Hello!

To locate audio of any particular exchange, use our candidate response timecodes. The debate is also available in MP3 audio format. If you can help clarify any of these remarks please leave a comment under our corresponding blog entry.

Host:
Michael is the external member of the University of Calgary Facility of Law Mooting.

Committee and coached the University of Calgary Corporate Securities Law Moots Team from 1999 to 2007. And by the way, I’ve had it on good authority that Michael’s team was invited to go down to Toronto to Osgood Hall and debate with the learned people in the center of the universe.

[laughter]

I can say truly, Michael’s team whopped ‘em!

Michael is a member of the Board of Directors of Student Legal Assistance at the University of Calgary Facility of Law and has been a member of the Board of Calgary John Howard Society since 1999, also being the Chair from 2001 to 2008.

Michael has appeared before all levels of court in Alberta as well as Federal Court of Canada.

I give you Michael Waite as our moderator.

[applause]

Moderator:
OK, thanks very much. We’re out of time.

[laughter]

That’s one of the good things about having a family member do your introduction — they don’t edit the profile that you send them at the last minute.

So, the format of the forum has been set out to you. We will not be taking questions from the floor, I want to make that clear. But there will be an opportunity to ask your questions of the candidates later on in a more informal setting with some refreshments.

I would ask that the forum be conducted with respect, that you refrain from interrupting the candidates during their time that they have been all given to speak. I will be monitoring the time frames for each of the candidates. They will be allowed two minutes to provide an introductory statement and introduce their candidacy.

We will then go on to questions in areas that…The general areas have been provided to the candidates but the questions have not been provided to the candidates.

We will be….I have a draft of the questions. The questions will be relating to the economy, the environment, health care, education, criminal justice, and the military mission in Afghanistan. So, those are the general areas.

What I will do at the beginning of each question is I’ll read the question out and before the second candidate answers the question I’ll read it out again. After that you’re on your own to remember what the question was.

The candidates will all have a copy of the question in front of them for each round of questioning.They will be provided two minutes to answer the question and then there will be two minutes for each candidate at the end to provide a concluding address.

So, without further ado I’d like to briefly introduce the candidates. I’m certainly not going to do anything but say their names and their parties.

Jim Prentis — [Progressive] Conservative Party.

Doug James — Liberal Party.

John Chan — NDP.

Eric Donovan — Green.

Jason McNeil — Libertarian Party of Canada.

Peggy Askin — Marxist / Leninist Party of Canada.

All candidates are given equal opportunity at this forum to answer the questions that have been drafted. We have drawn lots as far as who goes first with respect to the order of introductions and on all of the questions. The candidates have been seated in reverse order of how they are going to go as far as the questions go.

And the first indvidual to introduce himself and his candidacy is Jason McNeil.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
My friends, my name is Jason McNeil. I’m an entrepreneur I [inaudible] a small software company based in Calgary. When this election was called I took….Excuse me, I took leave from my position at the Canadian Forces Communication Reserves so that I could have the opportunity to represent you.

I’m committed to an independent Canada but the real threat to this country does not come from people 6, 000 miles away in the sands of the Middle East. It comes from politicians in Ottawa who, no matter how well-intentioned they are, continually chip away at our freedoms and liberties.

Every election we are asked to make the choice between the lesser of two evils but there is no fundamental difference between the the major political parties in Canada. They grow the size of the government — it’s just spending from one special interest group to another to another.

We need serious change. We need sound money. We need to enable the free markets to work. We need the freedom to make choices for ourselves and our families. We need to be able to keep the money we work so hard for.

The government does not want to help us to keep our money. Over the last few years we’ve been hit hard by inflation. Today Canadian families are struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. Since last year the average family is paying 28% more for basic groceries. The price of gas is at a steady rise but there are no new of refineries being built to satisfy growing demand. Our public health care system is in an unacceptable condition. We have people dying in waiting rooms of the hospitals across the country and no one is doing anything to make the lines any shorter. We know that we’re running entitlement programs that we cannot afford. No one who is my age believes that there will be anything left in the Canadian Pension Plan for them when they retire.

None of the other parties are offering you real change. They’re the ones who helped move us into the area we are in today. We need that change and that is what I offer you. Thank you.

[applause]

Moderator:
Thank you very much Jason.

The next candidate is Eric Donovan.

Eric Donovan (Green):
Hi. I’m Eric Donovan. I’m an associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary.

Over the last two decades I have learned a few things in my personal life and at work, and one of the most important things has been that it is invariably true that long-term success depends on facing what one would describe as "the tough problems, " now. If our country is winning at something like the Olympics, it’s because of investments and infrastructure and training programs and education 15 years ago, far more than it’s about something that we would do this year.

The same thing is true with the big issues that face us as a society now. We have to focus on addressing the hard questions that we face now for the long-term good of Canada and Canadians. We all know this is what winners and what leaders do. We know it’s hard and often involves some sacrifice now — less freedom to move, less capital, less affluence, now. But, we know it’s the right thing to do. It doesn’t make it easy to do, but it’s the right thing to do.

On the one hand, with respect for my colleagues, I will say, on the one hand we have the Conservatives who are pushing careful stewardship of the economy in uncertain times but nothing really dramatic to address some of the dramatic challenges that we face.

On the other hand we have the Liberals who are pushing for dramatic change but have a track record which indicates they will not implement strategies to address those dramatic changes if elected.

The Green Party of Canada represents a large number of Canadians — a surprisingly large number of Canadians — a growing number of Canadians who are getting nervous about the fact that we are not doing the things that we need to do so that Canada can grow as a leading nation in the world.

Voting for the Green Party of Canada, voting for me, now, will send a message to the Conservatives and the Liberals that those two mainstream parties are not.

Doing enough about the hard problems that we face now.

My message is — because I don’t think I can win this election — my message is that I’m the strategic… [inaudible] …if something weird happened and I won, I would happily go and represent this body.

[laughter]

Don’t get me wrong about that; I would love to. I love Ottawa, just to be clear. But I just don’t see that happening.

I will tell you that my one overriding concern coming into this, is that I believe that my generation is the first generation since WWII that is going to be more affluent than our children. I think that’s a significant problem, and I do not think that we are doing enough about it.

I am here because of my four-year-old son. That’s why I’m running. Thank you.

[applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate is John Chan.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
Thank you. I’m pleased to be here tonight with you. For those of you that know me, I think you will see that I don’t feel like a politician from any inclination. I’m actually [indecipherable 01:06]. I also served in the military as a lieutenant. I also spent some years in human rights work and international development of policies in Africa, South America and Asia.

The reason that compelled me to put my name forward to run in this election was because in the last 20 years our country has basically been co-opted by the most powerful corporations. CEOs and lobbyists have more say in public policy than people like me and you as citizens.

And also these corporations have imposed anti-community policies without consultation. As we see this enormous concentration of media ownership, we are hearing one single voice across Canada. Through print media and television and radio we can point to the highest concentration of media ownership in all the rest of the world, in all the… [Indecipherable 02:11]

And what they are not telling you, and what I believe is coming out here, is that community people are people are being misled on a daily basis. What they are not pointing out to you is that since NAFTA, we have a huge economic polarization, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are staying poor, and the middle class are simply working harder and harder just to get by.

That’s certainly the case in Calgary. And when we see the country, we really only see the country of Canada has fallen to seventh, when it comes to highest poverty rate in Canada among more than 30 countries. At the same time we have this dramatic ideology that we have to have higher productivity, but higher productivity requires lower taxes and less government.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact all the data that we see and statistics from Canada show that many other countries with higher taxes than Canada actually have higher productivity. And the also insist, the Canadians, that reducing government activity will lead to greater civilian volunteer participation. And there’s absolutely no data to support that.

Moderator:
Please wrap up, Mr. Chan.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
OK. And so I’m saying we have to have a party that puts the interests of the people first.

[applause]

Moderator:
Thank you. And just if I could interrupt for a moment, there’s something I meant to mention at the beginning. If everyone could please turn off their cell phones and Blackberrys in the audience. I know you’re important, but let’s take a couple hours off.

The next candidate is Peggy Askin.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Good evening, and thank you very much for listening to us here tonight. As a political person, as president of the Calgary District Labor Council and a retired Telus worker, I’m committed to social change. And I’m participating in this election in order to play a role in sorting out the issue of how we as Canadians can empower ourselves so we can ensure the well-being of all Canadians, not have a city where we have 4,000 people who are homeless and a horrific lack of social housing.

I’m also participating in this election to raise the issue of the lack of democratic content in the current political process. And to discuss with you and other Calgarians, proposals for renewing this process so that Canadians can fulfill our desire to become decision makers and not just be reduced to spectators who are mobilized as a vote bank during elections.

The problem of lack of participation in politics, low voter turnout in federal or provincial politics is not, in my opinion, an issue of apathy. The issue of massive numbers of citizens withdrawing from a political process is very serious. And I think, as Canadians, we need to have very serious discussion about this issue.

I think Canadians no longer believe that they actually have a voice and can make a difference, that their vote will make a difference that they’re left out of the political process. It’s not a matter of Canadians not being concerned. They are very concerned about the problems that they’re facing and that are facing our society.

I think that the demand for change in Canada is very deep and very serious. I think it’s constantly illustrated every day. I think it’s illustrated by the way that we all try to organize for change, for our rights, the way that workers try to defend their interest.

The most recent example that I can think of is the seniors that went out to protest when Steven Harper came to town, because they have a three dollar and 52 cent, a dollar a month increase to the old age social security pension, which is utterly shameful. The prime minister wouldn’t meet with them and they were treated with distain.

I spoke to some of them afterwards and one of the seniors told me that for the first time in his entire life he’s not going to vote for one of the major political parties and that he’s very concerned about which way to turn in Canada and what we can do so that our concerns and interests are met.

Moderator:
Please wrap up.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
OK, I will wrap up. I think that the MLPC presents a real alternative to voting every four years for political parties that do not represent the interests of the Canadian people. Our program is to empower Canadians and we say no election without selection, fund the process not the parties. Calling on people to become worker politicians and for us, as Canadians, to build renewal committees so we can build a new political process in this country where we actually will become decision makers.

[applause]

Moderator:
Thank you. The next candidate is Doug James.

Doug James (Liberal):
Thanks. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Am I at enough volume? I’ve been warned that I [inaudible], but I am sitting beside water.

Thanks for coming this evening. I’ve been living in [inaudible] since 1971. The last 39 years I’ve been working [inaudible] engineering project manager for the oil and gas industry.

