Prime Minister Paul Martin passionately answers a question Friday night. NDP Leader Jack Layton answers a question during the debate Friday night. Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper participates in the English-language debate, Friday. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe participates in the English-language debate, Friday.

Transcript of English-language debate, Dec. 16

Updated Tue. Dec. 20 2005 10:15 AM ET

Canadian Press

VANCOUVER -- Following is the transcript of the federal election debate on Friday night. This transcript was provided courtesy of the consortium that broadcast the debate.

Trina McQueen (moderator): Good evening from Vancouver. I'm Trina McQueen, and welcome to the first English language debate among the major party leaders in this election campaign, and this is your debate. For the next two hours, the leaders will answer questions from Canadians just like you, from all across our country. There were nearly 10,000 questions submitted. The network producers from Global, CTV, and CBC have chosen questions that represented the themes in the e-mails we got, and they recorded those questions for playback tonight.

The questions have been organized in to four themes. The party leaders were given a list of the themes but not the specific questions. They will see and hear the questions for the very first time tonight. There are time limits on the leaders' answers. One minute for the first round, 30 seconds and then 15 seconds for the follow-ups, and the leaders have promised not to interrupt each other. The party leaders, in fact, know all the rules and they have agreed that I should enforce them.

Before we get to the first questions, each leader will have one minute for an opening statement, and the order was determined by a draw. Paul Martin of the Liberal party will go first. Mr. Martin?

Paul Martin: well, thank you very much. First I want to thank Trina for agreeing to keep us in line, and I want to thank all of you for watching. In Canada today, our economy is strong. Deficits are history. Unemployment is lower than it has been in 30 years. But this is no time to take anything for granted. It's time to build on what we have accomplished together. I believe in strengthening public health care. That's why I'm working with the provinces to cut wait times. I believe in helping Canadians keep more of what they earn, and that's why i'm cutting taxes. I believe in balanced budgets, a ban on handguns. I believe in high quality child-care and a truly independent foreign policy. And I believe in a united Canada in what we can achieve together as a nation. Now, my opponents and I will disagree tonight. That's because we don't believe in the same things. We would take Canada down very different paths. That's why it matters who you choose to lead our nation and what that person believes. Thank you.

McQueen: Mr. Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois.

Gilles Duceppe: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Because of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, Paul Martin's government has lost the moral authority to govern. The Liberal party has tried to buy Quebecers with taxpayers' money. The Liberals still try to fool the people by pretending that this election is a referendum. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is a sovereigntist and progressive party that respects Canada, but it is a federal election, and the sponsorship scandal is at the centre of it. Judge Gomery concluded that the Liberal party dishonour itself. That undemocratic behaviour infuriated Quebecers of all origins. On January 23rd, it will be up to you to sanction the Liberals. For too long, the Liberals have taken the vote of Quebec's cultural communities for granted. This era is over. Thank you.

McQueen: Mr. Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party.

Jack Layton: Good evening. The NDP Is about getting results for people. You saw the difference we made in the last Parliament, and there's more to do. We're working for education and training for our young people so that they're ready for that 21st century economy and so that Canada can be strong. We've got to fix the health system and stop the privatization, and to get a long-term care plan in place for seniors as well as doing something about drug costs. And finally, we've got to clean up the terrible Liberal corruption scandal. Let's adopt Ed Broadbent's plan and clean up politics and make sure everyone who's elected is accountable. It's a different way of doing politics, a real change. It's very different from the political games and the vote-buying promises you'll hear tonight from the Liberals and the Conservatives. Getting results for people, when you elect an NDP MP, you'll be sending a voice for change to Ottawa. I think it's time. Thank you.

McQueen: Mr. Stephen Harper from the Conservative party.

