Taxes
Liberals
- No corporate tax cuts.
- $17.5 billion in tax cuts for lower-income Canadians, small-and medium sized businesses.
Conservatives
- Cut GST to 5%.
- Double non-taxable pension income.
- $250 million in credits for new day-care centres.
- Scrap capital gains tax on fishing assets.
- Raise small-business tax threshold to $400,000.
- $1,200 annual child care allowance.
- Up to $500 tax break for child's sports fees.
New Democrats
- $20.1 billion over five years on tax breaks for low-income earners.
- $1,000 increase in child tax credit over four years.
- Raise gas transfer tax to cities to five cents a litre.
- $16 billion over four years for child care and child tax benefits.
Green Party
- Cut income taxes.
- raise lifetime capital gains tax exemption to $750,000.
Social
Liberals
- $11 billion to provinces over ll years for daycare.
- Ban handguns.
- $325 million for RCMP anti-gang squad, community safety.
- Eliminate $975 immigrant landing fee.
- Two months of EI benefits for unpaid caregivers who leave work to care for a sick relative.
- Lower interest costs on reverse mortgages.
- Eliminate power to override Charter of Rights.
Conservatives
- Free Commons vote on same-sex marriage.
- Independent prosecutor for federal crimes.
- National seniors council.
- Halve $975 immigrant landing fee, further reduce it to $100 within mandate.
- Shut down federal gun registry.
- Raise the age of sexual consent to 16.
- Allow 14 year olds to be tried in adult court for serious crime or repeat offenders.
New Democrats
- Federal appointments on merit.
- $1 billion home-care plan.
- 40,000 long-term care spaces over four years.
- $1.8 billion for day care in first year.
- Worker charter of rights.
- Push settlement aboriginal land claims, residential schools abuse.
- Try youths as young as 16 charged with firearms offences as adults.
Green Party
- Let corporations pool pension funds.
Environment
Liberals
- $1 billion over 10 years to clean up the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.
- Weather study centre for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Conservatives
- Bring in clean air act.
- Require average 5% renewable fuel content by 2010.
New Democrats
- $11.2 billion on environment over five years.
- Cut greenhouse gases 25% by 2050.
- Bring in clean air act.
Green Party
- End federal seal hunt support.
- Halt oil, gas subsidies.
- Add environmental rights to Charter of Rights.
- Ban the use of cosmetic pesticides.
Health
Liberals
- Wait-times guarantee.
- Hire 1,000 more family doctors.
- Mobility fund to transport patients on long wait lists for treatment elsewhere in Canada.
- National cancer strategy.
- New mental-health commission.
Conservatives
- Wait-times guarantee.
- No private, parallel system.
- National cancer strategy.
- Speed up accreditation of foreign doctors.
New Democrats
- No public money for private care.
- Billion-dollar-a-year prescription drug plan.
Green Party
- End private health care.
- Press for a national cancer strategy.
Education
Liberals
- Pay half of first and last year's tuition for college and university students to a maximum of $3,000 each year.
Conservatives
- up to $500 tax deduction for trades tools.
- $1,000 trades apprenticeship incentive grant.
- Apprenticeship job creation tax credit.
- Up to $500 tax deduction for text books.
- Tax exemption on first $10,000 scholarship, bursary income.
New Democrats
- $4 billion for post-secondary education.
Green Party -- none.
Economy
Liberals
- Overhaul farm support system.
Conservatives
- $2 billion in new funding for municipalities.
- Voluntary farmer participation in Canadian Wheat Board.
- New farm income stabilization program.
- Add $500 million a year in farm support.
New Democrats
- $1 billion extra this year on farm-income stabilization.
- Aid auto industry.
- $250 million to fix border crossings.
- $600 million over four years on arts.
Green Party -- none.
Defence
Liberals -- none.
Conservatives
- $1.8 billion more for defence by 2010.
- New 650-member airborne battalion.
- Double the size of the DART.
- Buy at least three heavy-lift planes.
- Three new armed naval heavy icebreakers.