[cross talk]

[laughter]

[inaudible] When I was growing up as a kid it military bases and they tended to pull you into the cold war back then. I lost a grandfather [inaudible].

There are three items that I’d like speak to tonight, the fiscal responsibility of the federal government, food safety and environment. The current government in America today 13 million years of surplus spending [inaudible] pay down on government debt [inaudible] two short years to…[inaudible]

Liberal government will reduce to the balanced budgets and set aside a three billion dollar contingency, as we did previously since such that no spending program authorized to plan [inaudible].

On food safety the current government has ordered cleanliness standards for fruits and vegetables down to the lowest common denominator, the Mexican standard. They made cuts, basically in secret, [inaudible] to items such as meat inspection. And now we have [inaudible].

Two years ago melamine poisoning killed and poisoned a lot of our pets and this occurred in the current government’s regime and now it’s affecting the health of our children. A liberal government would strengthen, not weaken, the food safety net and the inspection process.

On the environment, the conservative party has weakened our environmental protections and has resisted acknowledging climate change, resisted making changes to address this.

Now the subsequent question that’s real and there are two activities that are causing this. Its liberal proposals simplicity itself. Tax behavior is not set in blood and we don’t want, specifically the emission of greenhouse gasses and return all the money collected back to the people of Canada to help them control the resulting change.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, I appreciate it.

[applause]


Moderator:
Representative Jim Prentice.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you very much Michael. Ladies and gentlemen, a particularly warm welcome to you all here tonight. Sometimes these forums are warmer at the end than at the beginning, this one might be a bit different. But thank you firstly to my fellow candidates for taking part in the democratic process, fine people all of them, representatives of our community. And thank you to all of you for taking the time to come and participate in this evening’s forum, and I will have a chance to discuss the issues and also to speak afterwards.

I come here with my wife Karen. Our involvement in politics, as you remember parliament, is something we do together. We have been married for 25 years, and we have lived in this riding for pretty close to the last 24 years. We made a choice to raise our family in the inner city, in Briar Hill and Crescent Heights, and the importance of that we’ll come back to in just a moment. I’ve been privileged to be your member of Parliament since June of 2004. It’s been a great honor to serve in the House of Commons, and there’s been nothing more rewarding in my life than to stand up on your behalf and speak on the floor of the House of Commons, carrying the voices of Calgary Center North to our national system of government.

The terms of the issues in this election, if I might just frame the issue as I see it. I’ve been door-knocking as the election has started, I’ve probably knocked on several thousand doors at this point. But I am also quite passionate about door-knocking between elections, I don’t know how many other politicians do that. But on Saturdays, when I am back from Ottawa, and I’m in the riding, I knock on doors to find out what you think. So the election issues that I am speaking now about are really the issues that you are telling me, at the doorstep, are important to us here in Calgary. The first issue is the economic uncertainty that we are in, and leadership, and thirdly, criminal justice. Now in terms of the current economic circumstances, we all see what is happening south of the border, and at every doorstep I go to I hear concern about the state of the economy, concern about what lies ahead.

And I think this frames the major issue in the election which is the issue of strong leadership; principled determined leadership by a conservative government that has really given Canada the strongest public finances in any industrial democracy in the world. With the lowest unemployment rates in 33 years, debt levels that no other industrial democracy has, lower debt levels, lower personal income taxes, consumer taxes, corporate income taxes, all of this is indicative of sound stewardship and it puts us in a position to weather the coming storm. What we don’t need in this country is a radical departure, the sort of carbon tax, that the liberals are proposing that would essentially be a tax on everything for Canadians, we don’t need that ladies and gentlemen.

[applause]

Moderator:
Thank you to all the candidates for their introductions. I’d like now to move directly to the first topic and first question of the evening. The topic is the economy, and I will read the question, as I said earlier, first and second time, then I will trust you to remember it for the remaining responses. And the first candidate to respond will be Eric Donovan.

We’ve all seen the ongoing meltdown in the financial markets of the U.S., Canada, and around the world. Many Canadians have seen their retirement savings drop by as much as 15 to 20 percent in the last few months. As a result of this crisis; the weakness in the housing market across the country, the weakness in the Canadian manufacturing sector, and the reduction of the price of oil among other factors, it is thought by many economists that we could be entering a period of recession. Do you believe that increased regulation of the financial markets is necessary in Canada? For example, measures such as a ban on short selling? What other immediate steps can and should be taken by the federal government to attempt to bolster a weakening economy, Mr. Donovan?

Eric Donovan (Green):
Thank you. Obviously, the financial meltdown in the U.S. has been a front and center issue in the news media in the last several weeks, in the last week at least. I think we are seeing the consequence of decades, truly decades, of mismanagement of the financial affairs of the nation south of the border. And one of the things that strikes me is that there is, generally speaking, a fear of regulation in the financial sector; regulation of industry; with the idea being that regulation will constrain movement, constrain freedom, and constrain growth. And I cannot back this up in two minutes and, quite frankly, I couldn’t back this up in two hours if I had the time to speak about it with you. But, on a gut level, I believe the problems that the U.S. are facing are a consequence of Reaganomics, are a consequence of trickle-down theory supply in economics, and are a consequence of increasing reward for wild risk which is not backed up by assets ultimately.

I believe that now, more than ever, is a time when regulation of financial markets is absolutely critical. I’m a physicist, I’m not an economist, I can’t tell you exactly what those regulations would or ought to be. But the fear of regulation, and what it means for the economy, is something that absolutely does not resonate with me personally, and I think shouldn’t resonate with us as a nation. I believe that what’s happening south of the border should make us afraid of a lack of firm regulation in the economy. Thank you.

Moderator:
The next candidate is John Chan. Sorry, I’ll read the question again, for the benefit of the crowd.

We’ve all seen the ongoing meltdown in the financial markets of the U.S., Canada, and around the world. Many Canadians have seen their retirement savings drop by as much as 15 to 20 percent in the last few months. As a result of this crisis; weakness in the housing market across the country, weakness in the Canadian manufacturing sector, and the reduction of the price of oil among other factors, it is thought by many economists that we could be entering into a period of recession. Do you believe that increased regulation of the financial markets is necessary in Canada? For example, measures such as a ban on short selling? What other immediate steps can and should be taken by the federal government to attempt to bolster the weakening economy? Mr. Chan?

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
First of all, we have to register that the recent meltdown in the U.S. is a testimony of unregulated financial activities, and this is the policy that will go through the vote of the politicians, of administrative and from the markets for the past two decades. And the direct result of that is economic polarization. We have seen Canada, enormous economic growth with the GDP, we are one of the top of OECD countries. So those who don’t know what that is, it actually is an organization of economic cooperation and democracy and both of the most advanced industrialized countries be home to that. In those measures, we rank first or fourth in terms of well-being and welfare of the community of OECD countries.

The direct result of that is because we have CEO’s basically dominating the whole agenda on the economic table in Canada, and the politician from the liberal and conservative parties both have been inured. For example, in the last three years alone, the Conservative government has squandered away $50 billion to the wealthy corporations, and this is a bank? Most profits are oil companies, insurance companies, and Chinese companies nationwide. The outlook on that is not economic stimulation, or jobs, it just hopefully puts the wealth in the country. So it’s wrong that the government gives that kind of massive giveaway to corporations, they are also arguing that there’s no sum of penalties for health care, and education. And what we are saying is that our economic time has been proven Roosevelt, FDR, as well as Tony Blair, where you take the socialist route where you put the money in the pocket of average people, and that’s how we stimulate the economy.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
[Inaudible] …the solution is that we would increase the child benefit to $400 per month per child. Anybody who earns less, will see increase in child benefit. And we lower our cost in education and tuition fees. We will lower costs on daycare and we will put husband as well as competition for to make sure that is allowed.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mr. Chan. I would just like to ask a follow-up question. You mentioned the number of general issues and the increase in child benefit. But, what other specific and immediate steps would do you believe are necessary to deal with current economic crises that we are facing?

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
The biggest step is exactly what Jacqueline has called for. That is that meet all party leaders to come here and meet together to meet the business crisis to have the government bank of Canada [inaudible 1:15] party leader advice on how to deal with this crisis.

There are all kinds of measures, but it is primarily measure that we have to make sure what will happen is that the amount of bailout from American banks. We’re looking at some amount of influence they have, as well as Canadians that we will end up paying for it, whether we like it or not.

This massive financial mismanagement by the CEO, Canadian taxpayer will end up paying for it as well. Trade relationship and Multinational monetary system. So, we are saying is that bottom line is any fail because we help her to see how, has to go to your patch and enable people that are spoken with [inaudible] trying to save their house.

It cannot go to the CEO with a golden parachute who is responsible for this massive mismanagement in the first place.

Moderator:
Thank you Mr. Chan.

[applause]

The next candidate is Peggy Aspen. Answer the question?

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Well, I think on this issue that a huge number of Canadians are extremely concerned. We know that these same big financial monopolies are active in Canada. Also, Canadian, American and Mexican working people and small business people all live in this continent. We’re all one humanity. We’re affected by it.

So, the first thing that I’ll say is that I think, as Canadians, we need to be ready, now, to be discussing solutions to this. It’s not a question of just what’s happening in the US. It’s happening here. It’s going to continue to have affects here.

So what should be done? These are some of the questions that I think we should be asking ourselves. And we should be ready to weigh in on, both with our own opinions and questions that we should be asking.

Questions like: what should be done with the assets of these main financial institutions involved in creating this toxic commercial paper and all of these problems?

How should governments respond to the failed private monopolies that dominate the financial sector? We should be asking ourselves, because it is going to be happening in Canada, too, whether the prime minister says we have a strong economy or not.

Should these assets be seized and not bought by the government and put into public trust funds, where their value should be assessed.

Should these financial institutions themselves not face responsibility and not be allowed to continue banking? Is it not time in both Canada and the US, if you want to talk about regulation here, to actually have a public banking system? I think we need to take very, very bold measures.

We need to challenge monopoly right on this whole question. We need to challenge the right they have to dominate the financial and credit system, the right that they have and the privilege that they are using in both Canada and the US.

I think it calls for more than deregulation. I do think all of us need to be active in thinking about this question and discussing solutions, but I absolutely think that we all, as Canadians, should oppose any bailouts of the rich, schemes to bail out the rich, whether it is Canada or the US.

