So who won the first Federal Election Debate? POLL – April 13, 2011 – Cornwall Ontario

So who won the first Federal Election Debate?  POLL – April 13, 2011 – Cornwall Ontario

Cornwall ON – So who do you think won the English Canadian Federal Election debate?   I’m not sure anyone did, but if I were scoring points I’d probably give it to Gilles Duceppe which has a certain Canadian kind of irony to it.

Who Won The First Federal Election Debate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading …

There were no major surprises.   The only leader to really lose there cool was Michael Ignatieff twice towards Jack Layton which I’m sure appealed to some soft Tory’s who thought Iggy a bit limp.   Here is a link to our live coverage and wrap up.  LINK

Jack Layton gets extra kudos for putting in a good performance in spite of his political situation and his own physical ailments.

And yes, I’ll even tip my hat to Prime Minister Harper to sticking to his game book and staying in his bubble of fictions.   He played a very safe game of defense, trying to preserve his lead in the polls  which would make Habs coach Jacques Martin very proud.

Here is a  You Tube clips from the evening.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYEilQOhw3k

So Canada, what do you think about the debate? You can post your comments below.

Advertise with Cornwall Free News

38 Responses to "So who won the first Federal Election Debate? POLL – April 13, 2011 – Cornwall Ontario"

  1. Ken McMillan   April 13, 2011 at 11:14 AM

    I was surprised how nervous Stephen Harper was in the debate. He also did not do much thinking, but rather touted a rehearsed, memorized party line. He seldom answered the questions posed, but skirted to a prepared script. It was interesting he did not use his attack strategies that precipitated the election in the first place. The most solid presentation through the full debate was Jack Layton. The most knock out punches went to him as well. Although, the block leader gave some good ones as well. Personally, the choices in this election boil down, in English Canada, to a vote for the New Democratic Party or Liberals Party I can not forgive Stephen Harper for the attack advertisements, the misdirected coalition slant, the mismanaged g-20 summit, or the stuffing the senate with big “C” conservative cronies.

  2. Eric   April 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM

    I thought Duceppe’s english was a bit worse than the last debate, but he is entertaining, gets in a few kicks and stays on Quebec first messages.

    The other 3 did ok with their messages as well. The camera angles were not always the best.

  3. Mat   April 13, 2011 at 12:16 PM

    My Opinion On Who Won the English Federal Debate.

    #1. Jack Layton: Who I thought spoke the best in describing the issues concerning our country and speaking about his platform which addresses significantly the top social issues plaguing today’s Canada. He also had the best zingers.
    #2. Michael Ignatieff: Although he didn’t have the same poise as Jack Layton, he still gave a very solid and spirited performance showing how his party still gives Canada, as a whole, the greatest balance and hope for our democratic society, by preventing another conservative minority. He especial was most successful at showing how the conservatives cannot be trusted.
    #3. Gilles Duceppe: Had the most passion during the debate, he will not hesitate to call bluff, and there were many. Had the best sucker punch of the night while speaking to Harper: “You’re finish chicken!”
    #4. Steven Harper: First, I tip my hat off to Mr. Harper for having the best image on camera; with his hair done up perfectly, he had his most softest of angelical voice you could ever hear from a Prime Minister, sounded more like a priest or minister to me, chanting ‘trust me’ and ‘give me a majority’; but I give extra kudos to Mr. Harper for NEVER looking at his opponenst while addressing their questions and concerns but ONLY at the camera (I understand now why that teenage girl was kick out of his rally) trying to bypass his opposition by addressing the viewer as if the other parties did not even exist (and who cares who they represent). I especially place Mr. Harper in LAST for having this particular camera fetish. For looking at us the VIEWER, while time after time he denied everything that was coming his way, and I mean EVERYTHING. The climax was when he denied to be decreasing the Corporate Tax at all, I lost color in my face. CBC began scrambling thereafter to correct those LIES while I was in the mist of writing this note. I only hope that people will see this atleast a very ODD, and will maybe consider why that is so.

  4. Donna   April 13, 2011 at 8:09 PM

    Why is it, no-one ever asks Harper about his plan of, Global Governance for Canada? Everyone present were really shocked by Harper’s words. If Harper wins a majority, we can kiss Canada good-bye.

