Election Issue: Jobs

**If you enjoy this post, please consider sharing it via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever social media or traditional media you favour. Let's start a conversation**

Hello, Dear Readers,

So begins my second election issues post. Slowly, but surely, the political parties are rolling out their platforms. While the argument still seems to be revolving around families, both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party announced measures to stimulate job growth in small to medium sized businesses. Less of an emphasis on job creation has been promoted by the Liberal Party, but I checked their website and found some movement on this front.

So, let's talk jobs!

Conservative Party of Canada: Free-Trade and Hiring Credits

Stephen Harper announced that his government, if 

re-elected, would continue to pursue free trade with the European Union and India. With the majority of our trade happening with the United States, arguments have been made for diversification to protect us further from economic downturns like the one that began in 2008. Beyond free trade, the Conservative Party has announced a one time tax credit for small business (with 25 employees or fewer). Where Employment Insurance premiums are less than $10,000 in 2010, small businesses will qualify for a tax credit for new employees up to $1,000. There are a lot of stipulations, but suffice it to say that the Conservatives hope their plan will encourage about 525,000 small businesses to hire 1-3 new employees for the next fiscal period.

      Pros: Free trade can create new markets for Canadian products, which can stimulate demand, and increase the desire to employ more workers. The Hiring Credit gives a certain incentive for increasing the number of available positions and decreasing unemployment. 

      Cons: Free trade is a slippery slope. You either love it or you hate it. It can lead to increased demand for domestic products, but it can also decrease the demand for domestic employment and encourage jobs to be "shipped overseas." As well, the Conservative Hiring Credit is a short term election promise. It would only affect the coming year and doesn't involve a long-term plan or incentive to continue job creation.  

Liberal Party of Canada: Youth and Entrepreneurs

The Liberals haven't really announced a 

plank of their platform that deals directly with jobs and job creation. Their website mentions a Youth Hiring Incentive that would encourage medium to small business to employ young people. Businesses hiring youth would face no increase in their Employment Insurance premiums for these youth hires. As well, Navdeep Bains, an incumbent Liberal candidate in Mississauga has suggested a national strategy for helping entrepreneurs in high growth sectors.

      Pros: As the baby boomers retire, Canada will increasingly have to rely on young workers entering the job market. Encouraging youth hiring will create important job opportunities for training and preparing for future employment and can help increase the skills of our upcoming breadwinners. As for the national strategy for entrepreneurs, it's important to have a pan-Canadian strategy to ensure competitiveness is similar across the country.

      Cons: So far, there is little to help those who are in the middle of their careers and have lost their jobs to the recent recession. There is also little meat to the national strategy for entrepreneurs. I'm looking forward to hearing more on jobs and job creation as the election goes on. I guess I'm hoping that the only plan for employment isn't just to support upcoming workers and retiring workers.

New Democratic Party: Tax Credits and Corporate Income Taxes

Jack Layton announced a plan to decrease the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% and create a Job Creation Tax Credit of $4,500 per new hire. To help pay for these changes, the NDP have proposed returning the Corporate Income Tax Rate to its 2008 level. This would entail an increase from 16.5% to 19.5%.

      Pros: A decrease in the small business tax rate can help small businesses operate and compete in an increasingly global market. The tax credit, much like the Conservative's plan, will encourage new hiring through monetary incentives. Increasing the Corporate Income Tax rate will create more income for the government to pay for the cut in the small business tax rate and and the hiring credit.

      Cons: As I mentioned in my previous post, corporate taxes are often linked to economic competitiveness and prosperity. An increase could harm Canada's economic growth and punish larger businesses who contribute to local, regional, national, and the global economies.

**If you enjoy this post, please consider sharing it via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever social media or traditional media you favour. Let's start a conversation**

Election Post #1: Families

**If you enjoy this post, please consider sharing it via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever social media or traditional media you favour. Let's start a conversation**

Good Morning!

