I arrived
at the debate moments before it started, lucky enough to find a seat. By 6:00
pm, many people were standing, with the organizers scrambling to find more
chairs in the building. Turnout was definitely larger than expected – but they
didn’t seem to be expecting many to start with. Chair count went from about 75
to 150, as chairs of various sorts were brought in from nearby rooms.
Pamphlets
from all the representative parties were being handed out (in addition to those
already set on the chairs), and soon I had a pile of ads with various colours
and agendas. As the moderator began to speak, I looked around to see about two
thirds of the people sitting. There were a few representatives from each
campaign; MacTV was present; other notable attendees included outgoing McMaster
Student Union President (and Artsci) Mary Koziol, President-elect Matthew
Dillon-Leitch, Presidential Candidate Alicia Ali, and MSU Exec Joe Finkle.
The
candidates were seated and introduced in alphabetical order. We had five
parties present: Dave Braden of the Liberals, Jamile Ghaddar from the Marxist-Leninist
Party, NDP candidate Nancy McBain, Green Party candidate Peter Ormond, and
David Sweet, the incumbent Conservative MP. Each were given four minutes to
introduce themselves before 80 minutes of debate, where questions alternating
from those submitted anonymously online and those asked by the audience would
be asked. Candidates had 2 minutes to answer, and an optional 1 minute rebuttal
period.
I was quite unimpressed with the opening statements. Dave Braden had a strong environmental spin to his message, but was quiet and seemed a bit tired. Two interesting notes, throughout the debate, he seemed to be writing down notes most often (by far), and was sipping out of a Timmies Cup, which I later noticed was being refilled by water periodically. Jamile Ghaddar was the only candidate that stood up when she spoke. She introduced herself as a former Mac Student fighting against the "parties of the rich". Nancy MacBain also mentioned her background as a Mac student, and she is still working at Mac today. Her message resonated with Jack Layton's, lumping the Liberals and Conservatives together and placing the NDP as the alternative. David Ormond teaches at Mohawk College, but I found him to be raising all sorts of issues, and felt that he was all over the place. David Sweet gave the same Conservative spiel I've been hearing throughout the election, i.e. "you're voting for jobs vs. coalition", "we need a strong stable national majority Conservative government", etc.
The first question, one submitted online, was on International Development, asking how the government could modernize the system to make its implementation more efficient. The first speaker shifted to the right, and Ghaddar started out, quickly stating that Canada must embrace an anti-violence stance before even thinking about international development, and turning the discussion into an anti-war, "out of Libya" speech. MacBain and Ormond brought the debate to "more jobs" and "climate change", respectively. Back on track, Sweet, he discussed how the Conservatives had been adjusting their aid contributions to more effective and direct causes. Braden talked about a "balanced approach", to involve short term and long term issues, and restore any foreign aid spending cut by the Conservatives. Only Ormond and Ghaddar took their rebuttals: Ormond quipped up a statement on the Conservative's military spending and how just 1% of that funding could significantly benefit foreign aid, rallying the support of the crowd and placing David Sweet on the defense; Ghaddar took the additional minute to further her anti-violence support.
The next question, also online because no one had stepped up to the microphone yet, was on the Health Accord renewal in 2014. Ormond promised to review costs and reduce overcosts, particularly in pharmaceuticals. He also said that he would revisit the health system with a focus on prevention over treatment, and mentioned his party's proposed tax on junk food. Sweet mentioned the Conservatives' plan to increase healthcare funding by 6% annually, and the need for a 1st ministers meeting. Both Braden and MacBain stated that this 6% was insufficient; Braden announced his party's plan to compliment the 6% increase with other progras, as well as a tax on junk food; MacBain also committed more funding. Ghaddar attacked the junk food tax, saying that most of the people who consume junk food are poor, and moved on to criticizing party promise as lies, and stating that what is really unhealthy for Canada is not junk food, but the police abuses in the G8/G20 summit. Sweet did not take a rebuttal - Ghaddar took advantage of this by stating that he did not reply to her issue of the G8/G20 summit, and Ormond added "Mr. Sweet probably isn't allowed to say anything".
