125

Would you like to see a one-on-one debate between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff?


 

 
Filed under:

Would you like to see a one-on-one debate between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff?

  1. I want to see a one-on-one debate, for the sheer entertainment value.

  2. "Second verse, same as the first."

  3. "Second verse, same as the first."

  4. So is Harper now trying to say a debate between the two of them, INSTEAD of the full leaders debate? Because, yeah, that's gonna happen. But maybe he knew that, huh?

  5. So is Harper now trying to say a debate between the two of them, INSTEAD of the full leaders debate? Because, yeah, that's gonna happen. But maybe he knew that, huh?

  6. this is brilliant – thionk about it folks it drives a wedge right down between the oppostion parties – thropws them off balance and the media all focus on just Harper and Iggy ….. then when Iggy backs out as it looks like he is or I should say his people already are – as they didn't pipe up at the consortium meeting and let the clock run out – fear you can smell it … poor divided frustrated left wing nuts everywhere off balance and off message

  7. this is brilliant – thionk about it folks it drives a wedge right down between the oppostion parties – thropws them off balance and the media all focus on just Harper and Iggy ….. then when Iggy backs out as it looks like he is or I should say his people already are – as they didn't pipe up at the consortium meeting and let the clock run out – fear you can smell it … poor divided frustrated left wing nuts everywhere off balance and off message

    • It's only brilliant if Canadians would *prefer* a one on one to an all leader's debate. If they don't, then offering the former to the exclusion of the latter won't be appreciated.

      Given the public response last time to even Ms. May's exclusion, I think most people in Canada will see this for the gamemanship it is, and not be terribly impressed with Mr. Harper for it.

      I can see this playing very well for Mr. Ignatieff if he now comes out with something along the lines of, "We'll not take away the chance for Canadians to compare the Liberal party to all of the major parties running, we're not afraid of any of them. Mr. Harper evidently is, as he now suggests that the only way he'll be willing to face us one-on-one is if we make sure the others never have a chance to put forward their plans. The vision of Canada that the Liberals have is not exclusionary."

      • I think this play is a distraction. I can't see any leader benefiting from an extended exchange on the merits of a two party debate.

        The debates debate only draws the media's attention away from the recycled policies all parties have been presenting.

    • Hmm, look who backed out…

    • Seems to me Stevie turned & ran on this one! First time someone stands up and challenges, bullies run was the way my mom explained it & looks like it still holds true.

  8. It's only brilliant if Canadians would *prefer* a one on one to an all leader's debate. If they don't, then offering the former to the exclusion of the latter won't be appreciated.

    Given the public response last time to even Ms. May's exclusion, I think most people in Canada will see this for the gamemanship it is, and not be terribly impressed with Mr. Harper for it.

    I can see this playing very well for Mr. Ignatieff if he now comes out with something along the lines of, "We'll not take away the chance for Canadians to compare the Liberal party to all of the major parties running, we're not afraid of any of them. Mr. Harper evidently is, as he now suggests that the only way he'll be willing to face us one-on-one is if we make sure the others never have a chance to put forward their plans. The vision of Canada that the Liberals have is not exclusionary."

  9. Me too. But between the candidates of my riding.

  10. Me too. But between the candidates of my riding.

  11. On one hand it would make sense, there still is no reason the Bloc should be treated as a federal party. They gain votes from only one province, and frankly they have no agenda to further Canada's interests so why let them stand as an "official" federal party. The NDP we all know just do not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected in, so discounting the green party, which is odd as they do have representatives in most of Canada, unlike the Bloc, we have 2 parties that are going to matter. Either be honest and have the Conservatives and Liberals go head to head or open it up for all to partake as it should be in a democracy, and those who are not representative of the Canadian people should be sent packing.

  12. On one hand it would make sense, there still is no reason the Bloc should be treated as a federal party. They gain votes from only one province, and frankly they have no agenda to further Canada's interests so why let them stand as an "official" federal party. The NDP we all know just do not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected in, so discounting the green party, which is odd as they do have representatives in most of Canada, unlike the Bloc, we have 2 parties that are going to matter. Either be honest and have the Conservatives and Liberals go head to head or open it up for all to partake as it should be in a democracy, and those who are not representative of the Canadian people should be sent packing.

