Tonight in my riding of Don Valley West, there was an all-candidates debate hosted by the resident’s association (I don’t remember the exact name) of Don Valley to give the candidates for this riding a forum in which they could answer questions from the public about matters that were concerning them. It was held at the St. Bonaventure Parish next to the public school on Leslie, in the church’s town hall.
The candidates in attendance were John Carmichael of the Conservatives who completely squandered his opening statement by talking about how he was a businessman. His opening statement offered nothing of use. All he did was use it as a soapbox to talk about himself and being a car salesmen. If nothing else, it affirmed the belief I had – he’s perfect Conservative material. He knows squat about the common man and will use smooth talk to get what he wants. I don’t want to be sold to, I want to hear what his beliefs are!
The next one was Cathy Holiday of the Communist Party. In America this would have been absolutely unheard of and unpatriotic, but as this is Canada, it’s a different ball game up here. While her speech did give a sense of what she stood for, she ran out of time and got the bell dinged twice by the moderator and had been unable to finish.
Running for the Green party was Dr. Georgina Wilcock. Sure she may have had an impressive resume if she was seeking work in a hospital or a medical clinic but this the political realm and she came off sounding like a one-trick pony. Her accent may have made her seem intelligent and her opening statement was performed nicely; she didn’t otherwise offer much.
This brings us to the last two, the first being the Liberal candidate, Rob Oliphant, a minister. While he used to opening statement as it was meant to be used, I got the feeling he was on the merge of spewing national policy before the questions were even read out. Overall, he came out smelling like roses and appeared personable compared to the Tory and Green candidates.
Lastly is our man, the candidate for the NDP, David Sparrow whose opening speech was fired by passion. His opening statement was the embodiment of the NDP’s core beliefs and stance. His opening statement got some moderate applause before it was over. Few candidates can claim such a thing. I must admit though, I am biased in his favour as I am not only a member of the party but I am working on the campaign one day a week.
The overall debate was projected to last two hours. The moderator was on the ball at first, being quick to ding the little bell every two minutes so that no candidate went over their allocated time slot. However, about half way through it was pointed out to me that he had dozed off and was catching up on some much needed rest, though, I think it was passed his bed time.
Just before it had started, all members of the audience in attendance were given 3×5 cards on which they could write their question for the candidates. I had wanted to ask what the stance of each candidate was on the decriminalisation of recreational and medicinal marijuana. My question never got ask. The assumption between myself, my husband and my father was that my question was either too racy for the crowd or far to controversial. It’s my belief that a little controversy is good. It heat things up. The pot wasn’t even simmering last night. Well, that’s not entirely true; there was outrage voiced when the Tory candidate came out swinging in favour of private health care, something that never flies in eastern Canada. Private health care is something that only truly flies in Alberta where they are already adhering to that kind of policy.
I had suspected my question wouldn’t be read. I had hoped at least the question my husband asked would have been fielded; “what is your stance on peer-to-peer sharing of music and movies? And what if any should be the penalty?”. A legitimate question for the era, especially with all the copyright issues flying about in our courts of law. It would have been nice to get a straight answer; alas, we didn’t.
The majority of the questions were on the economy, the environment, health care… there was even one question about if the candidates would appear at any of the high schools in the riding and how they would attempt to engage the younger voters. I started to feel at this point that the questions had been heavily sanitized; as if not to offend any sensitivities. Bloody censorship it what it was!
In answering a question about what programmes each would cut in the face of a deficit, I found that the only candidates who gave good answers besides Sparrow, who struck a chord with the audience who had applauded him several times during other answers, only Wilcock and Oliphant offered true answers. Carmichael acted like a true politician, danced around the question and didn’t actually answer it. He spouted off useless numbers, which meant nothing. He spoke about analyzing each programme and determining what cuts would happen if needed based on certain factors. He then proceeded to act like a typical arrogant Tory twat and declared that it wouldn’t matter because the government was running a surplus. Notably, he allowed for the Tories to take credit for the surplus that the Chretian and Martin Liberals had left Canada with after over 13 years of prudent governing. Oliphant had provided a good answer in that the Liberals had previously cut programmes, balanced the budget and then reinvested.
I don’t recall most of the questions and the responses but what I noted was that the Tory candidate tried pathetically to appear empathetic when it came to those with disabilities but failed woefully because he had effectively shot himself in the foot with his earlier statement endorsing private health care. He also quoted numbers by saying they invested “x” amount in this programme – well, sorry but that doesn’t cut it because that is how much it takes to run the programme. In one instance he then proceeded to say how they increased funding. Does inflation NOT mean anything to the Tories?
The commie candidate did manage to take jabs at all the other parties, though most were directed at the Tories and this got a positive response from the crowd at large.
Oliphant came close to spewing national policy on some occasions but otherwise held back. He made valid points on most topics. He didn’t stray far. He too took cheap potshots at the Tories; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel at this point but amusing nevertheless.
There isn’t much I can say about Wilcock. She really is a one-trick pony. While there were instances were she could have said more, she said very little. It made me believe that the Greens while having good intentions really don’t have much to offer in terms of social reform and are indeed right of centre. After all, one can’t claim to be social-minded and preach low taxes and small government, it just doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t mean she wasn’t able to take cheap shots. She nailed the poor Liberal candidate. That got ripples of laughter through the audience.
Sparrow had some of the longest responses and to his credit, he didn’t sound off on national policy or give numbers. I found that refreshing. I wanted to know where everyone stood on certain issues and his stance came out the loudest because he spoke fervently of his beliefs. Numbers matter when it’s time for a budget, not when you’re talking about what you believe is the right path for Canada.
When it came to the closing statements, I found that it spoke volumes of each. Carmichael didn’t offer anything of use, Oliphant got the bell rang on his speech but nonetheless conveyed a positive message, though it may have appeared to be wishy-washy in that he encouraged people to think carefully at the polls and prevent a Tory majority. The commie had a short but to the point message. Wilcock came off sounding truly right-wing when she quoted verbatim a speech that Thatcher had given to the UN in 1989 on climate change. Most people wouldn’t have caught on to that subtly. I believe that there are other notable individuals from that time who are more left she could have quoted if she wanted to appear left and not so right. Sparrow repeated his earlier opening statement; he didn’t add anything new but a closing statement is just that, a reiteration of what you’ve said before.
I found it interesting but it didn’t change my mind. I still know how I’m going to vote on October 14.