Here's day one of my election promise of knowledge expansion. Today's post will not be following the outline I proposed yesterday. I've learned that this early in an election, when parties have not made a lot of policy and platform announcements, it's hard to find one issue that all the parties have talked about. I could write something about a coalition, I could write something about the "expiry-date" of seniors, I could even write something about sweaters, eyebrows and mustaches. These aren't issue topics. My goal for this blog is to write about substantial policy items. I want to know the party plans for tackling climate change and environmental issues, education and pensions, the oil sands and national defence. Apparently, the Liberal Party's platform is being rolled out in its entirety this week, and we've seen the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party announce a few tidbits already.

So here's my plan for today. I'm going to talk about what the parties have already announced:
It's a family sort of thing. All of the parties have framed their policy announcements around how they will help families. Families need tax cuts, families need education, families need help with their personal debt. Here's just a snap-shot of what the parties are doing for families today.

Conservative Party of Canada: Family Tax Cut

Yesterday, the Conservative Party of Canada announced a plan to allow
families to split their income. It's a plan that will allow families with children under 18 to pool the income of both parents for tax purposes. This election promise will not take effect until after the deficit has been eliminated (which the Conservative Government projects to be in the 2015-2016 fiscal year) and will allow $50,000 of household earnings to be shared among spouses.
      Pros: Families with children will, to a certain extent, receive a tax break. The Conservative Party's website has a nifty little backgrounder on the plan that shows that families who are able to split their income for taxes will pay less as a whole.
      Cons: This plan does nothing to help working families with no children, working families with over-age dependents (or those caring for elderly parents), and single people or unmarried couples. As well, it will not become policy until the deficit is eliminated, which could be beyond the 2015-2016 timeline and even beyond the next election.


Liberal Party of Canada: The Learning Passport
This morning, Michael Ignatieff announced his plan for post-secondary education. The Learning Passport will provide $4,000 over four years (tax free) to high-school students who choose to attend a post-secondary institution.
Children from low-income families will receive more funds, up to $6,000 over four years. The funds will be provided through the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP), granting an account is opened in the student's name. The money will only be available for education purposes (be it tuition, textbooks and the like), and will remain available until all funds are used up (in other words, if you don't use it all in the first round of education, you can use it to upgrade later in life). 
      Pros: It will be easier for families to send their children to post-secondary educational institutes. It will provide about $1 billion in funding to education. The Liberal's would fund the program by cancelling the proposed corporate tax cuts and replacing the current textbook credit and education tax credit currently in operation. According to a report by Miner Management Consultants, 77% of the future work force will need some sort of post-secondary education. Currently, only about 60% of people have post-secondary education, and projections only estimate that number rising to 66% by 2031. There's going to be a skilled-labour shortage if something isn't done. This plan may be a large part of the solution.
      Cons: Depending on how you feel about corporate taxes, the corporate tax cuts would be eliminated. The argument for corporate tax cuts is that they stimulate economic growth by helping companies spend more. The trade off is fewer funds for governments to fund programs like health care and education. 

New Democratic Party of Canada: Cap on Credit Card Rates
This morning, Jack Layton announced that if elected, the NDP would cap credit card rates at five percentage points above prime. This would mean that 25% interest rates would be a novelty of the past. The highest the rate could
currently go is 8% as prime is just 3%. The plan is geared to help working class families who are facing increasing debt loads and are turning to credit cards to pay for their day-to-day expenses like groceries and gas. He also would like to give financial regulators the power to ban excessive fees on credit cards and create a mandatory code of conduct for credit card companies.
      Pros: It would take effect immediately. Layton is comparing it to Harper's income splitting plan (outlined above) in that the NDP would help families now, rather than waiting until government follies are fixed with a balanced budget.
      Cons: It's either too big, or too small... jury's out on that. It's too big in the sense that it seeks to nationally regulate an industry that is global in nature. It's too small in that it does nothing to really reduce current debt, it just slows the accumulation of debt.

**If you enjoy this post, please consider sharing it via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever social media or traditional media you favour. Let's start a conversation**

My Election Promise: Knowledge Expansion

Happy Election Season!