I think in Canada we desperately need to change the direction of the economy, of the financial credit system and stop the parasitism and profit that is creating these problems.

What we need to do is invest in social programs that benefit the people, invest in medium and small businesses and individuals to actually stop recession or worse.

Economic renewal to me also means stop the amount of money that is going into both war and war preparations.

[applause]

And this economic situation can’t be turned around unless that happens.

Moderator:
The next candidate is Doug James.

Doug James (Liberal):
I’m glad to see our moderator is unlike our prime minister [inaudible 5:34].

In terms of regulation, the development of regulation, to my way of thinking, is a slow-moving, long-term process. As conditions change and circumstances change, even in the best of policies, the regulations have to evolve forward.

But, you don’t need suddenly new regulatory laws suddenly to change things, to make a drastic sea change. That doesn’t help anything. There are too many surprises and unexpected ramifications from a massive change.

So, no, I don’t believe we need to see any massive changes in regulation. What I believe we need is discussion in a democratically functioning parliament with moderate functioning committee leaders that can look at the issues and evolve what’s happening to the needs to protect our interests and such.

With respect to how an economic downturn would impact individuals, liberals would increase the safety net coverage. With details that would affect the working poor, families with children supports. We wouldn’t lose anything that the conservative government agenda has in its policy to protect people.

We would be looking - well, not looking at. We will make changes to unemployment, to speed up checks between deliveries, and also to reach high-unemployment areas. And to recognize the reality of economic change.

There’s a saying I like to comment that if our current government hadn’t blown it, there’d be a billion dollar surplus and we’d certainly have a lot more flexibility. And the liberal government actually built the financial foundations that the conservative party continually claims as their own.

I believe I’ve answered the question, Mr. Moderator. I don’t have to use up my whole two minutes, do I?

[laughter]

Moderator:
No, you don’t.

[applause]

But, I will ask you a follow-up question, so you will end up taking your whole two minutes.

You mentioned a couple of times about the current conservative government blowing the surplus, and you mentioned a number of issues that you would try to address by augmenting the current policies that the conservatives have in place.

In this time of economic uncertainty, potential recession, how is liberal government going to pay for this? In my rudimentary understanding, you’ve either got to raise taxes or cut spending in order to not go further into deficit.

Doug James (Liberal):
Well, I can’t give you a detailed answer in terms of numbers, because you’d all go to sleep by the time I got through them all. What we did was we had one of the most recent federal government statements, which was from February. We had hoped to update them with the recent government figures, but they had not been available.

I mentioned the $3 billion contingency fund. Nothing new happens until we get that covered. No surprises. The funding of our proposed new programs would come about through economic growth. Touch wood.

Also - I don’t want to quote this - we’re not planning on new taxes in working with in this new framework. We are looking at finding additional efficiencies, cutting the occasional program, and using those funds to augment those.

Pardon me. My apologies for a wishy-washy answer, but I’m afraid to technically get into the numbers and I don’t want you guys throwing things at me. [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate to deal the question is Jim Prentice.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you very much, Michael. I begin by saying that the situation in the United States is very serious. It is in fact the most serious credit restriction that we’ve seen since the Great Depression.

It started with toxic mortgages and has ripened into a credit crisis that, at a minimum, has pressure to cause a possible recession. At worst is could cause a real spiral of deflation. And so, that is what we’re wrestling with.

I think, though, we must begin by saying those of us that aspire to public service, the first obligation that we have is to make sure that we provide accurate information.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
The Canadian government is not in a deficit; we’ve just recorded, 1.7 billion dollar surplus for the first four months of the year. And, Canada does not have the banking and financial services crisis that the United States faces. And there’s a very simple reason that we don’t and it relates to the regulatory supervision that we’ve had over our banking industry and our financial industry.

Specifically, in the United States in the time between 2002 and 2008, 40 percent of the mortgages that have been granted under the sub-prime mortgages, so called toxic mortgages, in Canada it’s not 40 percent, it’s four percent. Our banks are stronger, our financial companies are stronger and it’s because there’s been proper regulatory supervision in Canada.

We have different laws that govern our banks. We have different laws that govern mortgages. We have different laws than in the United States that govern the money that you put on deposit at a bank. So, as long as we have sound fiscal stewardship we will ride this out. But, what we do not need is a dramatic new 40 billion dollar tax, which Mr. Dion is proposing.

In terms of the question on short selling, that’s a decision that the markets would make, GSX and others. But, there’s not really a need for a ban on short selling of Canadian bank or financial stocks right now. Because none of the banks or financial stocks are under that kind of pressure, because they’re not leveraged in the way that the United States is.

Let’s come back to Michael’s question, "What should we be doing?" It’s important that we maintain fiscal flexibility, strong disciplined finances. We keep the government of Canada in the black ink; we keep downward pressure on our personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and consumer taxes so that we can ride this out.

And I would just finally take issue with the suggestion that we have the concern of government blowing the surplus. Any extra dollars have been used to pay down the debt. 35 billion dollars of debt has been paid down in the last two and a half years.

That is, in fact, what’s giving the government of Canada the strong fiscal flexibility that we now have that they don’t have in the United States. The United States has almost twice as much public debt as we do in Canada. [applause]

Moderator:
Thank you, the last candidate to drag me into the economy is Jason McNeil.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
Thank you. Every night we watch our neighbors to the south point a path to a depression. Our government is standing at the gates watching plumes of smoke, trying to assure us that we are insulated from the US markets. This is simply not true; we exist in a global economy for our future is linked to the US dollar.

The satire is that no one in Ottawa is talking about the root causes of the economic crisis that is just around the corner. To understand why we are in the situation that we are in today, there are two things we must consider.

The first is our fractional reserve banking system, and the second is our [inaudible 3:07] currency. When interest rates are artificially lowered by a central bank, credit becomes unnaturally abundant. This causes unsustainable and artificial growth. Like the housing bubble in the US that is now burst.

We do not need to tax the system with nationalization or more regulations. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were creatures of the US government. We need to return to a 100 percent reserve banking system where the market stats sit on interest rates.

Since Canada left the gold standard in 1933, we have been on an inflationary system in which the dollar has lost approximately 97 percent of its buying power.

Inflation is a hidden tax that disadvantages the poor and middle class, while giving benefit to the politically well connected who get to spend a million dollars purse.

The government tries to convince us that inflation is low and that it’s a natural affect of the market, but there’s nothing natural about it. When you print money out of thin air you do not create any value, you only devalue the savings that people already have.

Also, inflation is the mandated part of the Bank of Canada’s rules. We must end the Bank of Canada and return to a currency that is 100 percent renewable in gold. Only gold has been proven to limit abuse by government. And, yes you have a 27 year old candidate saying the things that your grandfather would have told you. [laughter] [applause]

Moderator:
Thank you very much. I’d ask a follow up question but I’m not quite sure I could possibly follow the ins and outs of that argument. I’ll leave it to you at the coffee break to ask him exactly how that would work.

The next project is criminal justice and I will pass out the questions to the candidates. The first person to answer the question is John Penn.

As a method of promoting public safety, do you believe that the federal government should pursue an increased focus on punishment and incarceration or an increased focus on rehabilitation and safe reintegration? Are you in favor of lowering the age requirement of adult sentencing of young offenders?

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
To answer this, absolutely not. One of the first things that [inaudible] government did when he got elected in 2006 is, he had completely cancelled 50 million in youth programs and increased up to two million in prevention and keeping people in jail as long as possible.

But, the edge we’ve seen, as long as we can keep people out of jail you can [inaudible] costs to the taxpayers. And I think, the money would be better spent and be more cost effective if we take that money and invest in youth success while it can be vested in their favor. So, for the NDP our plan of action is quite simple, we will support… [inaudible] [applause]

Moderator:
I would like to ask Paul a question. I would like, in as short of time as possible your specific answer to the last part of the question: are you in favor or is your party in favor of age requirements around sentencing for youth offenders? Lowering the age requirements for adult sentences.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
No, we want to develop more opportunity to realize their potential. [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate to answer this question. I’ll ask this question again. The method of promoting public safety, do you believe that the federal government should pursue an increased focus on punishment incarceration or an increased focus on rehabilitation and safe reintegration?

The second part of the question is: are you in favor of lowering the age requirements for adult sentencing young offenders?

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
On the first part of the question, the response that I have to that is: how on earth can anybody who calls himself a socially responsible government endlessly put forward that law and order that tougher sentencing is the answer to the profound problems that are facing youth and others in this society.

We have horrific school shootings, where children are going to school are gunned down. And, immediately the issue that the… the first words that come out of the mouths of the heads of this government and those responsible for these areas are: we need tougher sentencing. We need tougher this. We need tougher that.

How about dealing with the fact that we have extreme economic and social problems in this country. In Canada we have, in Alberta we have what they call boom. But, this boom entails fathers having to travel hundreds of miles to find work. It involves families having to work two and three jobs, moms and dads working two and three jobs in order to pay their house mortgages.

We live in a province where it has been made legal for 12 year olds to work. So, in my opinion we have a profound lack of social problems, a government that will not take responsibility for dealing with isolation, all kinds of problems that are facing youth.

And instead of engaging youth, and finding out what the solutions are to these problems and developing the facilities, it’s law and order.

As far as the question of lowering the age for young offenders to be committed to be tried in adult court, no, I don’t agree with that at all. I think we have children who are actually committing horrific crimes in our society.

I think if we, as a society, and our governments don’t deal with this in a profound way and deal with the economic and social problems that are facing Canadians, then the problems are not going to go away.

And jailing more and more youth is not going to solve the problems. Frankly, to tell you the honest truth, it makes me utterly sick when a horrible, horrible tragedy happens like what happened to the young man on a Greyhound a few months ago, when he lost his life.

And the first thing that Stockwell Day did was talk about tougher sentences and talk about law and order, instead of dealing with health problems, dealing with what causes such horrific things to happen.

So, I have to tell you that this whole law and order campaign and this agenda of the Harper government, I think, is an abysmal refusal to deal with the social responsibility to make sure that our youth have a bright future and are not treated as criminals.

[applause]

Doug James (Liberal):
[inaudible] …increased focus on punishment and incarceration. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Increased focus on…

Moderator:
Speak up.

Doug James (Liberal):
… Sir?

Moderator:
Speak up.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Right into your mike.

