Monday, January 09, 2006

Debate Night

Right off the bat, I'll say that Steve Paiken was the winner of this debate. He asked hard and pointed questions, resulting in an entertaining debate. As for the debators themselves...meh.

Martin showed passion again but rambled off script a few times. The notwithstanding clause thing was just...odd. It's obviously an attempt to change the channel and, in that respect, it likely will. The only question is what's on the other channel. I have a hard time believing this is the sort of idea that will rally Canadians behind Martin. Also, the "Quebec is a nation" stuff really annoyed me.

Harper didn't wow anyone and didn't steal the show, but he didn't have to. He was dull and uninspiring but, like he said in his closing, he's never been good at "spin or passion". He got backed up on the defensive a few times but Martin was the one needing the knock-out tonight and he certainly didn't get it.

As for Layton, I really liked him in the first English debate, but he just didn't do it for me tonight. Any time he's on stage with Martin and Harper, it always helps him. But tonight he looked overlooked and marginalized.

Duceppe was just bad tonight. He was almost incomprehensible at times and, while he got a few good one liners as usual, he was back on the defensive. Martin hit him hard and Paiken's questions really showed the logical gaps in the separatist arguments.

For a blow by blow recap, read on:

5:37 pm: We get a Tory ad on the pre-game show...followed by the "hands in my pockets" commercial. Two ads for the price of one.

5:55 pm: Mike Duffy is reporting that the Ekos poll had it

Opening Statements

6:02 pm: Paul comes out on the tax cut issue.

6:04 pm: Paul's got the red tie, Stephen's got the blue tie.

6:06 pm: The first question is on the RCMP leak. It could be a long night...
Jack comes close to mentioning "Ed Broadbent" but doesn't. You just knew he wanted to.

6:12 pm: Now we get a CSL question...

6:15 pm: The moderator asks a pretty hard hitting question to Harper about the Reform party. I've got to say, I like these questions a lot more than the "what can you do to help my dog?" questions we saw last time.

6:20 pm: Paul wants to get rid of the notwithstanding clause? Holy bombshell batman! I guess this is the hail mary attempt of the campaign. According to section 38(1) of the constitution you need 7 provinces and 50% of the population for a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that! I'm sure Jean Charest will be on board!
UPDATE: It turns out Paul is only proposing a bill on this in the House, limited to federal jurisdiction. In that respect, I don't have a huge problem with it, but it still comes across looking like a hail mary.

6:28 pm: Paul says that electoral reform is "very important". Uh-oh. Not "very very important" Paul? It's obviously quite low on his priority list, despite the eight Ministers in charge of it.

6:31 pm: Duceppe has gone from saying "DEMON-cratic" to "DE-MO-cratic". Man, I love listening to this guy talk.

6:41 pm: I don't know if there's a fly buzzing around Paul's head, but he sure is flapping his hands around a lot.

6:43 pm: 43 minutes in and still no "Ed Broadbent" references by Jack. I'm also disappointed that no one has said "you had an Option" with respect to the Options Canada book.

6:45 pm: We get the question on swingers. YES!!! This is a great chance for Harper to pick up some of the swing vote. (ba-da-bing ba-da-boom)

6:48 pm: Gilles talks about "evolution". Way to lose the Western Canadian bible vote Gilles.

6:52 pm: Gilles now brings up the topic on everyone's mind tonight: the anti-scab law. Canadians are riveted.

6:54 pm: Jack mentions "results for people". BINGO!

7:03 pm: Martin confirms that aid to farmers is "very very important".
Jack tells a heart warming story: "I met with a 28 year old farmer and he showed me his balance sheet. I didn't understand it because I'm NDP..."

7:11 pm: Jack Layton hates it when people play political games. Obviously Jack hasn't had time to try out the new Prime Minister Forever.

7:13 pm: OMG! Harper is the first one to name drop Ed Broadbent. Jack's really going to have to lay it on during his next speech to make sure people know Ed's with him. My prediction: "Ed Broadbent, Ed Broadbent, Ed Broadbent, Matt Damon."

7:20 pm: I keep expecting someone to say "I am entitled to my entitlements" when the moderator says "you are entitled to thirty seconds".

7:24 pm: BOOM! Paiken rams Duceppe on the "not revisiting questions that have already been decided" question. I've got to say, I'm loving Paiken in this one, even if he looks like Screech from Saved by the Bell.

7:30 pm: "If Canada is divisible, is Quebec divisible?" This is going to be the Press Gallery Dinner all over then - Duceppe is SO not coming back to the English debate next year.

7:32 pm: Martin bitch slaps Duceppe around again, once again getting him the highlight of the night. A good moment for Paul. But Harper hits back on Martin for chickening out on the debate.
7:38 pm: Man, I wish JC was still around for this national unity stuff. None of this "there's a fiscal imbalance, Quebec is a nation" crap Paul is throwing around tonight. Boy, this guy will say anything to get elected: "I've always referred to Calgary as a city-state".

7:42 pm: Harper is smart not to bite on the majority question. He's got a grin on his face as he dodges the question.

7:47 pm: "I don't mean to leave you out of the discussion Mr. Layton, but I've never heard you say you were running to be PM, only to elect more NDP MPs". BHA! Layton responds that it's not the size of your caucus, it's how you use it. Layton then says "we get down and get the job done" - I think the swingers club question has Jack all riled up.

