Debate | Federal election 2011

Global News hosted a live online debate with party strategists Goldy Hyder (Conservative), Penny Collenette (Liberal) and Kathleen Monk (NDP).

A bit about the panelists:

Goldy Hyder – Conservative

Twitter: goldyhyder

Biography: Conservative strategist worked on Conservative campaign in 2000 (as Joe Clark’s Chief of staff) and also worked on the 2004, 2006, and 2008 – as a communications advisor for the Conservatives.

Now with Hill and Knowlton in Ottawa in government relations.

Penny Collenette – Liberal

Twitter: penottawa

Biography: Candidate last election 2008, in Ottawa-Centre, senior advisor in Michael Ignatieff’s leadership bid, and prior to that Senior Director in Jean Chretien’s PMO 1993 to 1997. National Director for the Liberal Party of Canada in the 1993 election campaign.

Presently with the University of Ottawa and as adjunct-professor of law.

Kathleen Monk – NDP

Twitter: kathleenmonk

Biography: NDP Director of Communications, Monk was a journalist before joining the NDP and has also often acted as a pundit for the party. She was appointed this June.

Here are the highlights of the debate:

Q: The Broadcast Consortium for the election has decided against including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, despite the fact that she has a candidate in every riding and is currently sitting around 4% in the polls – do you agree with her exclusion?

PC: Mr. Ignatieff made it clear in a press release that the Liberal Party advocated for Elizabeth May’s inclusion. The best way to engage Canadian voters in an election is to include voices, not exclude them.

KM: I am dissapointed by the decision. I think that the rules for election debates need to be clear and consistent. A candidate should know why they are excluded.

GH: Personally yes – though to be clear – the Party has no issue with her participation. For me the issue is lack of representation in the House. The Green Party had one member last time (Blair Wilson who crossed floor from Liberals to sit as the first and to date only Green Party member) whereas they have no MP’s today. If we open the door for Ms. May why not for other "party" leaders? Where do you draw the line? This is certainly the position of the media consortium as i understand it.

Q: What do you think the rules for participation should be?

GH: Minimum of one elected representative in the House of Commons. I remind you that this is a place that doesn’t even grant party status unless a party has 12 MP’s.

KM: Many people have spoken about the idea of needing to have an MP in the House or running 308 candidates – being a truly national party. Countries have various ways of running their electoral debates… in the State there is a Presidential Debate Commission. The rules need to be consistent and the public should have a say.

PC: Good question. As long as we have our present system of a democracy that is founded on a system of "first past the post", then, as Goldy noted, representation in the House of Commons is a very transparent measurement. The question is really whether Canadians are still comfortable with this system. Is it time to have another debate on proportional representation?

Q: It looks like the one-on-one debate between Harper and Ignatieff has been killed – what do you all think of one- on-one debates?

PC: Ummm.I guess the question is how many debates do Canadians want during an election cycle. We shouldn’t forget that local candidates also have many debates in their ridings. Do Canadians want to hear only from the Leaders?

GH: Seeing all the leaders together to "line em up against each other" is an important aspect of the election campaign. too many debates/varied formats would dilute the importance of the current one English/one French debate. Plus having been on a national tour i can tell you that it is not an easy thing to coordinate with two let alone having more.

KM: I think it is an excellent idea. Mr. Layton is ready to debate any leader any time. What I think is key… is that the public get to see a true debate. For instance the notion of Mr. Harper debating Mr. Ignatieff is ridiculous. They agree on so many thing: imposing the HST on families in BC and ON, the extension of the military mission in Afghanistan and corporate tax cuts. We need someone who will stand up to Harper.

Q: How important is social media, including twitter, in the campaign?

KM: Twitter, and social media generally, are extremely important to the campaign. If we want to engage more voters we have to reach out to them with every means possible, where they live, where they work, and the media that they use.

GH: For now what Twitter has appeared to have done is make "spin" more transparent. It has also generated a lot of dialogue and debate – only last night my tweet against state funding of political parties generated more discussion than anything else i’ve ever said (which is probably a commentary on my other tweets!) We are still in the early days but i don’t see any evidence of an Obama or Nenshi like use of social media in particular an attempt to convert non-voters into voters.

PC: We are all using all the new kinds of media. But yet we continue to see polls which say that voters are "apathetic". If social media is not getting through and formal debates are somewhat artificial, what will it take to engage Canadians. Personally, I think we take our democracy too lightly. hopefully, the historic ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons that the Conservative government was in "contempt" of Parliament shows just how fragile democracy can be. We need to be vigilant of our freedoms.

Q: What about the drawbacks, what are the main challenges involved with the campaign?

PC: It can be too fast and sometimes be too emotional – especially when discussing policy, which we all know, needs to stress tested against facts and reality.

KM: With social media — like mainstream media – you need to be aware that whatever you say can and will be read by not only journalists but by your political opponents. While you can engage more people individually the drawback of only engaging on social media is that you miss out on the face to face experience of being at a big rally or door knocking with a candidate. These are fabulous moments in a campaign.

