For better or for worse, Yellowhead candidates avoided stepping on each others toes during the all-candidates forum held at the Jasper Activity Centre Oct. 5.
Fielding more than a dozen questions from an audience of more than 60 community members, candidates managed to stick to their talking points and avoid challenging each other's ideas.
After each of the five candidates introduced themselves, members of the audience were given the opportunity to ask pointed questions about a variety of issues from climate change to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement tentatively agreed to by Canada and 11 other Pacific-rim countries.
However, the first question, posed by former MLA Bob Dowling, focused on marijuana and the stance of each candidate and their party on the subject.
Liberal candidate Ryan Maguhn was first to respond stating the Liberal party is in favour of legalizing the drug.
“Marijuana is the number one supplier of funding to organized crime. It's not the hard drugs, it is marijuana, and what this government has to do is take a hard line to take that funding out of the hands of those who do our communities and citizens harm,” said Maguhn.
Conservative incumbent Jim Eglinksi fired back, strongly rejecting Maguhn's argument.
“I was a police officer for 35 years,” said Eglinksi. “Marijuana is not good. I'm not going to go into a lot of it, but I tell you from my experience I saw some brilliant minds go to waste.”
NDP candidate Ken Kuzminski took a different approach, saying his party is in favour of decriminalizing the drug and making it easier for Canadians to access medical marijuana.
“I think Canadians feel that we have to move forward,” said Kuzminski.
“I would like to see the decriminalization of it. There's no need to spend all the policing time to police that.”
Libertarian candidate Cory Lystang said his party would legalize marijuana, while Sandra Wolf Lange of the Green Party said her party supports the decriminalization of the drug.
The biggest sparks of the night took place early on after an audience member asked the candidates about “old stock Canadians”, a controversial term Prime Minister Stephen Harper used during The Globe and Mail leaders debate in September. The prime minister used the term in response to a question about Canada’s refugee policy.
Eglinski flatly denied any knowledge of the term.
“I’m not sure what you mean by that, sir,” said Eglinski, to chuckles in the crowd.
After the audience member clarified his question, Eglinski had very little to add, but did try to clarify the prime minister’s comments.
“I’m not familiar with the quote that you said, sir, but I would think that it follows a line very similar to research that I did. If you look at the environment and the economy, the population from 50 and up will look at the economy as most important, if you look at the age group of 18 to 50 they’ll say the environment and I think that’s what [the prime minster] was referring to.”
Kuzminski was quick to condemn the comment.
“When I saw that on the news I was appalled that any Canadian leader would use that terminology.”
Maguhn was equally dismayed by the comment.
“I think what it really shows to us is the politics of division and the politics of fear that we’ve seen rampant in this government,” he said.
Lystang was also unaware of the context behind the prime minister’s statement, while Wolf Lange said the comment was made in “bad taste.”
Following the break, an audience member asked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Canada signed earlier in the day.
Eglinski and Lystang were the only two candidates to support the new agreement, which would still need to be ratified by parliament before it takes effect.
“It’s a great deal for Canada, it’s a great deal for our future, it’s a great deal for our children growing up,” said Eglinski.
“Since our government has been in power we’ve gone from five trade agreements to 51,” he said, explaining the new agreement would open the door to a market of 800 million people.
Lystang said his party would support it because they believe in free trade, but said discussion of the agreement needs to be done in a transparent way.
“We think this is a great deal in principle,” said Lystang. “When the details are hammered out we want to be able to see everything on the table. We want to know who it is going affect and why, because the government needs to be perfectly transparent and accountable for their actions.”
Maguhn was more cautious and said his party would wait to read the details of the agreement before making a decision.
“During an election, for these kind of talks to go on there has to be absolutely transparent processes where we involve the opposition parties to ensure that this sort of legislative work and these sorts of documents are done in a transparent way so we understand the implications to us,” said Maguhn.
“We have seen time after time the Conservative Party go through with questionable democratic processes sidelining you and that’s just not right. Whether it’s good or bad we don’t know because the appropriate questions haven’t been asked.”
Kuzminski said his party would not be bound by an agreement signed during an election.
“We have to see the fine details to be able to see the full impact on Canadian society and until those details are released we’re not going to be bound by any Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he said.
Wolf Lange came out the strongest against the agreement.
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a breach of democracy,” she said. “Every sector will be affected by this and this was dealt with behind closed doors during election time and it’s unacceptable.”
Other questions raised during the forum included issues about 9/11, food security, poverty, climate change, the long form census, the senate, the status of women, young people’s participation in government, omnibus budget bills, Aboriginal affairs and government accountability.
For more on the federal election in Yellowhead, check out the candidates' closing remarks.
Paul Clarke
[email protected]
