The first June
3, 1996 candidates' meeting took place at Lake
Ave. Public School. All the candidates
were there but the Green, Wendy
Priesnitz who was out of town due to her
run for the Green Party
leadership.
It was in the
auditorium of a small school with about seating for
150. It looked like the "party clappers"
were out in full force though
they didn't allow signs to be displayed
in the auditorium.
That was a problem
for me. I had a placard which read:
LOCAL EMPLOYMENT TRADING SYSTEM
www.u-net.com/gmlets
And:
SAVE US WITH LETS GREENDOLLARS
Newsgroup: can.politics
I needed to display
it for the information on it and they
relented and said I could use it in my
presentation. So I left it on
the stage and proceeded to work the audience
before the show started,
an old trick of mine.
I walk up and
down the aisle handing out my pamphlets while
commenting on what it's about and touting
it like a shill at a
carnival game. Don't forget that I'm wearing
a trade-mark white hard-
hat on which is stencilled "The Engineer"
and on my lapel is our party
logo on a decal made out a computer diskette
titled "LETS." This is
not the orthodox dress and demeanor of
political candidates in Canada,
most of which were waiting in the wings
of the back of the room for
the debate to get started.
I'd say I did
both sides of both aisles distributing four
different pamphlets and stirring up the
crowd with quick one liners
about the high-tech candidate versus the
low-tech ones and that we're
the only party whose program is ready
with the code. All sorts of
other generic gibes about the other parties
got some blood boiling.
All candidates
got an opening and closing statement and there
were questions in between. I made sure
to hand an envelope with
information about the LETS and my petition
for a Canada-wide LETS.
Then the meeting got started.
ORGANIZER: Good
evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome
everybody here. We certainly have a lot
to learn about the candidates'
views on issues that will affect our community.
This meeting is in the
hopes of drawing attention to the needs
of children and their families
who live in Hamilton East. Accordling
to our statistics locally on the
1996 report card on child poverty, one
in five children live below the
poverty line. Since 1989, the number of
poor children has increased by
55%. Unemployment and shrinking social
assistance checks have made it
difficult for parents to provide for their
children.
Not all the news
is negative. There are positive things happening
for children and their families. CAPCC
promotes health and social
well-being of children by working with
families in the community.
Some of the attempts
of the programs at the conference are
recreation programs offered to children.
Neighbourhood groups
organize after-school programs so children
can learn skills.
And we have parents
who come from other countries, other
cultures, who work in homes as parents
of the same culture and
language and share ideas about care of
children. All these projects
rely on people living in the area who
are willing to work together in
making the community a better place to
live.
We hope that
all candidates recognize the value of these programs
in the community to help children at risk.
At this time,
I'd like to introduce to you Dan Maclean who has
volunteered to moderate this discussion.
MODERATOR: Hello
and welcome. We appreciate your being here this
evening especially on behalf of the Action
Program for Children. Last
year, the United Way campaign brought
to a very large degree the
degree of difficulty we have in our community
with respect to social
services and the need that our children
have. I'm more than happy to
moderate on behalf of this very worthwhile
organization. Through them,
there are several programs operating in
our community under the one
umbrella program and it's all for the
best interests of our children
and very important that these needs will
be met.
Especially in
this day and age of funding that's being cut, those
cuts that we are not seeing coming into
place that the provincial
government's cut and in other areas as
well.
So we have a
lot to do with a lot less than we had traditionally
and we're just going to have to what we
do a whole lot better.
I'd like to thank
all the candidates for being here this evening.
It's going to be a warm meeting in more
ways than one but I think they
should all be highly commented. It takes
a lot of will, a lot of
fortitude and a lot of self-sacrifice
to put your name up for
nomination with any party or be an independent
member to represent
your community, it's a tough job, make
no mistake. And whoever wins
the by-election in Hamilton East will
have a lot of work to do and
we'll find out who that individual is
going to be as we get to
election day.