    I don’t know quite who to vote for yet, it sure in the hell won’t be Harper. I may vote to keep someone out, rather than to keep Harper in. I too did not like the low blow of, insulting Ignatieff’s family. Is Harper that stupid, he does not realize it is the immigrant families, who played a huge part of building this country. He insulted them all. Has Harper, counted the Canadian immigrant families, who sent their sons to war, for this country? Is he also so stupid, he doesn’t realize there are thousands of Canadians, who work in other country’s? I have two nephews who work overseas, they are still very much Canadians. Harper is an arrogant, vindictive piece of work. He prorogued Parliament twice within a year. He chose to run and hide, to avoid questions, he was too stubborn and sneaky to answer.

    No thankyou, Harper is the least Canadian, of all the others. He is giving Canada away, to the wealthiest corporations in the world, at the Canadian citizens expense.

  5. Dave   April 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

    I see abunch of Liberal lovers posting here. If you vote Liberal or NDP it will be the end of Canada the way we know it. These 2 idiots will raise taxes beyond what anyone can afford and piss it away.

    If one of these 2 gets in I will move from the country.

    Harper won this debate by a mile. I wouldn’t look at the other 3 either when speaking after all the 1/2 truths they presented to the public. Why look crooks in the eye, it would just make me want to blacken them. You talk about the attackes Harper made on Iggnatiiffs family I sure didn’t hear it but all night long Layton and the chump Liberal leader insulted Harper.

    Wake up.

  6. smee   April 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM

    Donna
    Which debate did you watch *lol*

  7. Reg   April 13, 2011 at 10:04 PM

    Well Dave, have fun in the States. The bridge is at the bottom of Brookdale.

    Smee, we all know you live in your own little world so we could never guess which debate or even which year you were seeing.

  8. Carl   April 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM

    Never trust any man with neatly coiffed hair

  9. Eric   April 14, 2011 at 6:49 AM

    Mat, I believe Mr. Harper said the tax cuts were not in his budget. That is not a lie, they were voted on in Parliment a couple of budgets ago.

    No matter the politician, you really need to listen to what they are saying. Mr. Iggy for example has said he would not be forming a coalition. That does not mean he is not open to the concept. Mr Cretien leading to an election said ” the GST, gone!” We know that did not happen.
    Ignatieff called the tax cuts “give aways” during the English debate, that alone is proof, and when you have good proof it is because it is proven, that they all use words to their benefit.

  10. PJR   April 14, 2011 at 8:44 AM

    Never trust anyone who avoids eye contact when he is speaking, and whose smile is merely a rearrangement of his mouth.

  11. Danika   April 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

    All you Harper lovers should give your head a shake the man has proven time and time again that if given a majority he would destroy this country – it would no longer be called Canada if would be called the country of Harper just like his letterhead that he makes everyone use saying the Harper Government instead of the Government of Canada. Has he not shown his disdain and lack of respect for this country by using American style attack ads against his opponents; abusing the trust given to him in the House of Commons (the Canadian peoples’ elected representatives in Parliament) by lying to them and as a result they found him in contempt of Parliament. According to the the article I read, this is the first time a Canadian Government has fallen on Contempt of Parliament, and is a first for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth. According to parliamentary law, contempt of parliament is a federal crime. Being that Harper has been found guilty of a crime he is barred from seeking re-election on May 2, 2011. No federal government or cabinet minister has ever been found in contempt before. Furthermore, according to an article I read dated March 27, 2011 from the Press they stated that: “The prime minister of a minority government only holds his or her office as long as the “confidence of the house” is maintained. If members of the lower house lose faith in the leader for whatever reason, they can call a vote of no confidence and force the PM to resign. Such a vote of no confidence was made against Stephen Harper on Friday March 25, 2011. That vote not only declared that Stephen Harper no longer had the confidence of the house but the house also found Stephen Harper guilty of the serious criminal offense of contempt of parliament. Contempt of Parliament is the crime of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions, or of hindering any Member of Parliament in the performance of his or her duties. The highest duty of a Prime Minister of Parliament is to uphold the Constitution of Canada, which includes the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and the duties owed to the Queen’s representative in Canada. Stephen Harper keeps on failing in his duties on both counts as evidenced by 2 consecutive prorogation of Parliament. Stephen Harper forced the Queen’s representative to dissolve Parliament just so the Conservatives could avoid losing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. The first undemocratic shut down of Parliament by Stephen Harper was clearly to avoid the scrutiny of a House of Commons committee over the mounting evidence of willful complicity by the Harper government over the transfer of Afghan detainees to a substantial risk of torture. This is a war crime and one of the most serious allegations any government has faced in the history of Canada. Stephen Harper did everything possible to hide from a vote of confidence, and on Dec. 4, 2008 Stephen Harper unilaterally shut down Parliament. The Governor General had little option but to grant the undemocratic request to avoid a political crisis in Canada. It had put her into an untenable position.