Stephen Harper: Thank you. Tonight I want to spend my time talking to you about the direction a Conservative government will take this country. Canada needs a new government to bring accountability to Ottawa, to get on with addressing the real concerns of ordinary working people and their families. A Conservative government will clean up politics in Ottawa, cut taxes starting with the GST, crack down on crime, bring in a patient guarantee for wait times in health care, support parents directly with the costs of child care, assist students, workers, small businesses, seniors, and rebuild our armed forces. After twelve years of scandal and inaction, only a new government can turn the page and address the real priorities that you have, you, the ordinary people who work hard, pay your taxes, and play by the rules. During the debate this evening, I would ask you to keep one question in mind: which party can bring real change to Ottawa, establish accountable government, and take real action on your priorities?

McQueen: Thank you all for your opening statements, and our first question tonight comes from Pat White from Ottawa on the theme of social policy, and we're going to ask Mr. Harper to respond to that first.

Question: My name is Pat White in Ottawa, Ont. My daughter Beth is in law school at Queen's University. She's planning on practising law and raising her family in Canada. Do you think she and her partner Susy should have the same rights as heterosexual couples? If not, how would your party justify discriminating against a Canadian for an aspect of their identity that is comparable to race, sex, or religion and even consider using the notwithstanding clause?

Harper: Well, thank you very much. Obviously the issue of marriage, the definition of marriage, is an emotional and contentious issue. Most Conservatives support the traditional definition of marriage. Our party position is to support the traditional definition while supporting similar rights and benefits for all other equivalent relationships. Our government will not use the notwithstanding clause after this election in which Canadians will debate this issue. We'll simply hold a free vote in Parliament. Even if Parliament adopts to proceed with traditional definition of marriage, we will make sure that all existing marriages, all existing same-sex marriages must be protected in law. This is controversial and difficult issue, but I believe this is the democratic way to deal with those differences, and I say once again, our party will allow a free vote of all elected members of Parliament.

McQueen: Thank you. Mr. Martin?

Martin: We are a nation of minorities, and what that means is that all minorities must protect each other, and it is the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the Charter of Rights, and the prime minister cannot cherry-pick among rights that he happens to like or ones that he doesn't happen to like. He must defend all rights. And the problem is that Mr. Harper's position simply is not sustainable. Mr. Harper wants to reopen the issue, the charter issue of same-sex marriage, and he would take away a charter right. Now, to do that, you have to use the notwithstanding clause. Now, that's not just what I say. There are 134 constitutional scholars who have come out and said there is no other alternative, and I believe it's wrong to take away people's rights. I believe the job of the prime minister is to protect them, not just the ones you happen to agree with. Mr. Harper has two incompatible positions. His position is not sustainable, and integrity demands that he tell Canadians, in fact, what his true policies and agenda are.

McQueen: Mr. Layton.

Layton: Well, Pat, first of all, I can feel the pride in your voice as you speak about your daughter and your hopes for her in the future, and I'm very proud that the NDP was able to stand strongly in the House and has done so for so many years with many of our members of Parliament speaking out over the years for rights for lesbians and gays and for their relationships. But it's sad to see what's happening here right now. We have the Liberal party and the Conservatives party playing politics, driving wedges between Canadians on something that has already been resolved, on a fundamental issue of human rights, and it's a sad time to hear this kind of debate going on. There's one thing you can do to make sure that such an issue doesn't get raised again and debated and undone in the House of Commons, and that to send more New Democratic party members of Parliament to the House. We will stand strong and firm for the full equality that we're talking about here tonight. Let's not play anymore politics with it.

McQueen: Mr. Duceppe.

Duceppe: We should not revisit this question. I think that was decided, and we have to understand that we have to respect each individual. I think that the gays and lesbians have the same right now on in our society, and society is not really free when someone is not free. I fought very hard on that question, and the Bloc strongly supported the law proposed by the Liberal government, and we didn't start fighting for that in the last months. We did it well before, and I remember I think I signed one of the first collective agreement ever in 1986 recognizing the right for same-sex couple to have the same right on a collective agreement concerning insurance and so on. So it is deeply within Quebec society and now within the Canadian society, and I think it's a great plus for our society.