7:52 pm: Paul says Harper's child care plan would only give parents "a dollar a day after taxes". Holy shit - we really do need tax relief. Paul then says it would be "criminal" to turn away from child care. Word of advice - do not use the word "criminal" Paul.

7:56 pm: Harper's closing statement: "my strengths are not spin or passion" before detailing what I want to do. After Paul's tightly scripted closing statement, I think that will sound really genuine.


  • Live Blogging by Calgary Grit??

    How will I sleep tonight - its all so exciting! :)

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 7:30 p.m.  

  • Saw the new Liberal attack ad... Wow, Harper and Duceppe worked together to defeat the minority Liberal government, now they will work together to dismatle Canada.

    Sad, they are now stooping to something that is not even remotely plausible.

    As the good Bourque observed...stick a fork in them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:58 p.m.  

  • Mike Duffy just reported that 4 main pollsters have put the Cons at anywhere from 7 to 14 points over the Libs(Ekos had the 14 pts, Ipsos at 1l%) Can you say "Follow the Leader"?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:02 p.m.  

  • I'm taking a drink each time Martin says "fundamentally" and Harper says "accountability".

    Aw man, I'm going to be so hungover tomorrow.

    By Blogger Green Stone, at 8:03 p.m.  

  • When Rick Mercer can make a better point in half-jest then the Martin Team has been able to do all campaign, you know you're in trouble.

    Grit, IF all these polls are true (with SES being the lone close one - Martin better pray that they're the correct one) and Martin can't turn it around, it appears that your wish (and mine) of weakening Martin's influence in the Liberal Party is going to happen big-time.. but with the Phyrric victory of a Conservative Majority.

    Us progressives better hope Layton's NDP can get enough support to prevent this.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 8:15 p.m.  

  • Oh God! he's using the charter instead of answering a direct question. Can Martin actually answer a direct question?

    By Blogger Rositta, at 8:20 p.m.  

  • Notwithstanding issue will be front page if nothing more exciting happens.

    By Blogger Christian Conservative, at 8:27 p.m.  

  • Maybe Martin will use the nothwithstadning clause to remove the notwithstanding clause, and then calim Liberal victory for not using the clause.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:28 p.m.  

  • Jack Layton thinks he can get cozy with the moderator to gain favours?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:31 p.m.  

  • Imagine. Martin wants more women? My riding"s a prime example of the opposite

    By Blogger James Curran, at 8:31 p.m.  

  • That's not funny! Maybe that's what he will do. On another side, does anyone think they've all been to a tanning studio or is their makeup a tad heavy?

    By Blogger Rositta, at 8:32 p.m.  

  • Martin doesn't like the down and dirty he wants the debate on a higher plane... go figure!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:33 p.m.  

  • Tell the nation Her Name!! Jane Creba. Much more to the point. Sympathize. Empathize

    By Blogger James Curran, at 8:35 p.m.  

  • "Living DEMON-cratic deficit"

    har har!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:36 p.m.  

  • GILLE DUCEPPE - Re: Democratic Deficit - "I think Paul Martin is a living democratic deficit." ZING! ZING!! ZING!!!

    By Blogger Christian Conservative, at 8:36 p.m.  

  • All you criminals who are here reading this blog would you please turn them in....What a stupid man he is

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:38 p.m.  

  • You know, I might just move to Quebec and vote for Duccepe. He's making some really good points. Even my Liberal wife is impressed.

    By Blogger Mike, at 8:43 p.m.  


    Yes, this is what I wanted to know about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:44 p.m.  

  • Having seen Layton in operation as a city of toronto councillor, I dont believe a single word he utters.

    By Blogger Rositta, at 8:44 p.m.  

  • Totally agree with the Martin flapping his arms comment. Why does he eerily remind me of Master Thespian from late 80s Saturday Night Live? ("and so, I flail!")

    By Blogger Jamie, at 8:47 p.m.  

  • Junior: The moderator said Republicans, are you deaf?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:50 p.m.  

  • Junior is Robin Hood.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:52 p.m.  

  • Who's winning so far???????????

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:55 p.m.  

  • Junior keeps saying there's a wide chasm in values between him and Harper.

    Duceppe and Layton keep saying they are the same.

    Harper says the Liberals are corrupt.

    Can you say: "a wash"?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:55 p.m.  

  • Hilarious!

    More on Gilles! I guess he won't be getting any votes outside Quebec eh? DEMON-cratic! haha!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:56 p.m.  


    That's a good line.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:57 p.m.  

  • Harper really only needs a C+ tonight. Martin needs an A+.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:57 p.m.  

  • No one is benefiting, they're just confusing the hell out of anyone that is bothering to watch.

    One person says something. The other one says it's incorrect. The the second tier guys says the top tier guys are the same.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:02 p.m.  

  • Layton and Duccepe A-
    Harper B-
    Martin C

    By Blogger Mike, at 9:03 p.m.  

  • How can you say Harper got roasted on taxes. The CPC tax reduction is the highest! He just has to communicate it better I guess

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:04 p.m.  