- Deep-water port neat Iqaluit.
- Arctic national sensor system to monitor subs, ships.
- Recruit 500 more Canadian Rangers.
- New Arctic army training centre near Cambridge Bay.
- Set up new separate foreign spy agency.
New Democrats -- none.
Green Party -- none.
There's still ten days left before the election. I'm sure there are still more promises going to be made before such time. Don't forget to vote. It's nice to have that right. There are many countries in the world with no elections at all. Make up your own decsion who to vote for. Good luck.
6 comments:
Funny dude you forgot three major policy issues of the Conservatives, strangly enough they are the ones that will keep me from voting for them.
Enviroment - scrap Kyoto
Military - re-examine Ballistic Missle Defence
Government- the "fiscal imbalance"
I find it strange that a Party that was founded in Alberta would support Quebec Fiscal Imbalance issue. This is of course that the Feds collect tax money from the provinces, Divide it all up and redistribute it based on an equalization equation. The reason I found it strange is that Alberta, pays alot , Quebec gets alot, Alberta thinks they pay too much, Quebec thinks that they don't get paid enough. However what they do have in these two provinces is a desire to curtail federal power in their provinces. Specifically they don't want Ottawa to tax them.
So Both the Bloc and the Conservatives want to reduce federalism and promote Soverenty association for all Provinces in Canada.
The Bloc was driven by a sense of Nationalism for Quebec while the Western movement was money driven. Of the two, money (some call it greed) has proven to be a stronger force in the West than Nationalism in Quebec.
Separatism or as it was called sovereignty association with Canada never received a 51% vote in Quebec.
It was always claimed they could only be a sovereign nation if Canada agreed. They of course could not control the Government of Canada. Yet a constitutional change was needed.
In the West, however, the Calgary School, which included Stephen Harper, saw a different opportunity.
They realized if they could take control of the federal government they could then, through down sourcing of federal activities to the provinces, and the transferring of tax revenue capabilities to the Provinces they would have de facto separation without constitutional change or the need for a referendum. It could also be called sovereignty association if they left with Canada some role for them to play such as foreign affairs, defence, international trade negotiations and maintaining a central money system.
Virtually everything else would be handled provincially with say ten different provincial health plans, welfare programmes, educational activities and resource management.
In 1995, Mr. Harper then an M.P. and unity critic in the Reform Party under Preston Manning called their plan New Confederation or New Federalism. The 20 point plan was published at the Reform Party’s Headquarters in Calgary.
Now Mr. Harper calls it “open federalism” and he slyly had it slipped into the Conservative Policy document agreed to in Montreal last March.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1113/36638
This Policy paper actually endorses the Council of the Federation; set up on December 5th, 2003, by Provincial Premiers, to lobby the federal government.
The dollar effect of Mr. Harper’s scheme would be monumental.
In 2004, Alberta’s GDP per capita was over 144% of the National average. Prince Edward Island is 72% while Ontario the second highest province was 103%.
Alberta is running a surplus at the rate of over 12 Billion dollars per year which would be equivalent to over 140 Billion in Ottawa.
Alberta has no debt. Canada has over $500 Billion.
Oil and gas revenue flowing into the Alberta Treasury is over $15 Billion per year. That is almost $5,000.00 for every man, woman and child in the province.
In Canada, Ontario is the main purchaser of Alberta’s energy. Every time we fill our car gas tank we send dollars to the Alberta Treasury.
Harper’s open federalism would make it clear.
Resource revenue flows one way into Alberta’s Treasury. Ottawa would not be able to tax any of it for the benefit of Canadians in other provinces.
Question? Why would Mr. Martin not challenge Mr. Harper with these facts?
Answer. He is not a political leader who can handle provincial politicians.
And this is a game politicians are playing at the provincial level.
It started in Quebec with the separatist government claiming they had a fiscal imbalance with the federal government.
Other provinces through their politicians followed suit including Liberal Premier McGuinty in Ontario.
That meant if Martin attacked Harper on his open federalism he would be opposing Liberal Premiers in the two most populist provinces, Quebec and Ontario, who had supported the Council of the Federation.