McQueen: Well, three of you think that this question has been and should be settled and one of you doesn't. The question is, what's wrong with having a free vote and how will that issue be decided if there is a free vote on the issue? Mr. Duceppe?

Duceppe: Well, we already had a free vote on that, so I think we shouldn't have a free vote on a question that was resolved every six months. That was decided, and I think we have to live with that, and people I think will get used to that because it is now normal, and I don't want to live in a society where some people don't have the same kind of rights than other people.

McQueen: Mr. Martin?

Martin: well, the essence of the Charter of Rights is, in fact, to protect minorities against a majority which may want to take away those rights. That's why we have a charter. That's the purpose of this Supreme Court and all of the high courts across the country. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the vote was held and it went the other way. Then what you would end up having to do is challenge the charter right of same-sex marriage and you would have to use the notwithstanding clause, and Mr. Harper says he won't use it. It's incompatible. It's not sustainable.

Layton: I think it's very important for a political party to stand absolutely firmly behind the concept of human rights for all minors and in particular for lesbians and gay that is we're talking about here right now. I wish the prime minister would make a commitment that his party or members of his party who might be elected because many of them voted against this right in the last Parliament will not bring this forward, and I would urge Mr. Harper to do the same. It doesn't make sense to reopen these questions and start to take steps backwards. It would be so unfair.

McQueen: Mr. Harper?

Harper: an election is the time for people to have their say. This issue was referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court left the definition of marriage to Parliament. Mr. Martin and I have a disagreement on a legal opinion. He believes it's a charter issue. I believe it's simply an issue of the definition of marriage. But the real contradiction here is the question Mr. Martin has to answer. If he believes it's a charter issue, why are there dozens of Liberal candidates running in this election who actually support the Conservatives position on the issue?

McQueen: I guess for a final question, one of the things that many people talked about in their e-mails to us was their concern about the interpretation of the charter and whether it should be Parliament who expands rights or whether it should be the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the charter. Mr. Layton, could you take that on?

Jack Layton: Well, of course, it should be the feeling and the view of Canadians that sets this forward, and I think we have it. I think Canadians have now accepted that we've moved on, and I see this when they come forward and the couples show me their rings. a

...Stephen Harper: I believe Parliament should make law. Parliament's democratically elected, and the courts should interpret them. I don't agree with Mr. Martin's interpretation of the charter. I think it's for the courts to interpret the charter. In the meantime, we're obligated to take our democratic positions on the issue.

Gilles Duceppe: I think it's up to the Parliament, those elected members representing the population, to decide. So we decided. The decision is taken. We don't have to come back on that. We have to I think adopt all the laws and make sure those people really had the same rights in practice.

Paul Martin: The Supreme Court may well interpret, but let me tell you, it's the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the Charter of Rights, and if you can't defend the Charter of Rights, they be then you've got to ask why you want to be prime minister, and I will defend the Charter of Rights and not bring forward new legislation. ...

... Question: This is Samin in Calgary. Is there anything the next government can do to make Quebec sovereigntists feel part of Canada?

Duceppe: I think we have that debate since quite a long time now. And I think that when we had that referendum in Charlottetown back in '91-92 after the Meech failure, I think we have to realize nowadays that Canada is building itself the way Canadians want Canada to work. Quebec doesn't feel at ease at all in that scenario. I think that the best way would be to be inspired by the situation in Europe where we find independent countries, sovereign countries getting together, but staying sovereign countries and voluntarily sharing things in common. This is what I think we have to do. We're not reacting against Canada. I think Canada is a great country. I think Canadians are a a

McQueen: Mr. Layton, do you agree?

Layton: Well, I think what's happened here is that we're seeing the same old debates of the past, and I'm hoping we can move beyond them. Unfortunately one of the biggest aids to the growth of support for the Bloc, with all due respect, Mr. Duceppe, and the Parti Quebecois has been the scandal that has taken place, the misuse of tax dollars to try and buy the support of Quebecers for our country. Naturally, Quebecers have reacted very negatively to this. I grew up in Quebec. I passionately want to build the kind of Canada in which Quebec will feel respected, celebrated, and a part of building what we can build for this great country. And rewarding the Liberals for what they've done will send a message to Quebecers that they're not respected. What we need to do is, first, stop the corruption and the behaviour of the Liberals. Second, start working on common projects like we did with our budget, investing in issues that are important, and, lastly, open the door to reconciliation, a new path forward for Canada.

