Election Issue: Me Failing

Hello all,

Please don't hate me. I have been seriously neglecting my duties with this blog. Let me chronicle the last couple weeks for you in brief:

Wrote 20 page paper.
Studied for a final exam.
Wrote another 22 page paper.
Watched some hockey.
Caught up on sleep.
Finished planning year end gala.
Baked and iced 80 cupcakes.
Cleaned room then made it messy again picking outfit for gala.
Had a blast at the year end gala.
Packed for a road trip.
10 hour bus ride to Sault Ste. Marie.
Good weekend with family and friends without Internet.
9.5 hour drive back to Toronto from Sault Ste. Marie.

I am now posting. These past few weeks have been just so hectic, and I so sorry for those of you who were reading my stuff for the election and found me not actually doing my job.

Election is in one week, May 2nd. Monday! Advanced polls were this weekend. Won't have a lot of time to blog before then. I am now in the process of packing up my apartment because I am moving on Thursday to Toronto Ottawa. (*Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Mom ;)

Will try to blog tonight about two different issues: 1) Rural Canada 2) Aboriginal Issues

Then hopefully on Wednesday or Thursday I can cover two more topic (To Be Decided On) and then I will most definitely post on Saturday about why YOU (yes I mean you!) should vote on Monday if you haven't already. Sunday I will post about who I am voting for and why. Then Monday will just be one friendly reminder that you should all vote.

Again, I am sorry for failing on my Election Issue series.

Cait

Election Issue: Oil Sands

Today we're talking oil sands, dear readers,

I'm going to focus on what has been announced in terms of the oil sands. The post isn't intended to argue the environmental pros and cons of the oil sands, just the pros and cons of the party platforms on the controversial industry. 

Again, if there's a subject you think I should cover, let me know and I'll be more than happy to make a post on it. And please, if you're enjoying these posts, consider passing the link on to your friends and family, by whatever means of social media or traditional media/means you prefer.

Conservative Party of Canada

The Conservatives have committed to reducing the tax benefit available to the oil and gas industry, including phasing out the Accelerated 
Capital Cost Allowance by 2015. Budget 2011 also called to reduce the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align them with the rates applicable in the conventional oil and gas sector. The Conservative Party has said that Budget 2011 would eliminate two tax subsidies it currently provides to the oil sands industry. In general, the Conservative Party is supportive of the oil sands industry and further development of the resource.

Pros: According to the budget document, the changes to deduction rates could increase federal reserves by about $15 million in 2011-2012 and $30 million in 2012-2013.

Cons: The Conservative plan alienates Alberta, even though Albertans don't realize it (or just don't want to admit it to themselves). Concerns of Western Alienation tend to ignore times that Conservatives take part in the conspiracy. The plan would close a tax-loophole that is used heavily by the oil and gas industry, apparently giving Ottawa an extra $580 million to use on the eastern provinces. Even Premier Stelmach expressed concerns with Budget 2011 and the effect it would have on the oil and gas industry. Yet he supports it. Albertans should be careful putting all their trust in the Conservatives. To be fair, whatever happens, because Alberta is much better off than other provincial counterparts in the east, and has a smaller population, any elected government will spend more on Eastern Canada than Western Canada.

Liberal Party of Canada

The Liberal Party Platform, released this past weekend, proposes to cancel the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) immediately, and use the funds gained to invest in cleaner development. This cancellation would occur about 3-4 years prior to the Conservative plan to phase out the
allowance. The Liberals have promised to invest in cleaner technologies intended to help make the oil sands more environmentally sustainable including eliminating the 15% environmental impact differential compared to conventional sources of oil. Finally, the Liberals intend to "increase the rigour with which the federal government exercises its regulatory responsibilities relevant to oil sands development." It's a general promise with no realy substantive "how" provisions. In general, the Liberal Party of Canada is supportive of the oil sands and further sustainable development of the resource.

Pros: The party expects a $500 million revenue from canceling the ACCA immediately, rather than phasing it out over four years. These funds would go towards creating a more "environmentally friendly" oil sands through clean technologies and sustainable development. The Liberal plan would invest in the oil sands rather than in other industries.

Cons: To be honest, the cons of the Liberal plan are about the same as the Conservative Party's plan. Eliminating the ACCA under the Liberals would have up front consequences rather than in 3-4 years. To be fair, immediately cutting the allowance could cause problems for projects that had planned on taking advantage of it in the near future. Like I mentioned above, every federal government will spend more on Eastern Canada than Western Canada due to the nature of our federation.

