After speaking with thousands of residents, I keep hearing three topics come up as the top concerns here:

Repealing regressive immigration reform (Bill C-50)

Scarborough—Agincourt has one of the largest immigrant populations in all of Canada. Residents have been bringing up Bill C-50 at every debate I’ve attended. It was a very regressive piece of immigration legislation brought in by the Conservatives that the Liberals let pass. The NDP was the only federal party that stood up and united against it. Constituents here are very upset with this bill because it gives arbitrary powers to the immigration minister to pick and choose who goes up and off the waiting list based on his or her own biases, often favouring temporary workers over family-class and economic class immigrants. This has been detrimental to family reunification and is treating new Canadians like second-class citizens. The New Democrats not only opposed this bill and want to repeal it, we have a plan to make family reunification easier, recognize foreign credentials, and provide training and bridging programs for those who need to upgrade or need new credentials altogether. Not only have the New Democrats consistently stood up in Parliament for this kind of immigration fairness, we’re the only party that has allocated funds to these priorities to make sure the services and new programs we are promising will actually be delivered.

Ending the war in Afghanistan

People confirm what Liberal incumbent Jim Karygiannis said in his own survey back in February:

“Seventy-four percent believe we should not extent [sic] the Canadian combat mission beyond 2009”

And yet Mr. Karygiannis voted to extend the war.

A vast majority of residents here are against this war. The recent news of a British brigadier-general saying the war cannot be won only confirmed what residents have been saying here for years. The news today of the overspending on a mission that will now cost up to $18.1 billion ($1500 per Canadian household) now adds another dimension on top of the moral and practical reasons why this mission needs to end.

People see the war as inflaming terrorism in Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom: “In three southern provinces, including Kandahar, terrorist attacks have increased more than 10-fold since 2002. In Kabul and surrounding areas, they have more than tripled” (August 18, 2008). In a riding concerned with safety, residents can’t see why Liberals and Conservatives are continuing a mission that is making Afghanistan less safe.

Poverty is also an issue: “A recent UN report says general indicators such as human development and poverty have worsened [in Afghanistan] since 2004″ (Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail, February 22, 2008). In a riding with 9.2% unemployment (even higher youth unemployment) and more than its fair share of poverty, families can’t understand why they’re being asked to pay $1500 each for a mission that’s increasing poverty overseas and adding to their own economic insecurity at home.

Finding an alternative in the New Democrats

For every vote Jim Karygiannis received last election, another voter stayed home and didn’t cast their ballot. Many people are turning away from Mr. Karygiannis because they believed in the Liberal brand; either Trudeau’s “just society” or Pearson’s commitment to peacekeeping. By abandoning the former with passing Bill C-50 and abandoning the latter with extending the war, people are looking for alternatives. There is a massive anti-Karygiannis constituency that is waiting to hear more about the alternatives so they know what they’re voting for.

With his visibility in the riding (signs and literature), many people were considering Dr. Benson Lau (Conservative) as that alternative. With his medical credentials, many assumed he’d stand up for health care. But after people realized that Stephen Harper’s last job with the National Citizens Coalition included the goal of dismantling universal health care, they began to ask how a doctor can stand up for health care with Harper as his boss. They also don’t understand how Dr. Lau, having immigrated to Canada, could support a party that introduced Bill C-50.

When residents realize the predecessor of the New Democrats (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) was the party that brought universal health care to Canada on 17 consecutive balanced budgets and that the NDP was the only federal party to stand united against Bill C-50, many anti-Karygiannis voters who were thinking of voting Conservative are changing their intentions and trusting the New Democrats to deliver social justice, peace, and economic security. At a recent debate, one resident (Sharon Adams) echoed what many others have been telling me when she said, “I came to the debate tonight thinking I would vote Conservative to try and get rid of our incumbent, but that would be a wasted vote.” She was later quoted in the Scarborough Mirror which reported: The evening confirmed her leanings toward casting a vote for Dougherty, who Adams noted “was able to hold his own and seemed to know his facts” (October 8, 2008).