Doug James (Liberal):
OK. My apologies. OK. Regards to the question on increasing punishment and incarceration, absolutely not. On rehabilitation, see through provision, absolutely yes. Lowering the age of crime to that of sixteen, absolutely not. We need to attack, there is two things we need… well three things we need to be looking at: root cause, trying to get people when they leave prison not to have had several year course and help reinforcing the activities that put them in there, rehabilitation and stuff, and increased policing more effectiveness in terms of our enforcement of our laws.

Now, some of the things we do is we are proposing three different [inaudible], and try and keep from over-committing ourselves. More than 50 percent of children are currently living below poverty line… above the poverty line, and 30 percent of families [inaudible] below the poverty line get them out. We will restore the fundings we have cut in terms of literacy. We will support women’s shelters and such. I don’t personally want to maintain this stretch [inaudible] have, we will probably also want to maintain that.

We need to enforce the laws with additional resources. We are looking at a… Well, with respect to part of the issue of drugs, gangs and organized crime, we are going to have additional funding for witness [inaudible]. Well, there is a lot of areas that are victimized by fraud attempt. The local city police cannot handle something that involves phone numbers and fraud attempts out of Ontario and England. We need to put more resources in there, and that is what the Liberal Government propose to do.

We have got the departmental backing here at this moment. The new Liberal Government will establish the fund to help ease the burden of all the additional costs rising from cross country and international aspects of [inaudible]. We will also create a forty million dollar gun violence and gang prevention fund, and we are going to approve some of the international treaties on marketing in factoring firearms something that local and American resources are interested in. The key thing is not to punish the ones we catch who are the worse, but try and work in terms of giving them more options… [inaudible] [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate to address the question is Mr. Prentice.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to speak on behalf of the people whose doors I have been knocking on during this election because most of them tell me, the vast majority of them tell me, that they are sick of the confluence of drugs and gangs and violence, which is changing the nature of Calgary, and which is taking over our city.

Now, two weeks ago, we had three shootings in our city in a period of thirty-six hours. One of those shootings I think marks a watershed in this community, and that’s what I’m hearing on the doorsteps. A young Brazlian student, a visitor to our country, an innocent bystander walking through a public park that’s not fifteen minutes’ walk from this building, was shot in the head and blinded for life.

A visitor to our country, a perfectly innocent person, and that is what is happening in our city, that is what is marring our streets. This is a park not far from here where I used to take my children. I mentioned that I raised my children in the inner city. I used to sit in that park with them and eat hotdogs.

It’s not a safe place anymore, and if I’m the only one on this stage who thinks that what we need is stronger laws and enforcement, then I do, but I will tell you the Chief of Police agrees with that. The mayor is saying the same thing. The minister of justice is saying the same thing, and all of the doors that I’m knocking on are saying the same thing.

Now, you know, clearly there has to be balance in the criminal justice legislation, I agree with that, but we do need a new Young Offenders Act. The Prime Minister has committed to do that. Its primary goal has to be to protect our society.

We need automatic stiffer sentences for youth who are over 14 who commit violent offences. Who come into homes for example: home invasions with guns. Should these people be let back out onto the street? The person who committed the shooting of this young Brazilian person had a rap sheet as long as anybody’s arm in this room.

Now, in terms of other legislation, we believe that house arrest has to be improved on. Thirty four percent of the people, who are put on house arrest, recommit and are jailed for breaking their conditions. These things have to be addressed.

I’ll say this to you ladies and gentlemen, because I’ve been in the House of Thames on your behalf for two-and-a-half years, we have fought for tougher criminal justice legislation. We have had to fight the NDP and the Liberals every step of the way to toughen up on this legislation, and that has to stop because that’s what we’re hearing from Canadians. [applause]

Moderator:
I do have a follow up question for Mr. Prentice. Many people would say that the focus on punishment incarceration, while may be politically popular, is empty and it doesn’t have the kind of impact that the advocates of it hope to, or are selling it.

In particular, the issue of general occurrence, that the idea that criminals think about the consequences, and the fact that they might get 10 minimum sentence as opposed to discretionary sentences from a judge before they commit their crimes, some might say is a fallacy. I’d like you to respond to that.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Well, clearly in some circumstances for some crimes rehabilitation is a possibility, safer integration is important, but for serious offenses… They may be a young offender technically, but there are some young people, who are simply bad.

The person who shot this young Brazilian man; had previously discharged a firearm into someone’s stomach, he had fired at the police. He had been a criminal since he was a young offender.

Now, in some cases you just are going to have to have, tough legislation. The police are going to have the resources for enforcement, that’s what they’re asking for. The Chief of Police has been very clear that he needs tougher laws to be able to deal with this, and that includes making it easier to detain these people. The police will tell you that, "They pick them up, they arrest them; they are right back out on the street that afternoon."

I’ve set in Criminal Justice Round Tables with the Chief of Police and our citizens, and that’s what they’re saying, "We have to do something about this folks. We have to take back our city." [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate to address the question is, Jason.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
Contrary to what Mr. Prentice said, I’m not getting on stage just to disagree with him, but I think there is some points that he’s missing. First off; we don’t just want to punish people. When there’s a crime, there’s a victim, we need to compensate those victims.

The prisoners don’t need to get a free ride, sitting on the taxpayer dollar, in the slammer. What they need to be doing is; they need to be working, earning a salary, paying their room and board, and using the rest of their money to compensate their victims.

The other thing that goes along with that is, we don’t need crimes, that don’t have victims. If somebody is walking down the street with a couple of grams of marijuana in their pocket, doesn’t need to go to jail, they are not violent criminals. When you prohibit something, the people who sell it are criminals. We’re creating the system.

So, I mean, I took up my two minutes, but one other thing I’d like to say is; if you’ve got ownership, you’re legitimate Canadian, right?

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Yes. [applause]

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
We’re taking away the rights of families to defend themselves in their own homes. We do not need senseless gun laws; we’d only punish the innocent, because criminals still got their guns, we’re just taking away from good people.

Thank you. [applause]

Moderator:
Is it your position, that we should return to a similar sort of situation, what they had in the U.S., and still have in some states, with respect to ‘chain-bang gang,’ etc., where you would see prisoners out in yellow jumpsuits working on the side of the street, or are you talking about having programs within the Federal Institutions where they could work off their crime?

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
I’m talking a little bit about mostly in programs that would also help them develop a skill set that they can use when they get out.

I mean, when we send people to jail and they sit there, and they just spend all their time collaborating with other criminals on how to be better criminals, that’s not what we want. We want to ask criminals what skills they can use, whether it be woodworking, metal work, even how to be a janitor-something that’s ‘economic,’ something other than ‘be a criminal.’ [applause]

Eric Donovan (Green):
Well, I have a lot to respond to from the last five candidates. A lot I agree with and a lot I don’t agree with. First and foremost, the objective of any criminal justice system, the objective of our system, has to be increased safety of the people in the country and an increased sense of well-being for people in the country.

I stand with Mr. Prentice and others, the police chief, where if we have gangs running wild in the streets, if we have intense violence, if it can randomly affect people the way this is… I want to put more teeth in the hands. More teeth in the tools that the justice system has at its fingertips. I really believe that. And that’s not about punishment: that’s about safety. Some people, from where they are right now, simply can’t be controlled. We have to do it for them. We have to do it for us. Period.

Now, that being said, a lot of these people, as Mr. Prentice said, have been in the system for a long time. And I bet, a lot of these people, their first crime was something like marijuana, their first crime was something like vandalism. Did we do enough at that time to turn it around, for the benefit of that person and for the benefit of us? And I suspect not.

And I think in Canada, while we increase on one hand what the police chief and what the police have at their disposal, we also have to increase what people who are social workers and people who are in schools have at their disposal to turn situations like that around. And there are fantastic programs all across the country — youth justice committees, restorative justice programs, that put people who commit nonviolent and even some violent crimes face to face with the people that they committed the crimes against. And that can have a powerful effect, especially on a young person.

And then you can roll that all the way back to what I think is a fundamental problem that I don’t think anyone addressed. And that is, when I was 15 years old, 14 years old, 13 years old, I actually ran in a pretty bad crowd often. I’m not going to go to Ottawa, I suspect, so I’ll admit that I smoked marijuana more than a few times.

[laughter, applause]

I’m glad. I’m glad that I never got arrested, I’m glad that I don’t have a criminal record because I did that. But that being said, it shouldn’t be a crime, and it shouldn’t be treated as a crime. We’re basically funding organized crime by allowing that to be the case.

And secondly, more importantly, when I was a kid, we had more empathy, as children, for other people. And what I’m sensing out there is a staggering number of children who are out there who are being raised in a way and treated by society in a way that they have no empathy whatsoever for all the rest of us. And that is the real tragedy, and that’s the thing that we’re not doing enough about.

Because we are raising children who are lost. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lost souls wandering the streets with nothing else to do. That’s what we need to address, and that, right there, that’s the heart of it. I don’t care what anybody says. OK? And we, absolutely, the conservatives, the liberals, the NDP, are not doing enough to address that problem. Frankly, none of us are doing enough to address that problem.

If you want to get to the heart of youth crime, you have to find a way to have youth that have empathy for other people. Because these people don’t have it. Somebody who just fires a gun off in downtown Calgary and blinds somebody probably doesn’t care at all that he did it. That person…

Moderator:
Please wrap up.

Eric Donovan (Green):
That person… long ago we created a problem somehow.

[applause]

Moderator:
It was a little too far away for me to get my signals in about the time, but I’ll throw something next time.

[rustling papers, laughter]

I’ll now refrain from asking the rest of the candidates whether they smoked pot, or whether they inhaled.

[laughter]

So the next issue that I’d like to put before the candidates is the issue of national defense and the military mission in Afghanistan.

[rustling papers]

So, the question is: Do you believe the current mission in Afghanistan is in our national interest or in the interest of the Afghan people? If so, what interest is it serving, and why, then, would it be appropriate to end the mission in 2011 when the conflict will no doubt be continuing? If it is not in our national interest or in the interest of the Afghan people, should the troops be brought home right away regardless of the impact on the Afghan people?

And I made the mistake of putting my follow-up question on the list of candidates, so they can answer that, if they like as well.

And, the follow-up is, by 2011, will we have made a significant positive impact in the lives of the people of southern Afghanistan, as well as reduce the threat of international terrorism? Will it have been worth the financial and human costs? If so, how? And, if not, why not? So, there’s a lot there. And, I would ask Peggy Askin to address the question.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
I’ll go straight from your question. I do not believe that the current mission in Afghanistan is in the interest of either the Afghan people or the Canadian people. I believe that it is a war where Canada is acting as a mercenary for the U.S., in terms of their empire-building. I think it is an unjust war. I think it is against the sovereignty of the people of Afghanistan.

