The Auditor General Report

Are there really so few issues for our leaders to bicker about that we're back to this?

I was just reading an article where Duceppe is (yet again) pushing for the release of the G8 report from the Auditor General. He starts off by saying that Stephen Harper needs to do more to have this report released, implying that Harper hasn't been trying enough (as if Harper trying harder will actually accomplish anything).

Harper has already stated that he would like to see the report tabled early. Do I believe him for a second? Nope. But it's brilliant strategy. At best the report is confirmation of the Conservatives statement that all the money has been accounted for (in regard to summit spending). At worst (and the most likely scenario) is that there will be some questionable spending that Harper will have to account for. So naturally, a wise politician would not want this sort of report released prior to Canadians going to the polls. Which is where the brilliance comes in-Harper is well aware (as are the other parties) that the report can only be tabled once Parliament resumes...after the election. So he's got nothing to lose (and makes himself look like an honest, respectable politician with nothing to hide) by going on record that he wants it released.

See, I expect those sorts of games from Harper. You have to admit, he plays the game well.

The opposition on the other hand, just looks like they're beating a dead horse. They publicly demanded Harper do more to have the report released before the debates. It was brought up again AT the debates. And now we're still bringing it up. Duceppe went so far to say that "if he doesn't make it public, we will be accusing him of contempt of democracy". Of course, if he does make it public they won't. 

Why even bring contempt into it? 

The law is clear on this one, and the Auditor General has made it very clear. Legally, she cannot table the report until Parliament resumes, no matter how nicely the parties ask. She is not willing to break the law-nor should she be expected to just because someone said 'pretty please'. 

So why is the opposition still on this? I get the tactic-they're trying to make it appear that any failure of the report to be released before the election is a failure on Harper's end. But it's not, and anyone that follows the news realizes this. And even for Canadians who don't follow it-is this report really so important that it's release or contents are going to sway who they vote for? Not likely. Most of us who have already decided we're not voting Conservative don't need a report to confirm that. And most of us who have already decided we're voting Conservative aren't going to have our mind changed by the content of one report. 

The opposition should spend more time focusing on actual issues instead of trying to create issues. We all know that the Conservatives have made a number of questionable decisions (proroguing Parliament twice, the Afghan detainee situation, Contempt, etc). Why not spend more time focusing on those-real issues. Or better yet-spend a bit more time talking about your platform and how it's going to make Canada a better Canada, how it's going to help regular Canadians, why you're the best guy for the job-and less time stamping your feet over a non issue that not many of us care about to begin with.

And by not care, I mean that most of us realize that we have to wait until Parliament resumes until we can see the report ;)

How the Debate Changed my Vote

I didn't expect the debate to have any influence on my vote. After all, I like to consider myself a fairly well informed Canadian (in reality, I'm more of a political junkie), and after pouring over the platforms I was pretty confident that come May 2 I was going to vote Liberal.

It wasn't a decision I made lightly either. I'm not exactly a cheerleader for any of the parties, but I feel it is my civic duty to cast my ballot on May 2, and it's a duty I take very seriously. Where I sit on the 'political spectrum' generally means (policy wise) I relate most to the Liberals or Conservatives. That is, if the Conservatives were true conservatives (I find it hard to call them conservative when they're running such a large deficit). And that is, if I could trust them. Which left me with the Liberals.

Unlike some of my friends, I have no problems with Ignatieff. Sure he's a scholar and isn't always the most personable guy in the world-but I want an intelligent person leading our country. Sure he spend most of his life outside of Canada-but I think that just gives him a more rounded outlook on things, a different perspective if you will.

But I had high hopes, which were crushed at last nights debate. Granted Ignatieff doesn't really have any experience at this whole debate thing, but his failure last night was more than that.

Instead of spending his time focused on why he's a positive alternative to the current party, he wasted majority of his time trying to take shots at Harper. Yes, we all know that Harper has made some mistakes. But stop talking about what everyone else is doing wrong, and focus on what you're going to do right.

He attacked Harper over things that were completely pointless in my opinion. Yes, let's waste time talking about the Auditor Generals report on the summit spending. Let's demand that Harper make it public, as if he has any control over when that report is released. I figure either Jack and Michael are intelligent enough to know that the report can't be released until Parliament resumes (in which case the only reason I can see them attacking Harper on the issue is to try and spin an issue to their advantage) or they don't know how things work, in which case what the heck are you doing at that podium?

He focused too much on democracy, and dodged questions like a champ. For instance, when asked about Canada's role on the global stage, he managed to even bring the conversation back on topic and STILL not answer it. Not a word about concrete actions the Liberals would take-just a rip into Harper for losing a seat on the UN.

By the end of the debate, I didn't feel like any party (except maybe the NDP) had made a real attempt to show what their party was actually about.

Ignatieff has to stop trying to play the same game Harper is, because quite frankly Harper is better at it. Harper is the spin master. He's mastered walking the tightrope between honesty and full out deceit. Ignatieff kept stating that the election was called due to Harper being found in contempt by the Speaker. To which Harper would reply that he was never found in contempt by the Speaker. Technically true-he was found in contempt by a committee-the Speaker can't hold the PM in contempt. If you're going to make an attack Mr. Ignatieff, you better make sure there's no wiggle room for your opponent.

