Last night’s community meeting attended by “all Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale (ADFW) candidates” was a sobering reminder that politics can be as much about saying as little as possible as it is about recognizing and dealing with important issues. In an election campaign that was short enough to leave candidates little downtime, the cast of characters at the Dundas Lions Memorial Centre Tuesday evening seemed to lack both urgency and conviction. This was ridiculous just 14 days before a crucial election.

The crowd in attendance was primarily reflective of Dundas’ demographic (young seniors) as well as a cross section of voters including some students, party workers (read NDP “hall packers” mostly) and a few who indicated by their early departures that they expected more.

The format for the evening was questions for all candidates submitted by the audience to a panel prior to the meetings start, who then selected the questions that they wanted to ask with no scrutiny or discussion amongst them. There was no interaction between candidates. While this format may work well for US TV debates, it unfortunately set and secured the tone for this drab affair.

“What does supporting the troops mean to you?”.

This was the first question of the evening and provided the first respondent (a fill in for the local Marxist Leninist Candidate) the opportunity to garner the first of dozens of rounds of polite applause given each speaker for the remainder of the evening no matter what they said. To stay with this first speaker for a moment, her response was “bringing them home” which actually brought quite a rousing response from the audience. Good for her I thought, I like what she is saying…but she isn’t a candidate in this riding.

Every speaker who answered that question said more or less the same thing with the Liberal candidate qualifying her comments and the incumbent David Sweet going on briefly about the successes of the mission.

For the balance of the evening the questions for the most part appealed the tastes of NDP candidate Gordon Guyatt. Perhaps Dr. Guyatt, who is both a physician and a professor in medicine did better than the other candidates on almost questions because having unsuccessfully run for office so many times he’s had alot of practise (or is that practice!). He answered well on national health care issues and foreign policy.

He was the only participant who ran slightly against the pattern of the evenings format. He took a few opportunities to question the Conservative record on the economy (”I’m glad that Mr. Sweet is so confident that our economic fundamentals are in good order…but I believe that I was hearing the same thing from the US a month ago…”).  Guyatt also used his opening remarks to comment on food safety, another strong safe topic for him.

Unfortunately, with the “randomly selected” questions slanted for the NDP candidate by the large NDP contingent, Guyatt was unable to provide convincing proof that his party has a handle on any issue outside of withdrawal from Afghanistan (appealing but in reality not gonna happen in the timeframe Layton suggests) and no 2 tier health care (great but we don’t need the NDP to tell us that 2 tier is not good idea).

Which leads me to the conclusion that Dr. Guyatt is a great resource for his patients and the university that employs him not to mention the many national issues upon which he focuses by involvement in committees and studies. I’ll vote for him to stay where he is. As for Jack Layton, well he gives a great rally!

Unfortunately, the evening’s other disappointment was Green Party Candidate Peter Ormond. A professional engineer, Ormond would presumably be a good person to apply his knowledge and intellect to some of the pressing problems in this region. In particular one which he mentioned is the whole area of infrastructure. Although he didn’t personally articulate any of this clearly, there is an opportunity to make many improvements in mass transit (couldn’t believe that David Sweet actually took credit for new buses for “downtown Hamilton” as he called it), energy efficiency, utilities and others that would seem to fit a Green Party vision.

“The Green Party have a plan that you can read online”, Ormond told the audience. However, he didn’t seem conversant with it, and certainly did not come across as engaged in any of the issues that many in this community no matter what their politics might like to see addressed. By the evening’s end it was the greener David Sweet of the Conservatives who had proclaimed that he and Stephen Harper had “cleaned up the Randall Reef” (a toxic hotspot in Hamilton Harbour).

David Sweet, despite his attempts as noted above to proclaim himself a friend of the environment, was the prime beneficiary of the failed meeting format. With no interaction between candidates, Sweet was able to paint a happy picture (although the picture would have to be classified as abstract) and when he wasn’t the first to speak on a question simply followed suit with the other speakers. There’s leadership.

Not one question related to climate change made it through the “random vetting” process. Thus, Sweet could spin comments around his limited knowledge of Green Shift to a rant about “increased taxes” and less money for us. It was interesting also to hear him parroting Stephen Harper’s recently retired attack General Rick Hillier, and his comments about military spending…”we’ve come out of a dark era”…. Would Mr. Sweet care to estimate the cost of this new era of warmaking?

The response by the audience to Mr. Sweet was clearly polite dismissal. There is no doubt that people who take time to attend a meeting like this are: seeking information; taking an opportunity to support their candidate; more engaged than most in the community. So, while Mr. Sweet no doubt thinks he has already won this riding those in attendance were trying to tell him something else. No performance by this incumbent in Ottawa, his attachment to some very questionable ideals and fear of a Stephen Harper majority and all that that might do to the country earned him the political equivalent of a polite “bronx cheer” last night in Dundas Ontario.

Liberal Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek has a huge challenge that magnified itself throughout the evening. Endorsed by many in the community, and now even nationally (www.voteforenvironment.ca) MacFarlane VanderBeek stands on the verge of returning the riding to the Liberals. The non-interactive nature of an all candidates meeting like this seems not to be the real means through which her goals will be achieved though.

Her responses to questions, often sandwiched between the comments of candidates with no hope of election (who tended to say whatever they thought would get a rise from the audience) gave her the appearance of a sort of unnatural hesitancy to take on the Conservatives. She was able to accurately reflect at numerous times, from a timetable for troop withdrawal…to Green Shift as both an economic and environmental plan…to the Liberal opposition to privitization of healthcare…to improved care for seniors…well known Liberal policy, (well, it might have been better known had Mr. Harper not chosen to spend millions on attack and discredit ads, but I digress).

The challenge for this Liberal Candidate is that many people are living with out of date information about her party and its policies. They don’t know enough about the strength of not only its leader but also the incredible front bench talent that the party would have in government. And, she may have assumed incorrectly that her own long term commitment to this community is well known and understood.

Part of this assumption may be forgiven (not really but here’s the theory anyway) that in the past, beginning with Conservative David Sweet and some of those who came before him, not much was expected from the local MP. Sweet has perhaps overachieved in this race to the bottom, but if one takes a longer range look this riding has put little pressure on either major party to perform here.

Thankfully, that is changing and Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek would appear to be a refreshing force for practical solutions and re-connection between Ottawa and ADFW. Her further challenge will be to continue to update all voters on both the Liberal party and their Green Shift platform which best reflects the reality of 2008.

Her responsibility in the next several days would appear to be to reach out to the thousands of voters who see the need to prevent a further widening of the gap between Canadians and their government. In other words those who view the possibility of conservative government as a further shift to a right wing, republican type entity with no energy/climate plan that in no way represents as many as 60% of voters or their aspirations.