Rogers TV’s all-candidate debate for the riding of Carleton, recorded on September 29, 2015. Candidates participating are Deborah Coyne, Kc Larocque, Pierre Poilievre and Chris Rodgers.
Some of our Supporters
Rogers TV’s all-candidate debate for the riding of Carleton, recorded on September 29, 2015. Candidates participating are Deborah Coyne, Kc Larocque, Pierre Poilievre and Chris Rodgers.
Why only on Rogers TV? How come that for decades on end, it is always Rogers that gets to have a monopoly on broadcasting local televised politics? It’s the same at municipal elections also. Only Rogers customers get to be informed. How the heck do they keep on getting away with this? It sounds completely unconstitutional. I though monopolies were illegal in Canada? Surely this also breaks a few political rules as well!
I though CPAC has public broadcasts. Why not use that?
Who are signing these deals and what money is passed under the tables here? Sorry, but this reeks of corruption to me.
It’s not a monopoly. Quite simply Rogers is the only company willing to invest in local TV. If you have a problem with that, go yell at Bell or Shaw.
And while I agree it sucks that it’s only available to Rogers customers, it’s technically not true because here we are, watching it for free on YouTube…
If my previous comment went through, it shouldn’t, because I was wrong. I made a point how Rogers gets to be the sole broadcaster for local political broadcasts. It seems that that has been changed, because the broadcast is published through Youtube, which means every one can watch. I sure hope that any future political broadcast, the next municipal ones in particular, will also be accessible to all, and not just to Rogers customers. This is a practice they once got away with, and it was wrong.
Next, the actual debate. In the opening statements, it’s a crying shame how the political system keeps on rounding off candidates like Deborah to zero, through our first-past-the-post system. In a proportional representation system, we would see people like her have a better influence. Deborah’s points are absolutely accurate, all of them. She’s a sight to sore eyes.
Pierre right away takes it down a few notches. Low tax. Really? Not seeing all that much difference. We’re saving a bit here and there, and at what cost. Adding over 150 billion raising the national debt ever closer to that 1 trillion mark?
Then he talks about how we have to pay money back. Yeah, we, and our children, have to pay that money back alright. The money that the Conservatives spend! And then he uses fear mongering tactics how a different party is the actual threat.
Balanced budgets? Only at this final election time that is. Using what, selling off of GM stock for billions? Scraping the bottom of the barrel? Canceling child tax benefits by making them taxable (watch you next tax return folks). That’s just cooking the books if you ask me!
Income splitting. While it benefits me, it doesn’t benefit most Canadians that actually need this! Also, I’d rather see investments in post secondary education, an enhanced funding plan for it, so that our future tuition rates don’t spiral out of control like it has been.
Lowering taxes for business. It seems the largest corporations have gobbled up most of these savings, and that trickle down tactic didn’t really work.
I don’t feel like I need the conservatives to keep Canada strong. Canada has been strong under other parties, the Liberals notably. At least with the Liberals, we’ve seen surpluses and the debt going down.
I feel just awful after watching him. I feel like I’ve been lied to with a straight face.
Chris makes his opening point the fact that he lives in the riding. Problem is, this is the federal elections, and people aren’t really voting for the local name, they’re voting for a federal brand. And that’s his only point. No content. No methods or insights. No points how the Conservatives failed.
I’m for the Liberals, but Chris doesn’t represent them well here at all.
That said, this is not about a local candidate. This is about what federal party will make Canada work best. What aligns with the people, with business, with future economics, with changes.
KC starts by stressing how government has to do better. She points out how, despite Pierre’s claim how small businesses have been helped, how the Conservatives have let them down. Which is true I don’t know. What I do know is that NDP leader Mulcair has pointed out that large business tax rates need to be reversed back to a previous (only slightly) higher rate, to make funds available for reductions in the business that provide the most jobs: small and medium businesses.
KC explains this as well. KC points out NDP’s social drive to support family’s needs, like childcare. While not everyone needs childcare, childcare for the ones that need it is atrociously expensive. The bulk of a second income might go entirely to childcare, once you get 1 or 2+ children in a daycare (at like 1 grand a pop these days). An aging population that doesn’t have children might think “this is not my problem”. But childcare isn’t the only social plus that they offer. A graying population will cause a massive support problem. An NDP would represent stronger response capabilities to these very soon rising challenges. This I’m sure, will become the news of the day, the elderly falling through the cracks.
The challenge is to do this without just wildly splurging other people’s money. This needs careful planning that is fair to all.
I don’t know if the NDP can accomplish that. Maybe.
Personally, I feel it’s a bit of a toss up between the NDP and the Liberals. I feel that the investments offered to enhance the economy, that will empower business other than oil business, makes the Liberals the most beneficial candidate, not that the NDP’s strategies don’t include that also, but I’ve only heard about tax distribution changes, not actual investments.
On the other hand, I’m having a hard time not seeing stronger social values pushed, like tuition cost reductions, support for a graying population, and child care (and with details how that would be implemented, without it being a mindless handout – but through tax deductions perhaps).
As for the Conservatives, I can’t even begin to describe how far out of line they are.