The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

~~, a AT SIN Crd a ye ELIE FRAT 8 ok editorial poge election campaign. Who Won? If you watched the Great Debate Sunday night and were among the estimated one-third of Can- adians who had not yet decided which way they are going to vote next Tuesday, It is not likely that the two hours of exposure given to the three party leaders will do much to make up your mind one way or the other. That's the opinions of the so-called experts who are saying that no clear-cut advantage was gained by either Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark or Ed Broad- bent. Likewise, the same experts are also saying the the debate did not work to the disadvantage of any of the three party leaders. Those who watched can draw their own con- clusions, but we tend to agree that the two hours produced something of a stalemate. Be that as it may, the debate nonetheless served a useful function as election day May 22 draws near. It gave Canadians a chance to see their three leaders at very close range; in a controlled setting and under considerable pressure. It gave voters a chance to get a measure of how each man reacts, responds, deals with the immediate, and how each Interacts as an individual. The debate may have been a draw from a purely political point of view, but it was great television. Possibly that is the best one could hope would come out of a situation like that. While the voters may not have a more clear picture of what the issues are and where the leaders stand, Canadians can at least take a small measure of satisfaction from the fact that all three men handled themselves with a decent degree of skill and aplomb. That is a little bit reassuring when one considers that this election is a crucial one for this country, and in less than a week from now, one of those three men will be Prime Minister. " It is not the policy of this paper to come out in open support for one leader or party. However, we would urge our readers to take a very close look at the issues between now and May 22. If you are going to exercies your right to vote, it is also your responsibility to at least have some basis for making your decision. After all, it Is still your country. Cult Of Leadership Liberal party candidate Dr. lan Wilson was right on the mark last week when he agreed with the questioner during an address at Port Perry Latcham Centre last week that there is too much emphasis being placed on 'leadership' during the federal He was also right when he said there appears to be a ""cult of leadership" developing in this country which takes the focus away from the real issues and what the parties have to say about them. , But Dr. Wilson was only half right when he suggested that the media are to blame for this phenomena of leadership that has crept into Canadian politics. He neglected to say that both the Liberal and Tory parties have by choice made leadership an issue in this election and both are shelling out a lot of bucks to some very high-priced help to ensure that the electorate sees a gift-wrapped leader, programmed every inch of the campaign * trail to come across as the one and only person in the country capable of being all things to all people. If the media are to blame for anything during this campaign, it is not so much for the constant focus on Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau as "leader- ship" as it is for the lack of focus on what the third man in this race is saying about the Issues and the problems. Rightly or wrongly, Canadians at this crucial (Turn to page 6) THE Gone Sow VOTING HABITS For quite a while, I counted myself among that approximately 30 per cent of Canadian voters who were "undecided". From the time he was chosen leader and elected 11 years ago, I have disliked Pierre Trudeau. Perhaps distrusted would be a better word. As a Canadian I was used to good, dull, solid prime ministers like Mike Pearson, a genial, open internationally know dip- lomat; "Uncle Louis' .St. Laurent, a cor- porate lawyer respected by men of all parties; John Diefenbaker, a criminal lawyer with great experience in parliament. This new guy, Trudeau, was a little too good to be true. A millionaire's son who had never really proved himself in business, law, (his professiorf or the arts. He had no experience in parliament. He had switched ideals too easily, from firebrand to national pacifier. Oh, TI could understand the Trudeau- mania. With his casual clothes, his bouton- niere, and his exotic holidays, he was a regular breath of fresh air to Canadians, accustomed to stodginess at the top. He was photogenic, articulate, and obviously a man with a considerable intel- lect. He had bags of charm, with the Gallic shrug, the lifted eyebrow. In his national _ television speeches, he was a winner, most persuasive. When he married the lovely Margaret Sinclair, the fairy tale seemed complete, only outdone by the fact that they had three children, bang, bang, bang, two of them born on Christmas Day. It would take a distinguished writer of soap opera to come up with a better script. Yet all the time I didn't trust him. Too smooth, even slippery, when it came to a forthright statement about his views or the country. At first I thought we might just have a statesman, but it wasn't long before he was a pure politician to the heels. My wife was sore at me for what she considered my jaundiced view of Prince Charming. Just as she was sore at me because I wasn't altogether sold on John F. Kennedy ten years earlier, another guy who had ridden to office on a few million dollars, a barrel of ambition, and charm to burn. My jaundice was justified. Since Trudeau took over, Canada has slipped steadily into a stagflation that has made a hell of a lot of other Canadians just as jaundiced. He refused to consider wage and price controls. A year later he switched and stole the idea from the Tories, too late. His government has done virtually nothing about: foreign companies buying Canada, development of the country; unemployment; pollution and a hundred other issues of concern. There was no bold leadership of Canadian industry, commerce, science. There was a knuckling- under to miljtant labour. There was the panicky Wal Measures Act in Quebec. There was a steady loss of confidence in Canada on the international level. When Joe Clark was chosen leader of the Tories, taking the place of a much superior man, Robert Stanfield, at least I had some hope. He was young, seemed vigorous and must have something going for him, even though barely more than half the Tory delegates wanted him, or didn't want Claude Wagner. As the months have passed, my hopes have withered. Clark seems just the opposite to Trudeau. Not smooth but awkward. Not intellectual, though hard- plugging at his homework. Trying to appear forceful in the televised House of Commons, but a finger-wagging, jowl-shaking, pale effigy of old John Diefenbaker at his best. There'll be no bold leadership by this guy, either, if he wins. He makes a statement then waffles. He dodges a television confrontation with Trudeau, and I don't blame him. He throws out a huge bribe to the middle-class voter with his mortgage interest scheme. He seems a decent enough chap, as honest as a politician can be, but he appears more like a puppet, gyrating awkwardly to the ings pulled by his advisors, than a real h¥man being. He seems to have virtually no vision of Canada; nothing but an enormoys desire to become prime minister. Clark has never really accomplished anything outside of politics. He was a hard working and earnest, but undistinguished member of parliament. That's why he got the "Joe Who?"' label after he wiggled into the leadership. What a choice! An aging playboy who has allowed Canada's national debt, 'and Canada's government, swell to epic propor- tions, until Ottawa appears a huge, com- placent blood-sucker drawing the life out of the rest of the country. And a hick from High River whose main motive seems to be pure political hunger for power. (No aspersions on High River, whose editor kept - me up until 4 a.m. one morning in a great intellectual debate). Where to go? I'm lurching to the left, and I wouldn't be surprised if many joined me. I'm no socialist, but Broadbent at least isn't making an ass of himself, has some concrete ideas. We have a good man in our riding, and this time I'm going to vote for the man. A J A |! A \S