Debate: Who won't get my vote?

June 15

Clearly, the debate format of two hours for four party leaders to express their views on the issues is far too constrained. There simply isn't enough time to discuss all the important issues that face us. They talked about leadership/trust and accountability, ties to the United States and our involvement in Iraq, cities, Medicare, gay marriage and the use of the notwithstanding clause. They did not discuss a lot of important issues like terrorism, immigration, the justice system, education, church/state separation and others. Often it devolved into somewhat of a shouting match with everyone talking over the others.

Still, I took away a number of impressions from tonight's debate. First, although I don't particularly like the NDP for several reasons, I got a very favourable impression of Jack Layton. Say what you will, the man definitely has a vision and is forceful and articulate in expressing it. Layton was to me the central focus of the debate quite a large part of the time; he tends to draw your attention. He is definitely opposed to a missile defense system and a two-tier health system, and you couldn't avoid seeing that. And he was clear about where he'd get the money for the cities that he wants to give them, money for the health system and other grand NDP plans - taxes. Almost certainly an increase. He is strongly in favour of a very centralized Canada run out of Ottawa. I certainly don't agree with all his views, but he's definitely my idea of what a leader should be.

Gilles Duceppe made an important point in his opening remarks - that the Bloc will not form a coalition with the Conservatives or the Liberals. This leads to an enormous question about whether either party can form a government and if we'll need another election almost immediately. Although he certainly knew Quebec politics I found his constant interruptions rather unbearable.

Stephen Harper did not impress me, which is a disappointment because Canada could use a positive change. He was very crisply dressed and looked great on camera, and spoke well enough, but I clearly see now that I disagree with much of what he says. He had no defence against the charge by Martin that he (and Stockwell Day) had written a very apologetic article in the Wall Street Journal regarding our lack of participation in the Iraq war. To me, not getting into that fiasco may have been one of our smartest moves ever.

He wants to increase defence spending to give the military a 'variety' of capabilities - presumably to fight terrorism, to be peacemakers, and to participate in actual wars. However, this would be very expensive to implement and he doesn't say how much he'd spend. In fact he was hammered a number of times by Martin on the $50-billion "black hole" that the Liberals feel will occur if he implements his spending plans. Mr. Harper mildly said that he'd get the money by reducing the growth of government, but I find that questionable.

He was clear on some things. He wants to abolish the unelected Senate. I can agree with that. He would use the notwithstanding clause only in cases like insufficient efforts by the justice system to stop child porn (who can disagree with that?) But he also came out against gay marriage by saying that it's just Paul Martin and a 'couple of judges' that wants this. I have to disagree forcefully with this.

I wish someone had asked Mr. Harper his views of separation of church and state, because I don't like the possibility of Stockwell Day, religious nutbar that he is, being in cabinet.

On the issue of integrity and trust, which Mr. Harper hammered Mr. Martin on repeatedly, I would like to know what Mr. Harper thinks of the Alberta government paying the tab for Mr. Day's personal lawsuit. Peter MacKay, who signed a document saying he would not merge the PCs with the Alliance, would also be in cabinet; where's the integrity?

Paul Martin pounded on health care as the most important issue, which is obviously a smokescreen to avoid other important issues. The others piled on by criticizing him for starving the system of money over 10 years and now proposing to fix it over the next 10 years, a fair criticism. Martin was reasonably effective but not particularly forceful or inspiring. He did at least get in one good dig at Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper wants to give increased child tax deductions to families so they can buy their own day care. Mr. Martin pointed out that the poor would be unlikely to be able to take advantage of that, so the rich would get free day care and the poor not.

But is Mr. Harper's idea any worse than the forever postponed Liberal day-care system?

He was constantly attacked on the scandals in the government. His defense, that he was trying to get to the bottom of it, doesn't particularly hold water in light of the election call before the final answers were reached. And, as always, I was put off by his characterization of many things as being "very, very" important, or dangerous, or something.

Overall, I came to one conclusion. There is no circumstance under which I would vote for Stephen Harper. I simply don't like his views on devolving more governance and money to the provinces, which I think is code for a lack of federal standards on things like education. I don't like his ideas on closer military ties to the United States and for even tighter economic integration - it just seems to me that under Mr. Harper we'll become America's poodle and, at least under George W. Bush, that scares me. I don't like his non-answers on where he'll get money for his promises without radically cutting social programs. I want a firm separation of church and state, and I think that separation will decrease under Mr. Harper. Finally, I believe that under Mr. Harper we'll definitely wind up with a two-tier health system. So that's it, he's off my list.

I would like to draw the attention of readers that want to be well informed for this vote to two articles, by the Globe and Mail's own Bruce Little (Parties' budgets play fun with figures) and Jeffrey Simpson (A Conservative wolf in sheep's clothing). These were invaluable to me in dissecting the spending plans of the Liberals and Conservatives. As always Bruce Little's column was tight, precise, really drilled into the numbers, and elegantly written.