Unfortunately Martin was already living with the Ad Scam problem so he felt trapped.
What this plan will do is affect the provinces much the way our current political system affects the general population. The Rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
Good for Alberta, and Quebec Seperatists...
Too bad for Canada.
Yeah I know I missed some. I think I even missed a couple of the Liberals. I was just using a guide that was in the Calgary Hearld.
How long has Canada been using or under "Kyoto"? maybe 2 years, and in that time our greenhouse gas emissions have increased. Even the USA has done a better job or reducing greenhouse gas emissions than Canada has. They're not part of Kyoto. So will Kyoto really work? I don't think so. too many holes.
I don't think the tories support 'Quebec' fiscal imbalance as much as they support all the provinces.
See this is only to get votes in Ontario. If Quebec will believe the tories are a federal option. That makes Ontario all tyhat easier to vote tory. They're a federal option, ehich will keep the country together.
Quebec kinda gives Ontario the go ahead when it's election time.
Geez you're really good at the "conspiracy theories". So what would happen if the tories win a majority. Disband Canada as a nation. So were now 10 different provinces or 'nations' and some territories. All of which would be independent. Sounds EXTREME to me.
Of Alberta's $15 billion in surplus. $9 billion goes to other provinces as equalization payments. That's almost $1 billion per province. If everyone gets an equal share.
That;s kinda the way Canada works. Something that I learned from this election was that if we didn't have the notwithstanding clause. The provinces would never of signed our constitution. The provinces have their jurisdiction and so does the federal government. Don't get upset cause the maritimes trusted Ottawa with their resources and then Ottawa fucked it up. Alberta was smart enough to say 'hands off'. We'll take care of our own shit.
What's your definiton of 'rich' and what's your definition of 'poor'. For myself I'm probably considered just above the poverty line. but still considered poor. however I don't consider myself poor. I only have to look at other countries around the world and be thankful I live in Canada. my government allows me to work and build a life for myself. I grateful for the opportunity.
Canada's the greatest country in the world. I couldn't live anywhere else. My community as a whole is reasonably safe. There'
s not a place in calgary I would be afraid to go.
Besides it's time for a change. There was this guy in ontario who was voting tory becasue he said
"the young people in Canada are ready for a change and they're willing to give the tories a shot"
And if they fuck it up.... in 2 years (as I say) or less than a year (as you say) we'll be back in an election and voting the liberals or socialists in so they can tell us how to live and how to raise our kids.
Did you know the tories are proposing fixed election dates every 4 years. How can that be bad for Canada.
re. Kyoto
I have always learned that it is easier to change something from the inside than the outside. You and I both know that the Liberals paid lip service to the accord without implementing anything. How do we know it won't work unless we try. How do we know where the difficulties lie without trying. Without being a formal member of the discussion we are just an outside voice, like the Americans. Despite their " clean Air Act" they are still one of the worlds largest [polluters with China and India.
Correct me if i'm wrong but Alberta is doing fairly well economically under the current arrangement. Is you infrastructure or provincial surplus suffering? No.
Unemployment? lack of investment?
No.
Look I simply do not believe in Canada as a loose collection of provinces under a weak federalist entity. I don't think the Conservatives want to break up Canada, but it is absoultly a fact that they want to weaken federal control of the Provinces, particulary regarding control of wealth. Should Alberta pay more than Manitoba...of course! they have much more to give, and as long as their population is thriving then so be it. If Alberta began to suffer an economic downturn, then by all means the equation should be re-drawn, but until that time, as the richest Province you have an Obligation as part of this federation to help out the other provinces, who by filling up their cars, indirectly put coins in your coffers. The big issue is that there has to be a Body larger than the provinces to make that decision. Provinces will do whats best for the provinces, that's fine, but they have to be accountable to a higher power that regulates what they give and/or recieve.
As for conspiracy, Don't you remember the "Firewall" around Alberta plan, where the Feds couldn't touch any provincial surplus? Harper signed and in fact help draw up that plan. Wheather or not he would be able to do it is unknown. That he has the will to do it is obvious.