    There was no precedent in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world where a democratic parliament was shut down to hide from a vote of confidence. It opened the door for other abuses of the rights and privileges of the majority of Members of Parliament elected by Canadians. Harper has went through that door again. This time the Governor General did not even merit a personal visit by Stephen Harper to be told to shut down Parliament until early March. Respect, even for the Queen’s representative, by Stephen Harper is in short supply.

    This undemocratic criminal behavior by Stephen Harper is another piece of evidence of a major shift in Canadian constitutional democracy taking shape. First, there was the unconstitutional behavior of the Harper government to deny the committee uncensored documents despite a subpoena by the House of Commons. Secondly, there was the Harper ordered boycott of the committee by the Conservative MPs at the committee. Thirdly, we saw the forced adjournment of the Military Police Complaints Commission inquiry of the Stephen Harper’s complicity in torture and the Stephen Harper firing of its chief investigator, Peter Tinsley. This commission, a quasi-judicial tribunal has been stymied in its attempt to determine the truth over the detainee transfer issue. Finally, there was the unprecedented attempts by Stephen Harper to slander Richard Colvin, a senior Canadian diplomat who was a key witness in the Canadian Afghan detainee issue, for just doing his job of speaking truth to power and then accusing anybody who supports him of either being Taliban dupes or undermining our brave Canadian military heroes.

    These are serious examples of abuse of executive power over Parliament, the Governor General, the public service and ultimately the Canadian voters who elected MPs to make Parliament work. There is only one person who is responsible for and has been found guilty of such abuse of power, for such disdain towards the authority of the people’s parliament, for such disrespect towards the Canadian people and for total disregard for the rule of law. His name is Stephen Harper.”

    I strongly agree with what they wrote – Harper has no respect for the people of Canada, it is his way only and he will do whatever it takes to get his own way regardless of the law or what the people of Canada want. It is a sad day when Canadians would vote for a Prime Minister with such a lack of ethics and disrespect of the law. What is this country coming too!!!!!!!

  12. Mich   April 14, 2011 at 3:04 PM

    Thank you DANIKA!!!
    Very well said.

  13. PJR   April 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM

    Yes indeed, Mich. Contempt of Parliament means contempt of all Canadians. How can any self-respecting citizen of Canada vote for Harper?

  14. Eric   April 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM

    Well PJR, how can any self respecting citizen vote without real information? I have not heard any Liberals boasting about how much better their party can do things better. All we seem to get is the same liberal newspaper headlines from people wearing out the mouse and copy / paste feature of the computer.

    I would like more detail on the ” family pack” specifically how it is any better than what we already have from programs in existance. Of course I would like to see some cost figures, not just cancel the military planes, which have not been ordered or even a down payment put on them.

    I would like to know more about the 2% GST increase that is still on the Liberal table, among other things.

    I am waiting from the NDP to tell me how reduced bank credit card interest will affect our economy, because really, that would only help a very few who do not budget well and the rest of us would have to pay for it somehow.

  15. smee   April 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    First of all people, being found in contempt of Parliament is not a criminal act nor do people go to trial on this. Danika please understand our system before you make judgment, errors of that magnitude so early in a post makes it difficult to continue objectively. Not to mention calling with holding detainee information a war crime, it may be bad judgment but nothing more. Consider in the end, did we find any wrong doing when the reports were made public?
    Harper was found in Contempt of Parliament, on what grounds? Can anyone define what the accusation is all about?
    Accusing a party of an act, then having the same accusing parties hold a confidence vote is kind of controversial in itself. Harper was found in contempt by parties that were in search of his leadership. Harper wanted to remove campaign subsidies for all parties to make up for the ban on corporate and union donations. This would bankrupt the liberals however it would place them on equal grounds with the NDP and Conservatives.
    Was it truly Contempt of Parliament? Or a ploy used to intimidate people and mislead them? I think Danika called it abusing the trust
    Oda was definitely in contempt and was dealt with.
    Also Danika, your thought on the Governor General are a bit out of date. Since most constitutional functions are completed and acted by the cabinet, the governor general is nothing more than ceremonial position or a representative of what was.
    If Harper is in contempt of parliament for not meeting opposition members of parliament’s requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates, how were they able to claim the cost of the jets we 30 million dollars, How did they know the costs of the new mega jails? Is the opposition lying now or have they lied in accusing Parliament of being Contempt of Parliament
    One issue with these parliamentary procedures is a lack of definition. If the opposition parties did not believe the information given was correct, they could continue to probe as was the case now. Then should they so decide accuse an individual of an act or in this case Contempt of Parliament then choose to vote on it there is no way to stop them.