  13. There is absolutely no way that the media should control the number of debates and the format. At the very least, there should be a full debate with all legitimate parties, and a party that garners a million votes is a legitimate party. As the people obviously see the Green party as a legitimate party, the views of the media should not be relevant. As for format, the Liberals and Conservatives should debate one on one in a separate debate. Having the leaders miss another staged photo op in one of their supporter's kitchen is worth having the leaders meet face to face in a serious debate. The public deserves to know who can defend their platform and their record, not the party who can stage the best photo op!. This is an election not a marketing campaign aimed at convincing consumers to buy a brand of car.The Liberals and Conservatives are the two parties from whom a leader will be chosen. ( Remember, we don't vote for a PM. We elect MP's.) The greater the number of debates the better.These leaders must be forced to discuss the pertinrent issues without the party filter. This will force each leader to debate issues and not personalities or lineage. It must shine the bright light of public scrutiny on these individuals who want to lead our country. The parties should set it up and the media can be invited. If the "coalition" of television media don't want to show up, the local TV station can carry it. More public access to the leaders discussing relevant topics is never a bad thing. Democracy must be visible and spontaneous not a staged marketing campaign. .

    being put in place.

  14. There is absolutely no way that the media should control the number of debates and the format. At the very least, there should be a full debate with all legitimate parties, and a party that garners a million votes is a legitimate party. As the people obviously see the Green party as a legitimate party, the views of the media should not be relevant. As for format, the Liberals and Conservatives should debate one on one in a separate debate. Having the leaders miss another staged photo op in one of their supporter's kitchen is worth having the leaders meet face to face in a serious debate. The public deserves to know who can defend their platform and their record, not the party who can stage the best photo op!. This is an election not a marketing campaign aimed at convincing consumers to buy a brand of car.The Liberals and Conservatives are the two parties from whom a leader will be chosen. ( Remember, we don't vote for a PM. We elect MP's.) The greater the number of debates the better.These leaders must be forced to discuss the pertinrent issues without the party filter. This will force each leader to debate issues and not personalities or lineage. It must shine the bright light of public scrutiny on these individuals who want to lead our country. The parties should set it up and the media can be invited. If the "coalition" of television media don't want to show up, the local TV station can carry it. More public access to the leaders discussing relevant topics is never a bad thing. Democracy must be visible and spontaneous not a staged marketing campaign. .

    being put in place.

  15. Hmm, look who backed out…

  16. I think this play is a distraction. I can't see any leader benefiting from an extended exchange on the merits of a two party debate.

    The debates debate only draws the media's attention away from the recycled policies all parties have been presenting.

  17. I’d watch if you could get them into a caged wrestling ring and wearing tights. Otherwise, I’ll pass.

  18. I’d watch if you could get them into a caged wrestling ring and wearing tights. Otherwise, I’ll pass.

    • They have lots of cages left over from the G20!

  19. we are all talking about elections
    costs. who will pay for the additional debate.

  20. we are all talking about elections
    costs. who will pay for the additional debate.

  21. I would like the 3 main parties that represent Canada(Liberal, NDP & Conservatives) have a one on one debate with each other. The Bloc means nothing outside of Quebec. The Greens do not have the support nor any members in the House.

  22. It should give us a clear view of whom is best suited to run the country. The problem, in a debate, you rarely hear the truth.

  23. I would like the 3 main parties that represent Canada(Liberal, NDP & Conservatives) have a one on one debate with each other. The Bloc means nothing outside of Quebec. The Greens do not have the support nor any members in the House.

    • Right on.

    • "The Greens do not have the support nor any members in the House." This is all about the next election, not the last election. Therefore, the absence of the Green Party in the last parliament is irrelative. The Green Party must be given an equal chance to place someone in the next parliament.

      • Why?? If they don't have representation they shouldn't be there…otherwise you would have to have all parties involved Christian Heritage etc…only parties with member of parliament should be included.

        • It's referred to as 'proportional representation.

      • Why; so that none mannered Elizebeth May can wag her index finger in the face of our Prime Minister like she did last time.

        • He's The primeminister not the Pope

  24. It should give us a clear view of whom is best suited to run the country. The problem, in a debate, you rarely hear the truth.

  25. The Bloc has no right to be viewed as a Federal Party. They are
    a liability to Canada. We will continue to have multi elections
    as long as they are represented in the house.

  26. Right on.

  27. The Bloc has no right to be viewed as a Federal Party. They are
    a liability to Canada. We will continue to have multi elections
    as long as they are represented in the house.

    • Right on B. Little.

  28. "The Greens do not have the support nor any members in the House." This is all about the next election, not the last election. Therefore, the absence of the Green Party in the last parliament is irrelative. The Green Party must be given an equal chance to place someone in the next parliament.