As for the fixed elections, with that plan the Liberals could not have been ousted this december and the Tories would not now be concerned with forming the next government. How can you be for this?
I agree that fixed terms would be good, as long as we have a govenment that is working. In the last session where the Liberals were just trying to survive while the Conservatives just wanted to kick them out... a non-confidance vote was needed. As long as there are still certian defined times where no-confidence votes can be had I would not be opposed to fixed dates.
I was understanding that fixed election dates would including votes of non-confidence. If a non-confidence vote passes; election time. Otherwise it's 4 years down the road.
If that's not the case then I'll have to rethink my position. but I do like the fact that a political party can't call an election when times are good. Like the federal Liberals did and when Ralph Klein does it. I think it would keep a party more honest and more willing to fulfill election promises.
yes ALberta should pay more then Manitoba and we do. Why would that change? What's wrong with weakening federal control of the provinces? Do you actually think Alberta would stop paying equalization payments or cut them back. I could maybe see Quebec as they claim to be a have-not province, yet I beleive they are a have province. but Alberta. I think the conservatives would be creating political suicide. I just can't see that happening. Sure we have many extreme right wing zealots. But the majority would shut that down. I would say at least 25% of Alberta population came from the maritimes. Another 25% from Sakatchewan and BC.
That "firewall" talk was to stop another NEP. That killed ALberta and plunged it into deficit, debt and a recession. Why would we want to re-visit those bad times.
The problem with Kyoto is it isn't econiomically feasible. Sure it's targets are great but we cannot reach these goals without causing massive job loss. I would hate to see Canadians lose their jobs. All the maritimers out here would have to go home, no jobs. Meaning alot of people would have to be supported on welfare. Talk about a welfare state. There has to be a 'made in Canada' way. I think we need more investment in renewable energy. Like Wind, Solar and Hydro energy resources. That will allow us to get away from using coal for energy.
Here's the problem with a made in Canada soulution. It's not a made in Canada issue. It's a world wide issue. Canada cannot help out by saying "This is how we are going to do it, screw you guys". The world needs leadership on this issue, and Canada, could help by entering the discussion and trying to broker a compromise between the Americans, and the Accord.(after the Bush Dynasty) Undoubtably the accord is not perfect, but it's a starting point agreed upon by 157 countries in the world! This agreement is not written in stone, it can be amended feom time to time at the international conferences for Climate control.
There is no doubt that the accord would be bad for Oil, Coal, and some manufacturing interests. But if there is no pressure on these major polluters to change they never will. In you heart of hearts you cannot tell me that Harper and the Conservatives are going to stand up to these interests and make them comply to hard choices. These choices have to be made, because like our economy,the current strain on our enviroment is unsustainable. Jobs will be lost in oil, coal, and transportation, but they can be gained in expanded railways, wind, hydro, solar, not to mention the massive reconstruction needed to convert existing structure into eco-friendly constructs.
By pulling out we are in fact weakening the argument on climate control. For mor in depth reading on the implementation of "anti-Kyoto" climate plans see the following.
http://www.centredessciencesdemontreal.com/en/centre/centre_mag_archives75.htm
You're right the tories probably wouldn't force such companies to reduce emissions.
The tories are proposing more investment into reusable energy; like wind, etc. They won't force companies to reduce emissions by X ammount before a certain date. But All I hear from the left side is forcing companies to reduce emissions. Which will work, although jobs will be lost.
I like the Green party's plan to a point and I would vote for them but they need more of a platform. Plus I hate there leader, Jim Harris, the motivational speaker. Does he live in a van down by the river?
What I don't like about Kyoto is if you can't reach your levels you can buy credits. It is a start but we can do better. PLus with the high prices of fossil fuels I believe public interest will change towards a more environmentally friendly way of doing things. hopefully hydrogen will be the next fuel.
I think the people of Iceland are inventing something which uses water as a fuel. And has 0 emmisions. sounds cool.
Post a Comment