Edmonton Strathcona Candidates Forum

Today I attended the Edmonton-Strathcona riding candidate’s forum at the UofA. In attendance were Rachel Notley (NDP), Tim Vant (Liberal), and TJ Keil (PC) (the Green Party candidate, Adrian Cole, was absent). It’s no understatement to say that Notely was the most well spoken of the three candidates. Actually, it’s reasonable to say she was the only one who actually knew his or her party’s actual platform. Vant emphasized his love for the Liberal platform, but failed to give any indication he’d have opinions outside of what Kevin Taft says, and Keil seemed too young and inexperienced (he’s 23) to have any effect on policy. From tonight’s showing Vant and Keil would wind up as silent backbenchers.

Some highlights:

• Vant did sound a bit like a Barack Obama speech at times, emphasizing the need for “change.”
• Notley promised that the NDP would push to abolish corporate and union donations to political parties – even though admitting the NDP still accepts union donations presently (I guess they do need to get money from somewhere though).
• On the environment: Keil promise intensity reductions in 12 years, Vant promised overall reductions in 5 years, and Notley promised emission caps now.
• Keil reminded us that the PCs would cut health care premiums, to which Notley responded “we’ve been advocating that for 25 years, why wait another 4?”
• Notley and Vant will enact rent controls now.
• When asked about government regulations in times of booms and busts, Keil responded that they’ve put so much into building affordable housing, and mentioned a few other places they’ve essentially thrown money at, whereas the Vant and Notley outlined places that needed regulation.
• Both the Vant and Notley will move to re-regulate the electrical industry.
• Keil and Vant had similar plans to help develop the Edmonton river valley into a world-class park system.
• The biggest undiscussed issue for Keil was apathy, for Vant piecemeal ideas (and the need for change again), and for Notley was the fact many government deals are decided behind closed doors.
• On post-secondary education Vant advocated a rollback to 2001 rates, a $150-300 cash back for “books and tools” to reimburse for textbooks and school supplies, affordable housing and lower municipal taxes for high density areas near universities.
• On the same issue Notley promised a rollback and freeze at 1999 levels, more faculty, addressing issues with housing, and raising the enrolment at Alberta’s post-secondaries (since we currently have the lowest university participation).
• Keil promised the creation of 2000 more spots for trades jobs in post-secondary education institutions, more scholarships, and lower rates on student loans.
• Notley was the only one to sign the “No new approvals for the tar sands” petition during audience questions, although Vant was close to (he wasn’t clear on whether it fell in line with the Liberal platform).
• When asked by the GEA if they would support a minimum wage of $10.50 and that it rise with the CPI; Neil dodged by spewing party rhetoric (a common theme of his answers), Notley agreed to, and Vant said his party would try to make life affordable.
• When asked which other candidate/party they would vote for if not their own, Keil couldn’t/didn’t really answer, Vant is in love with Liberals, and Notley would vote Green (but volunteer for NDP elsewhere).
• The Wildrose Alliance candidate for Edmonton-Riverview asked Notley and Vant that if they capped rent increases wouldn’t that cause many landlords to sell their properties and collapse the market and there would be no where for anyone to rent.  Vant responded adequately, however, Notley explained that currently there is no where to rent, so the danger is absurd, she also mentioned limiting condo conversions and essentially showed how his scenario was absurd.
• I raised the issue to the candidates to see if they would move to end public funding to faith schools in this province in favour of a single secular board (as has been done in Quebec and Newfoundland, and the rest of Canada except Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan).  Vant promised to check with his party (as he was unclear of the current policy), Notley said we should work on fixing the system we have before looking into this issue, and Keil spewed rhetoric about the PCs commitment to K-12 education (i.e. how they finally settled the pension disputes).
• Finally, when asked about Alberta’s place in Canada, Notley said she was a federalist, and Vant said Alberta should be a leader (environmentally and economically)

The most consistently, well thought out answers were given by Notley, while Vant would fall behind his platform when he wasn’t sure how to react.  Keil essentially spouted the party line every time he was asked a question (i.e. he’s a tool).

So here’s what it comes down to: if you vote by party, then choose based on their party, if you want someone who isn’t going to be a back bencher, you better vote for Rachel Notley (NDP), because she seemed the only one confident enough to have an opinion.

I’m actually in the Edmonton-Mill Creek riding (which has a Communist Party Candidate – which is pretty cool I think), so I won’t be voting for any of these candidates.  I will however, also attend Monday’s forum for Edmonton-Riverview (where Liberal leader Kevin Taft is running), and write up a similar report on that.  In my own riding I’ve already gotten correspondence from the Green Party candidate that he would not support abolishing the Catholic school board.