  • Everyone knows about the GST cut, do you think a middle-income earner really gives a crap about the 1% tax increase on the poorest people in Canada? Didn't think so.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 p.m.  

  • Duceppe is seemingly still hitting Martin more than Harper. Mistake?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:06 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin is a farmer. He's tending to a crop of entitlement and corruption.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:06 p.m.  

  • Duceppe -A Harper B Layton B
    Martin C

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:06 p.m.  

  • Hahha.. moderator says there's going to be a minority government.

    Bloc is hopefully going to say, we don't like Harper. We won't work with them. We voted with the Liberals 83% of the time in the last Parliament.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:07 p.m.  

  • From Layton, I guess "oil companies" are the new bad word for big business in Canada along with "banks"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:09 p.m.  

  • Anyone else catch the look on Duceppe's face when Martin made the comment about Harper missing the wheat board vote, but being in town?
    Best. Look. Ever.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:10 p.m.  

  • Someone ask:

    Gosh, why can't Martin stand up straight? The shots of him in the bg while others talk are awful.

    Maybe it's because of the childhood polio.

    It's something he doesn't dwell on much. Maybe the Tories can run an ad.

    Post Polio International

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:10 p.m.  


    Will Martin say it? Will Junior says FISCAL IMBALANCE?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:11 p.m.  

  • How is Harper doing. Will his performance affect the "R I S I N G P O L L S"?????

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:11 p.m.  

  • There must either be entitlements by the camera or a nice mustache trimmer, because Junior and Layton can't keep their eyes away from the camera.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 p.m.  

  • Loved the look on Harper's face after his defence of corporate tax cuts. What a lovely, self-satisfied little smile!

    By Blogger Jeff, at 9:12 p.m.  

  • How's that for ya? Harper's the one who mentions Ed Broadbent!

    By Blogger Christian Conservative, at 9:15 p.m.  

  • On that taxes thing, the 1% at the lowest end affects every taxpayer, cause if you are in the middle or top bracket you still pay the lowest bracket first.

    If you take the time to figure out the Liberal cut, it works out to be about $100 per $10,000... the lowest bracket tops out at about $30,000 so if you make $30k or more you get a reduction of about $200. That is around $8 every 2 weeks!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:15 p.m.  


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:15 p.m.  

  • the 1 percent cut in gst is going to be felt somewhat by people on fixed incomes more than the middle class.

    By Blogger Rositta, at 9:16 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin must think this is a 3D debate, because he keeps sticking out his big fat chin like we're supposed to lean back from the Killer Chin.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:16 p.m.  

  • HAHHAH YEAH, I almost forgot that point. Harper mentions Ed, not Layton. That was HILARIOUS.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:17 p.m.  

  • Jason,

    Best. Look. Ever. was from Duceppe. It was a beautiful look of shock, as if he just heard about a great party his friends didn't invite him to. Sorry you missed it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:17 p.m.  

  • Lady Cooper,

    Good thing you only have a drink each time Paulie says fundamental(ly). He is either stopping himself from dropping the F-bomb on every question, or you would be so hammered by now, you would miss the 2nd half of the debate(not necessarily a bad thing)


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:17 p.m.  

  • FISCAL IMBALANCE, Martin panicks and runs off stage.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:19 p.m.  

  • The guy with the Bleep button seems to be napping...I've heard juridicktion a few times now.

    By Blogger Jeff, at 9:23 p.m.  

  • When the hell is Martin going to do his "I'm Canadian" speech? This is getting boring. PAUL ARE YOU STILL CANADIAN? IF YOU ARE, TELL EVERYONE.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:31 p.m.  

  • HAHAH.. is Quebec divisible? Canadian policy. Blah blah.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:32 p.m.  


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:33 p.m.  

  • So Martin's values are the same as someone in Nova Scotia, Western Canada etc? But Harper's values are different?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:34 p.m.  


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:35 p.m.  

  • Wow, am i the only one who is sick of the word "values" because i dont like libs or ndp i have no values? give me a break.

    By Blogger Rositta, at 9:36 p.m.  

  • Shit, I said I was going to have a drink every Harper-accountability and Martin-fundamentally. I've finished a pounder of beer split up into shot glasses, and the debate's not done yet.

    By Blogger Green Stone, at 9:36 p.m.  

  • Martin is looking pretty pathetic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:38 p.m.  

  • .
    "Who is this who darkens
    counsel By words without
    knowledge? Now prepare
    yourself like a man; I will
    question you, and you shall
    answer Me.

    "Where were you when I
    laid the foundations of the
    earth? Tell Me, if you
    have understanding. Who
    determined its measurements?

    Surely you know! Or who
    stretched the line upon it?
    To what were its foundations
    fastened? Or who laid its
    cornerstone, When the
    morning stars sang together,
    And all the sons of God
    shouted for joy? "Or who
    shut in the sea with doors,
    When it burst forth and
    issued from the womb;
    When I made the clouds
    its garment, And thick
    darkness its swaddling
    band; When I fixed My
    limit for it, And set bars
    and doors; When I said,
    'This far you may come,
    but no farther, And here
    your proud waves must stop!'

