Goff
Community Complex All Candidates Debate Held Wednesday January 11 2006
Contrary
to the editorial published in the Friday Jan 13 edition of The Sentinel
Review, we have received several comments on the fiery delivery of Jim's
first speech. Although the the others' presentations seemed to lack
luster, James' assault on the big parties lack of accountability and
backbone sounded neither like a reading of Charles Dickens nor Jane
Austin. I think most people in attendance would agree that Jim's presence
at the debate was the only reason they were able to stay awake during it.
Unfortunately you will not find much information concerning the Marijuana
parties' comments at this meeting in the local newspaper, most of their
available space was given to the big money parties.
Here
is the editorial as well as the write up on the debate itself taken from
the Sentinel Review
Candidates fall short
of spontaneity
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Matt Shurrie
Friday January 13, 2006
Spectators can be forgiven if they were left shaking
their collective heads this week in the wake of several federal election
all-candidates meetings across Oxford County.
It would appear such debates have now been transformed into glorified
reading sessions.
As strange as it might seem, a two-hour timeslot spent watching which
candidate can read his or her party’s platform with the most clarity,
enthusiasm and poise is hardly enthralling.
Nor can it be considered informative, interesting or at all helpful as
voters continue to debate the merits of each political party.
That was clearly the case Wednesday night at Goff Hall, when the seven
contenders vying for a trip to Ottawa used the spotlight of the Woodstock
District Chamber of Commerce and the Woodstock-Ingersoll Real Estate Board
debate to bury themselves deep inside their party’s platform.
It didn’t matter what question or topic was being asked or discussed,
because the magical binder contained numerous notes that always seemed to
contain the right answer.
While it must be difficult to face the public in such a setting, it would
have been nice if candidates had actually spoken directly to the voters.
Sure, some did their best to provide eye contact and good body language -
all key pillars in public speaking - but most of the time they had their
heads down searching for answers that were buried in their notes.
The assembled crowd wasn’t there to hear a reading of a Dickens classic
or a Jane Austen novel. What they really wanted to hear was a clear
platform and how each one related to the lives of those living in the
county.
Sure, a wide and varied range of topics was covered including fiscal
policy, federal housing policies and transportation infrastructure, but
it’s hard to imagine that anyone walked out with a clearer view of each
candidate or political party.
Moderator Brent VanParys must be commended for some of the tough questions
he fired at the assembled candidates. However, the fact that candidates
were provided with a list of questions prior to the debate meant any
chance of a real or spontaneous discussion was lost.
Instead, most of the assembled cast spoke with a monotone voice as they
listed their party’s platform point by painstaking point. Others simply
read from a prepared piece of paper - notes that were peppered with
predetermined points.
Again, hardly an engaging debate.
Candidates continued to rhyme off national numbers and plenty of spending
promises - all little nuggets of information that were readily available
in a pamphlet or on a website. At times, however, it was confusing and
excruciatingly painful as promise after promise was thrown out with little
explanation how such goals would be accomplished.
Sadly, the Woodstock meeting mirrored the first federal leaders debate
when the lack of spontaneous discussion probably put more viewers to sleep
- hardly the engaging outcome that most party officials had expected.
Oxford voters want answers, not prepared statements.
Don’t expect them to be satisfied until such debates begin to centre on
spontaneity rather than reading.
|
Talking taxes
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Bruce Urquhart - POLITICS REPORTER
Thursday January 12, 2006
With the Woodstock District Chamber of Commerce and the Woodstock-Ingersoll Real Estate Board hosting Wednesday’s all-candidates’ debate, the economy was definitely at the top of the evening’s agenda.
Moderator Brent VanParys posed some tough questions to Oxford’s seven candidates, asking them about issues ranging from fiscal policies to the need for a qualified workforce. These questions reflected a few of the priorities outlined by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which had given low marks to the four major parties for their economic platforms.
VanParys stressed the chamber’s position that the next government "must put in place competitive taxes, continue to reduce the public debt and rein in program spending," asking the candidates to detail their parties’ fiscal policies.