  29. Can you ever tell this is an Eastern Canadian Magazine. Do we really have to watch a debate with Igniatieff and Harper? IF THAT IS THIR QUESTION….they are seriously out of touch with readers outside of Ontarios protected realm! Really ?? NOBODY wanted an election in most of this country! And nobody in their right mind would want an election hoping to get a Coalition government that is despised everywhere except outside of Ontario and Quebec . Why is the Bloc a legitimate party? If Ms. May could come up with Legitimate funding to turn Canada Green, we would have heard from her by now so her debate is totally redundant. Like him or not, Harper is doing a decent job. What a waste of time and money ;-(

  30. Can you ever tell this is an Eastern Canadian Magazine. Do we really have to watch a debate with Igniatieff and Harper? IF THAT IS THIR QUESTION….they are seriously out of touch with readers outside of Ontarios protected realm! Really ?? NOBODY wanted an election in most of this country! And nobody in their right mind would want an election hoping to get a Coalition government that is despised everywhere except outside of Ontario and Quebec . Why is the Bloc a legitimate party? If Ms. May could come up with Legitimate funding to turn Canada Green, we would have heard from her by now so her debate is totally redundant. Like him or not, Harper is doing a decent job. What a waste of time and money ;-(

    • If Harper was doing a good job he wouldn't have been turfed for unethical behaviour in the House.

      • Liberals have also had some unethical behaviours…. just saying

        • Liberals were NEVER charged with Contempt of Parliament or have they ever been found GUILTY of election abuse by Elections Canada either….just saying

  31. Why?? If they don't have representation they shouldn't be there…otherwise you would have to have all parties involved Christian Heritage etc…only parties with member of parliament should be included.

  32. The only debate we need is between the to guys one of whom will be the PM – forget the four or the God forbid five way speak-fest.

  33. The only debate we need is between the to guys one of whom will be the PM – forget the four or the God forbid five way speak-fest.

  34. It's referred to as 'proportional representation.

  35. Why; so that none mannered Elizebeth May can wag her index finger in the face of our Prime Minister like she did last time.

  36. I think the Liberals/Conservatives and NDP should be the only one's present in a debate as the Bloc don't represent Canada and the others such as Greens have no seats and will have less after this election due to the fact that much of their enviromental policy is for times of luxery like the last election. Now it's about economy!!

  37. I think the Liberals/Conservatives and NDP should be the only one's present in a debate as the Bloc don't represent Canada and the others such as Greens have no seats and will have less after this election due to the fact that much of their enviromental policy is for times of luxery like the last election. Now it's about economy!!

  38. I know of two votes Mr.harper has lost due to his one word "coalition "campaign. The media should let him know how tiresome he is.

  39. I know of two votes Mr.harper has lost due to his one word "coalition "campaign. The media should let him know how tiresome he is.

    • But what is the option? Minority Liberals dancing to whistles from NDP and Bloc?

      • Right on, Dani. No way should the Bloc have anything to say about federal government, in that their only purpose is to take Quebec out of Canada. .

    • No boner …. ur wrong! …. Harper has not lost, there will be no coalition in Canada, a useless 3 headed Prime Minister composed of Iggy, Jacko wacko & the bloc idiot! I don't think so , not with my vote or alot of others in Canada!

    • We should let the media know how tired we are of them!

  40. in all likelihood it would resemble question period.

  41. in all likelihood it would resemble question period.

  42. After the last one I'm not sure I will ever watch a leaders debate again. Maybe if any of the parties had a better leader I might.

  43. After the last one I'm not sure I will ever watch a leaders debate again. Maybe if any of the parties had a better leader I might.

  44. But what is the option? Minority Liberals dancing to whistles from NDP and Bloc?

  45. Right on, Dani. No way should the Bloc have anything to say about federal government, in that their only purpose is to take Quebec out of Canada. .

  46. Seems to me Stevie turned & ran on this one! First time someone stands up and challenges, bullies run was the way my mom explained it & looks like it still holds true.

  47. A note to Harper and Iggy: You don't need the broadcast consortium's permission to have a debate. Just name your time and place and do it. I'm pretty sure the TV cameras will show up. Just sayin'.

  48. A note to Harper and Iggy: You don't need the broadcast consortium's permission to have a debate. Just name your time and place and do it. I'm pretty sure the TV cameras will show up. Just sayin'.

  49. I'd love to see it happen ,as I believe it was Mr. Harper who put the offer out there not expecting to get an answer of YES, any time any place from Mr. Igniatieff, now it seems Mr. Harper is backing off.WHY?
    GUESS SOMEBODY BACKED INTO A LAWN MOWER EH!!!

  50. I'd love to see it happen ,as I believe it was Mr. Harper who put the offer out there not expecting to get an answer of YES, any time any place from Mr. Igniatieff, now it seems Mr. Harper is backing off.WHY?
    GUESS SOMEBODY BACKED INTO A LAWN MOWER EH!!!

