OrilliaMatters welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter in response to a letter, published May 29, titles, ‘MPP right to skip phony excuses for a debate’.
*************************
As one of the coordinators of the Just Recovery Simcoe (JRS) regional digital debates held in May for all Simcoe provincial ridings, I am writing to address the assumptions embedded in this letter.
First, I question their assumption that the Chamber of Commerce is the only societal entity worthy of hosting a community debate.
Society is not just made up of businesses.
There are other local groups curious about candidates' plans for things like climate change, social supports and environmental stewardships.
These are important, modern day topics, worthy of being addressed.
Our JRS debate series was initiated and supported by local groups dedicated to things like housing, youth, and the environment, keen to hear candidate views on things like climate, environment, social issues, affordability.
We had near perfect attendance from Liberal, Green Party and NDP in all five ridings. PC Candidates were invited but none chose to attend.
(Candidate responses are still available to be viewed on our website https://justrecoverysimcoe.ca/)
The letter writer suggests this was a good decision on the PC candidates' part because the debate was ‘skewed’.
Our questions, posted upfront and still on our website, addressed things like housing rights and climate change policy, and if you do not like those questions or value those concerns then perhaps you may feel like these are irrelevant or ‘phony‘ areas for discussion.
When someone accuses these topics as being ‘phony’ it sounds like another way of saying you do not value them. And that’s for you.
But maybe other people do value them? Maybe other people in the community are very concerned about these things and these are not phony, irrelevant issues to them at all?
Maybe having more than one debate allows for a diversity of groups to raise a diversity of questions, thus offering an opportunity to cultivate a diversity of solutions to our many societal woes?
Next let’s look at the assumption that door knocking and speaking to individuals one-on-one is a better way to communicate with the public…which, if you just take this mathematically, you know this cannot be true.
A debate, especially a recorded digital debate that can be viewed by anyone anywhere at anytime, reaches far beyond a few door frames and positions all candidates' viewpoints together, in a single forum, which is excellent for voter cross-comparison.
Door-to-door knocking, while also valuable communication, does not so readily allow for wider distribution of plans and policies or cross-comparisons as regards candidate positions.
By refusing so many local debates, local PC candidates missed out on an excellent opportunity to connect with their constituents and also make clear their position on some very key, important areas, on issues deeply relevant to many who live in Simcoe.
Ideally, candidates should have a diversity of communication pathways to their constituents.
If one claims to want to be a representative of democracy then one actually needs to represent democratic processes and engage with the diverse concerns and questions of one’s potential constituents.
Julie Johnson
Oro Medonte
*************************