We're in election mode now, dear readers. May 2nd will be the day we all head to the polls. While I am completely obsessed with elections, I understand that not everyone I know is. However, I hope that you will follow me for the next month or so as the campaign heats up and I plan to go beyond my civic duty. It's my duty to vote. I will be voting on May 2nd. I know who I will be voting for. What I hope to do with this blog is help you figure out who you'll be voting for. I'll be going beyond my civic duty in the sense that I hope to create an information source for you that examines the party platforms in an objective way so you're able to make your own decision.

First, start here: Vote Compass
This is a great tool. It's a quick questionnaire that takes about five minutes to complete and will place your values on a spectrum in comparison to the party platforms of Canada's major parties.

If you're like me, however, I don't believe that tools like this one are perfect. There are intricacies in party platforms that are too complicated to fit into polls like this. So I'm going to try to post an entry on a different election issue three times a week until we go to the polls. My final post before the election will explain who I'm voting for and why. I hope that by the end of this little experiment, you will also be able to make a similar argument about who you'll be voting for.

So stay tuned! I'll kick the ball off tomorrow with a to be determined topic. As neither the Conservative Party of Canada or the Liberal Party of Canada have released their official platforms, and the New Democratic Party only has a bare-bones "first steps" platforms, I'll be taking a look at what they're saying on the campaign trail until more official documents are released.

Exciting times here in Canada! I hope you enjoy!

Cheers,
Cait

What Will Your Election Be Fought On?

May 2^nd, 2011. Apparently this could be the earliest date Canadian could find themselves going to the polls. The nature of Canadian elections is much different from what we see in other countries, particularly in the United States. We don’t have two years to prepare for an election.

Thirty-six days. That’s the minimum time span of our election cycle and has been close to the average length in the last decade or so. Thirty-six days to get acquainted with the party platforms. Thirty-six days to learn the values our potential Prime Ministers hold. Thirty-six days to make a decision that may shape how this country is run for the next five years.

Is this enough time?

Doesn’t matter. Time’s up. The parties are ready to run and barring a spectacular budget that will placate the New Democratic Party, they’re going to be running. So it doesn’t matter if you’re prepared to make a decision or not. You have to do it. At this point, that’s really the only option available.

So how do you find knowledge and work within the framework of our electoral system? Find an issue.

Think of your values. Is the environment your number one concern? Ask the leaders and the members running for Parliament how they plan on tackling air pollution.

Worried about healthcare? Force the parties to take a stand on how their governments would mitigate rising healthcare costs without sacrificing services, care and its universal nature.

Concerned that the job market is in trouble? Demand a plan that will stimulate job growth in emerging sectors that are able to supply sustainable and stable employment.

Pick an issue that gets your blood flowing, your heart pounding and your interests perked. This is your election. It doesn’t matter whether the government falls on the budget or by contempt of Parliament. Don’t let those seeking your vote define the important issues. Define the issues for yourself.

What’s important to you? What will make your life better? What will make your country better?

Elections are held for the people and whether you want an election or not, you have a voice and it should be heard.

Thirty-six days to shape an election for the people and in the people’s interests.

What will your election be fought on?

His Anger? My Anger

Politics today, dear readers!

The Globe and Mail has an article on their website today that looks at three of Canada's national parties pre-election. "How the parties stack up before the writ" takes a candid snapshot of a party's message, state of readiness, target audience, and what their leaders need to work on (which I read as their biggest weakness).

Fine. Great. I think it's important to take stock of the key players running up to an election.

However, I take issue with the piece's definition of Michael Ignatieff's weakness:
"His anger. Passion is good but in a scrum Friday, Mr. Ignatieff overdid it, gesticulating and raising his voice."

Passion is good. I also think anger is good. Why shouldn't Ignatieff be angry at his opponents for what he sees as deficiencies in governance? The problem with politics in Canada today is that politicians and our public figures are expected to tone down their rhetoric, hide their personalities, and shy away from being too controversial. This is all in an attempt to piss off the fewest amount of people and gain the greatest amount of votes from an increasingly disinterested public.

In 2008, Canada saw only 59% of its citizens go to the polls and elect a minority Conservative government. This is the lowest, the lowest, turnout we've ever experienced as a country, and when I read comments like the one above, I can see why. "His anger." His anger? I can think of several other aspects of Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada that they need to work on.

