Cornwall ON – We’re going to be covering the French debate tonight. Keep coming back as we’ll be updating the page as the debate evolves.
Governance up first. Iggy gives us a geographical lesson on French communities of Canada. Duceppe jabs at Ignatieff on coalitions. Iggy counters on clear choice focusing on Liberal or Conservative government. Skate, Skate, Skate…
Whatever happened to “None of the Above?”
Boring as crap so far…the voices they’re using for the English translation are a total hoot!
It’s almost the same script as last night!
Harper vs Layton – Economy and Government Spending. What the heck kind of accept is the English language translator using for Mr. Layton?
More of the same from last night. I’m thinking it might be time to switch to NHL play off hockey which I have a hunch is what these guys want…
Duceppe just hit Harper a good one on starting to tell the truth. Smacko for Gilles!
Layton just landed a “Left Cross” suggesting that Harper policies are part of the problem; not the solution. Ow. Seniors are probably nodding during this one…
They’re talking about Canadian values now….
Weak shot at Harper by Iggy. Harper is hitting back now…and missing….onto the gun registry….now onto the facebook scandal….Harper ignores the feint and goes back onto the attack about the gun registry….used the same line as last night….this is like watching Guy Lauzon debates in Federal elections….
Iggy catches Harper with the Contempt of Parliament conviction.
OMG, they just showed Mr. Harper’s podium full of note cards! Crib notes for the PM!
Duceppe is going on about Bill 101 again. Iggy is pandering to it. Bill 101 is horrid and not Democratic. Jack and Gilles are going up Bill 101. Jack is about to fall down, but switched gears and flung a George Bush at Mr. Harper.
lol, Harper just tried to get a whopper by on his crime bill, and all three leaders jumped him. Gilles just Carson’d Mr. Harper and called him a liar.
Finally! One tid bit of interest and that’s the role the NDP can fill for Quebecers instead of the Bloc!
Iggy reaching out to families. He wants to raise corporate taxes to 18% to pay for that assistance.
Quebec’s place in Canada – Harper vs Duceppe.
Love how Duceppe calls out Harper when he tells a porkie. I have to admit that Bill 101 is a Red Flag for me. You can protect a language without attacking another. Harper won this round with Mr. Duceppe.
Iggy tangling with Gilles. Suggests that the Bloc is living in the past. Ouch!
Iggy:
I’m not Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Wow. That was a mouthful. Mr. Duceppe like many Quebec hockey players seems to play better on offense than defense….
Harper just jumped in and I have to respectfully give him two points for his line about the other three leaders forming a coalition. Great line, but still my choice over Mr. Harper forming another government!
Jack Layton just said Winning…is Tiger Blood next?
I think Mr. Harper thinks that if you explain spin calmly, slowly and quietly it somehow makes it more credible…Mr. Harper was just confronted with Kairos and Odagate.
My rankings for the debate tonight:
1) Mr. Harper (surprising, sad, but true)
2) Mr. Layton (by default)
3) Mr. Duceppe ( fumbled, whined, but still scored points)
4) Mr. Ignatieff ( took some shots, but didn’t connect and most were jabs)
If you wish to post a comment please do so below or you can email us at info@cornwallfreenews.com or call our hotline at 613 361 1755
why is Duceppe permitted to be in a federal debate? He only represents one group of people. I wonder how much the second debate cost just to appease one province and one people.
My Opinion On Who Won the French Federal Debate.