GH: Whether Twitter or Facebook or other forms of social media like in any other form a party "needs to know the audience" and be able to communicate to it. While there are many "groups" that form i feel that the parties are not yet comfortable in knowing how to communicate to an audience they can’t tailor their message to. The biggest impact of social media in political campaigns to date i feel has been the ability of those who used it well to actually bring new voters/alienated voters – those who didn’t/don’t vote into the process. For now there is little evidence to suggest that such a phenomena is taking place in any of the federal campaigns.

PC: I totally agree. Knocking at someone’s door is the best way method of engagement. People are surprisingly willing to talk, especially if it is a one on one conversation on the doorstep or in their apartment hallway. Social media just cannot replace that kind of interaction.

Q: Would like to ask our strategists a question about the 1 x 1 debate – has that issue gone away now that Mr Harper has said he’s not interested? Who gains from a 1 x 1 debate??

GH: My understanding from both sides is it’s not going to happen but people will have amply opportunity to size em up in the two national leaders debates which are usually for any PM about surviving the onslaught of a 3 on 1.

KM: Mr. Harper is afraid to debate Mr. Layton one-on-one because if you watched the 2008 debate – Mr. Layton was clearly the winner. http://www.youtube.com I think the issue may die down now that the consortium has made public its decision

PC: I assume the issue has gone away although Mr. Ignatieff make it very clear that he is ready to debate "any time, any place". However, he did not want any one on one debate to replace the multi leader debate. Clearly, though there are some very intense issues which need debating and hopefully those issues will shine through in the formal debate – issues like fear vs hope and unity not division.

Q: The Liberals announced this week that they would provide $1-billion in new money annually to all high-school students to attend university or a trade school. What do you think of this promise, is it necessary? Is it viable?

KM: While I think that the Liberals are well intentioned… the Liberal education announcement is an American style policy of high grants and high tuition. What students really want addressed is the rising costs of tuition. Tuition has increased more than the cost of inflation year after year. What we need to do is help families now. The cost of everything from gas to food is on the rise. Canadins are living with record debt. Families deserve a break now and I think Jack Layton is the Leader you can trust to get the job done for Canadian families

PC: Candidates are candidates. I am quite sure that before this election is over, there will be further dramatic incidents. Just look at the front page story today about the provincial Conservative candidate in Ontario.

GH: A good substantive question going to the core of what this election is about on the policy front namely a conflict of visions and philosophy. The Liberal party has gone so far left it is unbelievable. Their view has essentially become government knows best from the time you are born (child care) to the time you go to school (education) to the time that you run a business (corporate tax hikes) to the time you age/retire/ (homecare) – don’t worry the Liberal party will be there to take care of you. Canada and Canadians are so past that old, tired vision of government knows best. We live in a modern era where people are empowered, free, mobile and are dreaming big dreams. Government’s need to create opportunity not manage a nanny state. The Tory vision is one of confidence in the individual, the family, the business operator to make their own best decisions. It believes in less government, lower taxes not the Liberal approach of growing government, increasing taxes and spending freely.

Q: What about the NDP promises to cap credit card interest rates at five per cent over the prime rate? Could this work? Is it necessary?

KM: Familes are struggling with debt and if want to make a difference in their lives today — one of the best ways to do this would be to lower the the credit card interest rate. CALCULATE WHAT YOU COULD SAVE: http://www.ndp.ca

GH: The NDP promise will simply mean, i suspect, that less people would qualify for credit cards as at the end of the day – unless this is also in the NDP plan – banks are regulated but not nationalized and there is no requirement that those who apply for a card get one. The issue that this raise though is that of consumer debt and rising cost of living and the way to address that is NOT TO SPEND MORE OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY ON NEW NATIONAL PROGRAMS NOR TO RAISE THEIR OR THE TAXES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATORS IN CANADA!

PC: I thought I would take the attacks before responding. The Liberal proposal to assist students who wish to go to university or college is inspired. Far from government interference, it is actually a method of encouragement and hope. A well trained and well educated workforce is a much better enticement for corporations than a further reduction in corporate income tax. Education leads to opporunity, innovation and yes, even entrepeurship. The Canadian Learning Passport will allow Canda to become more productiove and competitive – something that even Tories will admire!

Q: And finally, What do you think of the Conservative’s promise to allow families, with children under 18, to split their household income of up to $50,000, once the federal budget is balanced? Is it necessary and/or is it viable?

KM: In the last 12 months Stephen Harper gave the banks almost one billion dollars in corporate tax giveaways — with out getting anything in return for Canadian families. The competition bureau says that small business are being gouged to the tune of $5 billion dollars a year by excessive and predatory charges on merchants. That is just not fair. Small business and families deserve a break. Why do the corporations always come first with Stephen Harper?

GH: As a family man i am for the income splitting option (and yes of course we’d all like it sooner than later but the deficit must be slayed first). Smart measures to reduce the tax burden on families are important and welcome.

PC: The problem with the income splitting policy is that it will benefit Canadian families who are already earning over $60,000 a year. And it does nothing, absolutely nothing, for single parents, who are often single mums.