question, “lower our taxes and target our spending in the interests of most Canadians.”

Elizabeth May rings in with a strong denunciation of the PM’s financial management. Gilles Duceppe says we should re-orient the economy. Jack Layton says we need a government that understands the need to protect our jobs, savings and pensions. “The policies of Mr. Harper haven’t done that.”

Pretty good bunkum, no?

Harper concedes Canada is coming into an economic slowdown because of the situation in the U.S. “We’ve taken measures to ensure stability. In the U.S., people are losing their homes.”

Stephane Dion tells the Prime Minister: “You inherited the best economic situation of any Prime Minister. You don’t believe in the government playing a role in the economy.”

My impression is that all the leaders did pretty well. I’m not sure any voters were changed. Harper held his own against the rest; El;izabeth May shmowed well in her first outing. Duceppe, as always, is a forceful and effective advocate.

Dion has done well. He’s produced the only real headline of the debate: If he takes office, a Liberal government will launch a 30-day action plan to protect Canada’s economy from the crisis affecting the financial sector in the United States.

It’s said voters are more influenced by what they read and hear about a debate, than from actually watching it. An overnight Ipsos-Reid poll has Dion the clear winner, chosen by 40 per cent. Duceppe got the nod from 24% (I’m surprised it wasn’t higher), Harper 16%, Layton 11%, and Elizabeth May just one per cent.

The real test for Dion comes Thursday night, in the English debate. But I also want to watch Palin and Biden go at it!

Kitchener-Conestoga is the main rural riding of Waterloo Region, wrapping around the east, north and west of the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and swallowing a bit of suburban Kitchener on its southwest side. While the area was represented by Liberal Lynn Myers from the nineties up to 2006, Conservative Harold Albrecht defeated Myers in the last election by just 1,400 votes.

Albrecht is on record as opposing same-sex marriage, but he won the riding in 2006 by downplaying his opposition to the measure, only responding when asked by reporters, and tempering his defence of traditional marriage with talk of civil unions. This contrasts with the 2004 election when Conservative candidate Frank Luellau got into hot water for anti-gay comments made at a local all-candidates’ meeting.

Since the 2006 election, Albrecht has represented his riding quietly, without controversy. In Ottawa, he chairs the BioCaucus, a group of MPs promoting the production of agricultural and renewable technologies, and he sits on the Government Operations and Estimates committee and the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development committee. He favours stiffer sentences for youth offenders committing violent crimes.

Notable by their absense in this riding, almost, are the New Democrats. The party only managed to nominate Rod MacNeil eight days after the election was called. And while the other parties were busy plastering the roadsides with big campaign signs, New Democratic signs were nowhere to be seen. When MacNeil’s campaign workers finally managed to get some signs up on the arterials, they unfortunately selected small, garden-style signs rather than the larger ones the other three parties were using. As a result, the New Democrats look dwarfed here.

The New Democrats’ loss might be the Green Party’s gain, as their candidate Jamie Kropf roared out of the gate on the date of the election call, and got large Green Party signs up as fast as Albrecht’s campaign workers could get Conservative blue signs to match. The subconscious appearance of a three-party race here could well elevate Kropf to third place come election night.

The Liberal candidate, Orlando DaSilva, was a little slow in starting his campaign, but caught up, matching Albrecht and Kropf sign for sign. Now, heading out along Homer Watson, Courtland Avenue or Ottawa Street, you can typically see patterns of Blue, Red and Green, Blue, Red and Green, with occasional specks of orange.

But Kitchener-Conestoga has been the one riding in the area that I’ve noticed significant campaign sign vandalism (in my admittedly limited experience). DaSilva’s signs would appear to be the target more often than not, suggesting that the fight for the riding is still quite passionate.

Here’s a list of who all is running

Harold Albrecht, 58 (Conservatives): Albrecht has lived in Kitchener all his life. He is a former pastor, educated at Waterloo Lutheran University (now Wilfred Laurier) and has also owned a private dental practise for 27 years. He left dentistry to become a pastor for the Brethren in Christ church, and left that job in 2005 to seek the Conservative Party nomination for the riding. Albrecht has also gone on a number of Christian missions to the third world. He is married and has three adult children and seven grandchildren. He also owns and operates a 75 acre farm.

Orlando DaSilva, 40 (Liberals): This long-time Liberal has served as a legal representative in the Ontario ministry of the Attorney General. Born and raised in Kitchener to a Cape Breton mother and a Portuguese father, DaSilva helped found Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving while still in high school. His work since has remained in the legal field, including acting as treasurer for the Ontario Bar Association and a founding member of the Portugese Canadian Lawyers Association. Da Silva is married and has a 9-year-old daughter.

Rod MacNeil, 48 (New Democrats): A long-time Kitchener resident, MacNeil only became a card-carrying member of the NDP a year ago. He and his wife Suzy own two businesses, Karaoke Kommotion and Curious Creations, and he is a certified reflexologist. The New Democrats quickly built a web page for him, but he clearly speaks from his heart when describing why he’s running.

Jamie Kropf, 55 (Greens): Kropf has also lived in the area all his life, working in sales and management within the information technology sector for thirty years. He graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Bachelor of Mathematics, and has a Masters of Business Administration from Wilfred Laurier. With his wife of 32 years, he has three adult children and one grandchild. His website looks a little thrown together, but at least he has one, and at least it is detailed.

I expect that Albrecht will hold this riding, despite a strong challenge from DaSilva. More interesting will be where Kropf places against MacNeil.

Further Reading

• A similar interesting battle was had for Kitchener-Conestoga during the 2007 provincial election. In that case, the Liberal won.