    "Have you commanded the
    morning since your days began,
    And caused the dawn to know
    its place, That it might take hold
    of the ends of the earth, And
    the wicked be shaken out of it?
    It takes on form like clay under
    a seal, And stands out like a
    garment. From the wicked
    their light is withheld, And
    the upraised arm is broken.

    "Have you entered the springs
    of the sea? Or have you walked
    in search of the depths? Have
    the gates of death been
    revealed to you? Or have
    you seen the doors of the
    shadow of death? Have
    you comprehended the
    breadth of the earth?

    Tell Me, if you know all this.

    "Where is the way to the
    dwelling of light? And
    darkness, where is its
    place, That you may
    take it to its territory,
    That you may know
    the paths to its home?

    Do you know it,
    because you were
    born then, Or because
    the number of your days
    is great? "Have you
    entered the treasury
    of snow, Or have you
    seen the treasury of hail,
    Which I have reserved
    for the time of trouble,
    For the day of battle
    and war? By what way
    is light diffused, Or
    the east wind scattered
    over the earth?

    "Who has divided
    a channel for the
    overflowing water,
    Or a path for the
    thunderbolt, To
    cause it to rain
    on a land where
    there is no one,
    A wilderness in
    which there is no
    man; To satisfy
    the desolate waste,
    And cause to spring
    forth the growth of
    tender grass?

    Has the rain a
    father? Or who
    has begotten the
    drops of dew?

    From whose
    womb comes
    the ice? And the
    frost of heaven,
    who gives it birth?

    The waters harden
    like stone, And the
    surface of the deep
    is frozen. "Can you
    bind the cluster of the
    Pleiades, Or loose the
    belt of Orion? Can you
    bring out Mazzaroth in
    its season? Or can you
    guide the Great Bear
    with its cubs? Do you
    know the ordinances of
    the heavens? Can you
    set their dominion over
    the earth? "Can you lift
    up your voice to the clouds,
    That an abundance of water
    may cover you? Can you
    send out lightnings, that they
    may go, And say to you,
    'Here we are!'? Who
    has put wisdom in the mind?

    Or who has given understanding
    to the heart?

    Who can number the clouds
    by wisdom? Or who can pour
    out the bottles of heaven,
    When the dust hardens in
    clumps, And the clods cling

    "Can you hunt the prey for
    the lion, Or satisfy the appetite
    of the young lions, When they
    crouch in their dens, Or lurk
    in their lairs to lie in wait?

    Who provides food for
    the raven, When its young
    ones cry to God, And
    wander about for lack
    of food?

    Best Wishes,
    Dr. Howdy

    P.S. You have a riveting web
    log and undoubtedly must have
    atypical & quiescent potential
    for your intended readership.

    By Blogger Videos by Professor Howdy, at 9:38 p.m.  

  • Lady Cooper Is that beer accompanied with Popcorn by the way???

    Gilles is doing Stephen's job for him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 p.m.  

  • Dr. Howdy? Is that Scott Reid's codename?

    By Blogger ontheleftside, at 9:40 p.m.  

  • Duceppe shouldn't be there unless all provinces are there.

    I would vote for Martin if the liberals didn't need to be turfed.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 p.m.  

  • Harper read Kinsella. No answer to majority question

    By Blogger James Curran, at 9:42 p.m.  

  • I liked that last statement from Harper on minority/majority...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:44 p.m.  

  • I liked JC. I don't like Paul Martin.

    But he's winning this debate with a super performance and passion.

    I would not mind a Harper minority.

    But he's talking like a robot. His ideas are being ripped apart for lack of consistency.

    By Blogger mezba, at 9:44 p.m.  

  • Hilarious. That west coast east coast reference was used 2 days ago in St. Catharines.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 9:45 p.m.  

  • PM: Canada is doing tre-...very very well.


    By Blogger Jeff, at 9:45 p.m.  

  • I think Harper is better 2nd half. I actually think he did okay. Martin drives me crazy...passion or not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:50 p.m.  

  • Martin is talking like a defeated man.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:53 p.m.  

  • There's another reference used 2 days ago by Dryden. Tommy Douglas, his father, least he's on script

    By Blogger James Curran, at 9:54 p.m.  

  • Did Gilles just do an impression of Porky Pig?

    By Blogger bgilliard, at 9:54 p.m.  

  • Why the camera keep zooming into Martin's head? It's scaring me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:55 p.m.  

  • I bet Harper doesn't look at his crib notes

    By Blogger James Curran, at 9:55 p.m.  

  • Harper doesn't need to look "Great", he just had to look competent... Win goes to Harper,

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:00 p.m.  

  • 1200/365 (even if no one would need daycare every day) that equals:


    Finance Minister needs to count.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:01 p.m.  

  • No one had an A... you're a sucker to believe so.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:01 p.m.  

  • Brian Tobin sure wants to have Junior's support when he runs for leadership of the Liberals. No one won this debate. It was a draw. I bet everyone says the same thing.

    Martin didn't even do his big ol' cry baby I LOVE CANADA speech.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:04 p.m.  

  • To "The Innkeeper" - your intellectual dishonesty makes me think that you may be Craig Oliver in bloggers clothing.