  51. He's The primeminister not the Pope

  52. No, Iggy is not good for the country. Harper certainly is!

    Iggy and Jacko and the separatist guy, idiot, brought down the gov't. & are now wasting tax payers' dollars, millions, for an unnecessary election

  53. No, Iggy is not good for the country. Harper certainly is!

    Iggy and Jacko and the separatist guy, idiot, brought down the gov't. & are now wasting tax payers' dollars, millions, for an unnecessary election

    • Please – Don't go on about tax payer's money wasted. This election is only millions. G-20 fiasco cost 1.3 billion! Building prisons that are not necessary or needed costs billions. F-35s that do not have good recommendations by the experts cost 30 billion! Firing all the watch dogs that he didn't like – nuclear energy, RCMP, veterans, accountability etc.

  54. No boner …. ur wrong! …. Harper has not lost, there will be no coalition in Canada, a useless 3 headed Prime Minister composed of Iggy, Jacko wacko & the bloc idiot! I don't think so , not with my vote or alot of others in Canada!

  55. Please – Don't go on about tax payer's money wasted. This election is only millions. G-20 fiasco cost 1.3 billion! Building prisons that are not necessary or needed costs billions. F-35s that do not have good recommendations by the experts cost 30 billion! Firing all the watch dogs that he didn't like – nuclear energy, RCMP, veterans, accountability etc.

  56. Harper issued a challenge.
    Ignatieff called him.
    Mercer offered the dueling grounds.
    Best follow through or not be taken seriously again, eh?

  57. Harper issued a challenge.
    Ignatieff called him.
    Mercer offered the dueling grounds.
    Best follow through or not be taken seriously again, eh?

  58. Right on B. Little.

  59. Newstalk 1010 offered a forum for a one-on-one debate and the Munk Debate offered to finance it. Bring it on! (As an aside, Ignatieff's promise regarding student funding: In my day, we called OSAP (Ontario Student Assistant Fund) the Ontario Stereo Acquisition Fund. Or an extra 40 cases of beer).

  60. Newstalk 1010 offered a forum for a one-on-one debate and the Munk Debate offered to finance it. Bring it on! (As an aside, Ignatieff's promise regarding student funding: In my day, we called OSAP (Ontario Student Assistant Fund) the Ontario Stereo Acquisition Fund. Or an extra 40 cases of beer).

  61. Well Ignatieff has impressed the hell out of me. I have voted different ways in my life, but I have never been as disgusted with a government as I am with 'Harper's government'. Canada has been a dark place for 5 years, with a cloud hanging over it, because of the policies of Mr Harper. Bring on the one on one. Ignatieff will wipe the floor with Harper, and Canada needs to feel like itself again.

  62. Well Ignatieff has impressed the hell out of me. I have voted different ways in my life, but I have never been as disgusted with a government as I am with 'Harper's government'. Canada has been a dark place for 5 years, with a cloud hanging over it, because of the policies of Mr Harper. Bring on the one on one. Ignatieff will wipe the floor with Harper, and Canada needs to feel like itself again.

  63. i have no faith in the harper government..i know from harpers previous speeches he thinks of canada as a welfare state and i believe he has a secret agenda about canadas healthcare why all the money for stealth and not health.,.our tax money is used to pay for his little toys jails jets and corp tax cuts..i want a debate between the two main players in this election look them in the eye and see who really cares about canadian people…i want to know what they really have to offer us……

  64. i have no faith in the harper government..i know from harpers previous speeches he thinks of canada as a welfare state and i believe he has a secret agenda about canadas healthcare why all the money for stealth and not health.,.our tax money is used to pay for his little toys jails jets and corp tax cuts..i want a debate between the two main players in this election look them in the eye and see who really cares about canadian people…i want to know what they really have to offer us……

    • I do not see anywhere Harper thinks of Canada as a welfare state! If anything he is trying to keep it from getting that way. Boo, secret agenda!!! What Crap! Someone always drags this dead cat out when they can't think of anything intellegent to say! Health care is never going to be solved, period. Isn't it a provincial problem anyway?
      As for the jets, we are in desperate need of them, just take a look at what is going on in the world to-day. We are not immune to aggressive behavior. If you had someone in your family in the military you might sing a differant tune.

      • Vera, this is why Canada needs to wake up and stop being spoon fed by selected msm. Harper DID refer to Canada as a welfare state and that we were proud of that. He said this back in 97.

        You say "we are not immune to aggressive behaviour" we used to be. Amnesty International has declared, PUBLICLY IN A RELEASED REPORT that Canada has FAILED on a humanitarian level BECAUSE OF The HARPER Government of Canada.

        The UN didn't give Canada a seat on the Security Council for the first time in OUR history and we FAILED with Kyoto and took a beating from other countries in their media because of it.