Just a few rules
before we introduce everyone. We've asked that
signs be kept outside because of the conditions
inside so that people
behind those with signs will be able to
see, so, we appreciate your
doing that for us. A little later, everyone's
going to have the
opportunity to ask questions of their
candidates, whoever that happens
to be. We would ask that you direct your
questions directly to the
candidate of your choice. Once that question
has been answered by that
candidate, we will not be allowed question
to be asked by that
individual again because we just won't
have the time. But the same
question can be asked of another candidate.
So if you ask one
candidate a question about the GST, you
may then ask another candidate
a question about how their political views
on the GST.
Everybody
will have an opportunity to speak for up to five
minutes. We will then get into the public
question and answer period
where you'll have your opportunity. Please
be as succinct as possible
with your responses. We don't want any
speeches because we want
questions and give your candidates the
opportunity to answer them. At
the end of the public portion, the the
candidates will have two
minutes for rebuttal.
No topics are
taboo. You can ask any question that you want. We
want. We have asked of our speakers to
address issues as they related
to our children in need because that's
the reason and under whose
auspices we are gathered.
The speakers:
George Ambas,
independent,
Bill Amos, Natural
Law Party,
Ken Campbell,
independent,
Sheila Copps,
Liberal party,
Tristan Emmanuel,
Christian Heritage party,
Victor Knight,
independent,
Glen Malcol,
independent,
Wayne Marston
representing NDP,
Charles Olito
representing the Canada Party,
Andy Sweck, Reform
Party,
Angie Tomasic,
Progressive Conservatives,
John Turmel representing
the Abolitionist Party.
(jct: We all got
a polite applause except the Liberal Sheila
Copps's clappers who erupted for 24 seconds
and Reform Andy Sweck's
clappers who erupted for 13 and the Tories
for 7.)
MODERATOR: One
candidate representing the Green Party this
evening is absent. A letter thanking us
for the invitation but
unfortunately, she couldn't be here. Wendy
Priesnitz of the Green
Party will not be here. And this is your
slate of candidates for
Hamilton East.
We're going to
draw the name from the envelope for the order to
speak. First to speak will be Glen Malcolm.
TURMEL: Who's
second?
MODERATOR: I
don't know yet. We're going to find out.
TURMEL: So you
want to take us by surprise here?
MODERATOR: No.
We're telling you now.
Number two is
Wayne Marston.
Three is Charles
Olito.
Four is Andy
Sweck.
Five is Angie
Tomasic.
Six is John Turmel.
Seven is Tristan
Emmanuel.
Eight is Victor
Knight.
Nine is George
Ambas.
Ten is Bill Amos.
Eleven is Ken
Campbell.
Twelve is Sheila
Copps.
(jct: I made sure
that he didn't forget to inform us of what
order we were speaking in. I wasn't going
to sit there in suspense if
I was going to go last. Again, Liberals
clappers out-clapped the
Reform clappers with the Tories again
clapping up the rear.)
MODERATOR: We
have someone to do sign language for anyone who
needs that service.
(jct: Remember
that most of the candidates read their written
speeches while I just carry a list of
points to consider and go at
full speed from start to finish. I wonder
if she managed to keep up
with me?
Before we get
into the speeches, I'd point out that most comprise
a wish The other category is issues on
"how we rule ourselves?",
one I rarely delve into until the question
of "how we save ourselves?"
has been dealt with. Another is Facts.
The final category is
achievements by the incumbent and non-achievements
raised by some
opponents.
Telling us
I will make comments
in xxx ways
(H) is for a "how we rule ourselves" issue
which is of little interest
compared to "how we save ourselves;"
(W) is for a wish list of things "we need
to do" or "we need to have"
but with how to get it engineered is never
explained;
(B) is for beliefs in motherhood and universal
caring which are nice
but don't say how it is to be engineered;
(A) Achievements boasted of which have
evidently been insufficient;
(B) Beefs about others' non-achievements
with no alternatives to
offer.