    Keep it up homer, someone has to vote Liberal on the 23rd, if only to make sure they get $1.75 (which is less than parents with 1 child under 6 will receive)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:04 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin decides to change the constitution during the debate. Wow, this is earth shattering. NOT. Cause it ain't gonna happen sucker.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:05 p.m.  

  • Wow, I finished a pounder of beer plus halfway through a normal small bottle, all divied up into shot glasses.

    So, a pounder was about 20 "shots" of beer, plus digging a few shots from a normal bottle. I think I missed a few "Harperccountabilities" and "Martinfundamentalies".

    By Blogger Green Stone, at 10:06 p.m.  

  • Who the hell told Martin that the notwithstanding clause was to be brought up thusly? Holy Shit!!

    By Blogger James Curran, at 10:06 p.m.  

  • Harper read Kinsella. No answer to majority question

    You could tell by his grin!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:06 p.m.  

  • Innkeeper, are you sure you were watching the same debate I was? Paul Martin and

    Layton and Duccepe B+
    Harper B
    Martin C

    By Blogger Mike, at 10:06 p.m.  

  • CBC: No clear winner from Eric Sorensen.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 p.m.  

  • Some idiots in the war room told him to do it... Last debate, I'm not opening the Constitution. Today, CONSITUTIONAL CRISIS. NEED TO STOP THE NOT WITHSTANDING ACT.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:09 p.m.  

  • Interesting bit from the Reality Check - the NDP has the 2nd largest tax cut, behind the CPC. Liberals are 3rd.

    Wow. Even I didn't know that.

    By Blogger Mike, at 10:09 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin invoked the name of his father and Tommy Douglas, saying that it is unfathomable for Canadians to imagine building a health care or child-care system on a dollar a day, and that it was for Senior and Douglas too. This is in reference to his number-crunching on the Tories' child-care plan. Funny thing about that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Douglas himself:

    "Mr. Speaker, $50 per capita gives every man, woman and child . . . security from the cradle to the grave. It takes care of their doctor bills, dental bills, hospital bills, optometric care and appliances. The only thing for which there is a deterrent fee is drugs, and that is very small. It gives them unemployment insurance, baby bonuses, and pensions when they are physically disabled. It provides benefits in the event of death, and it provides adequate pensions for widows and their children. I say that if any government, of any country, can give its people that kind of security for less than $50 per capita, then it is worth the price, and many times over." Tommy Douglas, "Medicare: The Time to Take a Stand (1961), in Katherine Fierlbeck, ed., The Development of Political Thought in Canada, (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005), 120.

    So it would seem that Mr. Douglas openly talked about not only a medicare system, but also EI, child care, pensions, and death benefits, for $50 a year. Now if I do my math, that works out to 13.7 cents per day. Of course there's been a good deal of inflation since 1960, but Martin said that it was implausible for Tommy Douglas to try and implement a plan based on $1 a day. Douglas felt he could do quite a fair amount with 13 cents a day, imagine what he would do with a full dollar!!!

    By Blogger RGM, at 10:10 p.m.  

  • I'm surprised no one here has commented on Harper saying more or less trust what he's said this campaign, not everything else he's ever said in the past.

    Isnt that the defence Judge Alito is using in the US trying to get confirmed to the Supreme Court? I think it could be used togreat effect if someone were to hilite it in an ad with some examples of what he has said on public record in the past.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 10:14 p.m.  

  • On another note, is it more than a little wierd that after Harper said he would close the loopholes in the Criminal Code to eliminate swingers' clubs, Martin said that there was a chasm between his views and those of Harper?

    That just creeped me out.

    Lastly, Martin is indeed a walking, living democratic deficit. If we define the democratic deficit as the gap between what we expect from our politicians and what we actually receive, then yes, Duceppe is bang-on in his description of Martin.

    By Blogger RGM, at 10:23 p.m.  

  • "will you tell us ... how many criminal investigations are going on in your government."

    Question asked by Harper and not answered by Martin.

    "we kept all our promises"

    Statement by Martin.

    If anyone believes him, they need to check in to a mental health facility

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:27 p.m.  

  • Harper confirms he's the creep who wants to hop up on Bush's lap!

    Layton needs to lose the hand stuff and learn how to drum up some fake tears when he talks to the camera.

    Martin is the only one dealing in issues rather than wimpering about the other guy like the rest of the pussys.

    Duceppe needs to leave Canada as soon as possible.

    I'd say anyone who thinks Harper got an A in this debate is a rightwing lapdog who'd say that no matter what!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:32 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin won the debate fair and square. He showed up Giles Duceppe (great questions by the moderate BTW - is Quebec divisible - Duceppe clearly showed inconsistencies in his views).

    Harper, his transit cut will not buy any new buses, his income tax relief is actually an increase and his child care policy is actually baby bonus, could not defend his ideas. Harper may have tried to show the Liberals as corrupt but he could not show he would be ready to take over the country.

    Paul Martin A+
    Harper C
    Layton C
    Duceppe F

    By Blogger mezba, at 10:32 p.m.  

  • 1984 was defined by Mulroney nailing Turner with "you had an option , sir"

    2006 defined by Martin proposing to revoke the NWC.

    One was homicide, the other suicide.

    Judging by media reaction, this is one "dog that ain't gonna hunt"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:33 p.m.  