        There have been a lot of firsts with this Crime Minister and being charged with CONTEMPT of PARLIAMENT speaks volumes of your dear leader (he's not mine).

        Please jump the Conservative ship before it sinks us all into an oily, dirty, non transparent sea of more scandal, CONtempt, and embarrassment.

        PLEASE for the love of CANADA know what and who Harper is! (And I didn't even mention the largest deficit in history that he has NO PLAN to reduce.)
        I say all this with sincerity and the hope that more people will see what's really happening to our once great nation of peacekeeping, proud, generous and kind Canadians.

        Harper is a bully and we discourage bullies in our schools, homes and workplaces. We should not allow it in our government!

  65. It would be satisfying to see one-on-one debates, but they would not improve our democratic system. In fact I think they would achieve the opposite.

    While it would be momentarily satisfying, in a schadenfreude kind of way to see M Harper the bully get his comeuppance in a contest that pitted him against a wit and an intellect that are far and away out of M Harper's league, I don't think that this kind of momentary satisfaction should be indulged.

    In my mind the short term satisfaction of seeing a bully put in his place is very much tempered by the harm that going to presidential-style one-on-one debates would inflict on our democracy. Ours is not a 'bi-partisan' system but a multi-party system. If we aspire to grace our our electoral system with the adjectives 'free' and 'fair' then we need to accept that all the registered parties must have an equal right to present their message to the electorate.

    I understand that the two parties that had the most seats in the last Parliament are, by the force of past performance *likely* to have a similar standing in the next election. There have been exceptions (think Kim Campbell), but generally it is so. On the other hand, while we have to accept that the present is influenced the past, we have to believe that it does *not* determine it. That is a fundamental basis for having elections at all, it seems to me.

    This idea came out of the discussion of the exclusion of Ms May from the leaders' debates.I think that we would be better served to insist on an inclusive debate first and then we can insist that one-on-one pairings are included as part of the format. I think this would be a healthier development for our democratic process.

  66. It would be satisfying to see one-on-one debates, but they would not improve our democratic system. In fact I think they would achieve the opposite.

    While it would be momentarily satisfying, in a schadenfreude kind of way to see M Harper the bully get his comeuppance in a contest that pitted him against a wit and an intellect that are far and away out of M Harper's league, I don't think that this kind of momentary satisfaction should be indulged.

    In my mind the short term satisfaction of seeing a bully put in his place is very much tempered by the harm that going to presidential-style one-on-one debates would inflict on our democracy. Ours is not a 'bi-partisan' system but a multi-party system. If we aspire to grace our our electoral system with the adjectives 'free' and 'fair' then we need to accept that all the registered parties must have an equal right to present their message to the electorate.

    I understand that the two parties that had the most seats in the last Parliament are, by the force of past performance *likely* to have a similar standing in the next election. There have been exceptions (think Kim Campbell), but generally it is so. On the other hand, while we have to accept that the present is influenced the past, we have to believe that it does *not* determine it. That is a fundamental basis for having elections at all, it seems to me.

    This idea came out of the discussion of the exclusion of Ms May from the leaders' debates.I think that we would be better served to insist on an inclusive debate first and then we can insist that one-on-one pairings are included as part of the format. I think this would be a healthier development for our democratic process.

  67. If Harper was doing a good job he wouldn't have been turfed for unethical behaviour in the House.

  68. Please. The opposition brought down the government because the government was found In Contempt of Parliament. Surely that should matter. If they try to do that with a minority government- what would they do (to Canada) if we foolishly gave Harper a majority!!!!!!!!

  69. How many debates do we want??? the coalition has brought down the government –how many time—-we don't need that again!!!! We need a majority– so someone has the say about who is in charge!!!

  70. How many debates do we want??? the coalition has brought down the government –how many time—-we don't need that again!!!! We need a majority– so someone has the say about who is in charge!!!

  71. We should let the media know how tired we are of them!

  72. Please!!! Let's just get it over with!! I pray for a majority in favor of Mr. Harper so that we do not have to listen to those outrageous promises, etc and what ever is spueing from the Liberals mouths these days. Harper is the only one to run this country right now. Iggy (noramis) is only a talking head.

  73. Please!!! Let's just get it over with!! I pray for a majority in favor of Mr. Harper so that we do not have to listen to those outrageous promises, etc and what ever is spueing from the Liberals mouths these days. Harper is the only one to run this country right now. Iggy (noramis) is only a talking head.

  74. I do not see anywhere Harper thinks of Canada as a welfare state! If anything he is trying to keep it from getting that way. Boo, secret agenda!!! What Crap! Someone always drags this dead cat out when they can't think of anything intellegent to say! Health care is never going to be solved, period. Isn't it a provincial problem anyway?
    As for the jets, we are in desperate need of them, just take a look at what is going on in the world to-day. We are not immune to aggressive behavior. If you had someone in your family in the military you might sing a differant tune.