"His anger." I'm appalled. I can't express how appalled I am. Can't we talk about the Party's inability to sell its ideas effectively? Can't we talk about the obviously staged, and incredibly inauthentic pictures of Ignatieff skating on the Rideau Canal? To be fair, all the parties have these photos, the most recent being Stephen Harper lying on the floor next to a student who passed out during one of his speeches. Can't we talk about how only recently the Leader of the Opposition has been able to find his voice?

About two and a half years ago, I went to a dinner event at which Ignatieff was the keynote speaker. It was a great speech and was full of ideas. It spoke to me, but I doubt it would have spoken to anyone outside of that room as most of us were already convinced. It lacked a certain appeal that is required of national figures. He was Harvard Ignatieff. He was Journalist Ignatieff.

A few weeks ago, in comparison, I saw him speak to a group of young Ontario Liberals. His voice, his passion and the fire behind his actions have completely changed. He's ready. He's found a voice that I believe will be far more effective in reaching Canadians. He was Michael Ignatieff.

"His anger." The quote from Ignatieff during that scrum was needed. He is angry. I am angry. Liberals are angry. A good chunk of Canadians are angry.

"His anger"?

My anger.

How Could I Be So Stupid?

I guess I have a lot on my mind. Two posts in one week! Both on hockey.

Yesterday evening I had a Skype session with my mother. While we discussed a lot of things, the one that stands out in my mind is an argument we had about Zdeno Chara and whether his hit on Max Pacioretty was intentional or not.

Now, those of you who know me, know that I have a hard time admitting that I'm wrong. Even in the face of a good argument, I can be stupidly stubborn and unwilling to admit that I could have erred.

So it'll be refreshing to hear me say, "I erred last night."


I argued that the Chara hit, whole violent, was not as intentional as some are making it out to be. We're only discussing it because of where it happened on the ice. A few feet up the ice, or somewhere along seamless boards and this wouldn't be a story. Yes, Chara intended to hit Pacioretty. Yes Chara intended to hit him hard (at 6'9" it's hard not to hit a guy hard).

I still believe that he didn't intend to injure Pacioretty like he did, but the hit was more violent than it needed to be. Something needs to happen to the game of hockey if Canadians can remain proud of our sport.

What changed my mind?

1) My mother used the "Bertuzzi Card."

Last night I argued that the Chara hit was different than Todd Bertuzzi's hit on Steve Moore. It wasn't. I have always said that Todd Bertuzzi should never have been allowed to play hockey again. The same may go for Chara once the extent of Pacioretty's injuries are assessed. I don't think Chara intended the outcome of his hit And it takes a big step for me to admit that I don't think Bertuzzi intended the outcome of his. (To clarify, I never thought Bertuzzi intended to break Moore's neck, but I struggle to believe that he didn't intend to injure him). Both players, knowing their size, their strength, and the dangers of the game, should be held accountable for their actions and should understand how their play will affect the payers they play with.

Chalk up a win for my mom for showing me, once again, that I should always listen to her advice.

2) Ken Dryden's article in the Globe and Mail.

Read it. It's fantastic.
How could we be so stupid?
How could I be so stupid?

When the Oilers aren't playing well, I usually says that the more physical they are, the better they play.

It's true. But maybe that should change in general about the game. The game is dangerous, yes, and it always will be to some extent, but we can make it sager if we go back to emphasizing skill rather than brute force. (i.e. No more "fighting summer camps" for young hockey players run by Derek Boogard)

3) Another Globe and Mail article by John Allemang.

He gives several suggestions as to how the game can change to protect its players. I don't agree with all his suggestions, but it's a serious conversation the league, its owners, its general managers, its coaches, its players, and its fans need to have.

My favourites of his suggestions:
a.) Ban head hits
            - No exceptions
b.) Treat violence as violence
            - There's a difference between physical play and violence. Pay
              attention to it.


So, may I swallow my words and my pride, take the foot out of my mouth, and condemn myself for being so stupid and so stubborn.