  • CG by any chance do you do IP logging? I'd be intrested in knowing if the same anonymous poster is making all or most of the anti-Martin comments?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:35 p.m.  

  • Looks like everybody thinks they won.

    The Liberals had better hope no one in Quebec listened to Martin. He fumbled the "nation" question, the notwithstanding gambit is a sure loser there, he avoided the Option Canada question.

    Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country, the notwithstanding gambit is a sure loser after a few moment's thought. Sure it's nice to beat Harper over the head with SSM and it might actually work for an hour or so. But no one else is going for it, not Harper, not Duceppe, not Layton.

    As I write, I'm listening to Brian Tobin insist it's not a constitutional problem because the feds can just abolish federal NWC by a simple vote in the Commons. How long will it be before people notice that it could then be reinstated by a simple vote in the Commons?

    This is the death thrash of the Liberal Party of Canada. They will be consigned to oblivion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:37 p.m.  

  • NO Liberals? says Duffy

    By Blogger James Curran, at 10:39 p.m.  

  • Paul Martin wants to get rid of the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE...

    He wants to give All the powers to judges who are UNELECTED ..Political Patronage hacks...

    And THERE we have it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:41 p.m.  

  • Anyone that thought the Liberals won is on CRACK. The cheap stuff.

    To even assign grades is even more stupid. They all looked like idiots, just hope their campaigns and policy announcements for the past month stuck... (uh oh Junior)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:44 p.m.  

  • All the anonymous anti-Martin comments are from me. I just bash Layton and Duceppe for sport, but I hate Martin with a passsion

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:47 p.m.  

  • Breaking news: 2 Canadians understood what the not-withstanding clause is and are outraged.

    Breaking news tomorrow: Two constitution experts overheard on the subway talking about the Martin plan to block the not-withstanding clause.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:54 p.m.  

  • Bah, you're all getting your panties in a wad over it. It made a great drinking game.

    Hey, what do you think for the French debate I should use as drink material?

    By Blogger Green Stone, at 10:57 p.m.  

  • absinthe ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:00 p.m.  

  • Heh! Is it even legal in Alberta?

    Eh, I meant more of "who says what" as material. I'm going to stick with beer in shotglasses so I avoid liver failure.

    By Blogger Green Stone, at 11:04 p.m.  

  • French wine and liberal cheese

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:09 p.m.  

  • Anon; I don't do any IP tracking...not even sure how to do it.

    Just to clarify on the NWC, it looks like it's only a Bill, not a constitutional ammendment.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:23 p.m.  

  • CG, it doesn't matter someone just admitted to posting all the anonymous anti-Martin posts.

    I guess they figured if they post something enough times it becomes true.

    I think the poster feared you were able to track IPs and panicked.

    Thanks God chicken $%$T conservatives ;).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:34 p.m.  

  • CG, the house can pass a motion stating the Feds wouldn't use the NWC, but it's not binding, the Constituation takes precedence, and to remove the Federal Jurisdiction is impossible without opening the Charter Process.


    You watch tomorrow, Mr. Martin has opened up a can of worms with the NWC that is going to make his scandal headaches seem like the best sex he's ever had.

    We are going to see Church Leaders, Premiers, and every nut job on either side of the coin (including yours truly) heaping the scorn on Martin for this one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:35 p.m.  

  • Absinthe is legal in Alberta. If you live in Calgary, there is a liquor store on 12th Ave and %th Street that advertises it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:38 p.m.  

  • Um, the US doesn't seem to have a notwithstanding clause. Not sure I really understand the hyperventilating over this proposal. Not sure I understand why, other than political strategy reasons, he introduced the idea either for that matter, but I agree with CG that it's going to be the topic of debate and therefore a postive for the Liberals if it helps them get back to setting the agenda of the election.

    As for my thoughts on the debate, they're over here at Cerberus. And I tried awfully hard not to be too partisan. ;-)


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 11:43 p.m.  

  • Mr. Martin claims that parliament itself can remove the Notwithstanding Clause - if so, cannot another parliament simply put it back in?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:47 p.m.  

  • Cerb,

    The NWC is the single most unifying componenet of the Charter, without it, the Charter would not exist.

    Many Premiers, and many provinces, would not agree to the Charter without it.

    It was specifically insisted on by the NDP in Saskatchewan, and I think 5 other provinces, and was the comprimise that Trudeau gave into in order to ratify the agreement.

    To remove it completely would require 7 of 10 provinces agreeing, and that is bearing in mind that Quebec is the first province to ever use it in relation to their language laws.

    Additionally, Mr. Martin stated roughly a week or so ago that he himself would use the NWC to protect Churchs from having to perform SS marriages.

    One major, and very "I just bent over with my pant's down" comment.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:50 p.m.  

  • oooo, i'm scared. it's not like it would take sherlock holmes to figure out all the posts in quick succession are from the same person.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 p.m.  

  • Well OK I watched the performance. I am a Conservative and would be voting for Harper if he announced tomorrow he was gay and was going to be marrying his Dad.

    My ratings;

    Martin B+ Simply because he tried the hardest and put in the most effort. (Obviously he had too) Didn't hurt his cause. Personally I feel he has the credibilty of an expired credit card. Good for show but doesn't cut it.

