It was standing room only on Thursday at a formal debate hosted by the Hart House Debating Club. The topic of Canada’s involvement with U.S. missile defense drew a spirited crowd ready to hear opposing sides of the issue debated in the Canadian Parliamentary style.
For the uninitiated, debate in the Canadian Parliamentary style involves four debaters being divided into two teams. The first team represents the Government, and its members assume the roles of Prime Minister and Minister of the Crown. The second team embodies the Opposition, and its members take on the role of Leader of the Opposition and Minister of the Opposition. After an obligatory disclaimer about turning off those cell phones and respecting everyone’s feelings from the Speaker of the House, Melanie Tharamangalam, the debate got under way at about 7:40 p.m.
Aaron Rousseau, assigned the role of PM, set the tone for the discussion with a seven-minute, opening speech highlighting the need for Canada to sign on to an American missile defense strategy. He briskly outlined the main reasons Canada should participate in the program, starting with the proclamation that Canada may come under attack from a rogue state with ballistic missile technology. He grouped Canada with the United States politically, pointing out that many extremist regimes don’t discern between our two governments. He stressed the need to get involved in our own defense.
Rahool Agarwal responded as the Minister of Opposition. The focus of his speech centered on Canada’s commitment to international law and human security, and how Canada would be abandoning both by participating in the American program. He argued that Canada would be casting off a foreign policy in place for decades by becoming involved in missile defense, and that doing so would be declaring to the world that Canada considers the proliferation of nuclear weapons acceptable.
Joanne Langille got the chance to counter the opposition in her role as Minster of the Crown. Her rebuttal dealt with the negative political consequences of not participating in the program, and how already strained relations between Canada and the U.S. will deteriorate as a result of abstaining from missile defense. She mercilessly satirized the Leader of the Opposition, much to the delight of the crowd, and cavalierly avowed that getting involved in missile defense will not constitute aggression on behalf of either Canada or the United States.
Michael Kotrly’s speech was one of the highlights of the evening. In it, he questioned whether National Missile Defense was even logistically possible, and he accused the government of “taking a wiz on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.” In playing the Leader of the Opposition, he questioned why Canada would get involved in an undertaking that other countries, such as Russia, have written off as futile.
After the teams concluded their arguments, individuals from the audience were invited to the floor to support the Government, the Opposition, or to present another point of view. Rory Mckeown, another debater in the club, and Robert Tuskey, a senior member of Hart House, both spoke on behalf of the Government. Ariel Court, a peace activist, and Evan Thomas, a first-year law student aided the Opposition with their words.
The evening ended on a sober note with Nobel Laureate Dr. John Polanyi addressing the crowd. Dr. Polanyi stressed that with a price tag of approximately a trillion dollars, any missile defense program was not worth the cost to taxpayers. He asserted that the United States is mainly interested in Canada lending legitimacy to the program by agreeing to participate in it. He reiterated that Canada shouldn’t feel compelled to support the program because it failed to support the war in Iraq. His eloquent words may have spurred those in the crowd to throw their support behind the Opposition. When the members of the audience were asked to vote for either the Government or the Opposition by leaving through a specified exit, the Opposition garnered 91 votes and the Government just eight.
Langille, who is also the Communications Director for the Debates Committee was pleased with the outcome of the evening. “The aim of the club is to promote debate, discussion, and the analysis of ideas and problems through formal debates,” she said. She felt this debate was a way of promoting these aims. She says the topic of missile defense was chosen because of the guest speaker’s research interests, and because it is a topical issue that is currently before the government and the Canadian people. The debate club meets on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Wednesdays at 4:00 p.m. at Hart House, and Langille encouraged all to come out and get involved.