1. Gille Duceppe: I’m in no way a Separatist nor do I advocate it. I do support however Québec’s desire to do more for itself, while protecting their heritage despite the difficulties and challenges brought forth by the rest the country. A simple history of Québec will suffice to explain that. For those who listened to the debate with translation, it is worth noting, that it can be difficult to get a real sense of the sentiments Quebecers uphold from the point of view of any other language; ask any native French speaker and they will tell you. Near the start of the debate Duceppe told the viewers: “Monsieur Harper nous a dit qui’il est nécessaire de dire la vérité, j’espère qu’il va commencer ce soir.”, accusing Harper from the beginning of being a compulsive liar, as Duceppe sought to set the tone for the night of ‘Harper attacks’. He proceeded to accuse the Harper government of dipping into IE funds, which is in deficit in the order of 17.5 billion dollars (I didn’t know that, apparently the Liberals took out 54 billion before then). Even after the Conservatives introduced a law forbidding any more dipping from EI funds, Duceppe suggested that 10 billion will be dipped this time around by the Conservatives and can be accounted for in Minister Jim Flaherty’s 2011 Budget (let’s not forget Harper’s new promise of ending the deficit a year earlier, which some say comes with a price tag of, roughly 10 billion dollars). At first Harper ignored the question, then he ignored it some more. Finally he pretended to get angry and defended himself while insisting on the respect of the law that his party implemented to block such a thing from ever happening again. But in the end, anybody could see he had become flushed. (see it for yourself here starting at 3:56 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FmG0X-siKE&feature=BFa&list=PL575DCCCEF771FADE&index=3) Question is, was this embarrassment or was it shame, I leave that to the viewers? Duceppe made an example of Harper’s carelessness by describing the lack of support he offered to the forest sector industry (which affected jobs all across Canada), and in which, according to Duceppe, employed more people than the automotive industry combined – yet would have cost a fraction of that to help maintain it. Another big blow on Harper came when Duceppe spoke about the gun registry. While comparing Harper’s approach to tackling crime to that of the United States, he mentions that crime rates have actually been lowering in Canada and even more so in Quebec; therefore Canadians don’t need and should avoid the dangerous cocktail mix that Harper has to offer, which will wants to put more guns on the streets and build bigger prisons, as the ‘Americanization of Canada’. Good one Mr. Duceppe!
2. Michael Ignatieff: Always walking a fine line between a Liberal leader that is fiscally responsible and one that socially conscious, for Ignatieff, his message during the French debate was calm yet passionate, collected and yet decisive. He won second place for me once more with his solid performance which got stronger as the evening went on. A high point for me was when he addressed his concerns on the ‘Americanization of Canada’. He responded with a fervent message about defending Canadian culture and the rights to a honest an open democratic system. I don’t believe myself to be partisan out of ignorance for Ignatieff and the Liberal party as such, as I am well aware of the neo-liberalism of the Chretien government and his unforgettable scandals which came out of it; but for Ignatieff, this is simply not the case. The liberals have a new image and a new leader. He is an accomplished scholar, which I hate to admit is a bit of a taboo to mention, but is why he is the preferred candidate to lead the Country forward. Compared to Harper who ignores questions all together, and prefers to focus more on just being a proud Canadian, Igniatieff demonstrated how Harper cannot be trusted as he retold the incident about the teenage girl who got kicked out of Harper’s rally during the campaign because she had a picture with Ignatieff on her facebook. If this doesn’t describe the lack of respect Harper commands in our democratic society, I don’t know what does. Ignatieff then went on with more attacks on the Conservatives. Among those, he reminding the viewers that they are in an election because the Conservatives are being held in contempt of Parliament; Ignatieff concluded that if Harper where to win a majority, Canada would risk becoming less democratic and more like the United States. In the end, I thought Ignatieff did much to improve his image and took the time to sell his platform more successfully than he did during the English debate.
3. Jack Layton: In some respect, I place Jack Layton closely trailing Ignatieff. He started strong, spoke with confidence and brought a healthy alternative to the mix for Quebecers to think about. I did appreciate him raising issue with the bill that would have implemented mandatory bilingualism in the Supreme Court, which passed in the House of Commons, but was ‘shamefully’ shot down by Harper’s newly appointed conservative senators. Unfortunately he quickly dug himself up very early during the first question on ‘the legitimacy of a coalition’ when he tried his first zinger of the night against Duceppe. He compared the Block to a hockey team comprised of only having defensemen, compared to the NDP who carries a balanced team This didn’t score him any points and was quickly shot down by Duceppe with the fact that the NDP have never had as more players on the ice than the Block since their appearance in the league, referring to the number of seats the Block have held compared to that of the NDP. But Duceppe then threw a blow of his own by playing the ‘let’s be frank’ card, acknowledging that both him and Layton will not form the next government, difference being, one can admit to it, while the other one will not. Layton tried to dig himself out by calling Duceppe arrogant, but I think by then, the point had already been made. Layton also had an excellent platform and also did a great job in promoting it throughout the debate. It will be interesting to see if his party can win over more seats in Québec this time around.
