Monday, November 9, saw the local representatives for each of the Conservative, Liberal, Green and New Democratic parties come together in the Great Hall of the Student Life Centre to discuss, in front of Waterloo students, the nature of Canada's responsibilities on the international stage. The forum was broken into two sections; the first on international development and the environment, the second on foreign policy.

Following opening etiquettes, the forum began with a series of questions regarding Canada in the world, the first of which asked simply: what is the value of international development in Canada?

Incumbent Conservative MP, Peter Braid fittingly gave the first response. To the Conservative government, he stated that globalization represents a drastic increase in the challenges to international development as countries become more interdependent and issues more complex. As the governing party of Canada, Conservative policy dictates that Canada has a responsibility to meet these new challenges; he went on to list several goals the government has chosen towards this end.

Braid stressed that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is meeting its commitments to African nations despite dropping 8 countries from its list of aid recipients. After being challenged on the issues of dropping countries from Canada's aid priorities, Braid gave the response that by dropping several countries, Canada's aid donations could be focused for better efficiency. To support this, he pointed to the increase of funds to Africa, up to $2.1 billion, a new level. This statistic was challenged by both Liberal veteran Andrew Telegdi, and New Democrat, Peter Thurley. Telegdi claimed that Braid was being disingenuous as to how much aid was actually being increased. Thurley brought up the commitment made by Pearson to spend 0.7 per cent on international development; currently Canada spends 0.28 per cent. Braid countered this point by reminding the opposition and audience that since Pearson made this commitment, the closest Canada has come to actually meeting it was under Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Brian Mulroney.

Braid's positions were criticized by Green candidate, Cathy MacLellan, who believed that the Conservative's position framed international development as too much of a business while discounting the human element. Despite earlier opposition, Telegdi and Thurley largely echoed the position of Braid regarding the value of international development. The early questions were entirely scripted and unsurprisingly, this meant that the debate was largely flat; no one was about to question whether helping the impoverished of the world was a noble goal.

The theme throughout the scripted question period was essentially a series of press statements given in rapid succession. Candidates rarely acknowledged each others' points but rather ran with their pre-calculated answers. Generally this reduced the forum to Braid giving an overly-optimistic view of Canada's influence in international development, while the three opposition candidates countered with notably pessimistic views of the current government's inaction. Some notable points from the three opposition candidates concerned the future of CIDA, and it was here that the interesting discussion began. Thurley and MacLellan saw CIDA as both underfunded and in need of rebranding. Thurley claimed that currently 80 per cent of CIDA staff work in Canada with 20 per cent in the field. He viewed this as the opposite of the ideal, asking why more staff were not sent to work in areas of the world in need of development assistance.

As the questions became less formal and the floor was opened to audience feedback, the more controversial topics came forward. The first question brought from the floor, directed towards Peter Braid, asked why he would chose to support pharmaceuticals' intellectual property rights in regards to vital HIV/AIDS treatments if it meant the treatments were too expensive for the impoverished. Braid responded with a defence of intellectual property claiming that without a proper respect for intellectual property rights, innovation and prosperity are severely stifled. As part and parcel of his answer, he acknowledged Research in Motion and their landmark IP, the Blackberry.

Other candidates seized this opportunity and voiced their hypothetical support for a bill aimed at circumventing IP rights in regards to HIV treatments. On this subject, Thurley claimed it was wrong that “intellectual property rights trump the right to live”, and Telegdi called it “totally unconscionable.” Teledgi, Thurley and MacLellan voiced support for such a bill and MacLellan went further by stating the need for a national pharmaceutical Corporation-presumably government run.

When the question of Canada's place at the upcoming Copenhagen environmental summit came up, Braid was adamant that Canada would go into the international talks with a respectable environmental record and a clear vision for the future. Other candidates dissented by stating that Canada was no longer respected internationally for its environmental stance. MacLellan and Thurley pointed to the impact of big business on Canadian government as a detrimental modifier of environmental policy. Telegdi also reminded the audience that 77 largely developing nations had walked out when Canada spoke at environment talks in Africa. Braid countered Telegdi however, by pointing to the 15-odd years of Liberal federal governments which had failed to take action on Kyoto mandates. He went on to state that when the Conservative government adopts post-Kyoto goals in Copenhagen, they will stand by them.

Towards the end of the two-hour forum period, the moderator moved the questions towards the second subject-foreign policy. His first question asked whether Canadians could still views themselves under the stereotype of a “middle power” or “honest broker”. MacLellan and Thurley answered first each with an emphatic “no.” Both claimed that Canada had made a name for itself internationally by acting as a mediator and voice of reason. Allusions to Lester B. Pearson were many and Telegdi even maintained that Canada had invented peacekeeping. Telegdi agreed with the previous two speakers that Canada had strayed from its ideals, but was less adamantly outspoken. It was this issue that brought out a large difference in opinion when Peter Braid flatly rejected that Canada should be a “middle power.” He claimed that Canada should strive to be a principle power in international affairs and not shy away from that responsibility. Braid outlined three pillars of which the Conservative government seeks to shape through global leadership: Latin America, Afghanistan, and emerging markets in India and China. This position was sharply criticized by the other candidates as being too out of line with Canada's traditional role in the world. Despite these differences, all the candidates voiced fairly similar opinions on Afghanistan though none would acknowledge this.

All the candidates agreed that military operations would come to an end with respect to the 2011 deadline. Additionally, it was generally agreed that despite very different opinions on entering the war, because Canada was there now it would be irresponsible to simply leave once the military mandate ran its course. It was also agreed that after 2011, the primary focus of Canada would be one of reconstruction with little to no actual fighting.

By this point, there was little time left to re-open questions from the crowd, and candidates gave their final summations. The New Democrat and Green candidates reminded the audience that not just the Conservatives, but also the Liberals were responsible for Canada losing sight of its future in international relations. Telegdi somewhat bitterly pointed out that the previous year's election had seen him defeated by the narrowest of margins, and encouraged voters to vote strategically. Peter Braid again dealt with questions of his support of intellectual property rights, then went on to praise the current government's leadership on the international stage regarding development and Afghanistan. All in all, the forum turned out to be less of the scripted punditry it could have been, and produced some welcome surprises and discussion.