As “Snowmageddon” rages on in Peterborough, residents and community advocates braved the poor weather to attend an all-candidates debate on housing and homelessness at All-Saints Anglican Church. 

Co-hosted by the Church, One City Peterborough, United Way of Peterborough and District, and Trent University’s Research for Social Change Lab, this was the second debate of the day for most candidates in attendance, save for one.

Progressive Conservative (PC) MPP Dave Smith was conspicuously absent from the debate, citing how he was not one to engage in “single issue” debates. This move is well in line with the PC party’s current media strategy of candidate elusiveness, though Smith isn’t completely out of the public eye and is alleged to appear with all Peterborough-Kawartha provincial candidates next Tuesday for a debate on local business hosted by the Chamber of Commerce.

Despite Smith’s absence, over 100 people attended the in-person debate, which was also live-streamed for those unable to physically attend. Guests of note were Town Ward Councillors Joy LaChica and Alex Bierk, and Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel. 

Moderated by Joelle Favreau and Jim Hendry, candidates discussed their respective solutions to the present housing crisis, with some more policy-minded than others.

In spite of ideological differences, the four candidates present—Andrew Roundy of the New Blue Party, Lucas Graham of the Green Party, Adam Hopkins of the Liberal Party, and Jen Deck of the New Democratic Party (NDP)---all seemed keen on towing respective party lines. 

New Blue candidate Andrew Roundy was arguably an outlier, showing a staunch commitment to not answering any questions without mentioning the taxpayer burden. He displayed an exceptional misunderstanding in what government and taxes do, but was outright in his “truth-telling” position on shrinking the provincial government’s role in all affairs. 

“The problem is the price of everything,” Roundy said in his opening remarks. “I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but we’re being taxed to death.”

Roundy was not the only candidate that struggled to illustrate a clear position on housing and homelessness. Liberal candidate Adam Hopkins’ disconnect from provincial Liberal policy was apparent, having admitted he was “not prepared” at certain junctures to discuss policy declarations. 

“I’ll be honest that there's more work that needs to be done with our platform as well,” Hopkins said. 

The candidate’s disconnect from the provincial Liberals was all too glaring, with Hopkins telling Peterborough Currents that he doesn’t have much knowledge about Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie despite being a longtime Liberal personally. 

Despite this, Hopkins had a lot of compassion and empathy for those most vulnerable in the affordability crisis, employing lived experience to discuss pre-existing Liberal commitments like eliminating the province’s Land Transfer Tax for low-income individuals and families and scrapping development charges. 

“This will allow municipalities the flexibility to address their focus on those who need more homes,” Hopkins said. “We’re going to build more co-ops and rental apartments by removing punitive and discriminatory extra taxes that increase costs and drive up rents.”

Rental affordability and availability was at the forefront of NDP candidate Jen Deck and Green candidate Lucas Graham’s respective approaches to the debate. While all candidates were amenable to reinstating rent control, both the NDP and Green Party are keen on significantly expanding rental initiatives and enshrining legal protections through the Residential Tenancies Act and the Landlord Tenant Board. 

“Homelessness in Ontario has reached a crisis point and the fact that it has increased by 25% in just 3 years is not a failure of individuals, but a failure of government policy,” Graham said in his opening remarks. 

“Instead of treating homelessness as a policing issue, we need to treat it as a housing and healthcare issue. The Green Party will take a housing first approach, which means getting people into permanent stable housing instead of criminalising poverty,” Graham said. 

“We're going to immediately provide Housing Works for those living in indigent or in the town area, and permanent modular housing on provincial land instead of just moving people from place to place.”

When faced with questions about homelessness and encampments, three candidates felt that the current approach to encampments is “punitive.” The only outlier in this respect was New Blue candidate Andrew Roudny, who felt he didn’t know much about the issue but still insisted on having people “earn” their needs being met. 

“I think you should give power and resources to the people who earned them so that they can build the businesses, the houses and everything it takes to create that kind of society I think we should live in,” Roudny said. 

When all candidates were asked by a community member whether or not they had talked to any homeless constituent, both the New Blue and Liberal candidates admitted to not interacting with a homeless person during their campaign while the Green and NDP candidates had consistent contact and engagement with unhoused people. 

“I don't think this is a single issue debate, frankly,” Deck said in her closing remarks. 

“Even if it was, I truly believe that in that the vast majority of people are caring and compassionate, but it is very hard to extend that kind of compassion when you yourself feel like your basic needs are not being met.” 

Attendees found it difficult to differentiate between the platforms and when asked, candidates were reticent to criticize the other participants’ ideological leanings. This particular aspect of the debate bothered Trent student Samarth Sarin, who feels that the Liberal, NDP, and Green platforms are “too close” and was dissatisfied with what information candidates provided.

“It sucks to have to strategically vote in this election,” Sarin told Arthur. “We need a party to help us rise above and move forward because they have better ideas, better ways and better solutions.” 

As someone who works in the Student Housing department at Trent, Sarin finds they have to be “brutally honest” with students about the state of housing in Peterborough, and was disappointed in the lack of discussion from candidates on that specific topic. 

“When you’re an international student, the housing situation puts you in a very difficult position because you don't know the law and you're new in this country,” Sarin said. 

“You are actually the most vulnerable at that point.”

“International students become a black sheep when politicians talk about homelessness, since they immediately become the reason that we’re experiencing all of these problems, when it’s actually a multifaceted issue,” Sarin continued.

“I’d like to see an MPP that sees the problems students are facing and help us solve that. 

That's a very, very, very far stretched reality for us at the moment.” 

While Dave Smith’s absence was felt, One City executive director Christian Harvey felt that the debate was to illustrate conscience to Peterborough-Kawartha constituents when they go to the polls February 27th. 

“No one can blame just one party on the fact that we have had these issues,” Harvey told Arthur. “These are things that all parties have watched happen.” 

“We need a candidate addressing the commodification of housing, the criminalization of homelessness, the vilification of harm reduction. We need a provincial government to take responsibility and not just pass the buck, but say this is our responsibility. We're going to act on it. We're going to invest in it.”

When it comes to housing and homelessness in Peterborough, this debate seemed to make clear that nobody has “won,” especially homeless and housing insecure residents. 

Despite party platitudes, the banal, dehumanizing cruelty towards the unhoused continues, and the lack of radical proposals is a sobering reality for those intent on voting with conscience.