By Pepper Parr
February 20th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Dan Jacobs sent in a comment that we are upgrading to a news story.
Based on what Jacobs said in his comment it would appear that he has some role within the Progressive Conservative party.
John Greven explaining why Natalie Pierre was not sitting in the chair reserved for her at that all candidate event on Tuesday.
He maintains he was the person who spoke directly with John Greven, the debate moderator, about Natalie Pierre’s failure to take part in the all- candidate event on Tuesday.
“As the person who spoke with Mr Greven directly, and for a significant period of time, he most certainly did receive a direct response.”
The issue was not how direct the response to Pierre’s failure to show up was – the issue was that she didn’t show up.
A “ commitment that Natalie would personally call every person in attendance who wished to speak with her” is worse than saying the dog ate my homework.
“We also provided a QR code and link that people could use to book in times to speak with her.”
Really? The public was told that Natalie was going to be out knocking on doors not sitting by the phone waiting for disapointed constituents to call her.
Jacobs adds: “ At no time was it mentioned that there is any policy in place regarding debates, because there is no such policy.” Interestingly, Progressive Conservatives across the province are not taking part in public debates.
Jacobs also said: “If this is a direct quote, then Mr Greven has show (sic) his partisanship by fabricating the response.”
Greven did no such thing. He was fair, decent and reflected the concerns of the community when he talked about the missing Natalie Pierre.
“In addition” said Jacobs, “ no less than a half dozen additional representatives of the organizers asked the same question about Natalie’s attendance by phone, e-mail, and by attending the campaign office, and all were provided the same response.”
And that makes the failure to appear acceptable?
Progressive Conservative candidate Natalie Pierre chose not to use the table set up for her use. She didn’t show up for the debate.
The Progressive Conservatives are a political party that wants to stay in power and they will do whatever they can to continue being the government of the province. The public understands that and on the 27th they will decide if they want to continue being governed by that political party.
What reason does Natalie Pierre have for not showing up? Because they told her not to?
Where is the independence and the responsibility to represent the people that elected her?
Natalie Pierre decided that she would not run for re-election then changed her mind and announced that she would seek office again. Failing to win will put her out of her misery.
The decent woman who was nominated was destroyed by a political party that lost its moral footing when it elected Doug Ford.
Salt with Pepper is an opinion column reflecting the observations and musings of the publisher of the Gazette, an on-line newspaper that is in its 12th year as a news source in Burlington and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
The trend towards one-on-one meetings between elected official/candidate and constituent seems to be a friend. Counselor Lisa Kearns has moved significantly in that direction. Proponents of the one-on-one meeting will likely say it gives the constituents the focused attention of the elected official/candidate. I ask myself why should that focus be any the less should the question or topic be raised in an open forum situation? The benefit to the elected official/candidate of the one-on-one versus open forum situation is any criticism from the constituents or the response/non-response from the elected official or candidate will not be widely heard. At her sporadic “Update” meetings Counselor Lisa Kearns is quick to shut down any question or topic that requires her to take a position that might not help her political career. She is the epitome of a politician – loves the photo ops, takes credit whenever she can, but does not fight for her individual constituent’s where that fight might not benefit her.
Somehow, it should become a requirement for any candidate standing for elected position to have to hold at least two public two hour forums where the candidates is required to take questions from the floor with no prior knowledge of content. The candidate likely will provide non-answers. But at least the constituents will be able to weigh the credibility of each candidate.
Totally agree, Bruce. The tendency in Burlington is just as you say, no one else gets to hear the discussion so it is as if it never took place, same with any “promises” made.
So far my Councillor in Ward 3, Rory Nisan is still holding open Ward meetings with all who attend. I commend him for that, but worry that he might be the only one doing it. I want regular open Ward meetings each quarter as a City policy, but hold little hope that it will happen.
The “closed door” one-on-one meeting approach is a pattern that is getting repeated at the provincial level during this election, at least for PC candidates.
It is an anti-transparent method of communication with no record-keeping. I thank the other parties for rejecting it and showing up for open debates.
Changing the focus to someone else does not change the story, our current MPP does not deserve to represent Burlington nor does she appear to have the desire to do so.
Public debates aren’t the only thing the PC candidates aren’t showing up to. CHCH News has contacted PC candidates in a number of Hamilton and Haldimand ridings, and they aren’t even participating in one-on-one interviews with reporters. One would think that would be a fairly simple, uncontentious and useful vehicle for free publicity.
Public debates are intended as a forum for candidates to engage with the public in a healthy and respectful discussion on the issues. It is intended to give the public important policy information on which to compare and evaluate the parties’ platforms. Suggesting constituents use a QR code to book a meeting or a call isn’t a satisfactory response, and misses the whole point of having a debate in the first place. That response is not only disingenuous but dismissive and just plain silly, which, come to think of it, is a pretty apt description of Doug Ford’s re-branded PC Party.
I do so long for the days when politicians with character and class like George Kerr represented this riding. Dodging public debates wasn’t part of his modus operandi.
“Failing to win will put her out of her misery.” And replace her with whom? Andrea Grebenc, architect of the demise of Robert Bateman HS, an event still clouded in much subterfuge considering it saved Burlington Central much to the benefit of the daughters of another prominent Liberal in Burlington. No thank you. And look at the bigger picture–whatever Doug Ford’s shortcomings, he still has the advantage of not being Crombie or Stiles.
Editor’s note: This is an opinion that doesn’t bear much resemblance to the facts.
It isn’t accurate that “the daughters of another prominent Liberal in Burlington benefited” from Bateman closing. Those daughters went to Aldershot HS. Every PAR rep had to have one child at the relevant school, it was a requirement. In this case, that was a son and, as was the case with many PAR reps and others working to try to keep schools open, the closure timelines meant their own kids would have been graduated before the closure anyway. That wasn’t the point of working on it. Perhaps in hindsight there were other motivations for some, but not this.
It is also completely inaccurate to call Grebenc the “architect of the demise of Bateman.”
Perhaps I was wrong but wasn’t Grebenc a trustee for the HDSB who voted in favour of the closing of Robert Bateman HS?
Editor’s note: You are correct