With David Sweet on the defensive with four other left-leaning parties and a rather left-leaning crowd, the next question didn't help. I'm surprised the moderator allowed it, but the audience member questioned an alleged comment that Sweet had made on feminism: "I believe that feminists... are frustrated women, unable to find proper male leadership." Unfortunately, Sweet was last in the rotation, but when he did speak, he quickly denied that the quote was not his (which is true). Braden had said that the question did not deserve a response, quickly summing up the concern as a non-issue and that Canada is going forward on promoting women's rights. Ghaddar attacked Harper's cutting of First Nations Womens programs; MacBain echoed these statements and said that the Harper government had not addressed the issue of pay equity. Ormond brought up Elizabeth May being silenced from the debate, arguing that the presence of a woman would have changed the tone of the debate for the better. Other than correcting the misattributed quote, Sweet stated that the funding of women's programs were never cut - money was moved between organizations to support more effective programs, and that overall spending had not decreased. Braden, seemingly more energetic than his start, had a rebuttal, mentioning the Conservatives' unequal treatment of male and female cabinet ministers (expelling a female minister and retaining a male cabinet minister for similar charges), and accused the government of segmenting Canadians into debates of men vs. women, First Nations vs. other Canadians, etc., despite preaching a message of national unity.
The fourth question, from the internet, was on leadership skills necessary for Prime Minister. MacBain said that the most important quality was honestly, quickly adding that the Liberals or Conservatives were not to be trusted. Ormond said that listening to Canadians, being transparent, and simply trying one's best were key skills for any leader. Sweet discussed honestly, integrity, and vision for Canada. Braden stated that "honestly, integrity, and vision" are repeated endlessly, but that other parties did not live up to the message. He discussed the importance of telling the truth, and criticized Harper's mistruths about fighter jet and G8/G20 spending. Ghaddar emphasized a leader that would not support violence, and promoted an event next week against police brutality. In their rebuttal, Ormond returned to the theme of taking money from defense, and placing those billions in cities, adding in his support for parliamentary reform and proportional representation. Sweet put out a few specific numbers on jets, while Braden casts doubt by questioning the numbers thrown around in the election and that the Conservatives have not taken responsibility for their mistakes. MacBain followed with this idea, and added accountability as an important quality.
The fifth question, from the line of people now standing behind the microphone, was asking each candidate if their party, if elected, would restore funding to KAIROS and Prison funds. David Sweet quickly defended his Party's stance of cutting funding to KAIROS, stating that money was being put into more direct programs. He also said that prison farms were ineffective, and reiterated that money was never cut, just placed in different areas. Braden said that he was not too familiar with the KAIROS issue but would look into it, and placed his support behind prison farms, while changing the topic to further his support for farming and agriculture. Ghaddar said that the KAIROS issue was just another example of Harper's control over anything he disagreed with, explaining that the funding was cut due to Harper's distaste in the program's links to Palestine. She added that reform to the nation's prison system was needed. MacBain repeated the previous to candidates, saying that she would look into KAIROS more and pledged for prison system reform, stating that prison farms are effective. Ormond accused the Conservatives of muting voices of organizations like KAIROS, and furthering this claim by mentioning the Conservative's desire to cut party subsidies (also bringing back that May was muted in the debates) He then praised KAIROS for their involvement in climate change conferences. In their rebuttals, Ghaddar discussed the blocking of voices in the G8/G20 summit, Ormond restated that the Conservations were not hearing voices, and urged everyone to familiarize themselves with the Green Party platform. Sweet said that any resubmission by KAIROS would be judged and compared fairly for effectiveness.
Agriculture was the focus of the sixth question, detailing whether foreign food standards should be raised to equal local food standards, and how candidates would support the local farming industry. Ghaddar said that the government could not be counted on to protect the concerns of the people. MacBain voiced her concern of family farms going away, and said that she would encourage young people to become farmers, and support local food, also raising her concern of the Listeriosis crisis of last year. Ormond equated local food with healthy food, and talked about the struggle between local farmers and mega-corporations, accusing current and former governments of giving large corporations tax breaks. Sweet, looking at the question asker instead of most candidates' glancing at the audience, told her that he had and still supports Hamilton's farming industry, contributing about 1 billion in GDP. Braden outlined the Liberal's National Food Policy, where safety and food inspection were priorities, and the commitment to include 30% more Canadian-grown food in supermarkets. In rebuttal, Ormond discussed the importance of educated buyers, and his concern over the labelling of GM foods. Sweet pledged the need to open more markets and discussed the recent plans to open the beef and pork markets to China. Braden used his rebuttal to provide some background about himself, as he owns a 38 year old organic cow farm, and describes the changing landscape for agriculture.
The last question, from a first year student, was on the candidate's support on increasing the number of positions in medical school, and how the government would keep doctors in Canada. Ormond discussed the issue of getting more foreign students in our medical school system, as many qualified individuals arrive and lose all their previous credentials. Sweet reiterated his support for more discussions with the provincial ministers. Braden also stated that the country needed to be more forthcoming to immigrants and to reduce debts of doctors who work in rural areas. Ghaddar blasted the Conservatives for their supposed support for private healthcare that would reduce the number of jobs available for doctors. MacBain criticized Ghaddar for being negative, and described herself as optimistic, detailing the NDP plan to help doctors immediately and reduce debt of doctors who work in places where they are needed. Ghaddar responded saying that sehe was not bleak, just skeptical. MacBain said that her commitments were fully costed, while Ormond slipped in that he would reduce student debt by 50%, and advertised an event that would discuss the effects of water fluoridation.