Cheers,

Cait

Hockey, Concussed

Good morning dear readers!

I had a professor simplify the concussion scenario in the NHL today. All he said was: "Concussions were happening long before they happened to Sidney Crosby. Now we're paying attention."

It's true. Lately we've seen an emphasis on head injuries in the NHL. I ask the question, more to myself than the community as a whole, "Why now?" When I first started watching hockey, concussions weren't a huge story. Once in a while I would hear something about Eric Lindros (especially when he retired in 2007 after sustaining eight concussions). I remember being at a game in Edmonton when the Oilers were facing Wayne Gretzky who was playing for the St. Louis Blues in 1996. He was hit pretty hard and the only NHL game I ever saw him play live was cut short in the first period by a head shot. My dad said something about head injuries, and that was the end of the conversation.

I've seen a recent trend in sports commentators talking more consistently about the dangers of head shots, head injuries and especially concussions. Part of it must be medical advancements that allow us to understand head injuries much better than we ever have in the past. With the death of Bob Probert and the subsequent revelation that he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), there has been an increasing concern over what the sport of hockey does to its players in the long run. Sidney Crosby is only one of many who have been sidelined by concussions this season. The recent hit Zdeno Chara dealt to Montreal's Max Pacioretty, while not just a head shot, has called into question the physicality of the game, and the punishment mechanisms of the league.

I think we can all agree, head injuries are bad. Concussions are bad. We should be trying to curb the amount of games missed and careers cut short by head injuries. We should also be looking at ways to deal effective punishments for overly violent hits (whether that type of violence was intended or not). But how do we do this without losing the game we've all come to know and love: fast, physical, skillful, dangerous, tough and entertaining. I don't have all the answers. There are people much smarter than I am, and more connected to the sport than I am, trying to come up with a solution.

So what do we do? Make sure children coming up through the hockey system know that head injuries are dangerous, and head shots, violent or not, will not be tolerated. At all. As much as I enjoy a good fight here and there, young players should also know how that part of the game can seriously affect their lives. Knowledge is power and the right kind of training that includes the health aspects of a physical game and not just the skills on the ice can mean a world of difference.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Cait

Review...Reflect...Retool... Reorganize

Hello dear readers,

So I am now two months in to the new year and my promise to write weekly has been broken. I make no excuses for this. I went home for Reading Week and didn't feel like writing. I was busy with internship applications, school projects, and various other activities. I let those other things take priority over this blog, and I really should have been able to plan my life better to allow me to keep them all in my priority list.

So, two months in, I think it's time for a little reflection.

1) Review:All in all, my resolutions from January have all gone out the window. I haven't written here weekly. I haven't been following my healthy living guidelines, and I sort of came up with a new idea for my creative writing, but haven't really done anything with it. Fail.

2) Reflect: I think this failure has come from a lack of motivation, a lack of organization, and really, a personal struggle to come to terms with some of my weaknesses (aka: personal time management, chocolate, fear of failure).

3) Retool: All of these resolutions are still something I'd like to accomplish, and still believe I can accomplish. So I have to redefine success in an incremental sense. Take these things week by week instead of as an overbearing, intimidating goal.

4) Reorganize: How am I going to accomplish these things? First, on Sundays, I'm going to sit down and take 15 minutes to outline what I'd like to accomplish in that week. These goals will have to be realistic. For example, this Sunday I can't sit down and say I'm going to go to the gym 6 days a week, eat no chocolate, and write 10 pages of creative literature. I need to start small. I'll keep you up to date on what my weekly goals are, and please feel free to keep me to account and ask me where I am on my new journey.

So dear readers, this post was brought to you by a desire to be a little more self motivated, and, to be honest, a little selfish in using this blog as a tool to aid my own growth. Maybe this review will help some of you to reflect on the goals you've made for yourself. If being in a public policy program has taught me nothing else, good policy requires a method of evaluation that leads to change where change is needed. This was my evaluation of how my personal policy needed to change. Now that I have a new game plan, maybe I'll start seeing more change.

Cheers,

Cait