St. Paul's By-Election Throwdown

20090911St.Paul's1.jpg

Sue Ann Levy really doesn’t like the Liberals' proposed Harmonized Sales Tax.

Her vehement disdain of the tax and of Dr. Eric Hoskin’s full-throated endorsement of it was on full display at the all-candidates meeting hosted by the Town Crier last night.

Nine of the ten candidates showed up at First Unitarian Congregation of Toronto to sell themselves as viable representatives for the region of St. Paul’s at Queen's Park, where a by-election has been set for September 17 to replace Michael Bryant. (Bryant stepped down to head Invest Toronto but is now currently is facing criminal charges for the death of Darcy Allan Sheppard.)

It was a heated albeit confusing debate, with a rambunctious crowd of close to three hundred residents eager to hear how the candidates will look out for them on the issues close to their hearts. There were three independents, as well as candidates running for the Libertarian Party of Ontario and Freedom Party of Ontario, but the majority of questions were posed to the four major candidates—Dr. Eric Hoskins of the Liberal Party of Ontario, Sue Ann Levy of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, Julian Heller of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, and Chris Chopik of the Green Party of Ontario.

And the issue on everyone’s minds was the HST. Battle lines were quickly drawn:

"It’s a massive tax grab," charged Levy.

"It’s the wrong tax at the wrong time," accused Heller.

"It’s a major gouge," pushed Paul McKeever of the Freedom Party.

"It’s not a new tax, it’s a blending of existing taxes," explained Hoskins.

Hoskins also countered that the HST has the support of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Daily Bread Food Bank. However, his defense of the tax and of the McGuinty government's record was not convincing the other candidates, who called on Hoskins to defend his party's involvement in the e-health and OLG scandals.

"I grew up here, and I’m looking for fiscal accountability and fairness in politics," pushed Raj Rama, an independent candidate.

"I'm not a Liberal insider, and have not been parachuted into the region," hit Marius Frederick, another independent candidate who grew up in the riding.

For John Kittredge, the Libertarian Candidate who is vying for the St. Paul’s slot for the third time, his candidacy is primarily to raise awareness of the value of less government. "Who's going to pay for it?" He asked.

20090911St.Paul's3.jpg
John C. Turmel (standing).

While all of the candidates tried to win over the audience during the debate, the man who stole the show was John C. Turmel.

Turmel has a unique place in Canadian history: he holds the Guinness World Record for having run and lost in the most elections (sixty-eight to be exact). He fled the stage and heckled the crowd in protest of a moderator's rule which forced residents to direct their questions at specific candidates, thus effectively limiting his opportunity to speak. The crowd heckled back, the police were called, and, at one point, the debate had to pause as a group of gentlemen attempted a citizen's arrest.

The whole debacle made for great political theatre, but there was a great problem with the night: why the candidates were invited if they weren’t able to key in on major issues. Substance on the issues affecting St. Paul’s was lacking, and it was evident that Hoskins and Levy in particular knew little about them.

When asked about Metrolinx's proposal for an electrified rail line running nearby, for instance, Levy stated she was aware that this is a "hot topic" in the riding, but could not stake a firm position on the issue. Hoskin's reply also fell flat, as he stumbled through his position while championing the Ontario Green Energy Act, although questions on climate change and the environment came up repeatedly.

And where Chris Chopik labeled himself as a "pragmatic idealist" open to working on ideas in order to make the riding better, the other three candidates were playing partisan politics, with Hoskins on the defense.

While renewable energy, the environment, improving health care, and education funding were other major topics of discussion during the debate, the testiest exchange outside the HST was in response to a question on homelessness, where Levy and Hoskins faced off.

20090911St.Paul's2.jpg
Sue Ann Levy (left), Eric Hoskins (centre), and Jullian Heller (right).

"There is no shortage of money being spent on the problem; it's not being spent wisely," she charged.

Hoskins then whipped out a direct quote from the former Toronto Sun columnist in which the PC candidate stated that "the homeless have it pretty good in Toronto."

Levy stood by her record on homelessness and suggested everyone read all of the articles she wrote during her eleven-year tenure at the newspaper.

All in all, the debate was a square off between the PC and Liberal candidate, one a humanitarian and respected doctor, the other a well-known columnist, both who seem to know the least about the riding they are competing for. For Levy, she’s clearly counting on this election being a referendum on Dalton McGuinty, Liberal scandals, and the HST. For Hoskins, he's selling his reputation as a prominent physician.

Unfortunately for the residents of St. Paul's, the debate and the partisan antics was politics as usual.

All photos by Ayngelina Brogan/Torontoist.