McQueen: Mr. Martin?

Martin: Quebecers have a deep attachment to Canada. What they want is they want to be recognized for who they are, their language, their culture, their distinct character. What Quebecers, they want to be respected and they want to know where their role is within Canada. Think about what's happened here. Six million people of an English-speaking population of 300 million and they have got some of the greatest artists in the world, some of the greatest writers, there is an enormous dynamism in Canada. They want Canada to understand it and I believe Canada does. They built this country - we have built this country together. If you go back 150 years, we understood that we had to pull together to make it happen, and the same thing applies today. So I believe that what Quebecers want is exactly the same thing as anybody wants in Calgary. They want their children to have a good life. They want to be able to have great national objectives that they can live to. They want social programs which mean that they count. Fundamentally, what Quebecers want is to be part of a country that recognizes them and that is succeeding and that's what we've got to offer.

McQueen: Mr. Harper?

Harper: Well, I don't think, to be honest, to our questioner we're going to change the mind of every sovereignist. I don't think we'll change Mr. Duceppe's mind in my lifetime on this question. The rise and support of the Bloc is not due to real support for sovereignty. It's a reaction to the corruption of the Liberal party and the damage it's done to the face of federalism in Quebec. I think that damage has been compounded in this election. By Mr. Martin who continues to talk about a referendum and talk about Mr. Charest, the premier of Quebec, as if he doesn't exist. This is the strongest federalist premier, a former Conservative leader, strongest federalist premier in my lifetime. He wants to make this country work. I want to work with him to make that country work. We have a team of candidates in Quebec led by Lawrence Canon, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Andrea Payne; people of integrity, people who are committed to this country, and people who want to make sure that we work hard to create a stronger Quebec and respect for Quebec's powers and jurisdictions within a strong and united Canada.

McQueen: A second question on the topic of unity. Mr. Don Matheson from Ontario and we'll ask Mr. Layton if you'll respond to him.

Question: My name is Don Matheson. I'm from Deseronto, Ont. If the PQ hold a referendum, ignore the Clarity Act and then declare Quebec to be a sovereign state, what action would your party take?

Layton: well, thank you for the question. Of course the Supreme Court has laid down fundamental principles on which we could move forward. They've been accepted very broadly having to do with how these things should be conducted. But I want to pose a question to Canadians. Why is it that we're talking about how Quebec is going to leave Canada instead of talking about what we can all do with Quebecers so that they will want to stay? Surely that is what we should be talking about, not the name calling, the finger pointing. It is really very destructive. I want us to look forward. I want us to build with Quebecers, and I want to show Quebecers that federalism can work for them. That's why we took that budget. We got rid of the corporate tax cut. I don't know very many Quebecers who thought it was a good idea, and we invested it in social housing, public transit and the environment, post-secondary education and training, widely received positively in Quebec. That's a good example of how we can build for the future. We need to do more and reconcile our differences.

McQueen: Thank you. Mr. Harper.

Harper: Thank you very much. The Supreme Court, as Mr. Layton says, has laid out some pretty clear directives on clarity and how to deal with such a situation. As prime minister of Canada, that would guide my actions, and it's always important for the prime minister's first priority to be to defend the unity of this country. I don't obviously want to go far down the - so far down the path as this particular voter's talking. Let me just say this; the only way Quebec is ever going to separate from Canada is if we create a federal government that is so tarnished in their eyes, so corrupt, so disrespectful of their jurisdictions that we drive them that way. Quebecers have an attachment to Canada. If we ever face another referendum, it's the responsibility of the prime minister to not make this a partisan issue, to work with all the federalist parties and work with the federalist leadership in Quebec to win that. If federalism has a clean image, an honest image and respects Quebec's powers and jurisdictions we will never have to worry about Quebecers. They will always choose Canada.