The three minute closing statements were typical, reflecting the closing comments in the federal leaders' debate. Braden expressed the need to be positive and provide Canadians with immediate benefits, detailing the Liberal Family Pack. Ghaddar said that it was difficult to talk about real issues during a debate, since all parties were promising lies, and she discussed the need to stop the rich parties from controlling the nation. MacBain criticized both Harper and Ignatieff, and set the vote as a choice between practical results and partisan games. Ormond mentions how he has canvassed for the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP, and accuses the party system that produces similar results. He adds a spiel against nuclear power, citing the Fukushima crisis, and tells the audience to vote for change. Sweet ends off just like Harper, providing a long Harper quote on why "Canada is the best in the world" and the need for a stable Conservative majority.
The first question, one submitted online, was on International Development, asking how the government could modernize the system to make its implementation more efficient. The first speaker shifted to the right, and Ghaddar started out, quickly stating that Canada must embrace an anti-violence stance before even thinking about international development, and turning the discussion into an anti-war, "out of Libya" speech. MacBain and Ormond brought the debate to "more jobs" and "climate change", respectively. Back on track, Sweet, he discussed how the Conservatives had been adjusting their aid contributions to more effective and direct causes. Braden talked about a "balanced approach", to involve short term and long term issues, and restore any foreign aid spending cut by the Conservatives. Only Ormond and Ghaddar took their rebuttals: Ormond quipped up a statement on the Conservative's military spending and how just 1% of that funding could significantly benefit foreign aid, rallying the support of the crowd and placing David Sweet on the defense; Ghaddar took the additional minute to further her anti-violence support.
The next question, also online because no one had stepped up to the microphone yet, was on the Health Accord renewal in 2014. Ormond promised to review costs and reduce overcosts, particularly in pharmaceuticals. He also said that he would revisit the health system with a focus on prevention over treatment, and mentioned his party's proposed tax on junk food. Sweet mentioned the Conservatives' plan to increase healthcare funding by 6% annually, and the need for a 1st ministers meeting. Both Braden and MacBain stated that this 6% was insufficient; Braden announced his party's plan to compliment the 6% increase with other progras, as well as a tax on junk food; MacBain also committed more funding. Ghaddar attacked the junk food tax, saying that most of the people who consume junk food are poor, and moved on to criticizing party promise as lies, and stating that what is really unhealthy for Canada is not junk food, but the police abuses in the G8/G20 summit. Sweet did not take a rebuttal - Ghaddar took advantage of this by stating that he did not reply to her issue of the G8/G20 summit, and Ormond added "Mr. Sweet probably isn't allowed to say anything".
With David Sweet on the defensive with four other left-leaning parties and a rather left-leaning crowd, the next question didn't help. I'm surprised the moderator allowed it, but the audience member questioned an alleged comment that Sweet had made on feminism: "I believe that feminists... are frustrated women, unable to find proper male leadership." Unfortunately, Sweet was last in the rotation, but when he did speak, he quickly denied that the quote was not his (which is true). Braden had said that the question did not deserve a response, quickly summing up the concern as a non-issue and that Canada is going forward on promoting women's rights. Ghaddar attacked Harper's cutting of First Nations Womens programs; MacBain echoed these statements and said that the Harper government had not addressed the issue of pay equity. Ormond brought up Elizabeth May being silenced from the debate, arguing that the presence of a woman would have changed the tone of the debate for the better. Other than correcting the misattributed quote, Sweet stated that the funding of women's programs were never cut - money was moved between organizations to support more effective programs, and that overall spending had not decreased. Braden, seemingly more energetic than his start, had a rebuttal, mentioning the Conservatives' unequal treatment of male and female cabinet ministers (expelling a female minister and retaining a male cabinet minister for similar charges), and accused the government of segmenting Canadians into debates of men vs. women, First Nations vs. other Canadians, etc., despite preaching a message of national unity.