  16. admin   April 14, 2011 at 6:50 PM

    “Oda was definitely in contempt and was dealt with.” Smee are you on crack?

  17. Reg   April 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM

    Just for Smee…..once again I have to do your homework for you.

    “Contempt of Parliament Definition

    Contempt of Parliament is defined as the act of blocking the House or any Member of Parliament from performing their duties. Those actions can include:

    – Lying to a committee or House of Parliament
    – Refusing to testify before a committee or produce documents necessary to an investigation
    – Influencing a Member of Parliament (MP) through means such as bribery and threats.

    In Canada the power to find someone in contempt of Parliament goes back to the British North America Act (BNA). The BNA defines it as the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed but not to exceed those explained by the Act, or those enjoyed by Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Ireland.

    The penalties for contempt of Parliament in Canada can include jail time. The use of the offense is rare and in the case of a minority Parliament usually results in a vote of no-confidence.”

  18. Furtz   April 14, 2011 at 9:15 PM

    If Harper could only win a minority when up against Dion, what hope does he have now? It’s still way too early to call , but the Cons are looking pretty shaky right now.

  19. smee   April 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM

    Jamie, if the opposition was unable to prepare the report in time, then maybe it was not an issue.

    Reg, the words you use are clearly a personal interpretation.. And may I suggest you review a little deeper then wikepedia

  20. Stan   April 15, 2011 at 5:41 AM

    Absolutely right Reg. It ended in a vote of Non-Confidence and the government was dissolved. Hence the end of the story. It stopped right there! It became a “non-issue”. It’s over and is behind us now! Move on guys…..

  21. Reg   April 15, 2011 at 8:05 AM

    Smee if you had bothered to even look up the Wikipedia reference you would see that the definition that I quoted did not come from there. I am getting tired of doing your work for you. By the way, when a statement is bracketed by quotes are used that means it is a direct quote not an interpretation.

    The quote I used was from http://www.suite101.com/content/in-contempt-of-parliament-and-the-harper-government-a361880 .

    Wikipedia defines Contempt of Parliament as:

    “In many jurisdictions governed by a parliament, Contempt of Parliament is the offence of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions, or of hindering any Member of Parliament in the performance of his or her duties.
    Actions which can constitute a contempt of Parliament vary, but typically include such things as:

    – deliberately misleading a House of Parliament or a parliamentary committee;
    – refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a House or committee;
    – attempting to influence a Member of Parliament, for example, by bribery or threats.

    In some jurisdictions, a House of Parliament may declare any act to constitute contempt, and this is not subject to judicial review. In others, contempt of Parliament is defined by statute; while Parliament makes the initial decision of whether to punish for contempt, the person or organisation in contempt may appeal to the courts. Some jurisdictions consider contempt of parliament to be a criminal offence.”

  22. Danika   April 15, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    smee – I appreciate your input and to have a truly democratic society everyone should have the right to say what they feel. Unfortunately, I wholly disagree with your opinion, which is well within my right and your comment stating that I should understand our system before I make a judgment is completely inappropriate. You do not know me or my background and quite frankly when you make assertions like that, it leads me to beleive that you maybe a narrow minded person who has the belief in his/her own superiority (without the proper foundation for it from what I have read) – now I understand why you are such a fan of Mr. Harper.

    Furthermore, I completely understand the issue with respect to the Governor General, that was not the point that was being made – the point was that Mr. Harper suspended Parliament in order to avoid a Non-Confidence Vote instead of dealing with the issues head on. By doing that, he skirted the issues and bought himself and his government more time in order to manipulate (bully) the public to his view point. Typical for this government!

    I personally have not seen anything positive that Mr. Harper has done for the people of Canada that merits him to have a majority government let alone another minority government. He is not what this country needs at this point in time. Again, before smee starts personally attacking me please note that it is my opinion and like all democracies I am entitled to state it. If you have legitimate arguments of why Mr. Harper should stay in office, I am more than happy to read them and consider them but if your only rebuttal is to personally attack me, than please do not waste everyone’s time with your comments.

    I agree with Stan we need to discuss the issues in this election so that everyone can make an informed decision when they vote on May 2, 2011 and as I say – if you don’t vote you do not have a right to bitch about the situation. So I encourage everyone to vote and let the politicians know our wishes.

