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**

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?