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

Note : Malgré un effort certes louable de sa part, Mme May n’est pas présente ici en raison de la qualité déplorable de son français. C’est regrettable pour le Parti Vert et ses sympathisants, mais il y a des limites à vouloir être équitable ou, pour employer une expression populaire, à vouloir « accommoder raisonnablement. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Dion

À M. Duceppe : « Quand est venu le moment de reconnaître la nation québécoise, le bureau de M. Harper m’a consulté et nous avons fait cela de manière à montrer que l’on peut aussi faire partie de la nation canadienne; ce qui est un problème pour M. Duceppe. »

À M. Harper (à propos des mesures environnementales qu’il propose) : « Je pense qu’on perd notre temps à discuter du faux plan de M. Harper. Il n’y a pas un seul expert qui a dit que c’était un plan sérieux. »

À M. Layton (qui dit vouloir rapatrier les troupes d’Afghanistan dès maintenant) : « On a pris un engagement. Nos alliés comptent sur nous (…) C’est une responsabilité qu’on a, comme quand on a pris nos responsabilités pour Kyoto, c’est la même chose. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Duceppe

À M. Dion : « Nous avons proposé des projets, par exemple que le français soit la langue de travail dans les banques, les ports, les aéroports, les télécommunications. Le NPD nous a appuyés, mais pas les libéraux qui pourtant reconnaissent que la loi 101 est une grande loi canadienne. »

À M. Harper : « Tout ce que vous avez trouvé à faire ce sont des politiques qui enrichissent les pétrolières. Semble-t-il qu’aux dernières nouvelles, elles n’ont pas de misère à terminer leurs fins de mois. »

À M. Layton (qui l’accuse de vouloir privatiser la santé) : « Moi je veux que ce soit un système de santé publique, mais c’est au Québec de décider en tout temps. Je pense que les Québécois sont capables de prendre eux-mêmes leurs décisions et ils n’ont pas besoin du reste du Canada pour venir leur dire quoi faire. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Harper

À M. Dion : « Vous proposez d’augmenter les taxes avec votre nouvelle taxe sur le carbone. C’est une politique qui va détruire l’économie. »

À M. Duceppe : « Je dois rappeler que quand nous avons proposé la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise, les autres partis ont accepté ça immédiatement. C’est seulement le bloc qui, pendant deux journées, s’est opposé. Et c’est ça le problème. Notre gouvernement agit et le Bloc réagit. »

À M. Layton (à propos de son engagement à respecter Kyoto) : « Vous avez établi des cibles, mais pas de plans pour les atteindre. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Layton

À M. Dion (en réponse à la réplique ci-haut de ce dernier sur le retrait des troupes d’Afghanistan) : « La différence entre vous et moi, c’est que quand nous faisons fausse route, je suis le seul qui veut changer de direction. Vous avez fait un compromis avec M. Harper. Moi je ne vais pas le faire. On a besoin de leadership. »

À M. Duceppe : « Vous n’aurez pas l’occasion de protéger le système de santé publique parce que vous n’aurez pas le gouvernement. »

À M. Harper : « Si on coupe dans la culture et les arts, on endommage la situation au Québec et la nation québécoise. Et votre attaque M. Harper, était envers les artistes eux-mêmes. Je vous donne la parole afin que vous répétiez en français les commentaires odieux que vous avez dit en anglais à propos des artistes. »

The beginning topic, the Economy, found Harper in general denial that Canada’s economy is anything but strong. As the subject of taxes on gasoline came up, Dion seemed to be intent on telling us how the demand from other countries would keep prices high, while Layton spoke about the need to help industries that are dependant on petroleum products to survive. Harper told us that he had done well by cutting the consumer taxes (GST), and Elizabeth May said this has done “nothing” for the consumer. My comment: “Yes, right, saving 2% on every litre of gas really deals with the incredible increase in the price per litre!”

There was a question about the listeriosis issue and food inspection. The high point in this part of the debate was when Gilles Duceppe asked Harper why the standards for exported foods were different (less frequent) for foods destined for distribution in Canada…

On the Environment issue, a questioner asked about having an independent agency created to deal with it. The overwhelming response from the others was about “leadership”, afterwhich May, Dion, Duceppe and Layton all complained about how Canada’s “leadership” on the issue is suspect among almost all other world leaders.