The fourth question, from the internet, was on leadership skills necessary for Prime Minister. MacBain said that the most important quality was honestly, quickly adding that the Liberals or Conservatives were not to be trusted. Ormond said that listening to Canadians, being transparent, and simply trying one's best were key skills for any leader. Sweet discussed honestly, integrity, and vision for Canada. Braden stated that "honestly, integrity, and vision" are repeated endlessly, but that other parties did not live up to the message. He discussed the importance of telling the truth, and criticized Harper's mistruths about fighter jet and G8/G20 spending. Ghaddar emphasized a leader that would not support violence, and promoted an event next week against police brutality. In their rebuttal, Ormond returned to the theme of taking money from defense, and placing those billions in cities, adding in his support for parliamentary reform and proportional representation. Sweet put out a few specific numbers on jets, while Braden casts doubt by questioning the numbers thrown around in the election and that the Conservatives have not taken responsibility for their mistakes. MacBain followed with this idea, and added accountability as an important quality.
The fifth question, from the line of people now standing behind the microphone, was asking each candidate if their party, if elected, would restore funding to KAIROS and Prison funds. David Sweet quickly defended his Party's stance of cutting funding to KAIROS, stating that money was being put into more direct programs. He also said that prison farms were ineffective, and reiterated that money was never cut, just placed in different areas. Braden said that he was not too familiar with the KAIROS issue but would look into it, and placed his support behind prison farms, while changing the topic to further his support for farming and agriculture. Ghaddar said that the KAIROS issue was just another example of Harper's control over anything he disagreed with, explaining that the funding was cut due to Harper's distaste in the program's links to Palestine. She added that reform to the nation's prison system was needed. MacBain repeated the previous to candidates, saying that she would look into KAIROS more and pledged for prison system reform, stating that prison farms are effective. Ormond accused the Conservatives of muting voices of organizations like KAIROS, and furthering this claim by mentioning the Conservative's desire to cut party subsidies (also bringing back that May was muted in the debates) He then praised KAIROS for their involvement in climate change conferences. In their rebuttals, Ghaddar discussed the blocking of voices in the G8/G20 summit, Ormond restated that the Conservations were not hearing voices, and urged everyone to familiarize themselves with the Green Party platform. Sweet said that any resubmission by KAIROS would be judged and compared fairly for effectiveness.
Agriculture was the focus of the sixth question, detailing whether foreign food standards should be raised to equal local food standards, and how candidates would support the local farming industry. Ghaddar said that the government could not be counted on to protect the concerns of the people. MacBain voiced her concern of family farms going away, and said that she would encourage young people to become farmers, and support local food, also raising her concern of the Listeriosis crisis of last year. Ormond equated local food with healthy food, and talked about the struggle between local farmers and mega-corporations, accusing current and former governments of giving large corporations tax breaks. Sweet, looking at the question asker instead of most candidates' glancing at the audience, told her that he had and still supports Hamilton's farming industry, contributing about 1 billion in GDP. Braden outlined the Liberal's National Food Policy, where safety and food inspection were priorities, and the commitment to include 30% more Canadian-grown food in supermarkets. In rebuttal, Ormond discussed the importance of educated buyers, and his concern over the labelling of GM foods. Sweet pledged the need to open more markets and discussed the recent plans to open the beef and pork markets to China. Braden used his rebuttal to provide some background about himself, as he owns a 38 year old organic cow farm, and describes the changing landscape for agriculture.
The last question, from a first year student, was on the candidate's support on increasing the number of positions in medical school, and how the government would keep doctors in Canada. Ormond discussed the issue of getting more foreign students in our medical school system, as many qualified individuals arrive and lose all their previous credentials. Sweet reiterated his support for more discussions with the provincial ministers. Braden also stated that the country needed to be more forthcoming to immigrants and to reduce debts of doctors who work in rural areas. Ghaddar blasted the Conservatives for their supposed support for private healthcare that would reduce the number of jobs available for doctors. MacBain criticized Ghaddar for being negative, and described herself as optimistic, detailing the NDP plan to help doctors immediately and reduce debt of doctors who work in places where they are needed. Ghaddar responded saying that sehe was not bleak, just skeptical. MacBain said that her commitments were fully costed, while Ormond slipped in that he would reduce student debt by 50%, and advertised an event that would discuss the effects of water fluoridation.
The three minute closing statements were typical, reflecting the closing comments in the federal leaders' debate. Braden expressed the need to be positive and provide Canadians with immediate benefits, detailing the Liberal Family Pack. Ghaddar said that it was difficult to talk about real issues during a debate, since all parties were promising lies, and she discussed the need to stop the rich parties from controlling the nation. MacBain criticized both Harper and Ignatieff, and set the vote as a choice between practical results and partisan games. Ormond mentions how he has canvassed for the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP, and accuses the party system that produces similar results. He adds a spiel against nuclear power, citing the Fukushima crisis, and tells the audience to vote for change. Sweet ends off just like Harper, providing a long Harper quote on why "Canada is the best in the world" and the need for a stable Conservative majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment