Little fire at debate

Sep 28, 2007

Tuesday’s debate contained no debating.

Candidates simply answered questions asked, politely and in turn.

There was nary a rebuttal, an eye-rolling, a frustrated sigh or an angry outburst from a candidate out of turn.

Rather, both speeches and responses to the audience’s questions were met with a lot of party platform talk and muted jabs at past and present party rule.

It also offered varying glimpses at the candidates’ personalities.

Norm Miller, the current Conservative MP, tended to rely heavily on his past performance, and rightly so — it’s the strongest indicator of how he’ll perform in the future.

With references of issues he’s brought to Queen’s Park and a keen memory of community projects he’s had a hand in, Miller gets points for putting local spins on provincial issues.

But Miller, when faced with the most controversial issue of the election – religious school funding – backed up to party lines, much like his Nipissing counterpart Bill Vresbosch at Monday’s debate, with statements all beginning with “John Tory…”

Rhodes, who gets kudos for saying she makes no apologies for being fresh and young, and says she wants to see more females in the House, showed she’s well-versed in party lines.

She rhymed off figures, timelines and recent Liberal accomplishments with ease.

Matt Richter, the Green candidate hopeful, showed his party colours well, bringing in environmental comments wherever they could fit. Richter gets points for combining party talk with passionate statements.

Case in point: referring to the effects of climate change in response to a question about snowmobile trails.

The comedienne of the evening turned out to be the NDP’s Sara Hall. Combining party lines with jokes and strong statements, she drew laughter and applause from the crowd several times during the debate.

Case in point: saying debating faith-based funding deflects attention from the real issue – a broken funding system.

However, without any heated discussion, voters were denied the chance to see their candidates under pressure. They didn’t see how they dealt with criticism, or how quick on their feet they can be.

One of the final questions of the night provided them a chance to prove their quick-wittedness – and their personality and drive – and all disappointed.

A resident commented he was wary of any politician and asked the panel why he should trust them.

A pointed question, but one perhaps most important of all asked.

Richter, obviously a passionate person, turned to dollar signs as a sign of responsibility, pointing out that everything in the Green platform is fully costed out.

No passion there.

Rhodes said she’d sit down with any group or individual since she’s “accountable to you.”

That’s a politician’s job.

Miller, who has the track record to answer this question, again turned to “John Tory this” and “John Tory that” statements.

Not convincing.

Coming out on top was Hall, who said she sympathized with the question-asker, since she used to be just as frustrated. But the answer again fizzled into party lines.

The most positive thing out of the evening were questions posed that touched on many sensitive local topics, and the answers, as scripted as some of them were, gave the audience a good glimpse into each party’s policies on issues very dear to area residents.

K.G