I think that people in this country and the Canadian government, in fact, refuse to participate in the war in Iraq. And, in fact, the pretext for entering that war was proven to be false and a lie (i.e., weapons of mass destruction). The pretext for Canada and other countries joining the U.S. in Afghanistan was supposedly the U.S.’s "War on Terror." But, all these years later, no one has brought these so-called "terrorists" to justice — that’s one thing. But, the main thing is they have no right to invade and bomb and commit aggression against a sovereign country.

Just a month or so ago, 19 civilians, women and children, died. We have had almost a hundred Canadians die in this war. It is not justified in any way. When Stephen Harper tells us that it’s a question of democracy, defending law and order, and all kinds of reasons to justify this mission, it is simply not true. It is anti-democratic to invade another country. There are international laws that say what Canada is doing, and what the U.S. is doing is illegal.

And, as far as bringing the troops home, I think the troops should be brought home now, immediately. I think that issue is up to the people of Afghanistan to decide the fate of their country. And, I think that on the question of — regardless of the impact on the Afghan people — it’s up to the Afghan people to determine that. I think that the Afghan people have shown, over and over, by their resistance that they do not want Canada there.

I think it’s a terribly harmful war, both because it is in violation of international law, and because of the enormous military cost, and the enormous cost to the Canadian economy and Canadian people. And I think that Canada should get out of Afghanistan now, and that Canada should be a proctor for peace in the world. Canada should respect the sovereignty of other nations, and we should take the lead on this in Canada. We should not be mercenaries for the U.S.

[applause]

Moderator:
I do have a follow-up question. I can appreciate that the situation now in Afghanistan is very different than the situation in 2001-2002, when the initial mission was launched. Do you not think that the initial purposes of the mission were justified as a result of a repressive regime, the Taliban regime, as well as the fact that it was very clear that Afghanistan was a base of international terrorism? And, at least for a period of time, the international terrorists that were operating in Afghanistan were either removed, or their operations were curtailed?

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Well, only the people of Afghanistan have the right to decide who their government is. Canada, or no other country, has the right to go and by military means and aggression remove a government that has been elected and determined by the people of Afghanistan.

I think it was wrong then. I see a number of people in this crowd tonight who, along with myself, went to a candlelight vigil the night that the Americans started dropping bombs on Afghanistan. Because I don’t think it’s ever right for other nations to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign country.

And frankly, on this question of terrorism, the way to deal with terrorists — and I’m very much opposed to terrorists who bomb the World Trade Center or anything else. The way to deal with them is to find them, prosecute them as criminals, in criminal courts, not to make an entire country suffer collective punishment because of something that may or may not have been true about some group of terrorists that may or may not have been in Afghanistan.

The real reason they’re there, Michael, is for their strategic purposes, and Canada has been drawn into this whole thing. They’re there because the economic oil and gas interests likely want to run a pipeline through that country. And for anyone to believe that Canada is there to preserve democracy, you’re deluding yourself and you’re interfering with the rights of the people of Afghanistan to determine their own affairs. We wouldn’t want anybody to be deciding that we have too repressed of a government and start committing aggression against us.

[clapping]

Moderator:
Thank you. I’ll read the question one more time: Do you believe the current mission in Afghanistan is in our national interest of Canadian national affairs, or in the interest of the Afghan people? If so, what interest is it serving, and why then would it be appropriate to end the mission in 2011 when the conflict will be continuing? If it is not in our national interest or in the interest of the Afghan people, should the troops be brought home right away regardless of the impact on the Afghan people?

And if there’s time, feel free to comment on whether or not we’ve made a significant positive impact for the people of Afghanistan or on the threat of international terrorism as a result of the mission. Sorry, Doug James is the next person.

Doug James (Liberal):
Thank you. In terms of a narrow national interest, no. Humanitarian aid to tsunami survivors, speaking of narrow national interests, is also not worthwhile. However, in this particular mission, this is beyond that. It’s an international commission.

We earned our admittance. The conservatives and the liberals worked together to come up with a proposal and it was passed in Parliament. [inaudible] made significant contributions to that work, and saying, "Yes, we will maintain a military presence [inaudible 3:12]." That was to cut off the date [inaudible] all our allies and get the people working in the mission to plan ahead for other troops who are about to come in and [inaudible].

We can move back to our more traditional humanitarian contribution. I would propose [inaudible] and his vision of the Canadian military as [inaudible] problem solvers is almost as [inaudible]. People that are really helping provide some stability to help people lift themselves up.

Now, a narrow national interest would be Stephen Harper’s open letter several years ago to the U.S. public apologizing for Canada not sending troops to Iraq. His whole motive there was, he figured if we’d gotten a Canadian killed, then maybe we’d get a few bucks out of Halliburton for the construction. That is a narrow national interest. That doesn’t go along with my value system. My value system says, if you’re trying to make a difference and trying to contribute, that’s for foreign leaders.

So no, we don’t bring the troops home immediately, that isn’t the purpose of the 2011 date. In terms of follow-up, have we made a significant positive impact? I honestly don’t know. I certainly hope so. I do believe that we have made a positive impact on the state, but how do you measure loss of life on all sides? It’s impossible to do so. [inaudible]. I honestly can’t answer that… I certainly hope so. [inaudible] But I’m looking forward to the guys coming back in 2011 and to making a difference.

[clapping]

Moderator:
The next candidate to address the question is Jim Prentice.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you very much, Michael. The current mission in Afghanistan is in our national interest, and it is also in the interest of the Afghan people. I’ll tell you my thinking on that.

As I begin, though, I would just say that the Afghanistan mission has been — I think the Prime Minister has said this before — the most difficult foreign issue that we’ve faced as a government, and it’s an issue that has had ramifications in our city and in our riding. People from our city and from our riding who have paid the ultimate price, in a volunteer army, to go to Afghanistan, because they believe that it’s in our national interest and in the interest of the Afghan people.

We are committed to rebuild Afghanistan. We are there as part of a NATO and a UN force, a multinational force, and one of the reasons that it’s in the national interest is that Parliament has actually considered that carefully. The Prime Minister appointed the Manley panel, which comprised, really, many of our most respected citizens, headed by John Manley, who is not from the conservative party.

And they came back with recommendations, and Parliament, on a multi-party basis, actually approved the continuation of the mission on very specific terms. The conditions were that Parliament must approve any change in the conditions of the engagement and that the engagement must end by 2011, and the Prime Minister has said that it would.

Now, what we are doing in Afghanistan, I think, is important, and that’s why I say it’s in the interest of the Afghanistan people. You can measure this in a lot of ways. We are really there trying to make sure the Afghanistan police and border security is up to snuff by 2011 so that the NATO and UN forces can withdraw and we can have peace and stability and democracy in Afghanistan.

But incidental to that is the restoration of infrastructure, and also, really, it’s a human rights issue. What is being replaced in Afghanistan is a regime, the Taliban regime, that would chop off the hands of girls and women because they had fingernail polish on; that has had a practice of beheading and stoning men and women for adultery in soccer fields.

And today, if you look at what is going on in Afghanistan, many if not most of the parliamentarians in their national parliament are women, and of the millions of kids who now go to school, the vast majority of the millions of those children are young girls. That was not possible under the Taliban, and that’s what this mission is about, and that’s, ladies and gentlemen, what people, including people from this city, are fighting for when they’re over there.

[clapping]

Moderator:
Next candidate to address the question is Jason McNeil.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
The officers and members of the Canadian forces, both regular and reserve, are brave, professional men and women who do a fantastic job… [sound of microphone being moved]…to serve Canada and Canadians before self. It’s unfortunate that our politicians do not do enough in return.

Throughout the 1990s, the liberals gutted the Canadian forces. We were left with closed bases, outdated equipment, and low morale. While the conservatives have done a better job, they have not gone far enough. We are fighting an undeclared war in Afghanistan against an enemy who is brutal and hiding among the civilian population. They use fear as a weapon and violence as currency.

The mission that [inaudible 9:04] went in to accomplish is a difficult one, and we have paid with 97 of their lives. When I joined the forces, I knew full well that I had signed on for total liability, and that meant that I could be asked to sacrifice my life for my country. This is something I did willingly and with a full understanding of the consequences. We as Canadians need to acknowledge that we are not [inaudible] war. There is no peace to keep, we should declare war and get our soldiers, airmen, and sailors the equipment they need until we can bring them home.

We have not declared war since World War II. We have gone to war under the banners of the NATO’s and the UN’s. These are organizations that usurp the sovereignty of our parliament.

Now, if I were an isolationist, I would not be talking trade all, and entangling alliances with none. The way to bring peace is to convince people to create an economic alliance, and people will understand it. In short, create new diplomacy.

People without meaningful work have no future. These people seek meaning in their lives. These are the foot soldiers of terrorism. They are the disenfranchised youth with no hope for a future. If you want to end terrorism, we must cut off their source of manpower.


One thing that I have asked Mr. Frankas to pass on to Mr. Harper is that every time a foreign army has left Afghanistan and told when they were doing it, they have been punished. We should only announce when our soldiers are coming home once they are on our shores.

[applause]

Moderator:
The last candidate to address this issue is John Chan. I am sorry, second to last [laughter]. I am getting ahead of myself, here.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
I am a highly trained paratrooper in Vietnam and a former officer. And some of that experience spans over a decade. And as a human rights worker I think I can say with confidence that war is not the answer. We must preach peace and hand out social justice.

[applause]

Mr. Simpson, one the last people… Furthermore, we have to first realize that our mission in fighting in Afghanistan was a major departure from our traditional peace-seeking role. Let’s take a look at how it evolved.

If Canada truly believes that the purpose of the mission is to bring democracy and human rights to Afghanistan, then Canada would have been involved in the intervention in Afghanistan long before America would and long before the Americans were forced to do so.

Certainly, if we try to convince ourselves that this mission was for local causes and all human rights, then certainly we will be involved in countries not in our own backyard.

We send a message to the Mexico, Chiapas. Or in Guatemala, where I’ve worked, you have over 250,000 people killed by divisional killing by rambling[?] death squads, over a million internal refugees, over million external and over 500,000 people disappeared.

Why is Canada completely silent in those human rights violations and yet has decided to go across the ocean to get involved in Afghanistan? We have [inaudible] here in our own backyard. We have more serious human rights violations in Darfur, far worse than Afghanistan.

