Candidates should debate

It’s hard to imagine two tougher men than Mark Saunders and Neil Lumsden.

Saunders is a former Toronto police chief. Lumsden is a former Canadian Football League star. Both are running for the Progressive Conservatives in the June 2 Ontario election.

Yet the two are among the many PC contenders making a mockery of the position by turning tail and skipping all-candidates debates.

Irwin Elman, Ontario’s former child advocate, is running for the NDP against Saunders in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West.

This week, at an all-candidates meeting, Elman sat with other contenders at the head of the hall, looked down the rank of rivals to see an empty chair where Saunders should have been.

The former top cop had a long-standing commitment to participate, Elman tweeted, and “the decision speaks to so much and is beneath who he wishes to be.”

Lumsden, a CFL Hall of Famer and three-time Grey Cup champion running for the PCs in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, was frank about his decision to skip an all-candidates debate scheduled for this week. He was told to by party headquarters.

“We get direction on a day-to-day basis on what we’re doing,” he said. “I was told that on the 25th, we’re not participating at this point, so that’s the way it is.

“Listen, I’m fine with it,” Lumsden told the Hamilton Spector. “I believe strongly that we do things as a party and I’m one of the people on Doug Ford’s team and, corny as it sounds, if the decision is made, then the decision is made. I believe that, whatever the decision made … I’m fine with it.”

What a disgraceful admission.

Lumsden apparently does not intend to represent the voters of his riding to Queen’s Park. Instead, he will take orders from the centre about what he can do and say and, instead, take the message of the leader’s office back to the riding.

That trend — the centralized authority of a leader’s office and the power of unelected advisers in that office to turn elected men and women into a bunch of puppets — is among the leading reasons why voters have grown so dispirited about government.

The cheerful abdication by candidates such as Lumsden of the responsibilities of a mature candidate, their willingness to put the interests of their constituents second to the orders from above, bode poorly for the independence of mind they might show if elected.

The Spectator reported that two other area PC candidates would not participate in locally televised debates and that, the previous week, three of four Niagara-area PCs were no-shows at their debates.

It’s not a localized development. Steve Paikin, host of The Agenda on TVO, wrote last week how Carl Qiu, PC candidate in the Toronto riding of University–Rosedale, had emailed him looking for coverage.

Paikin asked if he could follow Qui door to door while he canvassed — usually the best way for reporters to get a sense of a riding.

“Since the writ has dropped, I’ve been quite busy with the campaign and will not be able to do an interview,” came the reply. “However, let’s stay connected.”

Paikin emailed back. He got no response. From the point of view of political strategy, limiting the exposure of local candidates to avoid embarrassing gaffes is understandable. But it’s exactly the opposite of the kind of debate we should be having.

Candidates so deferential to their bosses, so willing to short-change the people of their ridings, are a discredit to democracy and an embarrassment to themselves.

The willingness of candidates to put the interests of their constituents second to the orders from above bodes poorly for the independence of mind they might show if elected