McQueen: Mr. Duceppe?

Duceppe: Well, you know, the clarity bill was unanimously denounced at the national assembly in Quebec, not only by the PQ, the sovereigntists, but also by Mario Dumont's ADQ. And Mr. Charest who he has said he is a federalist prime minister in Canada. Jean Charest also denounced the clarity bill. The elected members of the national assembly in Quebec are able to determine what is a clear question or not. Why would it be only the people sitting in the House of Commons able to do that? I think people in the national assembly can do that. And we'll always act in a responsible way. And the referendum we had in Quebec was a democratic exercise. It always will be a democratic exercise. And I think in the best mutual interests of both countries if we succeed as sovereigntists will be to start negotiating a better settlement, a better deal for both countries.

McQueen: Mr. Martin?

Martin: Mr. Duceppe, let me say to you that the Supreme Court, the Constitution of Canada and international law all make it very, very clear that you cannot have a unilateral declaration of independence. Let me say also that I am a Quebecer, and you are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question. You are not going to do an "astuce" as Jacques Parizeau said. This is my country and my children were born and raised in Quebec, and you're not going to go to them and say that you're going to find some backdoor way of taking my country or dividing Quebec family against Quebec family. We do have an opportunity, and Quebecers understand this, to build a country which is without parallel, and if you take a look at the way that Canada is measuring up in terms of our economy, in terms of the strength of our social programs, in terms of our independent foreign policy, I believe that we do appeal to the deep attachment, the deep love of this country that Quebecers have and you're not going to win, Mr. Duceppe. Let me tell you that.

McQueen: Well, I guess, Mr. Matheson's question is not exactly that. Mr. Matheson's question is the question of supposing Quebec ignores everything that you're talking about and, as he says, declares Quebec to be a sovereign state, and Mr. Duceppe, I'll ask you to start with that. Is that a possibility? And the other leaders to say what happens.

Duceppe: I said we'll do it in a responsible way. It means negotiating in good faith, exactly what the Supreme Court said in its advice, and we're respecting that because we've always done that. And it's surprising to see Mr. Martin telling me what he said when they just tried to buy Quebecers' vote with the ad scam, the same people who didn't respect the law in Quebec in Montreal. I ask Mr. Martin to give the names of those who received dirty money trying to buy Quebecers' votes.

McQueen: Mr. Harper, Mr. Matheson again wonders what would happen if that vote occurs and the sovereignists win.

Stephen Harper: It's the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the rule of law. I do want to say to Mr. Duceppe, he can't read half the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court judgment talked about negotiations but it also talked about the rule of law. The necessity of having a clear question, not a garbled question about partnership and association, a clear question with a clear majority. I would just like to hear Mr. Duceppe say - we know how we believes in his cause. We respect that. That he will urge Parti Quebecois under all circumstances to respect the rule of law.

McQueen: however, it is Mr. Layton's turn to talk about that.

Layton: Well, first of all, I have to say that the solution here, and we've got to focus on a solution, not about how Quebec is going to leave or what happens if it does. We've got to build those bridges. That's what we should be doing. And I ask Mr. Martin, will you at least start by saying to the people of Quebec that the Liberal party was wrong to try and buy their support? That is what has driven up the support for this idea of separating, and we have to start the reconciliation right there, sir.

McQueen: Mr. Martin, your response.

Martin: Sovereignty is a question of international recognition, and you're not going to get international recognition if what you do is violate the constitution of Canada, if you violate international law. The fact is that sovereignty would not arise in the way that the questioner put. Certainly and as prime minister of this country I will defend the unity of our land. Let me just say one thing, the question that you have asked, Judge Gomery has dealt with this issue. The most expansively as possible. If you have a problem, go see Judge Gomery. Go see the RCMPa

McQueen: Thank you very much.

 

Top Stories