Liliane Maisonneuve, Liberal Party of Canada candidate in the Peace River riding, responds to a question at last week’s candidate’s forum held at Athabasca Hall. Also in the photo is incumbent Member of Parliament Chris Warkentin of the Progressive Conservative Party and New Democratic Party candidate Adele Boucher Rymhs.

It didn’t have the bravado of American political debates. Nor was it cutthroat. But the All-Candidate’s Forum held at Athabasca Hall Sept. 30 did allow an excellent opportunity for the local Peace River constituency party nominees to rebuff one another in classic Canadian politeness and wit. Over 100 people came to the event sponsored by the Peace River Chamber of Commerce, all of whom were eager to hear the candidate’s platforms, and then ask intelligent questions. Incumbent Chris Warkentin of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jennifer Villebrun of the Green Party, Liberal Liliane Maisonneuve, NDP candidate Adele Boucher Rymhs, and latecomer Edwin Siggelkow of the Canadian Action party attended the event, and squared off against one another. The incumbent, Warkentin, was selected first to explain his party’s platform in the 2008 Federal Election. He came out of the gates attacking crime in Canada after thanking his fellow candidates and those in attendance for making the trip out despite the lovely weather. “What we asked in the last federal election (in 2006) was for all parties – regardless who they were running for – to consider the reality that crime is out of control in this country. We have acted aggressively to get control on the issues surrounding so many communities in this country and unfortunately we haven’t been able to do as many things as we want because of lack of support from other parties on certain initiatives.” Boucher Rymhs was next up and gave a special greeting to the Record-Gazette newspaper. “I would just like to say I am with the New Democrats not the Green Party like the local paper would tell you.” True to form, Boucher Rymhs went straight to the nuclear issue – perhaps the most contentious and divisive issue in the Peace Country. “Most of what you hear from the (Nuclear corporations) is paid propaganda,” she said. “To date the nuclear industry of Canada has left us with a debt of $100 billion to clean up the abandoned mines and ponds.” Villebrun, after thanking the Chamber and the people in attendance, came with a different stance first off, stressing the importance of the democratic process in Canada and promising that if she was elected, she would have continual events like the forum throughout the year. “It’s about bringing different ideas to the table,” she said. “The one things I need to ask you is not let Mr. Warkentin or any other candidates leave unless your issues are heard because really solutions come from the people.” Siggelkow was certainly a different breed of politician right from the get-go, stirring laughs from the audience for his down to earth, and blunt statements and opinions on the country and the political process. “I wouldn’t be here today if I thought the government was doing its job,” he said. “(The Canadian Action Party) has three issues: NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the security and prosperity of Canada, and the Bank of Canada. “We need more money for school, education, police, and research and development – this isn’t going to happen under NAFTA.” Last but not least, Maisonneuve explained, after thanking everyone for coming out, that if the Liberals are voted into power, the nation will have its taxes cut by 10 per cent because they will make the big polluters pay with the Green Shift. “With the carbon tax, the only party that will do it in a way where there will be a lower income tax is the Liberals.” She attacked the Conservatives for destroying the surplus, which former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin saved up before leaving in 2006. “It’s a mismanagement of funds,” she said.

How do we institute alternate forms of energy knowing it will affect people in the oil industry? Warkentin said he didn’t think there was a conflict, as his government is aware there needs to be a change in its dependency on oil. “We do have programs that fund solar and wind energy, and also geothermal,” he said. “So there’s big money there in terms of other types of technologies … I absolutely think as a country, we need to move toward other energy resources because oil won’t be here forever and we don’t want to be solely based on carbon for our energy.” Maisonneuve said it’s a new industrial revolution with her Green Shift. “It’s known gas and oil are declining. Part of the Green Shift is to put funds into the new technologies. That is the only thing, along with conservation.” Villebrun replied to the Liberal candidate’s words by, surprisingly, not wanting to rid the world of the oil industry, but maintain it wisely. “With combined technologies that exist in the oilfield today, they could reduce emissions by 80 per cent. “We need to urge the oil companies to share than information and encourage new developments.” Siggelkow said, perhaps not directly answering the question at hand, that the new technologies are being sold to the US and that Canadian research and development is being shipped off to the highest bidder. “(Oil) is not on the way out, I don’t think,” he said. “As we sell off our industries, our technologies come along with them. We may benefit from the technology we develop, but the rake-ups go elsewhere.” Boucher Rymhs said despite the oil industry boom, Canada needs to slow it down. “In terms of cleaning up greenhouse gas emissions, knowing it’s the resource that paid for most of the things in this province, (the oil industry) can be there, but it needs to be regulated and slowed down until we can manage it.”

Why is the conservative government cutting so many millions to heritage and culture? Warkentin said he was pleased the question was asked. “It’s important that all Canadians know that our funding for arts and culture has actually increased, and what was cut was a $45 million travel initiative. He said the shows were not benefitting Canadians and were going elsewhere on the taxpayer’s dollar. “We would rather invest in local museums rather than spend on elite groups of people around the world with the taxpayer’s money,” he said Maisonneuve argued that artists are very upset about the cuts. “To cut this even for travel, with our artists not being highly paid people, at least allowed our artists to travel and showcase.” Villebrun was also critical of Warkentin’s statement. “I have a hard time believing the cuts were warranted,” she said. “They were encouraging people world wide to return to Canada and experience more of Canada.” Boucher Rymhs touched on a recent closure of an art gallery in Grande Prairie. “We’re talking local, that’s G.P that’s losing out,” she said. However, the only response that drew applause was from the most unlikely candidate. Siggelkow made no reference to cuts abroad, but touched a nerve with the audience after his short answer. “Arts and culture are very important,” he said. “ Especially, the CBC. It’s paramount to keep the CBC. It’s our Canadian radio station and it’s part of our arts and culture.”

Why are we in Afghanistan, and when should we leave? Once again, the man of the hour answered most unconventionally. “I have no idea why we’re there,” said Siggelkow. “I can tell you why we shouldn’t be. “We aren’t fulfilling any peacekeeping mission – which Canada is known for.” Boucher Rymhs went straight for the jugular criticizing the war as well. “We never should have been there and we need to bring the troops home,” she said. She implied that the Canadian government of the time blindly followed the US into the war. “We do feel there should be ongoing negotiations, but this is another example of (the US) being the world’s war monger,” she added. “It’s sad for the ones who have already given their lives.” Warkentin pointed the finger immediately at the Liberals, while at the same time arguing for the necessity of the mission. “(Liberal prime minister) Jean Chretien committed our troops to fight in Afghanistan,” he said. “But we have a responsibility to finish the job we started. The Taliban is not good at diplomacy. They go into the schools in Afghanistan and make sure the girls in those schools will never go back to school. He said we needed to continue to provide support for the troops and outfit them with everything they need, to which he then added, “I certainly won’t apologize for that.” Maisonneuve had an opportunity to respond to Warkentin’s remarks, but instead gave an evasive response. “We were there as peacekeepers with Martin,” she said. “Diplomatic missions must be a way of doing humanitarian mission, and not spending millions.” Surprisingly, Villebrun vouched for the troops, saying to pull out now would be detrimental. “The Green Party does support a structured withdrawl from Afghanistan sometime in 2009, but we have recognized we have been there and have committed to the Afghan people and can’t just pull out and leave them in a mess.” She stressed the importance of training a police force of Afghan people, so they can take over control of the country once foreign troops leave. “You can’t have schools at risk if rebels are going to come in and kill the teachers,” she said. “We need to focus on Afghanistan and then protect our people by brining them home.”