I honestly don't know where to begin after tonight's second and last session of debates in this fourth day of the SFUO elections campaign.
VP SOCIAL
Alexandre Chaput: He didn't have that much to say other than he would benefit from having more time to organise Winter Challenge and that he would like to plan the complete social calendar for the whole academic year throughout the summer.
Winner?: Well, obviously Chaput is the lone candidate for this position. Although, I was somewhat disappointed with his lack of new ideas. I know he'll do a great job, but would have liked a little bit of innovation.
VP STUDENT AFFAIRS
Amy Hammett: Alright so she brought up the fact that, according to her, Chartwells throws out a ton of good food every day. She was also asked about the legality of Chartwells donating that food to the SFUO's Food Bank. Hammett made reference to a "Good Faith" law that ensures that companies who donate food cannot be held liable in the case that someone who ate that food became sick. So, I decided to look further into this apparent law. There is in fact a provincial law in Ontario entitled "
Donation of Food Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 19". This law reads as follows:
Liability of donor
1. (1) A person who donates food or who distributes donated food to another person is not liable for damages resulting from injuries or death caused by the consumption of the food unless,
(a) the food was adulterated, rotten or otherwise unfit for human consumption; and
(b) in donating or distributing the food, the person intended to injure or to cause the death of the recipient of the food or acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. 1994, c. 19, s. 1 (1).
So I can only guess that if food is being thrown out by Chartwells, it obviously must not meet article 1.a. On other issues, Hammett said she would be in favour of holding francophone-only events for the 11 000 francophone students studying at the University of Ottawa.
Nicole Tishler: In answering to Hammett's claims, Tishler said that she spoke with one of the heads of Chartwells and was told that the company receives daily shipments of fresh food. Tishler continued on to say that she was told that it was very uncommon for there to be any food left over at the end of the day. This is why I tend to think that Tishler won the debate. She also put forward an interesting idea: to put in place a Committee of carbon neutrality at the University of Ottawa which would work towards diminishing our carbon footprint.
Winner?: Nicole Tishler was prepared, had spoken to the right people (head of Chartwells), and completely shot down Hammett's claim that Chartwells throws out enormous amounts of good food daily. Although having had a bit of trouble with her spoken French, she was prepared, confident and open to many of the suggestions that came from the floor.
VP FINANCE
Saryah Jayne King: I will begin by saying I'm not quite sure how King passed the bilinguism test. I say this because almost every time she spoke in French, I had a very hard time following what she was saying. I understand nerves might have been a factor. She said she was very much into transparency, budgetary consultations with students and making course packs available online. King said in the case of a budgetary surplus, she would like to ensure that students were consulted on how that money was spent. She also said that she didn't want to move too fast with plans for expanding 1848. She also added that she would not eliminate the $180,80 fee for renting 1848, but would like to see that fee brought down.
Sydney Loko: His message was simple: students are poor, the price of food is extremely expensive and the SFUO must ensure, first and foremost, that students are able to get by. He said the SFUO must be prudent with students' money. He also brought up how he'd like to see students getting paid if they successfully promote events: i.e. events held at 1848. He ensured that if he was elected, the budget would be made available on the SFUO website for all to see. He has extensive experience in this field but I won't get into that here. When asked if he would be willing, if needed, to close an SFUO business, he answered he absolutely wouldn't hesitate to shut down Café Alt. Loko also said he would eliminate the $180,80 1848 rental fee. He was very confident throughout the debate and had a "simple fix" answer for every question. Loko concluded with a "left-right" blow at the CFS saying he thinks that the "Drop Fees" campaign was a waste of students' money and that it produced little to no results.
Maureen Hasinoff: Although not being as bad as King, Hasinoff had a little trouble with her french. On numerous occasions, she spoke of her extensive experience that easily set her apart from her opponents. She put forward an innovative idea about managing the SFUO businesses: 5 year business plans. Seems like a very prudent way to start recovering SFUO deficit-ridden businesses. She also said she would ensure that she presented a budgetary update at every BOA meeting. Hasinoff was not in favour of completely eliminating the 1848 rental fee, although she did say she would like to make it cheaper to rent the student bar.
Winner?: Loko would have won this one mainly because of the confidence he demonstrated in elaborating on his somewhat unrealistic, redistributive platform. In this case, I would have to give the victory to Hasinoff. Substance-wise, the 5 year business plan for all SFUO businesses is a great idea; her experience speaks for itself and the emphasis she put on ensuring the SFUO implement a contingency fund shows prudent management.
Note: At this point of the debate, I stopped taking notes.
PRESIDENT
Tyler Steeves: He was very "Obamalike" in the way he spoke confidently. Also, taking another page from the Obama playbook, when answering after another candidate, he often would compliment him or her on their idea and how he would build off of it. He made a point to say he wanted to unite the faculties in a "Faculty Showdown". He acknowledged that SFUO wasn't accessible to all students and he pledged to ensure that this changes.
Bruno Gélinas-Faucher: He is the candidate that surprised me the most. Most of the time, he spoke in French, which will ensure him a good chunk of the Francophone vote. His major platform point is the decentralization of power from the SFUO executive to the federated bodies. This is a refreshing idea but will most likely be difficult and might even go against the SFUO constitution (although I haven't had time to look into the constitutionality of decentralization of power). Gélinas-Faucher also took a stab at the CFS saying that the organisation is unorganised and at the moment is wasting students' money. He went even further calling out the current SFUO executive by saying they live in an "ivory tower" and are very much so disconnected from the students.
Amalia Savva: The current president of PIDSSA seemed to be on the offensive for most of the debate. When asked if she thought the current SFUO executive was disconnected from students, she defended the SFUO executive's record. Even Steeves admitted that it would be insane to say that the SFUO executive WASN'T disconnected from students. She reiterated that her past experiences were what influenced her decision to run for the SFUO presidency. Savva said she would like to partner up with Greyhound Bus lines and VIA Rail in order to sell tickets directly at the SFUO office. Working with the University of Ottawa administration and Ottawa city hall councillors in working towards a student housing policy was another key part of her platform (A little bit off subject and slightly critical but WTF is up with her wardrobe selection for her
Zoom Production's campaign video?)
Sébastien St-Amour: I don't want to waste your time (or mine in fact) in explaining what a complete fool he made of himself last night. I will say that the introduction brought me to my feet but it was all downhill after that. He took a big blow at Roxanne Dubois saying he called her so she could help him with his debate speech but that she hadn't returned his call. He is also the one who said "I'm not making a joke of these elections, these elections are a joke" hence my post's title. A little bit before half-way through the debate, he began to embarrassed not only himself, but other candidates and people with whom he has worked with before.
Winner?: I would have to say it was Gélinas-Faucher followed by Steeves in a very close second. I think Savva demonstrated that SHE HERSELF was disconnected from students in trying to defend the current SFUO executive which I predict will be a turning point for the worst in her campaign.