4. Steven Harper: “Soyons claire” ” C’est nécessaire de dire la vérité ” He who threaded carefully around topics such as promising to maintain an increase in health care funding to the Provinces beyond 2014, was more preoccupied with deflecting questions and comments than really telling the truth and addressing those questions put forth. Again, he articulated as many denials as in the first debate, while spreading even more and more lies, not to my surprise coming from Mr. Harper. But by the end, as in the first debate, I could not understand how he could be but in last place on my list. By and large, he could not throughout the night connect with the French Canadian sentiment. And to those conservatives reading this, contrary to what you might think, the order of the day is not to tip your hat off to someone who wishes to stick to their guns no matter what the cost to their country might be. It is to listen carefully to the concerns of every Canadian as a whole. You do so by addressing all six questions during the French debate, even though they might not be the priorities of your party, or that of the big corporations, nor perhaps half of the nation’s English speaking community, which I strongly doubt. You still must respect and address the questions with a direct answer. Tell me, why is it that every time you hear Harper talk about putting forth a balanced approach to things, what he really mean is, that he doesn’t want to spend your money on social priorities, but instead spend it on the priorities of the big corporations and the militarization of your country? As for Quebecers, the second highest population in Canada, double that of the third highest, the province of British Columbia, everybody knows the major problem for Harper in Québec is that the Quebecers can see right through his lies, something that doesn’t come as easy for the rest of Canada. It would appear they have a harder time, go figure.
I thought Mat, that the bilingual Supreme Court Judges issue was dead and should be. The number of qualified Lawyers to be in that group is very small, why would you want to have less candidates apply.
Are you looking for the best candidate or the best one that can speak French? They are not always going to be the same person.
Concerning Harper on treading carefully, he has said he would maintain the 6% each year. How I do not know. Between health care and immigration, there is not much money left.
I forgot to add Mat, that while reading your blip on Harper it occured to me you were looking for a Prime Minister of Quebec, not Canada.
Show proof of the lies, please. and your population estimate was close.
Ont – 13,21,700
Que – 7,907,400
BC – 4,531,000
I’m not well versed in the bilingual Supreme Court issue, but heard about it here and there. The thought of it did and still does strike me as odd, that so few are available. That no candidates from our Country can work proficiently in both languages, when 7,907,40 could be misrepresented(using strickly Quebecs population) . Language IS culture and not just a means to a technical understanding of the law; and so it should not be considered fair for anybody to be judged from any other language, be it french, native american etc.. Which raises another issues since we are such a diverse cultured society… and no, I do not want a Quebec Prime Minister. Also, although Harper has clearly denoted some kind of maintenance to the health accord, it is not the 6%. Among other reasons, it is notable that the conservative 2 weeks after the budget was past, decided to promise the $2.2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax to Quebec, and went off to promised that national dept tol be paid a year earlier, which demonstrates their intent to have wanted an election, and also shows the lack of will to not worked with the other parties; adding to the cause of our present election. We must then ask ourselves if we can trust the Conservative to deliver on that issue. It is well known and written in their platform: “Major transfers to other levels of government are projected to grow at current legislated rates over the forecast period,” “From 2014-15 onward, these growth rates have not yet been legislated and are therefore subject to change.” whereas the Liberals Ignatieff has vowed that the Liberals will keep the 6% increase past 2014.
Proof of lies are inherent within the history of any political party, that much is true. The question everyone should be asking is: what is the worst of evils within our parliamentary system? I tag the Tories unanimously in first place, and although they are the only party in power, we must not forget that that power is a minority one, nor are they the only party being judged by their conduct.