Debate: It was a draw

Every leader had his moment on the English debate, but I thought the event was almost a draw, and despite some overt posturing for the limelight on the part of Jack Layton, it was a debate where we heard some new material which should help discern the issues worth voting on. I like it when the Prime Minister rises to the grandeur of the office, and lets us know his vision casting is strong, and that came out best when Mr. Martin spoke on Canada and its place in the world. Of the two hours of issues, Mr. Martin impressed me when he talked on foreign policy, and his conviction that Canada be positioned as a "peacekeeping and not an invasion force." When he argued that our military ships be laden with medical support for suffering people and that Canada serve as a country that builds fragile democracies around the globe, I was impressed. That is purpose behind military spending, while Mr. Harper revealed not a philosophy for our military but a clear will to equip one so Canadians "don't have to hitch a ride" with the United States to Afghanistan (who cares), and have new equipment. What he missed was to explain his purpose for how the military would serve with the new billions it was equipped with.

Where Mr. Martin lost points was what I'll call a dynamic of arrogance. His comment that "he could have swept it all under the rug" on the sponsorship scandal came across with a casualness that indicated he felt the Canadian public can be fooled. How often does he opt for the carpet method, I wondered, are his ethics random? I lost count of how many times Mr. Martin grew frustrated and apologized for trying to speak over the interruptions, it was as if the rowdy debating caught him off guard and he had expected more respect and space, sorry sir, the rules are equality at the debate, no assumptions of politeness.

I appreciated that social issues got exposure, with Mr. Harper declaring that child pornography was a major issue that deserved the notwithstanding clause to be invoked on a Supreme Court ruling. (Last I checked more than 20 officers were employed in Toronto alone on policing child porn, porn made in Canada, real image abuse of children.) Mr. Martin clearly explained he trusted the "democracy" of nine unelected judges in the Supreme Court to rule on social issues, whereas Mr. Harper stood firm on the free vote of Parliament to rule on marriage for gays and lesbians, and said the Charter could be over ridden to protect religious freedom to not marry gays. Given its one of the most explosive issues in the campaign, there should have been more debate over why marriage was worth protecting. Mr. Harper was soundly challenged for his policy that those who earn will get a tax break for their children, but he didn't have an answer for the poorest Canadian children, those whose parents don't have a job or need training to become employable, all that he steered to provincial politics. There's social ideas worth protecting in all the party platforms, its too bad we have to pick and choose in this treasure called democracy.