And furthermore, the media and Ms. Helmann are not telling us. Because our government, those who our young troops are defending and risking their life, mostly consist of former warlords and drug lords.

Half of Afghanistan’s cabinet ministers and government are warlords. Horrific human rights violations. And drug lords are responsible for this massive poppy production in Afghanistan.

Moderator:
Please wrap up.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
The NDP position is quite clear. This is not our mission to start off with; we need to withdraw our troops immediately in an orderly and safe fashion, under the Chief of Staff command, and under the Chief of Staff directions.

We have to reconfigure our involvement in Afghanistan with international humanitarian assistant has been cautioned. We excuse two or three operations, combat operations, with an international eight a week. Each project becomes a military target. To avoid that, we have to politically and humanitarianly completely question our politicians as to why something should be done.

[applause]

Moderator:
I have to apologize to Mr. Donovan. It would not have been an evening if I had not made one mistake, at least. Hopefully, it will be the last. We did go out of order. Mr. Donovan will be the last to address this issue.

Eric Donovan (Green):
It is OK. It is an advantage to go later, always, in this. I accept your apology.

I read a poll, the results of a poll about five or six years. And I have to apologize because I do not remember where I read this. But it was one of these questionnaires where ask Canadians about what it was about Canadian. What was it that made you identify with Canada and with being Canadian, more than anything else. And about half of the respondents said health care and half the respondents said peacekeeping.

The peacekeeping is something that we have taken for decades, as a serious role for Canada in the world. I actually think we were right to go into Afghanistan. I think that it is nonsense to suggest, that, countries have no right to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. I think that is an untenable position, and you are responsible under circumstances, when things are obliviously terrible in the way that Mr. Prentice actually described.

I am very grateful to John Crichton for keeping us out of Iraq, because going into Iraq on the part of the US was I think very ill advised under the circumstances. Regardless of whether you agree on how we got into Afghanistan, we are there, and the people who are there are, I believe in my hearts of hearts, doing their best to make a difference. The one place where I would take odds, with the government’s policy on Afghanistan, and actually since it was a bi-partisan if you will or tri-partisan agreement, on how to move forward. We’ve earmarked a lot of money to fight a war with a hard to identifying foe. And that’s fine. I think that foe is there. I don’t think we can declare war against because they are on they are not the state.

On the other hand we’ve earmarked marked less than 10% of that amount of money for humanitarian aid for the development of social infrastructure and better lives for people who are in Afghanistan, in the region where the Canadian troops are.

And in a sense we are fighting two wars. We are fighting a war against insurgency and we are fighting a war for the hearts and minds of Afghan people. I think democracy is a luxury, and it is a luxury that these people don’t have. I think it is meaningless when we are talking about a country like Afghanistan.

I think these people want to have schools for their children, hospitals and police they can trust and that is far more important than being able to vote for somebody. I know I would choose those things over the right to vote personally.

So, long and short of it, I don’t know that we are done in 2011. I believe that we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but we have to do more, and the more is on the humanitarian front. 2011 may be too early to leave.

[applause]

Moderator:
So I am mindful of the time in the evening, and I made an executive decision to remove the sixth question on education. So we will have two more questions and then conclusions. And then I will ask the candidates to heed my subtle and not so subtle warnings signs. When I ask you to wrap up, its five seconds not another 30 seconds, please.

So the next question is on environment. And the question is: The Oil Sands Projects in Alberta has become a primary focus of international environmental concern. Are you in favor of increasing environmental regulation at these projects? If so, what specifically would you propose, and what would be the impact on the Alberta economy and the oil and gas industry that drives it? If you are not in favor of increasing environmental regulation on the Oil Sands Projects, how do you propose dealing with the widespread environmental impact of these projects. First candidate to address this is James.

Doug James (Liberal):
It’s always nice to get a really easy question, that’s one that you’ve had zero time to prepare for. We have got a few issues in here. In fact the oil centers fall in provincial jurisdiction overlapping Alberta and several regulations dealing with issues such as the environment. In terms of are you in favor of increasing environmental regulations in these projects, yes. Now, why am I saying that for is for few reasons. One, certain issues that should have been technologically resolved are not turning out that way. That is turning into a very significant problem. Also down stream, I believe that the deformed fish and the increase in cancers etc. in the First Nations people living downstream of our plant and it’s activities are not a statistical aberration. There are things that are missing things that are happening and we are not taking up with it. And I am somewhat disappointed with the governments response on these issues.

So in terms of what specific conditions proposed will be to resolve this, we need to try and find out ; and we are not even sure what the agents are these cancers picking up. What’s causing that? What can you do about it? If any, we need to address those issues. We need the force of law and the force of leadership to actually [inaudible] see problems and follow-up. Anything that we would do personally looking through the royalty review a year ago. I’m really quite disappointed… going to quit in case they are.

I’m concerned it’s not going to natural gas, for example. To upgrade the oil do the tourest with all the gas right not [inaudible] a very long period [inaudible] we going to turn out the gas 50 years.

So, I’m very concerned in terms of these entire kerosene that the current are appropriate and go to Canada and ours are single. Those are the issues that I would like to look at and I believe sawing gun. [applause]

Moderator:
I’ll read the question over. The oil santizers in Alberta focal international concerned. Are you in favor of increasing environmental regulation of these projects? If so what particularly would you propose and what would be the impact on the Alberta economy [inaudible] drive to it.

The next project is Jim Prentice. If you are not in favor of environmental regulation, some of these projects, how do you propose dealing with wide spread… [inaudible]

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you very much Michael. Yes, we are in favor of increasing the environmental regulation and we’ve been doing precisely that in a balanced way with respect to gas reductions, but there are two other initiatives that the prime minister has announced over the course of the election.

It’s important to do this in a balanced way. So that we can be both stewards of our environment and also sound protectors of our economy and the economic prosperity of Alberta.

So, we are in the process of implementing industrial regulations that would require out reductions in green house gasses by minus 20 by 2020 and minus 50 by 2060 as I recall.

These would apply to major industrial emitters in Canada, including Oils Sands facilities and they are very significant steps forward, with respect to green house gases and pollution.

In addition, this last week the prime minister was in Calgary and he announced that we putting forward a prohibition or a ban on the exports of raw fishermen to other countries who do not have the equivalent environmental to Canada.

So, we are saying we will take leadership and in concert with out trading partners, but we would expect that fishermen would not be exported, in raw form to circumvent Canada’s environmental rules, in effect sending them to countries that have much weaker standards.

Finally about a week ago, we announced increased counties for violations of environmental legislation. I’m not suggesting that that is happening in the Oil Sand, but I would point out these are so called environmental crimes and the legislation will apply to any violations of environmental legislation.

At the end of the day, though, this needs to be done in a balanced way, because this is very central to our economy as a nation, not only in Alberta, but nationwide. I would just say, Mr. Chan I know is an outspoken on Alberta. I know he’ll take the chance to mention Jack Layton the next time he sees him.

It’s not a solution to fly over Alberta and announce a moratorium on oil sands development because that affects people here in our riding who make a living form the oil sands. It’s not responsible and it’s not support by the working men of our constituents. [applause]


Moderator:
Next candidate is Jason McNeil.
Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
We need more oil [inaudible] But, at the same time one of the things we really need is more refinery capacity. If we can’t find gas, you can’t put it into your car. That doesn’t go well. To the exact to the environment that’s possible where your profit, [inaudible 4:43] I think that the environment regulations that are already in place are sufficient. And I’ll just leave it at that.

[applause] [cross talk] [laughter]

Eric Donovan (Green):
This is the one issue where if I say the wrong thing I can get in trouble with my party. So, OK. There is also high finance in this of course and one of the things that I’m lost in is really trying to figure out whether it is better for a country for the people in Alberta to dig up and process these resources faster or in a prolonged sense.

I actually don’t know the answer to that question.I intuitively feel that the race to dig it up is actually maybe a little bit ill-founded.

I am a scientist, first and foremost actually. I believe, very strongly in research and power of research. I will say it, not because I have to say it, because I should say it, that I am a Green Party candidate. Part of our party platform is carbon sector and that’s not a popular thing in Calgary, but again that won’t be the reason why I’m not elected.

I personally believe people should take a long hard look at the way we use money in the carbon sector. I really believe that people should really think about the merits of taxing the use of carbon and using the finances that are accrued in that way to research better ways of dealing with exactly the issues like toxins.

So, can we do it better? Can we do it more efficiently? Can we do it with less carbon emissions? Can we find ways to make sure the processing is done?

I actually applaud the move to not export fishermen. I actually do it for other reasons, which is I don’t think we should be users of wood. I think we should, as much as possible in Canada, export finished goods as opposed to raw materials wherever possible. So, that to me…

[applause]

I think, we want to bring the processing as close to the source as possible. Certainly have it here in Alberta because that’s really great for us.

In the long run, the power of research, trying to do this better, it’s inevitable we’re going to dig this up, we’re going to process it and we’re going to burn it. OK, we have to do it as well as possible.

Moderator:
Thank you.

[applause]

The next candidate is John Chan.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
Before I convey the message to the faculty and on behalf of Jim [laughter] apprentice Jack Layton. I personally, as well as many, many other city legislatures and candidates have consulted to work on it.

Back in 2005 Jim, I have invited Jack to come to Calgary to meet with the executives of oil gas companies. Jack had met with CAPP, with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. We had met with Kemberlan. We had accentuated for which we met together in 2005, was beyond futile and many oil executives actually came up on our side and said, "We do need more regulations."

A lot of the oil companies would say that we have a level playing field with the governor of those outer limits. We’re going to have to invest millions to pay down gas initiatives. We can’t do it as a new reaching government right now to make sure there’s a level playing field. Therefore, if they do that, most of the investor would join ship to our company.

So, first of all, it’s in our interest in Alberta. Currently, not only the issue we face our presentation and regulation but we also have to agree that the policy is important. It’s a vital protection policy to put online right now. We don’t have the processes to deal with all this massive destruction and degradation in the process…

We have spoken to the peace and we have fixed up above all reports. That is absolutely crucial to departments sector and the cognizances of civilized intention where getting your department and yet we don’t have the technology or any method to reclaim the reports.

In fact, less than 1% of the land up there is reclaimed and what’s reclaimed is actually grassland. It’s not rich and consistent. At the current labor section of one some seven million barrels per day; Tarsands are already the world’s largest, single source of greenhouse gas emission. They want to expand that to 60, 000, 000 barrels a day.

