Debatable Intent

Michael Ignatieff's main thrust during the leaders' debate was a cut-and-paste from his usual electioneering declarations that Stephen Harper stands out as a Canadian politician with no respect for democracy. And that's kind of fascinating, coming from a man who decided the best route for him to take personally was to ascend to the leadership of the Liberal Party without a democratic vote.

But these are inconvenient details, of course.

The Prime Minister was imperturbable throughout, sticking with his message of having presided over successful minority governments, representing Canada's best interests, and bringing the country relatively unscathed out of the global recession. The democratic deficit wouldn't go away, however, as Ignatieff made scathing note of a young woman being turned away from a Conservative election rally during the campaign.

As though Stephen Harper personally ordered her removed, and not a volunteer functionary who helped set up the rally. And it was more than a little interesting to read an illuminating column written by Lorne Gunter and published in the National Post a day after the event, describing how common it is for all political parties to engage in such scrutiny of event-attendees; engaging someone to be alert to their presence, prepared to usher them away from the event.

What was so very fascinating about that revelation was that Mr. Gunter mentioned that he had himself been hired to do just that during election campaigns; set his sights on those who looked as though they might spell trouble for the candidate during the rally, identify them and invite them to leave the premises. That he was hired to do this by the Liberal Party itself, speaks volumes.

Mr. Harper's firm message that he has comported himself well in his position of Prime Minister, in the best interests of the country, and that the only reason Canada was now in the throes of an election once again, is that the opposition parties defeated him not in the best interests of the country at the core of their argument, but from sheer political opportunism reflected reality.

As for the election promises spilling forth from all the political parties, seeking to woo the electorate, whose is the most compellingly reasonable? The Liberals and the NDP whose billion-dollar-plus promises for additional health care spending, education, family support, small business, elder-care and other irresistible carrots would beggar the treasury and bury the country deeper in debt, or the Conservatives who proffer programs that would only be launched once the debt has been paid down?