CORRECTION: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 This article originally incorrectly identified independant candidate Raj Rama as "Ray Rama." Our apologies to Mr. Rama.

Email This Entry


Comments (7) [rss]

user-pic

The debate was billed as a square-off between Hoskins and Levy but I think Turmel stole the show - and Heller (who you neglect to mention) probably won.

Heller was the only candidate who seemed to have heard about metrolinx and have the slightest clue about the City's transit plans. Not to mention, the slightest clue about local school cuts, local homeless issues, etc.

The person who asked Levy why she didnt run municipally really nailed it and she didn't have an answer.

And Hoskins just endured. Dully.

I've already commented on this all-candidates debate over in today's Newsstand section.

I just wanted to correct Kimahli on one point: the question regarding Metrolinx was about the Georgetown line, which passes through Weston, which is not in St. Paul's.

Also—and I'm admittedly partisan myself—I didn't see a two-way square-off between Levy and Hoskins. I think Julian Heller landed more hits on Hoskins than Levy did, and was clearly more familiar with the social and political dynamics of the riding than either the Liberal or PC candidates.

I`d like to know where Dr Hoskins stands on this Liberal Scandal?

"We can spend your money and you can’t find out where or how much!"
http://www.chicobandido.com/2007/04/we-can-spend-your-money-and-you-cant-find-out-where-or-how-much/

This money should be going to Children,Seniors,Health Care,Education,etc not towards prosecuting Ontario Citizens because of a law based on lies.

The Facts
http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm#P672_181318

As a man of Science and Facts Dr Hoskins,how can you possibly support what your Party has done and continues to do after reading the OVMA testimony?

There are thousands of Ontario citizens who are now subject to reverse onus and they are presumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

I`d like to know if Dr Hoskins believes that ALL Ontario citizens should be presumed innocent until proven guilty or are the Ontario Liberals running a 2 tier Justice System?

I don`t imagine that the (former)Ontario Liberal Attorney General would like to now be in the unenviable position of being presumed guilty and having to prove his innocence.

These 2 Ontario Citizens
Mr Huggins
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090617/pitbull_oca_090617/20090617/?hub=TorontoNewHome

and
Mr Truong
http://www.mississauganews.com/news/article/27668--bowser-another-rambo-case

along with many others currently facing charges and thousands of other Ontario citizens impacted by Bill 132 would simply like to be accorded the same basic rights as Mr Bryant and others....

The Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty

The Charter of Rights
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
..
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Is there another version of this Charter somewhere Dr Hoskins?

Here are my tweets about this farce (some of which were broken into multiples):

Thoughts on last nights debate: Liberal candidate's pompous entry walk of entitlement was over-the-top. Stuck to the Liberal MPP guidebook.

We know what a Liberal MPP will give us; more subservience to Dalton's whims. PC candidate had a good script of soundbites to read from, but once she had to go off script, but like a deer in headlights. Probably not the "rabble rouser" she claims to be.

NDP candidate was eloquent, but espoused NDP ideals. Biggest issue was that he was all attack, no policy.

Green candidate was the best prepared with no attacks and lots of policy. Too bad he was a bit drab and boring.

Independents: it's too bad the "debate" format excluded you. You had the option to protest prior to it starting, even with your first two-minute speech. Interrupting the proceedings is tactless and a mockery to electors. Also, if your love is municipal politics, don't run provincially. Do I know who to vote for now? Not at all.

I sent Eric an e-mail after the debate as well, repeating one of Julian's attacks (which was a very valid one). After Eric said he does not support building new nuclear plants, Julian asked if he would work against the government to try to keep them from being built. Eric didn't respond. I've been waiting for a response to my email, sent Friday morning, asking if Eric would support the motions, vote against the government or abstain. My only reason for asking though is to see his character, to see whether he would find a way to avoid being whipped to vote for something he doesn't agree with. We'll see how he responds.

user-pic

Your riding snapshot is incorrect. St. Paul's doesn't contain Rosedale at all, just a small part of Moore Park. Rosedale is represented - at least in theory - by (Furious George) Smitherman, who hasn't resigned from the legislature yet.

A small but important mistake, now corrected: we misspelled the name of independant candidate Raj Rama as Ray Rama.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

TIP US OFF

Tip us off with news, leads, links; anything at all.
Get events, contests, weather, and stories in your email inbox—daily.

E-MAIL:

About Torontoist

Torontoist is about Toronto and everything that happens in it. More about Torontoist; advertise on us.
Editor-in-Chief: David Topping
Senior Editor: Hamutal Dotan

Books.Torontoist.com

Recent Comments

Follow Torontoist...