So, what the enemies are saying, "We will put more commute on future expansion." At the current rate of work expansion we cannot meet the labor demands nor can we deal with them by relocation. We have to meet with thousands of foreign workers just to meet the demand.

At the same time, if I worked the worker of all kinds of business sector we could not afford to hire the worker to deal with basic service industry in Western Alberta.
Moderator:
Thank you Mr. Chan.

[applause]

Well, that was kind of a depressing issue and I think our mic was fine. It’s Peggy Askin.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Thanks Michael. Well, I think as Albertans we’re not only highly aware but very, very active on the issue of opposing the environmental damage that’s being done by the Tarzans. I don’t think the issue is up for debate in that sense.

We all know about the toxic ponds. We need to be more informed and more of us need to know how it’s been affecting the safety and life of the people that live in that region and as John just pointed out [inaudible] sands are a huge factor for all of Canadians and a negative factor. So, as far as increased regulation, I think there are two things.

One, I think that the companies that are responsible for this degradation and the pollution and the danger and harm that it’s causing to health and safety both in Alberta and across the country, I think those corporations need to cover the cost of immediately dealing with the damage that has been done to the economy, and solving that problem.

I do not think that the Canadian taxpayers should have the burden of dealing with that problem, a huge, big problem.

The other thing that strikes me on this issue is that unless we actually exercise control over our own resources, then we are going to have quite a difficult time dealing with this issue in the sense that right now, private corporations control this.

So, yes, we as Albertans and we as Canadians can speak up and say that that’s what we want done, and I guess we need to become very, very active in putting forward the proposal and making sure that somehow or another we can make that proposal stick, that these companies that are responsible for this environmental damage need to be the ones who take the financial responsibility to clean it up.

Moderator:
You can wrap up.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
OK, I will wrap up. As far as the economy is concerned and jobs are concerned, I think that this is the basis of the economy here in this province and that there is absolutely no reason why, if we exercise control over these resources, that it can’t be done in a responsible way so that it provides employment for Albertans and yet it’s not degrading the environment and creating problems for not only Albertans but Canadians.

[applause]

Moderator:
So, this will be the last round of questions, and given your excellent patience, I can try to keep the candidates to a minute and a half, or with a unilateral decision to reduce the times, we have a full two minutes for conclusions, and then you can all get some questions to the candidates at the end.

The last topic of the evening will be healthcare. The question is, "Some amount of private, for-profit delivery of healthcare is a reality in most provinces today. The public system in many provinces, including Alberta, is in crisis, and we are falling behind other developed countries in research, innovation, and timely access.

Would a government by your party remove barriers to some form of private delivery for elective procedures in order to increase innovation and access? If not, what specific steps would you take to increase innovation and timely access?" And the first candidate is Mr. Prentice.

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
Did we get the question, or do you have copies of that?

Moderator:
Sorry, I passed copies of that out.

[laughter]

Dirty tricks of politics.

[laughter]

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you. It would only have been a dirty trick if I had read it myself.

[laughter]

We are supportive of a universally accessible, universally funded healthcare system that respects the principles of the Canada Health Act.

What we have been doing over the course of our time in government is to fulfill the ten year commitment to invest $41 billion of Federal money to strengthen our healthcare system. This is a very significant increase in the Federal contribution to the healthcare funding.

In 2008/2009, we put $22.6 billion via the Canada Health Transfer into this, and this has represented actually a 6% increase year over year, and what we are committed to do is to continue that 6% escalation, with the result that, as I recall, by 2013, it will be close to $60 billion.

We have also been taking other steps with respect to the healthcare system, with respect to cancer, with respect to the mental health commission, with respect to mental circumstances and homelessness, with respect to other very specific research on projects that we are funding.

I think it’s fair to say that, at this point in time, more Federal dollars are being put into our healthcare system than at any time in Canadian history, with very significant increases over the time that we have been in government.

With respect to changes to the system, we have brought forward patient wait time guarantees as an approach, we have been working with the problems, as in the territories. They have all agreed to conclude patient wait time guarantee agreements, and we’re working on several of the private projects at this point in time. Thank you.

[applause]

Moderator:
Jason McNeil.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
The state of public healthcare in this country is absolutely abysmal. Wait times are to the point where we have people dying in waiting rooms. And I have a story, but my wife had some problems, and we [inaudible] at midnight.

I’m sure we all have stories that are exactly the same, and I’ve heard the arguments that if we allow private healthcare, then public healthcare will suddenly cease to exist or won’t work. These arguments are simply flawed.

We have huge attrition rates of our skilled medical workers going to the United States because it offers better pay and better benefits to them. If we have a mixed private-public health system in Canada, we will keep those medical professionals that are currently leaving in our country.

They will bring new equipment, new innovation, and all the people who are paying to go see them will be out of the public line, shortening it for those who can’t afford it. So, yes.

Moderator:
Thank you.

[applause]

The next candidate is Eric Donovan.

Eric Donovan (Green):
So this is the question.. The question in some sense is ill-posed, because it says, "Would a government by our party remove barriers?" Our party cannot form the government in this election and will not form the government in this election.

It is no secret, however, that if you read the Green Party policy documents, that our party as a whole is really opposed to two-tier medical care, and I personally am strongly opposed to this.

I believe that we spend too much money inappropriately in healthcare. I believe, personally, that there has to be a greater focus, a far greater focus in our primary healthcare system on prevention, on lifestyle, and also on developing interesting strategies for alternative delivery of healthcare which is less expensive.

When my wife and I had our son four years ago, we used midwives in the hospital. It was fantastic. It was a fantastic way to have a child, and it was a wonderful service. And I do not understand for a second why midwifery and many other similar services are not covered by primary healthcare.

[applause]

It frees up doctors, it frees up time, and it undoubtedly saves money. Also, the last point I’ll make is that I reject the idea that if we have long wait lines, that privatizing will address that.

If we have long wait lines, it’s because we simply aren’t devoting enough resources to the problem, and if that is solved by a company, that is solved by a company that is taking money from Canadians. If it is solved by the government, it is solved by the government as it takes money from Canadians.

If we solve this problem, it is going to take money, and I want us to solve that problem within the context of a public healthcare system. It is fundamental to Canada. Thank you.

[applause]

Moderator:
John Chan.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
One of the first things that we have to make clear is that the accusation that our public health care system is not disabled is totally false. It’s absolutely true.

In fact, it is [inaudible] unheard in some places in Canada that our savings on healthcare will [inaudible] in terms of GNP and GDP is almost identical to what we spent back in the ’60s or ’70s.

What is the problem is that the attack on real [inaudible], sabotaged by those who little [inaudible] to the government in the past decade who are not only underfunding the healthcare system but refusing to provide leadership and innovation to increase the efficiency of the healthcare system.

I would certainly not support a two-tier system or essential hyper-partition for the simple reasons that: One, all the studies around the world, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada, said eliminating the two-tier system, the wait time for the public system actually got longer. The reason is because the private system diverts the number of health care workers we have into the private system and the wait times are longer. Secondly the cost also increases. A long study has shown it cost more and most Canadians simply can’t affort private clinics. And also the quality of care have also decreased because private clinics have to bill in a very substantial profit margin to satisfy their investors. Time and time again studies show universal health care systems are far more effecient and cost effective.

What we need right now is to train more doctors [inaudible] and also put the emphasis on primary care rather than secondary and tertiary…

Moderator:
Mr. Chan, you have five seconds.
John Chan (New Democrat Party):
…promote self care and healthy lifestyle. It actually saves 7 dollars for every dollar we spend on primary. So we must [inaudible] primary health care, self care and preventive care. At the same time, train more doctors and nurses. [applause]

Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
There’s no place in Canada where people have fought harder to keep private healthcare out. We as Albertans have opposed every single attempt to bring private healthcare into this province. Bill 11 being the last huge fight, Third Way, another one, so, why is it that private clinics continue to open like the Copeman Clinic?

I can tell you why I think it is. I think it’s because the Canada Health Act, although it does provide some provisions, still does allow these private clinics to open. And I just want to read a short commentary that was written after the opening of the Copeman Clinic by Peggy Morton, who is a long-term healthcare worker in Alberta.

Health care is a right and the paragraph basically says that, "Business parties in Parliament keep on repeating that the Canada Health Act prohibits two-tier medicine. But, the Canada Health Act provides no recourse to people who cannot access healthcare because the rich are getting preferential treatment.

The Canada Health Act is a financial arrangement between the federal government and the provinces. It covers only hospital services and physician services and only those provinces that declare medically necessarily.

The opening of the Copeman Clinic and other private clinics show that, even for these healthcare services, any rich businessman can open any private clinic with impunity and cannot be prosecuted.

So, what I’d say on this is, I think we need a new Canada Health Act that outlaws two-tier medicine so that all Canadians can receive high-quality, free, comprehensive healthcare when they need it. The right to healthcare in Canada has to be provided with a guarantee. That means we need a new Canada Health Act." [applause]
Moderator:
And, the last candidate to address us is Doug James.
Doug James (Liberal):
Currently Canada spends a little less than 10% GDP on health care. Cut to the quick. No, the Liberal party will not invite 2-tier health care, it will not invite private medicine into Canada. This is pure equity [inaudible] US spends 15% GDP on health care. If you’re a male baby born in the US tomorrow, your live span will be the same as if you were born in Cuba. [inaudible] We have an efficient system which is only failing due to a lack of leadership on the provinces.

My wife is a nurse my [inaudible] is a doctor. Since the early 80s there’s 20 years of [inaudible] Now because The Canada Health Act leave health care basically up to the provinces our intent would be to [inaudible] be helping state health and avoid disease and injury to a variety of purposes. Now, in terms of what we can specifically do, the Liberal government will bring in funding to remove certain bottlenecks in the review, and appraisal, and integration of foreign-trained health care workers into our system and also provide funding for interns and graduates from the medical schools and allow the doctors and staff in terms of residency issue.

Thank you very much. [applause]

Moderator:
That brings an end to the questions. All candidates will now have an opportunity to make a concluding statement. The first candidate is Jason McNeil.

Jason McNeil (Libertarian):
I just want to mention one thing before I make my concluding statement. That it is a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under section seven, to not allow us to pay for healthcare.

This year, Calgary Centre North has a lot of choices and candidates. However, I am the only one who, if elected, will respect your rights to run your life how you see fit. That I will fight to lower taxes and corporate handouts, shrink the size of the government, and defend civil liberties and private property rights.

