To say that there has been a lot of debate this campaign would be an understatement, with a dozen forums, debates, and even a Jeopardy-style game show for mayoral candidates to participate in.

But while the discussion has been largely collegial thus far, the gloves came off for candidates at the largest debate of the campaign season held at the Jack Singer Concert Hall on Oct. 8.

That debate was hosted by Creative Calgary, the Calgary Downtown Association, the Calgary Construction Association, and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

At issue for candidates was their opponents’ records on Calgary City Council and on Calgary’s Police Commission, and that turned into a fight of words during the evening.

Among those attacks were from Sonya Sharp and Jeff Davison on the voting record of Jeromy Farkas during the previous council to his difference campaign stances now; Brian Theissen on the closeness of Jeff Davison, Sonya Sharp, and Jeromy Farkas to the UCP; Sonya Sharp attacking Brian Theissen’s record on and reasons for leaving Calgary’s Police Commission; Jeff Davison attacking his opponents on claiming to suddenly have new ideas after four years on city council; and Jyoti Gondek against her opponents for not thinking enough about Calgary’s small businesses.

Yet debate moderator and Calgary Chamber of Commerce CEO Deborah Yedlin said there was value from the evening for Calgarians.

“I think this will matter because we’re getting too close to the end of the election. I think people are starting to pay attention. They want to see what the candidates stand for,” she said.

“Some people are already voting in advance, so this is going to inform their choices in the next week before the election, actually, before election day. This is a very important opportunity for us to showcase what the candidates stand for and what it means for Calgarians.”

Candidates reflect post-debate

Four questions were posed to candidates during the evening, focusing on downtown public safety, funding for the arts, infrastructure investment, and support for businesses.

Yedlin said that those questions came from hundreds of submissions from the audience, and were representative of some of the top issues that Calgarians wanted addressed by candidates.

“When you have four questions, you give the candidates the time to delve into some of their platforms a bit more in more detail, and so that means the audience gets a better sense of what people, what those candidates, are putting forward,” she said.

“You can have 50 questions and you get two-second answers, doesn’t give you any information, and it’s just, it’s not there’s no substance there. I think the whole point was to offer some substance to the questions that were being asked of it on issues that are front and centre for Calgarians as they go to the polls in those two weeks.”

Post-debate, LWC asked the candidates what they wished they could have spoken about on stage but didn’t get a chance to.

Of the candidates, most said they were able to address their largest campaign issues during the debate, but Davision said that he wished he could have addressed his four-year tax freeze plan more, and Farkas said that there was a need for discussion over leadership.

“You’re always going to be asked about the issues, right? Are you for or against something? What’s your position on a certain matter? I think the deeper question we have is around leadership. What about the issues that nobody’s thinking about? What about the things that could happen in this growingly crazy world that we live in?” Farkas said.

“The deeper question here is the huge, unprecedented, historic turnover in the city council. So, the leadership question is one of those untested issues that none of these debates have really spoken to.”

That stance was itself debated by Gondek, who said that the candidates had all been able to provide Calgarians with their vision for leadership during the evening.

“My own perspective is that I’ve spent four years proving that strong, determined leadership results in great investments in our city, and with four more years, we’ll take the foundation that we’ve created and build upon it,” she said.

“I think this is a great opportunity for Calgarians to understand what we stand for. I think it was really telling as well that some people have a plan and a vision and others have sound bites. So I think this was a really good way to understand who it is that you’ve got before you, and it’ll lead to an informed vote.”

For his part, Thiessen said that the one issue he would have liked to bring up more was around political parties—and why they aren’t bad for municipal voters.

“Every major democracy in the world has political parties, so I’m a little thrown by all this talk about protecting people from political parties. They’re dissolved after the election. You can’t caucus without the entire city council,” he said.

“Parties exist in every major democracy in the world. It’s all about the people who make them up. We built a team, and I’m really proud of that.”

As to whether Calgarians would be changing their minds from the long run of election forums and debates, Sharp said that would depend on the appetite of voters to receive information from the candidates.

But she also questioned why there needed to be so many candidates on stage.

“These type of debates—back and forth—I’ll be honest, there’s too many of us up there. If it’s going to be a debate back and forth, two or three candidates, that’s it. Five, it starts to get long, and people are now getting super, I would say catty, towards each other,” said Sharp.

“If you’re going to do the rebuttal back and forth, maximum three top candidates, and then for more of a forum type you could probably have all nine candidates up there. But I would say it was, it was a good debate.”

Election day is Oct. 20.