TODAY: Peggy Nash answers your questions at 3pm PST, 6pm EST

Hi Peggy, great to have you join us!

Thanks for your question Howard. I support international trade. I don't think there is a future for our economy without strong international trade, but it has to be balanced trade. The problem I have with the way it's being conducted in Canada is that the latest generation of trade and investment treaties deal with matters far beyond international trade, affecting access to medicines, environmental regulation, industrial policy, natural resource management and the future of public services.  

These broad agreements restrict the role of the state in regulating the activities of international corporations.  Through binding a broad range of government measures, they limit or even foreclose key options for more progressive governance.  This is true across a wide range of matters, often only peripherally related to trade. Chapter 11 style provisions that allow companies to sue governments undermine the democratic will.

Treaty negotiations now deal primarily with regulatory and other so-called “non-tariff barriers” to trade.   Sensitive decisions restricting democratic authority over vital regulatory matters should not be made in secret negotiations where only corporate lobby groups have privileged access.

I don't think there are any perfect examples of a trade agreements that I would or would not sign as Prime Minister. As I outlined above, my main criteria to judge will be whether or not the agreement goes too far beyond the scope of actual trade mechanisms and limits the capacity of government to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians in a number of domestic policy areas.

In terms of existing trade relationships that I could see myself wanting to expand, I would have to say that I would like to re-engage Canada in multilateral systems (including at the WTO) to find innovative ways to enhance global commerce while ensuring working people share in the benefits of trade and the environment is protected.

Glad to see you on here Howard, 1springgarden and Unionist! And everyibe else reading.

Thanks for your question.

A key part of my anti-poverty plan is creating high quality jobs that pay salaries high enough to keep people out of poverty. In the last two decades we have watched the decimation of our manufacturing sector and those good-paying jobs haven't returned. There are so many incentives and investments that the government could make to support, revive and re-build our manufacturing sector, but instead they have squandered billions on ineffective and wasteful corporate tax cuts.

I think that raising the GIS is key to lifting and keeping seniors out of poverty.

We also have to protect pensions in this country by gradually increasing the CPP.

The provision of a Quebec-style childcare program will help many families get out of poverty.

A national housing strategy with the resources to back it up is also crucial. This is important across the country but particularly in first nations community.

Education funding is another important step because lack of post-secondary education funding to the provinces has lead to mortgage size debt loads for young people that often does not correspond to their income.

The EI system needs to be reformed to make sure that everyone has equal access to the benefits that they've paid into, when they need them, regardless of where they happen to be in the country.

Lastly we should also look at ending consumer and financial gouging that the federal government has jurisdiction over. One area is predatory payday lenders. The government is not fighting usurious interest rates overall and has left online payday lenders completely unregulated.

I find pensions almost impossible to understand, but if it means expanding the role of the CPP/QPP without jeopardizing its health, and gradually replacing workplace plans which are increasingly there only for lucky unionized folks (some of them) - good on you, it's worth at least studying and trying out. Thanks for the reply!

Thanks Unionist for your interest. The future of pensions is an absolutely critical question - not only for seniors but for young workers who need to have confidence that they also will have retirement security.

I don't know if my submitted question will be asked, but I'm still interested in knowing if you will work to undo and overturn Harper's cuts to social programs (I have a vested interested in a youth volunteer program called Katimavik which apparently may be on the chopping block).

Thanks!

Nice photo Peggy 

Peggy, would did you support the bombing of Libya?

Thanks Howard!

Unionist wrote:

No fair - Howard's on skype with Peggy - favouritism!!

Lol. Peggy is multi-tasking: babble + twitter.

Hi Ryan.

Penalties under the Canada Health Act are linked to federal transfers to the provinces. More precisely, each provincial health care insurance plan must comply with the requirements of the Act before the province receives its total entitlement of cash transfers. If a province fails to comply, the federal government may impose a penalty and withhold part or all of the transfers. If a province is determined to implement user fees, then I will enforce the Canada Health Act using the provisions I just outlined.

I will say however, that the road to user fees can be stopped. I know that working closely with the provinces and making sure they receive the funding they need to operate their healthcare systems on a long-term basis, will stop them from even considering the option of user fees.

Glad you found a like button Howard!

Hi Chris,

Nothing wins the air war like bold ideas and clear direction. This past week I put forward the type of plan that can draw a lot of attention and sway a lot of voters. I think one of the main things we have to champion in the next 4 years is that of bringing in a proportional representation voting system.

People have felt so disconnected for so long from the electoral process because the outcome doesn't reflect their vote. I know the NDP has proposed this in the past, but we can shake things up and get people excited about implementing real change and getting a system where the parties actually cooperate with each other. Imagine if we could convince Canadians that their vote could actually bring the change they've wanted for so long.

For this we have to move beyond the platform. We need active campaigns across the country that include civil society, NGOs, our riding associations and our MPs. We can't just talk about our ideas anymore. We need to use new social media and new outreach methods to connect with people and get them excited about CHANGE - not just ideas.

If we remain bold and exciting and don't shy away from risks, I think we'll sway the 40% that didn't even bother to vote this last election.

Dunno if there's time or if this has been asked, but I have a question with regard to foreign policy: Harper is meeting with Netanyahu today, and although Harper says he prefers diplomacy, one can still hear the war drums beating against Iran. Any thoughts on this, Ms. Nash? (sorry for getting a second question in...)

Hi Peggy.

I recently heard someone say that when the idea of co-operating with liberals to oust the conservatives from conservative held ridings, top liberals claimed that 50% of liberals would vote conservative, if the liberals did not run a candidate in their riding. Do you know if this was based on a scientific  poll, personal opinion, or concensus among top leaders?

edit: too slow:p

Thank you for all of the interesting questions and thanks Babble for hosting this forum! Hope to see you online soon!

Thank you so much for coming by babble tonight Peggy! Good luck with the last weeks of the campaign!