We do not need big government status. They will not help the country move forward. The Conservatives continually failed to keep their election promises. They have grown the size of the government. They did not scrap the gun registry. They have attempted to implement a Copyright Act that would destroy the rights of consumers to enjoy their media as they see fit.

[applause]

They tried to pass a bill that would make safe and affordable alternative health products more expensive and less available. They are pushing for a wasteful and dangerous drug war, the kind we are seeing in the United States.

On top of all this, we are still fighting an undeclared war in Afghanistan that was started by the Liberals. And now, Harper has failed to provide the ships and helicopters that were promised.

We sent the Conservatives to Ottawa to bring change, to achieve fiscal conservatism and respect for the free market, to protect our rights, to scrap the gun registry and to lower taxes. Clearly, we can agree that they failed to change Ottawa.

The fact is that Ottawa has changed them.

Steven Harper has asked us if we can risk it all on Stephan Dione. I think we can’t. But, what I’m going to ask you is, can we risk it all on Jim Brandeis and Steven Harper?

On October 14, I asked you to give me the opportunity to show you what a libertarian will do.

Place your trust in me, and I will show you that freedom and liberty are more than just ideas. They are the essential elements of a free and prosperous society. [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate is Eric Donovan.
Eric Donovan (Green):
Thank you all for your patience on this hot evening.

If you look up my web page, at the University of Calgary, I think you’ll find that I am a pretty serious guy. I don’t have a lot of time to waste. I know that I’m not going to be elected and go to Ottawa. I’m not saying that light-heartedly. I’m saying that I have a reason for being here.

I’ve got here a copy of the Green Party’s platform. This party, this platform represents a young vision, a new vision about every issue that is important to Canadians. Some of this stuff in here is, well, wouldn’t it be nice if, and it really is unrealistic.

That’s not very risky because the Green party is not going to form the government. The Green Party has a role to play in Canada now. And, I’m going to tell you an analogy, briefly. That analogy is that in the 1970s what led the New Democrats to their single biggest victory in the history of that party, and they got more than 30 seats in the House of Commons.

And by doing that, those votes communicated to the parties that really hold the power in this country, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the Liberals at that time. And the Liberals had a choice to make.

They were being communicated by the voters that if they did not steal the policies of the NDP, they would not be able to form a majority. And that’s exactly what the Liberals did.

And in doing that, the New Democrats did a fantastic service to this country.

That is the role of the Green Party now.

I want you to vote for me, I want people to vote for me, and I want people to vote for the Green Party across this country, to communicate to the parties that are in power, that hold power, that they are going to have to change the direction that we’re heading in.

They’re going to have to let the economy change, to embrace addressing Green challenges as a source of wealth now, as opposed to a source of poverty 20 or 30 years from now.

I would invite you to look at the Green Party policies and I would invite you to really think about why a person like me and people like me, all across the country, are taking our time right now to do this.

Again, I’d love to go to Ottawa. I’d love to represent you in Ottawa, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I want you to vote for me because I want the Conservatives and I want the Liberals to be frightened, a little bit, into changing course now rather than later. [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate is John Chan.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
I just want to say, in all fairness, running a country is very much like running a family. The family’s the building brick. A family is not just a soldier for a profit-making entity. You want to invest in your children, realize if you have a pension, you have to pay your housing; you have to pay your medical bill, and so on.

A country’s pretty much the same way. What we come down to is it’s about spending, how do we pay this bill based on our ability, based on really what you can make.

For the last twenty years, we see the corporate tax continue to cut down, and the tax burden to continue to shift to the average Canadian, and public services continually cut back.

A lot of money we think is going to health care, education, or health program education, and day care. Jim Prentices government here found $50.2 billion to give to the wealthiest corporations in Canada.

And I’m saying that’s just not fair. And this should not be about the wealthy or powerful, it should be about fairness for these working families and protecting our environment.

So, the MP according to [inaudible 01:31] universal health care for Canada, OH pensions, employment insurance, worker’s compensation. Right now we are having both Liberals and Conservatives totally capitulate to the big corporations who say, "Let’s go after the short-term profits, as much profit as possible in the shortest possible time," by reducing taxes on corporations which are Canadian.

While people work with the Canadians, it’s just self incumbent, you can see the best way to guarantee economic growth, sustainability, and investing in this country is to invest in our future generation now, to make sure that there is healthy competition, and we’re educating the population.

If we do that, we will reap economic growth in this county, and if we got the courage to make this shift from fossil energy, to renewable and green energy, we would create a lot more green jobs than we would displace in the oil and gas industry.

And besides, it’s inevitable that we have to make that shift, because the survival of this planet and mankind is in question. Your children -I believe children, when my niece and other children that I know, they have to have that ecological base, and the resource base, for them to sustain life.

Moderator:
Please wrap up.

John Chan (New Democrat Party):
And if Alberta won’t, the glacier is receding. I find glacial [inaudible] and when I come home from work I find, the glacier has receded 60 to 70 percent. At this rate of recede, we will not have enough waterfalls for our future.

So, I ask you to support the party that has produced results in the 2005 budget, and if you want someone that works for balance, results, decency, and sustainability, then I think my conviction and my knowledge could be of service as the representative in Ottawa. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mr. Chan. [applause]

Peggy Askin.
Peggy Askin (Marxist/Leninist):
I guess the way that I’d like to conclude is more or less by asking a question to everybody here. And I mean it quite sincerely in the sense; do we want to continue on the same path of hoping that our serious problems, that are facing us right now in Canada, are going to be solved by this political process? Or by the business parties that are in Parliament?

Or do we want to start dealing with the question of how to empower ourselves? Right now we live in a province where provincially 60% of the people didn’t vote last time.

I talked about that in my introduction; I’m not going to talk about that again. We have laws in this province that virtually strangle workers in terms of their rights and give tremendous impunity and rights to corporations.

We have 60, 000 temporary foreign workers in this province, who work under a form of indentured labor, tied to one employer and have no civil rights while they’re here. We have a government who is essentially privatizing, privatizing, privatizing, and respects monopoly right not public right.

And, I for one don’t want to continue to see the wrecking of public assets, public healthcare, everything else in Canada. But, I do believe that it’s up to us to solve these problems. We have a pro-war government right now, and we have to deal with how can we become a factor for peace and elect an anti-war government in Canada.

So, we have some ideas; we’d like to discuss them with you. Some of the ideas that we have is that we could form renewal committees, and those committees would be non-partisan. They would be a mechanism for us to develop what our agenda is, in terms of what we want to see done in this country.

Then, we actually elect worker-politicians, or seniors, or youth, who will follow the agenda and the mandate that we give them and that will be part of starting a new political process in this country. The one we have is antiquated, it’s 300 years old, and it shuts people out of power; we need something new. [applause]

Moderator:
The next candidate is Doug James.

Doug James (Liberal):
Thank you. I’ll talk about two things, I guess. First of all, my life, and second, my political views. I’m a 62-year old male blessed with a son and a daughter, and also my good wife, she’s been putting up with me for many years now. Our daughter has two children of her own, Austin’s 11 and Addison’s 8. And, one of my concerns is what sort of world will they have when the time comes?

Will they have as good a life as I’ve got? And my concern there is unless come up with a new process for the problems we currently have, there’s a good chance they won’t. The reason I believe you should vote Liberal is, because I believe that we’ve demonstrated fiscal responsibility; an interest in the long-term protection of Canada and Canadians.

We’re not trapped in ideology, and Mr.Harper, in this meeting here or at the next meeting, basically stated, he doesn’t lie; as far as I know that’s the truth.

We could disagree with each other, but when I look at the slippery road for promises from the current government, from bank and trust - analysts of amnesty and that on - up to fixed election days, I personally don’t trust to bending the rules, to make the hard decisions that will let Austin and Addison have my kind of life.

Now in terms of why Liberals, well, I believe we have done consistently some of the party’s process.

Literacy, which causes National entrenchment of the Canadian and outsiders. Literacy, or poverty reduction, trying to do more work going forward with insurance; things which Mr. Harper promised that he would support when he was in opposition.

To help with, of course, the nation’s people who really were betrayed by that change of mind of Mr. Harper.

And climate change - I believe we are potentially faced with a perfect storm: permanent energy shortages, people and climate change. And if you’re trapped into an ideology that’s not going to recognize that train wreck that’s coming, you need a man with flexibility and acceptance that Stephane Dion and the Liberals can offer. Thank you sir.

Moderator:
Thank you. [applause]

The conclusion is Jim Prentice.

Jim Prentice (Progressive Conservative):
Thank you very much, Michael. Ladies and gentlemen, I conclude by asking for your support so that I can carry on hard-working on your behalf.

I’ve been your Member of Parliament for over four years now, and I’d like to continue in that role. There’s not a day that I stand up in the House of Commons where I don’t feel enormous pride that I’m there as your representative, and that’s a trust that I hold very dear.

I always begin by pointing out that we as Canadians are the most fortunate people on the face of the earth. We are the luckiest people, we are the wealthiest people, if you measure the quality of our assets that we have, the quality of life that we have; the resources, the quality of living we have in this country.

We are so fortunate. And the second premise I always begin with is that, we can beat anyone, at anything, at anytime, that we set our mind to. And those two principles guide me in public life.

We’ve heard a lot tonight, it’s been an interesting exchange of views about high-quality public goods; about our environment, about our health-care system, about education, about our university system, safe streets.

All of these are public goods that are important, where we need a balanced approach to make sure that government is fulfilling the responsibility that it has. But at the end of the day, we can only have high-quality of life if our economy is sound, and ladies and gentlemen, this election occurs at a critical time in our history.

I say that because of the challenges of globalization that we face, the pressures of the marketplace where manufacturing jobs can easily move anywhere around the globe. Whether it is automobiles or airplanes or cement whatever it is that your fabricating… bitchimen. And also the immediate challenges we see south of the border and the risk that will blot into our economy.

And so, I say to you there is only one party which is running on a solid fiscal record. One party that is running on a platform: not to increase taxes, not to run deficits, not to introduce radical new unfunded programs. Only one party that has a balanced platform that has been put before the Canadian people that involves sound fiscal stewardship so that we can guide ourselves through uncertain economic times. And that is what I hear from the doors that I knock on, what Canadians want in our riding. Thank you. [applause]

Moderator:
That concludes our candidates forum for the evening. [thanks and bye]