Vancouver Quadra candidates’ debate for the April 28 federal election in the Immaculate Conception Parish gym in Dunbar.
By Carol Volkart
Which to choose? Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
As I went into this week’s Dunbar candidates’ debate, I was still in despair about how to mark my ballot on April 28. After months of saturation media coverage, I’d lost faith in both of the major parties expected to form the next government. And what’s the point of throwing a vote away on a party/candidate who can’t win? I even contemplated – treacherous thought! – not voting at all.
I expected to leave the debate bored, confused and no further ahead, but at least I’d have done my civic duty of informing myself before casting my hopeless ballot.
Well, surprise, surprise!
I came away buoyed and uplifted, with my mind made up, and a spark of yes, hope, about democracy. What blew me away was the quality of candidates we have to choose from – educated, informed, and sincere about representing constituents.
Inspiring too was the fact that somebody – in this case the Dunbar Residents’ Association –cared enough about democracy to go to the immense effort of ensuring citizens had a chance to hear them. The invitations, the hall, the sound system, the time-keeper, the moderator – even setting up the chairs and taking them down – all involved a platoon of volunteers. Equally important were the citizens – well, only 65 this time, as advance voting took its toll – willing to spend an evening listening to politicians.
But it was the candidates, first and foremost, who got me thinking in a whole new direction. After months immersed in election coverage, it was a revelation to see real live people facing a barrage of unexpected, wildly varying questions. The CBC? Tariffs? MAID? Fossil fuels? CMHC? Bail reform?
There was no hiding behind news releases, aides or computer screens – candidates were out on a tightrope. Were they comfortable? Were they knowledgeable? Did they care about what they were saying, or was it all just words?
Surprisingly, to me and a number of other spectators I talked to afterwards, it was the “little guys” who most impressed – the brave souls running for parties the media has written off or consigned to death row. Passionate and articulate, they were walking that tightrope just fine. Maybe that’s a requirement for signing up for what’s essentially a hopeless cause.
There was NDP candidate Alim Fakirani, an educator with two small children making his first run for office, saying the real work of an MP is in the constituency — being there, with an open door, to help with passport and tax issues, as well as to listen to people’s thoughts and ideas. When he said, “I’m in it for you,” it sounded like he meant it.
The first words from the Green Party’s Tom Digby, an intellectual property lawyer, scientist, and Vancouver Park Board commissioner, were about protecting the tree canopy and the importance of green spaces and pollinator corridors. He, too, sounded like he meant it.
And John Odan Ede of the People’s Party of Canada, who has a master’s in public policy and global affairs from UBC, returned again and again to the importance of citizens in the political process. An MP’s role is that of a servant who carries out the wishes of constituents, he said. If MPs are not representing constituents, he believes, the system amounts to a dictatorship.
There were no surprises from the parties jockeying for the top prize.
The Liberals’ Wade Grant, whose election signs are painting Vancouver Quadra streets bright red, had the confidence and optimism of a winning candidate. He emphasized his close connection with the riding, where he grew up as a member of the Musqueam Indian Band and studied political science at UBC. He reiterated the Liberal Party’s positions and he made no missteps. But did he have the sincerity of the “little” guys expending their time and energy on a losing cause? My sense was that he was already on that plane to Ottawa.
As for the Conservative’s Ken Charko, he didn’t surprise, either. His campaign declined both the invitation to this debate and to the previous night’s in Kerrisdale, so it was known he wouldn’t be there. Stories are now emerging that this is a common practice among Conservative candidates in this election, and it’s drawing some criticism.
In a story this week in the Victoria Times Colonist, University of Victoria political scientist Michael Prince said declining invitations to all-candidates’ events appears to be a Conservative national strategy. He called it a “disrespectful and troubling stance.” These forums are important for voters who want to compare various candidates, he told the paper, and especially for those “who give weight to the quality of local candidates and to the value of local representation.”
Saanich-Gulf Islands Green candidate Elizabeth May, whose chief competitor, a Conservative, is avoiding such meetings, called it “insulting” to voters, the story noted. An election campaign is “a long job interview,” May said, adding “when a candidate does not show up, why would they think they would get hired?”
In the spirit of the civility of the Dunbar event, Charko’s absence drew only mild ribbing. Grant took advantage of a couple of questions to refer to it, noting at one point that Charko is a partner in the Dunbar Theatre, only two blocks from the debate, but hadn’t managed to make it over. Later, to the wrap-up question of “What’s something you wish you could have said in the debate?” Grant said he wished he’d been able to talk to the Conservative candidate. “This is a job interview and the first thing in a job interview is to show up.”
As a Dunbar Residents’ Association board member, I had an inside track on the extraordinary efforts it took to ensure the people of our area had a chance to see the Vancouver Quadra candidates in person. The short campaign period and the unavailability of St. Philip’s gym, the usual venue for such events, meant a frantic scramble for a suitable space. Eventually the Immaculate Conception Parish kindly allowed the use of its gym just a block from St. Philip’s. That gave the DRA, led by a fiercely determined vice-president Colleen McGuinness, just a week to pull it all together.
Which they did, miraculously. The gym was spacious and comfortable, the sound system impeccable, and moderator Jonathan Weisman turned in his usual first-class performance, setting a tone of good-humoured civility while keeping the discussion moving at a brisk pace. The turnout was disappointing, but not surprising, given the absence of one of the main candidates and the fact that many people had already voted in the advance polls.
Altogether, it was an uplifting display of community spirit and resolve. But the most important thing I learned on the way to the voting booth? Seeing candidates in action first-hand is way better than months of immersion in the media election-campaign stew. Tweedledum and Tweedledee aren’t the only choices after all.