On Ethics in Politics and the House: This was the most fun part of the debate, that each one at the table look to the left and say something positive about the other potential leader sitting beside them and their experience with trying to work together. Poor Elizabeth May had Harper and had a difficult time trying to find something positive to say. The moderater had to cut her off, not because she was trying to be mean, but because she just came up empty. It was also entertaining to witness Steven Harper telling Jack that they had indeed found “some common ground”.

On Crime, the question was from a teacher from Dawson College, about gun control. While Harper, after fending off Layton on the issue, quickly changed the focus of the question towards his new crime bill, it set off another heated debate about the Conservative approach. Dion wanted to know HOW provinces would find the money to put more youth offenders in prisons, when there is already an issue over the number of prisons in each province lacking enough space and funding. May finished up by saying that it is funny that Harper wants to be tough on youth breaking laws, but he (Harper) only obeys the ones he agrees with. (She mentioned Kyoto and his own Fixed Election Law as examples).

On Healthcare: The debate became quickly about the fact that many Canadians do not have a family doctor. I guess this is the way to reduce hospital and emergency rooms problems. So all parties then focussed on the training and incentive issues for Canada to get more doctors. Elizabeth May brought up the issue of banning all chemicals which harm our health. Harper said he is on top of all of these issues. No one mentioned the issue for many immigrants to this country. How to make sure that qualified immigrants can efficiently cut through the present red tape to practice their professions when they arrive in Canada. This was a letdown for me….

Afghanistan: I do not think any leader said anything that has not been already heard a thousand times on this issue already.

Who won? Well I think it is sad that if you are a francophone in Québec, that if three out of five leaders are speaking in their second language, that some voters will pick the top two because of language. This language issue is what keeps dividing Canada, but it is also what makes us different than the United States, where debates happen in one language only. I love our bilingual and bicultural Canada! I love also, being a citizen of the World!

In English:

A vote for the conservatives: It’s a vote for closed mind politics, for cuts in culture. It’s a vote against Kyoto [Against gay union]. It’s a vote pro-war which enslave us toward oil company.

That a really good summary of why I just can’t put my mark for Stephen Harper on October 14th.  That being said, I won’t necessarily vote for Mr. Layton.

Just out in time for this election and available FREE online, The Harper Record, edited by my trusted friend Teresa Healy.

Here’s the summary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

This book is one in a series of CCPA publications that have examined the records of Canadian federal governments during the duration of their tenure. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of previous governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper during its 32-month term from January 2006 to September 2008.

The 47 writers, researchers and analysts who have co-written this book probe into every aspect of the Harper minority government’s administration. From the economy to the environment, from social programs to foreign policy, from health care to tax cuts, from the Afghanistan mission to the tar sands, from free trade to deep integration, and to many other areas of this government’s record, the authors have dug out the facts and analyzed them.

The Harper Record was necessarily researched and written long before an election was called, but its publication does coincide with an election campaign and thus may help citizens to make informed choices about the future of their country. Regardless of the election outcome, its contents will continue to be relevant between elections. In detailing what a minority Conservative government really did, or failed to do, it may serve as a guide and model for future elections.

Si vous êtes de religion catholique et que vous voulez savoir comment Dieu voterait s’il le pouvait, la Conférence des évêques catholiques du Canada vient de publier un court guide de quatre pages (au format PDF) sur les prochaines élections.

La pauvreté, l’avortement, l’Afghanistan, l’Église vous dira ce qu’un bon catholique doit penser lorsqu’il ira cocher son bulletin de vote le 14 octobre…

However, this had me perplexed when the Opposition was trying to put firm deadlines on Canada pulling the plug on Afghanistan. Now that the Conservatives are talking about a 2011 withdraw, well…

Telling the Taliban when you’re leaving just doesn’t seem smart. Granted there are other countries there and this isn’t just Canada’s war but some kind of measure of success besides a date thrown out during an election campaign would seem to be a better idea.

In the Fredericton riding which is home to CFB Gagetown, it will be interesting how this plays out at the polling booths. Should we be there or not has been a debate across the country but it is worth noting that since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on North American soil and life for many Afghanis has improved thanks to the Canadian Military.

War sucks but it would be a shame if all the work done by our soldiers (counting nearly 100 who gave their lives) ended up being reversed the moment we pull the plug because of an arbitrary deadline set in the heat of an election.

Crossposted – Spink About It