(O) Ouch. A sob story about the faulty
engineering of the system;
(S) Splashing money around in the economic
pool. Peter to pay Paul.
Within these categories
are the components of most political
speeches which do not deal with saving
ourselves and waste time. None
of them deal with how. So on to the speeches.
GLEN MALCOLM:
tells us that:
- things are bad;
- there are no leaders;
- the solution isn't more government;
- solutions are required;
- voting for him would send a message
they aren't happy;
- he has a different vision of Canada
being a world leader,
- he beef's about the PM changing his
mind.
- he wants a strong economy (W);
- abandon Free Trade;
- lower taxation (W); start with lousy
GST.
- things are bad and there is something
wrong.
- He can't be squished or silenced. You
can send a voice.
WAYNE MARSTON
tells us that:
- he's sorry they didn't get their senior's
centre;
- he's gravely concerned about Young Offenders;
- 90% of children are good;
- tougher Act will make life good for
kids;
- we need to get to kids earlier;
- we need to give consideration to victims;
- we need more policemen but no funding;
- voters tired of government turn-arounds;
- he's running on tax fairness;
- fairness means that the dollars are
there to run those programs.
CHARLES OLITO
tells us that:
- manufacturers' tax from business is
legal and direct GST from the
public is unconstitutional (1867);
- we are in debt because the federal government
is borrowing private
funds at interest. That means our money
is bank money contrary to
constitution;
- "usury will wreck any nation" Prime
Minister MacKenzie King;
- federal governments got us indebted;
- no one is talking of paying the debt
of $600 billions of dollars;
- the Prime Minister dicates;
- only taking constitutional money control
can tackle the debt;
- he wants binding referenda; the people's
veto;
- proper control of our money can create
the jobs.
ANDY SWECK tells
us that:
- we should applaud taking care of our
children's future;
- the old-line parties' way has been a
failure. Things are bad.
- Liberals failed to provide...
- Liberals saddled us with $50 billion
just to service the debt;
- Spend four times more on debt than health
care;
- Reform wishes no Canadian be denied
health care on inability to pay;
- Liberals want to cut twice as much as
us from social programs;
- Reform believes that cuts should begin
at the top;
- Reform wishes all children treated with
equality and opportunity;
- Reform has spoken against discriminatory
policies of the others;
- Reform proposes simpler, fairer tax
code;
- Reform wants to rule ourselves with
Recall;
- Reform believes in Referenda to rules
ourselves on major issues;
- how you help a child counts.
ANGIE TOMASIC
tells us that:
- Tough questions here with solutions
rarely found in programs;
- Liberal and NDP governments in Ontario
incompetent;
- Canada's safety net provides everybody
with the basics;
- no skills and poverty are obstacles;
- parents want the best and can deliver;
- her parents made it in a tough game;
- they would not have considered looking
to the Government;
(jct: Especially
when there were lots of jobs in those days)
- they had a will to work;
(jct: As if the
laid-off steel worker today doesn't)
- they made it; thousands of others too;
- the best social program is making sure
people can get a job;
- we need the right environment for job
creation; Harris is right;
- Harris is removing barriers to job creation,
helping more people
work and provide for their children.
(jct: Laying
them off is not removing barriers to job creation)
- NAFTA is good for Hamilton;
- we should force dead-beat poor and broke
parents to pay;
- we must find how to change tragic youth
idleness;
- to have a job is the best way to care
for their children;
- the answer is not new federal programs.
- she won't promise what she can't deliver.
JOHN TURMEL tells
us:
- how they tax it is not important, it's
how they waste it;
- I'll pay my tax for people's time but
not for money's time;
- I picketed the Bank of Canada and Sheila
in Parliament for 5 years
against being taxes to pay interest;
- you can look up LETS on Web starting
at www.u-net.com/gmlets.
- LETS is proven to be healthy for you
if you're worried sick;
- anyone with a computer can check it
out.