  75. We do need more prisons. The people housed in our prisons are not petty thieves, they are all in there because they committed violent crimes. You have to work really hard to get into one of those prisons in Canada. We let everyone else off with a slap on the wrist for pete sake! As for the jets, if you paid attention you would be aware that it will only cost us 1 cent of every tax dollar to pay for them, if you cancel them it will still cost that much and more to get out of the contract.

  76. We do need more prisons. The people housed in our prisons are not petty thieves, they are all in there because they committed violent crimes. You have to work really hard to get into one of those prisons in Canada. We let everyone else off with a slap on the wrist for pete sake! As for the jets, if you paid attention you would be aware that it will only cost us 1 cent of every tax dollar to pay for them, if you cancel them it will still cost that much and more to get out of the contract.

  77. Reply to Mars

    Educated yourself before making a stupid comment like you just did. Like they say, "little knowledge is dangerous".

    The coalition did not bring down the government. The government was forced out because it had violated the very norms of democracy, accountability and transparency – the very things that Harper promised at election time but never delivered and instead violated those same principles himself and was found in contempt of Parliament. So if you don't understand what "contempt of Parliament" means, then I will tell you. It means Harper lied to the Partliament about how much the helicopters cost… those useless things that Harper likes, the weaponry that Republicans go for, i.e. Bush in order to support the weapon industry in the USA and Harper has no mind so he either follows the Republicans or quotes the text of an Australian PM word to word in order for Canada to join the war with the USA in Afganistan.
    So Harper lied to the whole of Canada because the MPs sitting in the Parliament were democractically elected by the people of Canada. Please read up before you make stupid comments.

  78. Reply to Mars

    Educated yourself before making a stupid comment like you just did. Like they say, "little knowledge is dangerous".

    The coalition did not bring down the government. The government was forced out because it had violated the very norms of democracy, accountability and transparency – the very things that Harper promised at election time but never delivered and instead violated those same principles himself and was found in contempt of Parliament. So if you don't understand what "contempt of Parliament" means, then I will tell you. It means Harper lied to the Partliament about how much the helicopters cost… those useless things that Harper likes, the weaponry that Republicans go for, i.e. Bush in order to support the weapon industry in the USA and Harper has no mind so he either follows the Republicans or quotes the text of an Australian PM word to word in order for Canada to join the war with the USA in Afganistan.
    So Harper lied to the whole of Canada because the MPs sitting in the Parliament were democractically elected by the people of Canada. Please read up before you make stupid comments.

  79. Some Canadians are blaming the Bloc for being a separatist party, but forget Alberta. So if you ask me, the Conservatives are a separatist party too because their votes come from Alberta. In fact, unlike Alberta, Quebec does send MPs from other parties, Conservatives, Liberals, etc; Alberta gives all its 78? seats to the Conservatives. So Alberta is in a federal election for itself, what can the province get from Harper. Alberta doesn't care for the country as a whole. It has on many times vowed to separate if it doesn't get the goodies from Harper and what does Harper do? Gives rich tax credits to the big oil companies in Alberta. And is not in favour of the environment or green energy for the same reason so as to not inconvenience the big oil companies. You rub my back and I will rub yours. There was a rich tax credit for the corporations in the last budget few weeks ago. The only difference between Alberta and Quebec is that Quebec is open about it, because of its culture whereas Alberta is not, but then when you look at the logistics of it all, Quebec has more MPs from other parties whereas Alberta has not.

  80. Some Canadians are blaming the Bloc for being a separatist party, but forget Alberta. So if you ask me, the Conservatives are a separatist party too because their votes come from Alberta. In fact, unlike Alberta, Quebec does send MPs from other parties, Conservatives, Liberals, etc; Alberta gives all its 78? seats to the Conservatives. So Alberta is in a federal election for itself, what can the province get from Harper. Alberta doesn't care for the country as a whole. It has on many times vowed to separate if it doesn't get the goodies from Harper and what does Harper do? Gives rich tax credits to the big oil companies in Alberta. And is not in favour of the environment or green energy for the same reason so as to not inconvenience the big oil companies. You rub my back and I will rub yours. There was a rich tax credit for the corporations in the last budget few weeks ago. The only difference between Alberta and Quebec is that Quebec is open about it, because of its culture whereas Alberta is not, but then when you look at the logistics of it all, Quebec has more MPs from other parties whereas Alberta has not.

