My takeaways from tonight's mayoral townhall
Hi, I'm the redditor formerly known as u/DarthMart. Some of you may remember my writeup on the Charlie Angus rally in April 2025. I've had to delete my old reddit account since then, but I'm back to tell you about tonight's mayoral townhall at the Sudbury Indie Cinema, which was as packed as I've ever seen it.
First off, I want to shout out the Coalition for a Liveable Sudbury, their partners, and specifically the moderator: Amanda Kingsley Malo of PoliticsNOW. They made sure it was run smoothly and that the candidates were getting good, thoughtful questions. They livestreamed it too (you can view the replay here).
There were four parts to the debate: Questions curated by the event organizers, a lightning round where the candidates answered yes or no questions by raising a paddle with a green "yes" side and a red "no" side, questions from the public, and finally a minute for each candidate to pitch themselves and answer the question "Why you?". Rather than giving a play by play of events like I did last time, I'll go over each candidate, their positions, and what my impressions of them were.
The candidates who did not attend were Joseph Boutros, Troy Crowder, and Miranda Rocca-Circelli. I'm unsure whether Boutros and Crowder were not invited or if they declined to attend, but we were informed that Miranda Rocca-Circelli had to bow out at the last minute because she was feeling unwell. Hopefully it's nothing serious. Moving on to the candidates who did attend, I'll go over them in the order in which they were seated (left to right from the crowd's perspective).
Bob Johnston: He was certainly on brand. He had his talking points he'd come back to however he could, regardless of the questions being asked. He'd often repeat phrases like "put the people first", say variations on how he "won't know all the numbers until I get in" and he occasionally brought up that he has a retired engineer friend he'd bring on at no extra cost to the taxpayer and they'll fix the city together. At one point when he was laying out his vision of the city under his leadership that includes clean playgrounds with roller skating, youth centres and taxpayers having their city back, the moderator had to remind him that the question he was being asked was about truth & reconciliation, to which he blurted out "that's the truth!"
Where he shone brightest was when talking about the homelessness crisis. In spite of his firebrand rhetoric and non-answers to many of the questions he was asked, he came across as genuinely caring for the well-being of this city's most downtrodden. When asked about increasing shelter beds (he's very much in favour), he shared a story of how during last winter's massive snow storm he called the city to request they provide a transit bus for the people freezing outside to have a bit of shelter, but his request was denied and one of the people he was trying to help passed away that night. And when he did finally get on topic about truth & reconciliation, he mentioned that roughly 70% of the homeless population is Indigenous (the city's stats have it closer to 50%, which is still ridiculously disproportionate to the general population).
Why you? He says he'll put people first, because we deserve it. He'll be bringing in Tom Price (his retired engineer friend) at no charge to the taxpayers. "It's like a pizza deal, 2 for 1. Not only that, no ties, no lies, what you see is what you get".
Michael McIntosh: He was less sure of himself than Bob Johnston (admittedly a pretty high bar to clear), but he was thoughtful, willing to admit when he was out of his depth, and very cooperation-minded. He made it clear that he's a union man and believes that unions are a net good to society. His proposals were rooted on specific policy over rhetoric. He wants zoning reforms so that we can build higher density, and says that fourplexes should be legal for zoning in all residential areas. He brought up buying mobile camps like they use in mines to use as shelter for the homeless population. He also stressed the need to be better prepared for when natural disasters hit so that we don't get a repeat of that massive snowstorm. He wants a yearly review of standard operational procedures and a game plan for weather events that haven't happened yet, too.
He did concede he would not increase arts funding, and would instead rely on private interests to pick up the slack where the city can't. He also said that (depending on the proposal) he'd be open to AI data centres being built here. In the lightning round, he sometimes took a while to pick between yes or no such as when he asked if he'd support involuntary treatment for addictions (eventually settling on no) and his answers to questions relating to environmentalism indicated that he does not hold it as a priority.
Why you? He took that minute to bring up that bus hours need to be extended, that they're highly disadvantageous to people who work irregular hours and that they sometimes have to turn down jobs as a result. He said nobody else had mentioned this issue so far, and he wanted to make sure it was brought up.
Paul Lefebvre: As the incumbent mayor, he had the advantage of leaning on his four years of experience with his answers. He was easily the most skilled politician of the five candidates, and it showed with the ready answers he had to all the questions. He was also the only francophone among the candidates (Bob Johnston did pledge to learn French if he gets into office). He pointed to policies he's implemented, and acknowledged where he could have done better. For example, that snowstorm came up again and he said we learned we're very good at pushing snow but not at removing it so that will need to be improved. He mentioned more than once the plan to have the entire GoVa fleet converted to hybrid or electric vehicles by 2035, and that a 2.5 million dollar federal grant was just announced to address the homelessness crisis.
Naturally, his approach was more status quo and incremental changes over the bombastic promises made by the political outsider candidates with less to lose. He would also provide some answers that (fair criticism or not) came across as hand-wringing such as when he'd point out something was the province's jurisdiction more than the city's, or when he'd emphasize that people should contact their respective councilors to ensure their voices are heard.
Why you? He says it's been an honour to serve as mayor, he feels that we're going in the right direction and that he wants the momentum he's built to keep going.
Keenan Menard: He wants to see rents reduced especially for the elderly, pointing out that he knows someone who has to pay $6,000 a month for nursing care. He advocated for free transit for the elderly. He wants there to be more healthcare investments too, stressing that "Sudbury is too big a city for only one ER". He also wants more investment into police and bylaw, safer streets. On the environment, he says he wants more transit and less cars.
When asked how he'd address the issue of white supremacists in the city, he said he'd tell them to hit the road and that he has no need or want or appreciation for that garbage. I think the question was geared more towards specific policy proposals on how to approach the issue, but he went for the feel-good sound bite response instead. Not that I fault him for saying it; as a general rule I don't share my political opinions in these writings (I'm a public servant after all), but I'll gladly break that rule to say that white supremacists can fuck all the way off.
Why you? He wants to be the city to grow, prosper, flourish. He envisions himself as the people's mayor, this city's version of Mississauga's late Hazel McCallion.
Rodney Newton: He also leaned heavily on his talking points over specific policy being discussed. When asked about his stance on climate, he said he'd root out corruption in the city. When asked about how he'd help families put healthy food on the table, he said he'd root out corruption in the city. When pressed on specifics, he rarely had any to offer. He did have a surprising moment: on the question of whether he'd keep arts funding stable, decrease it, or increase it, he was the only candidate to say he'd increase funding.
During the lightning round, he would wait to see what the other candidates presented as answers and go with the majority opinion. I can definitely relate with that urge, but it came off as weakness especially when put in contrast with Michael McIntosh, who took more time to answer but his answers were his own.
Why you? He wants to bring internal investigations to the city, get the wrong people out, get the right people in. He wants the city to be safer for kids and safer for the elderly.
As an aside, I did find it kind of funny that all 5 of the candidates answered "yes" to the lightning round question asking if they'd support year-round 24/7 access to essential services for people experiencing homelessness, and then all 5 of them answered "no" to the question asking if they'd support city-run grocery stores to address food insecurity.
There's a lot I've missed, but it's wayyyy past my bedtime and I've got work in the morning so I'll call it here. I hope this has been informative, and that you make your voice heard on October 26th. See you at the polls.