  23. smee   April 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM

    Well stated Stan, as for the act I agree it is done now move on.

    My issue now is how people interpret what has happened. It shows a definite lack of understanding and knowledge of our systems. It is a scary situation.

    That ignorance is how we as Canadians continually get horn swaggled into bad leadership.

    You cannot run a country on empathy, it is a good idea but just doesn’t work.

  24. Joe Doesalotablow   April 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM

    Jack Layton is using a crutch because Mr. Harper railed him so hard.

  25. smee   April 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM

    A .com sight, try a .ca sight Reg

    They tend to illustrate what the law is about, and not the media interpretations of what happened as the sight you posted. It is comparable to Wikipedia, when you post, Wikipedia is the first place I review to compare to what you posted.

    Reg
    Please try and answer how the opposition now knows the costs of the planes and prisons if the costs were not released prior to the contempt charge.
    Why was the opposition unable to provide the documentation in time to peruse Oda with the contempt charge???

    Danika
    Your opinion is not what was in question, but the merit of said opinion. Even in a democracy you need to have merit in what you accuse others of being or not being. Other than that it could be misinterpreted.

  26. Reg   April 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM

    As long as the Con-cons keep harping about Iggy working in the US, the rest of us can and should keep talking about the CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT. Working in the US is hardly comparable to CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT. I worked in the US and I don’t think it makes me any less of a Canadian and I would never even consider being in CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT. As a matter of fact living in the US makes you appreciate the Canadian parliamentary system of democracy even more.

    CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT- CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT – CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

  27. Furtz   April 16, 2011 at 5:27 AM

    It’s not just Harper’s contempt of Parliament. It’s also his contempt of Canadians. He will only answer five questions a day during this campaign! What the hell does that tell us? Why is he so afraid of questions?

  28. Reg   April 16, 2011 at 8:33 AM

    Smee, I see Canada every day when I look at my window and drive down the highways. If you are referring to a web site then a lot of web sites are both .ca and .com, as is my own web site. As far as your request for information on the costs of the planes….do your own research. Read a newspaper, do a web search, something, anything. The information you believe is all partisan. The conservatives lie so much about costs and budgets and the distribution of our tax dollars you can’t believe anything they say or write.

  29. The Watcher   April 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM

    Smee,

    Your opinion is not what is in question, but the merit of said opinion. Even in a democracy you need to have merit in what you accuse others of being or not being. Other than that it could be misinterpreted.

  30. smee   April 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    Stay the course Reg, empty responses and redirecting questions. It shows a continuous lack of insight and intellect.
    I think people should have to pass an exam before given the opportunity to vote.

  31. Reg   April 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    So is this the new agenda from the Conservatives, only Con-cons should vote. How very democratic of you. But then they have been depending on voter apathy to get back into power haven’t they.

    Sorry Smee, insults or not, I’m not going to do any more of your work for you.

  32. Furtz   April 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM

    @ Reg. You should feel relieved that Smee hasn’t accused you of being “ignorent”.
    Coming under Smee’s scrutiny would be a daunting experience, for sure.

  33. Non Compos Mentis   April 17, 2011 at 9:09 AM

    Reg you said to smee “I see Canada every day when I look at my window”. Do you look at your window from the inside or the outside?

  34. Thorin   April 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM

    Who won? Depends which type of thug you prefer.

  35. smee   April 17, 2011 at 11:15 AM

    Non Compos Mentis says
    Reg has confused his mirror for his window. Remember he is from Cornwall and though there are some great people in the city, we are only defined by what people see of the city in the press and of course the what about me attitude that has brought the area such prosperity.

    It is so amazing how some people in Cornwall can define themselves as they are perceived by the rest of Canada so succinctly.

  36. Reg   April 17, 2011 at 12:34 PM

    Alright, I admit I should have used the word “out” instead of “at”. I look out my window to see the sights of my neighborhood. Thank you for correcting my grammar. No matter what language you communicate in, if you don’t use correct grammar or spelling people will only see the mistakes and not the message.

  37. Reg   April 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM

    Sorry Smee, but I live in Ingleside. Now that you have insulted the majority of people who live in Cornwall, are you going to take a shot at South Stormont too?

  38. Square Head   April 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM

    Who won the debate? If there was a Bloc Quebecois candidate in Cornwall I would vote Bloc. Not because I’m a Separatist but because I don’t have anything but contempt for Parliament.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.