    • People in Alberta vote for conservative because it works. Enough people must be voting in conservative in the province duh and that's why its conservative. You clearly must be from the east. If don't know if you know or not but a lot of money comes out of Alberta and is given to other provinces like Quebec and every other have not province in equalization payments. I wouldn't go around saying that Alberta doesn't care about the Country I'd like to see what happened if there were no transfer payments. I'll have you know that the Federal government has done nothing but alienate the west because of the fact the east has more seats in parliament than the west. Your whole point about Quebec having other Mps and not Alberta doesn't make sense. People in Alberta vote conservative where as quebec they choose Bloc. I think you need to rethink your comment. MPS are voted in by the people just remember that.

      • I agree with the previous comment 100%.

        First of all, we already HAD an election and the people spoke. Apparently, the Librocrats didn’t like the outcome,
        so now, we tax payers can have our money wasted on another election!

        I am also sick of the Liberals,NDP & Bloc hindering most all of the progress that is attempted by the Conservative gov. I watch them in the debates in the House, and they have NO interest in actually having an intelligent discussion. They behave like children who pout and stomp their feet because they’re not getting their own way. It’s immature and totally iresponsible, ESPECIALLY at this time when markets are unstable all over the world. The focus should be on real issues,not some power-hungry politicans trying to serve themselves!

  81. Liberals have also had some unethical behaviours…. just saying

  82. People in Alberta vote for conservative because it works. Enough people must be voting in conservative in the province duh and that's why its conservative. You clearly must be from the east. If don't know if you know or not but a lot of money comes out of Alberta and is given to other provinces like Quebec and every other have not province in equalization payments. I wouldn't go around saying that Alberta doesn't care about the Country I'd like to see what happened if there were no transfer payments. I'll have you know that the Federal government has done nothing but alienate the west because of the fact the east has more seats in parliament than the west. Your whole point about Quebec having other Mps and not Alberta doesn't make sense. People in Alberta vote conservative where as quebec they choose Bloc. I think you need to rethink your comment. MPS are voted in by the people just remember that.

  83. I agree with the previous comment 100%.

    First of all, we already HAD an election and the people spoke. Apparently, the Librocrats didn’t like the outcome,

    so now, we tax payers can have our money wasted on another election!

    I am also sick of the Liberals,NDP & Bloc hindering most all of the progress that is attempted by the Conservative gov. I watch them in the debates in the House, and they have NO interest in actually having an intelligent discussion. They behave like children who pout and stomp their feet because they’re not getting their own way. It’s immature and totally iresponsible, ESPECIALLY at this time when markets are unstable all over the world. The focus should be on real issues,not some power-hungry politicans trying to serve themselves!

  84. Not a very well negotiated contract then. More CPC Incompetence

  85. Politicians during an election campaign are forced to bribe as many people that might vote as possible. The ethical politicians (like Harper) have a problem with this, because their conscience won't let them outright lie. The politicians who are just desperate to get elected, will say anything, promise anything, including promising different and opposing programs in different parts of the country, knowing there is a language or indifference barrier. Iggy is such a politician. At best a one-on-one debate would just pressure Harper to do/say things he doesn't want to promise/say. He is constrained by reality.
    Question: of the 93 Red Book; how many promises did the liberals live up too???? Why would they be any different now? They had massive majorities, so no excuse.

  86. Politicians during an election campaign are forced to bribe as many people that might vote as possible. The ethical politicians (like Harper) have a problem with this, because their conscience won't let them outright lie. The politicians who are just desperate to get elected, will say anything, promise anything, including promising different and opposing programs in different parts of the country, knowing there is a language or indifference barrier. Iggy is such a politician. At best a one-on-one debate would just pressure Harper to do/say things he doesn't want to promise/say. He is constrained by reality.
    Question: of the 93 Red Book; how many promises did the liberals live up too???? Why would they be any different now? They had massive majorities, so no excuse.

    • Harper shows no sign of having ethics. He is a repeat liar.

    • Are you drinking too much alcohol or have you been asleep or just in denial. He lied about the deficit, he lied about knowing Carson's background of fraud. He lied and is still lying about the cost of his prison & crime bill and the cost of the fighter jets (according to our independent parliamentary audtior). He challenged Iggy to a debate and when Iggy agreed, he changed his mind. His Minister Bev Oda was caught lying to Parliament and he defended her because lying is okay with Stephen Harper. He lied about the Afghan prisoner scandal and will try to block the release of the report. He lied about the costs of the G20 summit and will refuse Canada's Auditor General from releasing her report. He was held in contempt of Parliament because he refuses to tell the truth about his financial estimates because he is making it all up to committ fraud in order to get elected. You are a fool to defend Harper on being honest. Try some other area that just perhaps he might have some credibility.