If I was voting just based on the debate, I'd be voting NDP on May 2.

Unfortunately all the debate convinced me of is that all our politicians are the same. The debate was just a bunch of older, educated men acting like children, avoiding the issues, and spending more times pointing fingers than anything. I've seen better debates put on by high school kids.

Our politicians are so out of touch. They don't understand what's important to Canadians, and they don't understand how to connect with Canadians. You'd think with voter turnout as low as it is, they'd realize "Hey, maybe our current strategy needs a makeover". Doing things the exact same way you did the last election (and the one before that, and the one before that...) when it didn't work last time just seems stupid. Instead we get this partisan bickering, these attacks, this negativity...while voters shake their head in disgust, thrown their hands in the air, and say "what's the point?". And really, what is the point?

Our parties present the same ideas in different packaging. There's nothing revolutionary about any of the platforms. And there's nothing inspirational about any of the leaders. It's the same old game that we're all getting tired of.

So come May 2 I won't be voting Liberal. I'll do my civic duty and show up at the polling station, but I'll be checking "none of the above". Sure, it won't count for anything. But in good conscious I simply cannot elect any of our parties into power. When they're all playing the same game, I can barely tell who is who.

Our party system is in need of some serious help. If trends keep up, pretty soon we'll have more people choosing to sit at home on election day than we'll have showing up to cast their vote. And what kind of democracy will that be?

The 2011 Leaders Debate

I just finished watching the 2011 Leaders Debate and the first thing that popped into my head was "Hey, this opening would be fabulous with some Jeopardy music". For those of you who missed it, you can catch it here.

Kidding aside, I really did enjoy the format of the debate, but I thought it would have been a lot more effective if they had of invested in some shock collars for the leaders. Zap 'em every time they go off topic, which was pretty much the entire debate. I'm still not sure if any of the questions were actually answered.

I don't know if I was foolish to expect more from a debate among our leaders, one of which will lead our country after the election May 2. It seemed to me like a bunch of old guys, bickering and trying to get 'one up' on their opponent. The same old things were repeated over and over again-as if saying it over and over again will some how make it resonate more with Canadians, and very little policy was actually discussed. Overall, a big disappointment for me.

I thought Harper did extremely well, which came as somewhat of a surprise to me. After all, he had (in my opinion) a heck of a lot to defend in that debate. It also highlighted his genius-he finds the loopholes in everything. For instance, when asked how he can give corporate tax cuts right now, he responded that he wasn't giving any corporate tax rates right now. My instinct was the same as Layton-Mr Harper, you're a liar. Then I thought about it for a second. Parliament isn't sitting right now, and the budget hasn't been passed yet. So while these cuts have been proposed, nothing has actually been done right now. Not the most honest way of dodging the issue, but nonetheless not a lie. It's that lovely grey area that politicians love to play in.

Duceppe-well, let's just say that he definitely reminded us all that he's here for Quebec, not Canada. In the first 5 minutes of the debate he made some reference to the other 3 parties as being a 'coalition of Canada' or something along those lines, suggesting somehow that Quebec (and the Bloc) is not part of Canada. At that point, I pretty much tuned him out for the rest of the debate. Remind me again why the  Bloc is a Federal party?

Ignatieff I thought held up ok considering he's not very experienced at this sort of thing, but overall I was pretty disappointed. He spent way too much time attacking Harper and the record of the Harper government then he did selling his party, and selling himself as a good alternative to the current party in power. I'm just getting a little tired of the "you should vote for us because the other guy is just awful" routine. I was really hoping Ignatieff would knock it out of the park-in my opinion, the reason the Conservatives have held power for so long despite the uh-problems with truth, honesty, and transparency they have (was that diplomatic enough?) is because the Liberals can't get their act together. And yet again, I'm left feeling that the Liberals are just not up for the job.

Ah, and then there's Jack. You know, I might not agree with him, but you have to admit he's definitely entertaining. I was definitely impressed by his performance at the debate, and I thought he had the best closing statement. Although I was *really* disappointed by his dishonesty with the 2004 coalition letter him, Duceppe and Haper signed. Instead of just leaving the issue be, he had to try and twist the facts to make himself look good, claiming that he refused to allow Harper to become PM and withdrew his support, when in fact he signed the letter. Not at all relevant to the current debate, but nonetheless disappointing to see that he's just as much of a politician as the rest of them.

Overall-I'm still not left wanting to vote for any of them. I was so disappointed that I even checked out the Elizabeth May video (the live stream is done but I imagine it'll be uploaded here shortly), but that just reinforced my happiness with the decision to leave her out of the debate. I have huge respect for her as a woman in politics, but she doesn't excite me any more than any of the other leaders. They just all seem so...uninspiring.

Some days, starting my own party seems like my only option...whose with me?

Who else saw the debate? What were your thoughts? Who would you pick as the winner? And most importantly-did the debate have any impact on who you're going to vote for? Was it valuable for you as a viewer?