For forty minutes the solitary figure of Kevin Clarke dominated the stage of Hart House’s Great Hall, and all that anyone else could do was listen, watch and wait.
Clarke, a fringe candidate with a rough history, including jail time, delayed the start of Monday’s mayoral debate at Hart House. Clarke claimed that only inviting Stephen Ledrew, David Miller, and Jane Pitfield to speak at the debate violated his Charter rights.
When asked to leave, Clarke bluntly refused, and continued chanting his disgust at the current political situation. For good measure, he played air guitar on a broom, mocking David Miller’s “clean up City Hall” campaign message in the 2003 mayoral election.
Pitfield tried approaching Clarke but was rebuked by a barrage of vulgar comments.
According to Hart House’s Debates Committee’s secretary, Ethan Hoddes, it is university policy that if a person is not dangerous, “[Security] will not physically remove them. This is a public space.” Hoddes asked attendees to leave the Great Hall and return in 15 minutes.
With the threat of the debate being cancelled floated by organizers, Clarke finally left of his own accord.
In his reaction to the delay caused by Clarke, LeDrew said “I am surprised so many people could be held hostage by one person.”
Once underway, the debate went smoothly, but no exceptional announcements were made and the usual attacks by Pitfield and LeDrew on Miller’s time in office were ever-present.
The central campaign issues of transportation, garbage, crime, and affordable housing were each discussed.
Pitfield expanded on her far-fetched proposal to construct one to two kilometres of new subway line each year for the next 25 years, while Miller pushed the expansion of above-ground public transportation.
“[It’s] half the capacity at one-tenth the price [of subways],” he said.
All the speakers proposed a new TTC pass for university students and expressed sympathy over disappearing affordable student housing.
As before, the garbage issue divided Miller and Pitfield. Miller spoke of reduction and recycling, while she pushed for incineration.
In the end the crowd showed overwhelming support for Miller, who received most of the applause.
During the question period, several questions were asked about the various candidates’ position on tuition. The candidates empathized with students, but said that the matter is a provincial, not municipal issue.
But the night did not end, however, before the candidates signed a petition by the Students’ Adminstrative Council (SAC) pledging to fight tuition fee increases, earning SAC incoming vice-president external Emily Shelton a PR coup.
Overall, the outcome of the debate did not impress attendees.
“I didn’t hear what I came to hear,” said Monica Barbir, a first-year university student. Katherine Bermingham proposed that “the university could have a series of debates so the students could hear the views of the other candidates.”
