Sept. 28, 2015 saw one of the most heated debates yet of the 42nd election trail. The two-hour foreign policy debate, hosted by Munk Debates in Toronto, covered a variety of issues, including the controversial Bills C-51 and C-24, the Syrian refugee crisis, and Canada’s military involvement in the ISIL mission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s stance on each of these issues was the focus of much of the debate. The confrontations between Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair surrounding Bill C-24, however, were particularly animated. The bill, officially titled the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, allows for amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act to permit the stripping of citizenship from a dual citizen if they are convicted of offences related to terrorism.
The prime minister, for his part, staunchly defended the Conservatives’ position on the bill, noting that Canada has already revoked the citizenship of several individuals involved in terrorist plots, as well as convicted war criminals.
“Why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offences of this country?” asked Prime Minister Harper.
Trudeau, in particular, took issue with this stance, pointing out the imminent slippery slope when the government’s primary response to those convicted of certain crimes is to enable their prime minister to revoke their citizenship, rather than keep them in jail.
“A Canadian is a Canadian,” said Trudeau. “You devalue the citizenship of every Canadian […] in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anybody.”
Both Trudeau and Mulcair vowed to revoke Prime Minister Harper’s amendments to the Citizenship Act. The pair, however, soon turned from agreement to confrontation as the discussion turned to Bill C-51.
“The NDP took a very strong position against C-51,” said Mulcair, turning the attacks toward Trudeau through his familial ties. “We looked at it, we know it was wrong the same way that the NDP was the only party to stand up in 1970 when Pierre Trudeau put hundreds of Canadians in jail without trial, without any accusation.”
“Let me say very clearly, I am incredibly proud to be Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s son,” said Trudeau, who was less than impressed. “When we talk about the legacy that my father leaves behind, first and foremost is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has defined Canada as a country that stands up for individual rights, even against governments that want to take those away.”
When the debates turned to focus on the issue of ISIL, Prime Minister Harper was quick to defend Canada’s military involvement.
“We have a very clear reason for being there,” said Harper. “Why we would abandon this mission is a question that goes begging.”
Mulcair noted that while 60 nations are involved in the missions against ISIL, only 12 are involved in military combat, and that there was no purpose for Canada to be one of those 12.
“[It is] important to remember that this is not a NATO mission,” urged Mulcair. “This is not a United Nations mission.”
Trudeau suggested that Harper’s pushing for Canadian combat involvement showed a pattern, citing the Conservatives’ 2003 support for the Iraq invasion. Trudeau, however, maintained that Canada should not be involved in any fight, separating himself once again from Mulcair.
Perhaps one of the most contentious issues of the night proved to be the discussion of the Conservative stance on the Syrian refugee crisis.
Trudeau argued that Canada has consistently shown political will in accepting refugees with open arms, citing the more recent example of the Joe Clark government and the more distant example of Irish immigration in 1847, when “there were 20,000 citizens of Toronto, and they accepted 38,000 refugees.”
“Canada has always done more,” continued Trudeau. “It’s not about politics; it’s about being the country that we have always been. The entire world is looking at Canada and saying, ‘what is going on?’”
Prime Minister Harper, however, argued that security concerns had to be seriously considered, and asserted that a policy on accepting refugees needs to be about more than “chasing headlines.”
With this, Mulcair took great issue, chastising Prime Minister Harper for insinuating that a government attempting to aid those in great need were somehow “chasing headlines.”
“I find that disrespectful,” concluded Mulcair. “It’s disrespectful to Canadians and Canadian values.”
If nothing else, the Munk Debate provided a lively, colourful forum on current and contentious issues in the face of an approaching election day.