Conservative incumbent Dave MacKenzie described the question, which focused on reduced personal income tax rates, as "presumptuous," saying his party’s pledge to reduce the GST by two per cent would have a similar impact.
"As for the GST, I know which party brought it in, I know which party promised to scrap it and I know which party now refused to reduce it," said MacKenzie, responding to Libertarian candidate Kaye Sargent’s reminder that the Tories introduced the detested tax.
MacKenzie then outlined a few other planks in the Tory fiscal platform, mentioning his party’s promised tax incentives for apprenticeship programs and its commitment to doubling seniors’ pension deductions. The Conservative candidate also touted his party’s promise of a one per cent reduction to the small business tax rate while simultaneously raising the bracket’s threshold from $300,000 to $400,000.
"(And) we can still pay down the national debt at $3 billion a year and still have a modest surplus," MacKenzie told the 300-strong Goff Hall audience.
MacKenzie’s Liberal rival, Greig Mordue, was less optimistic about "the Conservative agenda," saying the policies of Tory Leader Stephen Harper "would plunge us further into debt." Mordue said the Conservative pledge of a $3 billion annual payment was "not fast enough" when the nation is burdened with a $600-billion debt,
"The promise-a-day campaign that Stephen Harper has run is just not sustainable," he said.
Mordue contrasted Harper’s promises with the Liberal government’s "eight balanced budgets," praising Paul Martin’s tenure as both finance minister and prime minister. The Liberal candidate stressed the recent government decision to reduce the lowest personal income tax rate to 15 per cent from 16 per cent, a policy the Conservatives have promised to reverse. Mordue also mentioned the need for a "balanced approach" between taxation, debt repayment and government spending.
NDP candidate Zoé Kunschner said the federal government needed to shift Canada’s national debt from private banks and investors to the Bank of Canada, allowing the billions of dollars in interest to help support the economy. Kunschner estimated that 93 per cent of Canada’s debt was the result of compound interest rather than public spending and stressed the need to monitor the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio.
"Ottawa needs to set better priorities with the money it has," she said.
Instead of corporate tax cuts, measures that have been promised by both the Liberal and Conservative parties, Kunschner said the government needed to invest money into health care, education and other programs.
Green Party candidate Ronnee Sykes also criticized the government propensity for corporate tax cuts, particularly in an era of "record profits." Sykes said the federal government should focus on reducing income tax rates for "average Canadians" to help reduce the national poverty rate. Sykes argued that tax policy should shift "away from jobs and employment" onto pollution and non-sustainable products.
"Taxes are a tool that governments have used to shape society," said Sykes, adding corporate tax rates had been cut by almost eight per cent in the last five years. "Both the Conservatives and Liberals have used this tool to benefit corporations."
Sargent had the most succinct response of the debate, saying the Libertarians, who strongly endorse a much lower income tax rate, would first focus on debt reduction. John Markus, the Christian Heritage candidate, had a similar response, outlining a stringent program of debt repayment that would total about $35 billion annually.
"It would be a hard pill to swallow at first," Markus said. "This ‘mortgage’ didn’t come in one day, and it will take a few days to get rid of it."
But the Christian Heritage candidate promised that the elimination of the national debt could eventually mean an elimination of personal income tax.
The elimination of personal income tax was also suggested by Marijuana Party candidate James Bender, who argued for what he called a value-added system. Bender said that luxury items should carry the tax load, easing the burden on low- and middle-income Canadians.
"The people with all the money – the people buying the Mercedes-Benzes and Hum-Vees – would pay all the taxes," he said.
Bender also spoke against corporate tax cuts, saying this revenue was needed to fund Canada’s social programs. He called corporate tax cuts a "failure of our social situation" that favoured corporations that "had not been responsible to Canadians."
Other questions, most of which had been provided to the candidates before the actual debate, touched on issues like federal housing policies and transportation infrastructure. The next Oxford all-candidates’ meeting is hosted by the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture and is scheduled for tonight at 7:30 p.m. at Woodstock’s CAW Hall. |