- this debate is going on the Web with
no newspaper censorship;
- Sheila's resigning allowed me to come
to explain LETS;
- I went to the same church as Sheila,
same scout troop and we even the
same papal parade to Ticat stadium.
- LETS now has over 800 branches and growing
fast.
- I'm the papa of the LETS.
- do-it-yourself with no politicians to
help or get in your way.
(jct: I chuckle
a lot when I make speeches and it's usually right
after a punch line when the audience feels
like laughing too so,
though I speak with a rapid-fire delivery,
it may not seem like I
said much but that's because there was
too much laughing and
applause.)
TRISTAN EMMANUEL
tells us that:
- child poverty issue is dear to his heart;
- he knows more than most;
- his single-mother family lived on welfare
for his 18 years.
- he should be grateful but he wasn't;
- he was taught there was no correlation
between working and reward;
(jct: He's certainly
right there when one considers that a banker
makes more than a sewer cleaner, a great
injustice.)
- his friends are still in that rut;
- he did his mother wrong leaving to collect
welfare;
- he's changed now;
- poverty is a state of mind and must
be redefined;
- his father-in-law had solid work ethic;
- we need to redefine poverty;
- we need to go back to giving our families
strength and health.
- 100% tax break to those people who give
to a charity;
- the CHP believes in giving a hand up,
not a hand out.
VICTOR KNIGHT
tells us that:
- he's been active in many civic affairs;
- after 30 years a teacher, he's seen
the most important Big Issue;
- debt is not result of spending; it's
the result of interest;
- he's pointed it out to other parties
and they didn't listen;
- people aren't aware of how they're being
taken by the money scam;
- most of the debt accumulated in the
last 20 years by reducing the
percentage of the money supply created
by the Bank of Canada
and replacing it particularly with foreign
money.
(jct: And loans
created by the Canadian chartered banks too.)
- the interest on that foreign money leaves
this country tax-free.
- we need the Bank of Canada.
TURMEL: Who is
this guy?
(jct: That's
because he sounds just like I did in my first 15
elections before the LETS program came
along for me to tout in hand.
He is the first guy to say "we need" to
be right. We need the Bank of
Canada to start doing it right again but
we have the LETS to do it
right while we wait.
GEORGE AMBAS tells
us that:
- his brother Louis was a shop-keeper
killed by a young offender;
- a 17-year-old was charged and could
be out in 5 years;
- he was a bad boy;
- he wants the Young Offender's Act fixed.
At this point
was a switch in tapes and the second tape
malfunctioned. We miss Bill Amos of the
Natural Law party but we'll
hear his speech at the next meeting. We
miss Ken Campbell but we'll
here from him at the next meeting and
at a couple of radio and
television debates. And we miss Sheila
Copps but we'll hear speech at
the next meeting and from the televised
Cable 14 debate.
After we'd all
had a chance to speak, the floor was opened for
questions. Of course, both line-ups to
the microphones were loaded
with party clappers and planted questions.
I usually don't mind that
if I'm allowed to make a short comment
or barb to it too. I don't
think 30 seconds for everyone is too much
for even 13 candidates but
the organizers felt that would be too
cumbersome and decided that only
the candidate asked the question would
get to respond.
Usually, I put
up a heated pre-debate argument and for some
reason, it had slipped my mind to start
this debate with a fight.
After 41 elections, I must be getting
old and ended up in an unfair
set-up. So here I am stuck knowing that
it's going to end up being the
"Sheila Show" and I'm supposed to be one
of the props with the other
small party candidates.
My standard way
of showing my displeasure at being excluded from
being allowed to answer a question is
to leave the stage of debate and
start passing out my literature saying
"I'll go back when I can answer
too," "since I can't speak, here's my
chance to give you this," "If I
don't get to give you info from up there,
then give it to you down
here." I do not do this loudly. But just
having the hard-hat moving
through the hall is disturbance enough.