    Harper B Showed up. Did his thing. Calm. Cool. Collected. Didn't hurt his cause and probably didn't advance it. Could of been a little more articulate at times.

    Duceppe C I thought tonight he didn't bring his A game but got in some shots. Because of Harper this time he was trying the scatter effect, a bit of a 2 front war. Not as efeective as usual.

    Layton D Just down right damn annoying little pip squeak that is given use of a microphone far too much. Trying to give Harper crap for not accomplishing any thing. Jack...Jack he is not called the Loyal Opposition leader for nothing. Yah, your little ambush party changed the spring budget by 2%. Go tell your grandmother. She will really appreciate that.
    He is just so rote, so programmed...frick...send me..I could give his answers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:08 a.m.  

  • But Martin's Bill would only be applicable to the federal government - provinces could still use the NWC.

    And, for the record, Trudeau and co were against the NWC in the first place. The Premiers forced it on him, but they could still use it, so it wouldn't really be going against the intention of the charter,

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:15 a.m.  

  • If they wanted a hail mary, they should have said they would cut the GST to 4% or something. Hahah...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:25 a.m.  

  • Watched this on CPAC and did you notice that the reporters after the debate desended down on Martin like he was road kill. Harpers best was after the debate during the interview. He just looked good, don't have the words for it.... I forget the first question exactly to Martin but something to the effect of Whipping out the NWC to stop the liberal bloodletting at the opinion polls.......that alone was worth sitting through that whole damn thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:33 a.m.  

  • CG,

    They can legislate it if they want, but no future government would be bound, as it wouldn't stand up to a constitutional challenge. Irony eh?

    Regardless, it wouldn't happen. Let say that suddenly the Quebec Government (purely for the sake of arguement, I'm not suggesting anything here) decided to pass a law that stated you couldn't speak English anymore, and you could be jailed if you did.

    What then... you can't use the notwithstanding clause, because you banned yourself from it. I suppose you could ask the Quebec Government to use it, but you'd look a little stupid wouldn't you. Additionally, they are the ones that made the law, why would they listen to you.

    The courts couldn't do anything, because the province still has the right of refusal through NWC.

    Not a very well thought out statement by the Martin team. In fact, he should fire the dude who came up with the idea.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:36 a.m.  

  • BREAKING NEWS: Conservatives say Martin supports child pornography.


    Just kidding

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 a.m.  

  • Harper was soooooo fake... HIS SMILE is the worst.... Also Martin really pulled it off! It's a + for the Libs...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:54 a.m.  

  • I ask you. What kind of man would put the nothwithstanding clause on the table, now, 14 days to the election in the middle of the election, with no discussion even with his own caucus? To play Russian roulette with the Constitution of a fragile country. To spit in the face of the premiers all those years ago who threshed it out. To spit in the face of even Pierre Trudeau who accepted this Constitution as the hard give-and-take among politicians who never lost sight of their commitment to the people of Canada and the people of their provinces. And then to talk of Pearson and Trudeau later in the debate as your personal heroes as if you were finishing their “work”. Athough, I don't share many parts of their vision for Canada, you never saw the day when you could stand even close to those men.

    I spare here some pity for those decent Liberals who now must now on the doorsteps explain a change to the Constitution that they had no part in planning. The Liberal candidates who have served their country honourably. The Liberal candidates who stood behind their leader as he defended the Constitution as if it was God’s word itself. I believe that a couple of them will be awfully tempted to quit right here and now. If they do not make that choice, they deserve to be punished for going to the wall for Paul Martin. The Canadian people do not deserve this man as their prime minister and Liberal butts in a seat could make that happen. And I say “butt” because that is no more than what your own leader sees you as. Not someone to be consulted about the Constitution of Canada.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:56 a.m.  

  • Canadians were trying Harper on for size tonight...they want to know if their first inclinations to support the CP are wise. This debate was about reassuring people. No one wins debates anymore, they are too well prepared for (binders full of all of the talking points).
    And don't get too riled about polls...they mean nothing.
    I would be very surprised in the CP didn't continue to impress people.

    By Blogger NorthBayTrapper, at 12:58 a.m.  

  • Paul Wells says

    "You don't amend the constitution of Canada because you're nine points back. A prime minister who valued the parchment of the constitution above his own hide would understand that."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:14 a.m.  

  • The optics for changing the notwithstanding clause are brilliant.

    Some hick like Ralph Klein can block the constituion, but the leader elected by the most Canadians can do diddly squat.

    That makes about as much sense as the geniuses running Junior's campaign.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:16 a.m.  

  • Careful Anon, Ralphies a good ol' boy, but he's our good ol' boy, and he's done more in his 13 years in office than Martin will ever do... hmmm whose legacy would I want to inherit... oh yeah, I'll take Ralph's.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 a.m.  

  • meh. they all lost. Seriously, they all had some good points, but none of them stood out.

    - Harper looked like he was forcing a smile the entire time and looked really uncomfortable.

    - Layton had a positive message, but was WAY too sombre (plus, he has a moustache ;-) )

    - Duceppe was okay at times.

    - Martin looked like he was totally confused when Layton was asking a question about Miniterial responsibility. The faces Martin made were worth millions! :-P

    If it weren't for the alcohol we were consuming at the time, we probably would have fallen asleep... boring....

