Calgary West Debate
First of all, the debate was held in a rather poor venue: the usual Speaker's Corner area of old Mac Hall, which is completely unsuited for large crowds or a stage. That aside, the Student's Union did a reasonably good job of keeping candidates to their time-limits, although the host did nothing to ensure they stayed on-track and answered people's questions directly.
Some candidates seemed adept at not answering the questions, with the CA encumbant Rob Anders the clear winner. Kudos to the Green party candidate Evan Osenton for consistently stating clear, direct answers to questions, with the NDP candidate a close second in this regard. Jim Sylie, the PC candidate, answered most questions reasonably directly, although got off track on many, similar to the Liberal Candidate.
To be fair, though, Rob Anders was the subject of more direct questions, being the current MP for Calgary West. It is entertaining to note that he didn't get through the hour without saying the phrase ``Liberal billion-dollar boondoggle''.
On specific topics which I can recall (bearing in mind this is from memory):
Health Care
Rob Anders directed clear support for the status-quo in Alberta -- he pointed out that MRI and eye clinics are providing private service faster to people with more money (for required services) and seemed quite satisfied with this. He boasted of the fast service received by his Aunt at a private clinic when she needed cataract surgery. A different person asked each party to define ``two-tier health'' which Rob Anders defined reasonably well, putting him at odds with what Stockwell Day thinks party policy is in this area (although he defined two-tier health more-or-less correctly, he explicitly stated he was all for it, unlike Mr. Day's Jiffy-marked sign).
The Liberal candidate defined two-tier health more or less the same as the Green candidate and offered further funding as his solution.
The Greens and NDP had similar definitions (``any time someone can buy faster service for required medical procedures'', to paraphrase). The Green candidate advanced the policy that people should receive medical care based on need, not income. The NDP candidate basically agreed, with less eloquence. Both noted that education reduces health care needs.
The PC party noted that the Liberals have cut health and education transfers and that they would restore these to at least 1993 levels (although it was unclear whether Mr. Sylie supported private clinics for required procedures).
Education
The PC candidate outlined basically his party's platform that student loans should be paid back based on post-graduation ability (as a percentage of net take-home pay) and that education funding should be restored. He also outlined a federal education standards policy, which would tie education funding to certain guidelines like the Canada Health Act does.
Rob Anders suggested that personal income tax cuts would help students pay off their loans faster, and also outlined a policy similar to Mr. Sylie's which would be based on ability to pay (although this policy appears nowhere in the CA policy documents). The ``brain drain'' was mentioned, again with personal income tax cuts as the suggested solution (although recent studies show income tax as only affecting the decision of 8% of emigrants).
The NDP candidate noted that education funding was lax and that a more educated populous is less likely to commit crime.
The Green candidate pointed out that education is not an expense, but an investment and suggested that a Green government would invest more in future post-secondary and primary education. He also pointed out that the ``brain drain'' may not be quite the ``crisis'' it is made out to be since many educated people immigrate to Canada for every educated emigrant.
Unfortunately, the issue of publically funding separate schools (such as religious ones) didn't come up.
Social Issues
A question was asked about whether any of the candidates supported gay and lesbian rights to marry and adopt children. With the exception of Mr. Andrews, all candidates expressed the opinion that all people should be treated equally (including, by implication, gays and lesbians in the area of marriage). Part of the question asked which way Mr. Andrews voted on the gay-rights legislation (C-23? He voted against it) and yet another part asked if any of the parties would consider legislation such as that introduced in Holland. Only the Green and NDP parties explicitly stated that the Dutch legislation is a good thing, while the other candidates avoided answering this.
I asked why some of the parties thought that young people should automatically bear the responsibility for some crimes as adults, without being afforded the privileges of being an adult. (That is, if young offenders should be tried in adult court, why not make them adults?) All candidates successfully deflected the question. Jim Sylie noted that people should be punished if they break the law (of course they should!) while failing to note any distinction between children and adults. Mr. Anders went off on a complete tangent about how the Liberals had done nothing to change the Young Offenders Act without advocating what those changes should be (or by justifying them, as I hoped was the thrust of my question). The Green and NDP party noted that greater education and reduction of poor people (noting the positive correlation between lower social status and higher crime rates) would be a good way to reduce crime, although this wasn't really the nature of my question. The Liberal candidate advocated the status-quo (also not good policy, although slightly better since young people aren't automatically tried in adult court as suggested by the CA policy platform).