Before the next question, I'll
return to the stage. If the next question
does not include me, I leave
the stage with a different stack of leaflets
and start passing them
around in another area of the audience.
I'll do this as long as I
don't get to answer the question too.
This time, there
was going to be little chance to have a question
directed to me. I doubted many of those
in poverty and distress would
be interested in a Local Employment Trading
when they had Sheila there
to yell at. Luckily, I was on the end
of the table which meant I could
leave by the side and not bother anyone
while I was doing it. So I
just left the sweltering stage went around
to the back, got a coffee,
went outside for some fresh air, and took
a break while they peppered
Sheila, Reform's Sweck and a couple of
others and the others played
mute roles in the back-ground of the Sheila
Show. My seat was empty
and vowed it wouldn't happen again. It
didn't. Amazingly enough, all
the rest of the debates permitted all
candidates to deal with every
issue posed.
If television
can handle 13 candidate debates, why can't they do
that at federal election time and handle
all 9 party leaders rather
than the current 4?
In the ending
2 minutes statements, I mentioned that I was urging
as many of the candidates as possible
to join the petition for a
Canada LETS to be presented to the winner
of the by-election.
I now have two
weeks to find out how many candidates will join me
in demanding a Canada LETS.
Great possibilities
are the Green Party who already have LETS as
one of their local initiatives. Getting
them to endorse a national one
shouldn't be too hard.
Ken Campbell,
former leader of the Social Credit Christian
Freedom Party, has always backed me on
the soundness of the LETS
social Greendollar credits and interest-free
financing.
The Canada party's
Charles Olito keeps talking about having the
creation of money run interest-free by
the government. But while he
waits for the Government to do it right,
we can do it right ourselves
while we wait by using a Canada LETS now.
Considering 6 of the Canada
Party's candidates in the 1993 federal
election came out publicly for
LETS, I would hope that Charles also sees
that it's a program whose
time of pushing has come.
Victor Knight,
the independent, sounds just like I used to sound
in my first fifteen elections. The Bank
of Canada is not doing its
job. Except, I took the Bank of Canada
all the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada to try to "restrict the
bank's computers to a pure
service charge and abolish the interest
charge." He sounds like a man
who has discovered just how we are really
being suckered and just
because 99 people out of 100 around him
don't see it, he thinks that
no one else does and he's got to get the
truth out. I went the way of
writing letters to Parliamentarians who
thanked me for my interest
every time. LETS is way past the stage
of getting the Bank of Canada
to do it right. It can be done right by
anyone.
There is the
Christian Heritage party candidate Tristan Emmanuel
whose taste of poverty in his youth may
have opened his eyes to the b
benefits of a new kind of money.
Natural Law preach
that they are in favor of any proven
scientifically validated program but I
can't get an answer out of Bill
Amos. I know from running against many
Natural Law candidates in the
recent past that meditation and cooperation
have brought them joy and
peace and they want to share it but I
just don't see many poor people
among them. I keep joking that no amount
of meditation and yogic
flyers is going to change the fact that
the mortgage is due on Friday
and you have nowhere to get the money.
If it can't change the books,
then it's dealing with the symptoms and
not the cause. Though they've
never hinted there was anything wrong
with LETS, they haven't yet
openly said there is something good with
LETS.
George Ambas
is simply an independent with a beef who isn't
trying to save the country but who wants
to register a protest even if
it gets right into Parliament. But there's
no reason he can't take a
look at how LETS works overseas and decided
that he wouldn't mind it
in his store.
Glen Malcolm
is an Independent with 150 years of Liberal family
tradition. I don't expect much from any
orthodox party affiliation.
So I'd expect
Sheila Copps, Liberal, Wayne Marston, NDP, Andy
Sweck, Reform, and Angie Tomasic, PC,
to use their political skills to
evade the issue and pinning them down
is going to be the real
challenge in this by-election.
In the next article, I'll transcribe the Beaches meeting tapes.