  87. Harper shows no sign of having ethics. He is a repeat liar.

  88. YES Democracy 101 FACISM.. ONLY LET THE BIG two in the POLL any Thought thaT THERE MIGHT BE any OTHER opinion OR option IS not allowed.

    was this poll written by harper or does he owen this rag?

  89. YES Democracy 101 FACISM.. ONLY LET THE BIG two in the POLL any Thought thaT THERE MIGHT BE any OTHER opinion OR option IS not allowed.

    was this poll written by harper or does he owen this rag?

  90. Are you drinking too much alcohol or have you been asleep or just in denial. He lied about the deficit, he lied about knowing Carson's background of fraud. He lied and is still lying about the cost of his prison & crime bill and the cost of the fighter jets (according to our independent parliamentary audtior). He challenged Iggy to a debate and when Iggy agreed, he changed his mind. His Minister Bev Oda was caught lying to Parliament and he defended her because lying is okay with Stephen Harper. He lied about the Afghan prisoner scandal and will try to block the release of the report. He lied about the costs of the G20 summit and will refuse Canada's Auditor General from releasing her report. He was held in contempt of Parliament because he refuses to tell the truth about his financial estimates because he is making it all up to committ fraud in order to get elected. You are a fool to defend Harper on being honest. Try some other area that just perhaps he might have some credibility.

  91. Are you drinking too much alcohol or have you been asleep or just in denial. He lied about the deficit, he lied about knowing Carson's background of fraud. He lied and is still lying about the cost of his prison & crime bill and the cost of the fighter jets (according to our independent parliamentary audtior). He challenged Iggy to a debate and when Iggy agreed, he changed his mind. His Minister Bev Oda was caught lying to Parliament and he defended her because lying is okay with Stephen Harper. He lied about the Afghan prisoner scandal and will try to block the release of the report. He lied about the costs of the G20 summit and will refuse Canada's Auditor General from releasing her report. He was held in contempt of Parliament because he refuses to tell the truth about his financial estimates because he is making it all up to committ fraud in order to get elected. You are a fool to defend Harper on being honest. Try some other area that just perhaps he might have some credibility.

  92. Are you drinking too much alcohol or have you been asleep or just in denial. He lied about the deficit, he lied about knowing Carson's background of fraud. He lied and is still lying about the cost of his prison & crime bill and the cost of the fighter jets (according to our independent parliamentary audtior). He challenged Iggy to a debate and when Iggy agreed, he changed his mind. His Minister Bev Oda was caught lying to Parliament and he defended her because lying is okay with Stephen Harper. He lied about the Afghan prisoner scandal and will try to block the release of the report. He lied about the costs of the G20 summit and will refuse Canada's Auditor General from releasing her report. He was held in contempt of Parliament because he refuses to tell the truth about his financial estimates because he is making it all up to committ fraud in order to get elected. You are a fool to defend Harper on being honest. Try some other area that just perhaps he might have some credibility.

  93. They have lots of cages left over from the G20!

  94. Vera, this is why Canada needs to wake up and stop being spoon fed by selected msm. Harper DID refer to Canada as a welfare state and that we were proud of that. He said this back in 97.

    You say "we are not immune to aggressive behaviour" we used to be. Amnesty International has declared, PUBLICLY IN A RELEASED REPORT that Canada has FAILED on a humanitarian level BECAUSE OF The HARPER Government of Canada.

    The UN didn't give Canada a seat on the Security Council for the first time in OUR history and we FAILED with Kyoto and took a beating from other countries in their media because of it.

    There have been a lot of firsts with this Crime Minister and being charged with CONTEMPT of PARLIAMENT speaks volumes of your dear leader (he's not mine).

    Please jump the Conservative ship before it sinks us all into an oily, dirty, non transparent sea of more scandal, CONtempt, and embarrassment.

    PLEASE for the love of CANADA know what and who Harper is! (And I didn't even mention the largest deficit in history that he has NO PLAN to reduce.)
    I say all this with sincerity and the hope that more people will see what's really happening to our once great nation of peacekeeping, proud, generous and kind Canadians.

    Harper is a bully and we discourage bullies in our schools, homes and workplaces. We should not allow it in our government!

  95. Liberals were NEVER charged with Contempt of Parliament or have they ever been found GUILTY of election abuse by Elections Canada either….just saying

  96. Harper, sedating drugs and all, would lose big time. He's a weirdo and comes off creepy as hell on TV. That's why Harper avoids the media. He's such a weirdo that he takes his Harper pills to avoid showing his true self.

  97. Harper, sedating drugs and all, would lose big time. He's a weirdo and comes off creepy as hell on TV. That's why Harper avoids the media. He's such a weirdo that he takes his Harper pills to avoid showing his true self.

Sign in to comment.