    By Blogger daveberta, at 1:31 a.m.  

  • The more I think of Martin pulling this NWC constitional stunt out of his ass, made up in mid-flight panic, the more I believe this is the first honest to goodness triple A gaffe of the campaign by a leader of a more or less national party.

    Good night Irene. Turn out the lights.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 a.m.  

  • I just copied this from the Globe and Mail discussion column. Here's what Trudeau said about the NWC. Go figure, when it comes to the constitution, Martin fears what Trudeau didn't. Where is Tommy Douglas and his Father to straighten him out? For the second time Irene, I told you to turn out the lights.

    G M from Victoria, Canada writes:
    Here is something, I found in the parliament's archives. Mr. Trudeau, father of the Canadian Charter of Rights, said at the time of its enactment.

    "I must be honest and say that I don't fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn't caused any great scandal (sic). So I don't think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter."

    He went on to say later in the same interview: " is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts."

    I am wondering, who qualifies being the TRUE Liberal, Martin OR Trudeau !!!

    Posted Jan. 10, 2006 at 2:05 AM EST Link to Comment

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:25 a.m.  

  • "I must be honest and say that I don't fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn't caused any great scandal [sic]. So I don't think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter."

    " is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts."

    - Pierre Elliott Trudeau from the Parliamentary Archives

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:48 a.m.  

  • Harper looked uncomfortable, especially when he smiled.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:40 a.m.  

  • But Harper always looks uncomfortable. Most politicians look uncomfortable, except for the ones that are alcholics or drug users.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 a.m.  

  • "Um, the US doesn't seem to have a notwithstanding clause. Not sure I really understand the hyperventilating over this proposal."

    Lets name other things the US doesn't have... Appointed Supreme Court Justices, for one. I would be quite happy to get rid of the NWS clause in exchange for real Parliamentary scrutiny of Judges - or even Legislative (or National Assembly) scrutiny by the Provinces they are said to represent. Something that required bipartisan support - perhaps a committee confirmation where the majority was guaranteed to be from the opposition benches.

    In the absence of that, I would prefer to be governed by people I elect, rather than some Parisees appointed by a guy who is now retired, or perhaps dead. Really, Cerb - you should think before you post.

    By Blogger deaner, at 11:44 a.m.  

  • Err..."Pharisees". I'll blame Bill Gates - everyone else does.

    By Blogger deaner, at 11:50 a.m.  

  • This guy accuses Stephen Harper of being too pro American and then wants to change us into the American system by giving supremacy to the Supreme Court? The father of the Charter had different thoughts on the subject: "I must be honest and say that I don't fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn't caused any great scandal [sic]. So I don't think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter." " is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts." - Pierre Elliott Trudeau from the Parliamentary Archives. Secondly, according to section 38(1) of the constitution you need 7 provinces and 50% of the population for a constitutional amendment. We'd have another Meech here. This is the problem, is this how Martin promises to eliminate the democratic deficit, by eliminating democracy all together?!?! I've had it with these Liberals, and this takes the cake. Has anyone ever put any thought into the fact that if the notwithstanding clause is removed, Quebec is GONE! What the heck is the matter with these guys?

    They scare the shit out of me. Someone has to get this anti-democratic loon the hell out of there. GO HARPER GO!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:28 p.m.  

  • In a televised news conference today, 01/11/06, Mr. Paul Martin admitted to a Globe and Mail reporter that he would not be able to protect Canada’s public health care system if he throughout parliaments ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause

    Mr. Martin has said in the past that he would be willing to use the notwithstanding clause to protect the rights of faith communities that didn't want to perform same-sex marriages. But he now feels that politicians should no longer possess that option. I guess Mr. Martian doesn’t feel that people of faith deserve the same rights as other Canadians

    In fact Mr. Martin, by abolishing the notwithstanding clause is in effect saying that the courts, not parliament are the ultimate legislative authority in this country. This is not a man I would trust to run my country.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:34 p.m.  

  • Discover out how so what time to carry out a rearrange phone search before a cell phone search or else yet a telephone reverse phone lookup lookup search so as soon as to discover not by the side of home who is trailing to facilitate character with the intention of has been calling you this whole time ok.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:58 p.m.  

  • I enjoy this nice rearrange telephone search otherwise cellular phone search or cell phone number search spot. I can ascertain a magnificent deal of cell phone lookup matter a propos invalidate mobile phone lookup here nowadays while I check away starting home this guide here.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:23 p.m.  

  • I really like this post a weighty deal and in fact I would too resembling so after to see rider you possess various sort of facebook page with the aim of cell phone number lookup strength survive able so at what time to execute a undo telephone lookup with reference to so so once to we be capable of hit upon not in who the site owner is as well as but so once to doesn't work, most likely by a cell phone search to facilitate make out what kind of twitter legend they valor be the owner of given that well power be there a extreme thought. With last if not least be able to perpetually try away the telephone number search parts of applications available so with the intention of we be able to locate away all kinds of substance bringing up the rear folks weird numbers in our day quickly in addition to easily before that's too late.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:09 a.m.  

  • The dude is completely just, and there is no skepticism.

    By Anonymous, at 6:12 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home