New Democratic Party

When Jack Layton was in Quebec last week, he came down hard on the oil sands. He said he would cancel all fossil fuel subsidies (of which there are plenty in the oil sands) and would increase investment in clean energy technology. Mr. Layton, using a study released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said that Canada provides about $2 billion in subsides to the fossil fuel industry. Of the three major parties, 
the NDP is the only one to use the term "tar sands" to describe the Alberta industry. In 2008, NDP candidate Michael Byers called for a complete shut down of the industry, and the only non-Conservative Albertan Member of Parliament, Linda Duncan, released a report this past September calling for a serious review of the environmental impacts of the oil sands. She also suggested that no new development should take place until the review was completed. The NDP are not generally supportive of the oil sands and oil sands development.

Pros: Without fossil fuel subsidies, oil production would likely decrease, reducing carbon emissions and slowing production of a non-renewable resource.

Cons: Without fossil fuel subsidies, oil production would likely decrease, reducing economic growth and productivity that drive much of Alberta and Canada's economic development. One in 15 jobs in Alberta are energy related and 23% of oil sands related employment is from out of province. I won't go into the GDP benefits of the oil sands, but the NDP stance on the oil sands could be dangerous to Alberta and to Canada.

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

Election Issue: Pensions

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

Week One is done, good readers,

Now on to week two. If you've noticed, I've posted a poll on the right hand side of my blog. If you like, please consider voting (It's good practice for doing your democratic duty on May 2nd). I'll probably change the poll next week to keep things fresh. As well, of there's a topic you'd like me to cover, leave a comment and I'll try to get to it. I want to know what you're interested in knowing about.

So, what's our topic today? Pensions! Of all the topics I'll talk about on this blog, "pensions" is probably the one I'm least interested in. While it's important for me to start thinking about my retirement and my retirement savings, that time of my life just seems so far away. Nonetheless, if the parties are going to continue to talk "family," pensions definitely fit into the conversation. So, let's get to it!

Liberal Party of Canada: CPP and SRO

      The Liberal Party has called for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) by gradually increasing the defined benefits of the core CPP. As well, they are proposing a Secured Retirement Option (SRO) that is a voluntary supplement to the CPP and can allow individuals to save an additional 5-10% of their pay in a fund backed by the CPP. It would be fully portable between jobs.

      Pros: Works with a current system so as to decrease the costs of creating new programs. The SRO allows workers to contribute to a plan that follows them throughout their careers from employer to employer. It also provides an alternate way for small to medium businesses to provide pension plans that aren't prohibitively expensive for employers. 

     Cons: Criticisms of the SRO are that these new "options" do little to help those who don't already open Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP) seeing as the SRO is basically just a government-run RRSP.

New Democratic Party: Double-Double

      The NDP have proposed to double the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan (CPP/QPP). As well, they want to change federal bankruptcy laws to make pensioners (and those on long-term disability) the priority creditors if a company goes bankrupt.

      Pros: It enhances the CPP and QPP to an extent that tangible changes could 

actually be seen. As well, it safeguards the most vulnerable if a company collapses.

      Cons: It's expensive. And will only get more expensive as the baby boomers retire and the population gets older. By protecting pensioners and those on disablity through bankruptcy laws, it does little to protect current employees who are still contributing to a pension plan. What happens to those workers who lose their jobs and their pension?

Conservative Party of Canada: Budget 2011

      So the Conservatives have not said a lot about pensions. Most of what I found from the party was included in Budget 2011, which would have failed if the government hadn't fallen on contempt. The budget calls for an elimination of the mandatory retirement age. It also indicates that more meetings are need to look at how the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) could be enhanced. It implies modest enhancements to the CPP, but really only entails further discussion. As well, it promotes a Pooled Registered Pension Plan (PRPP) which is a voluntary plan employers and employees can contribute to.

      Pros: To be honest, it's hard for me to determine pros and cons on a topic that I know so little about. This plan allows workers who want to work longer, and are able to work longer, do so. As well, if offers more options for individuals to choose from in order to secure their retirement. It also provides a method by which the CPP could be enhanced to help more people.

      Cons: From what I gather, PRPPs aren't guarenteed, aren't transferable between jobs, and are not indexed to inflation and cost of living. As well, modest enhancements to the CPP may not be enough to address inherent problems with senior poverty rates and preparing Canadians for retirement.

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