Politics - Conservative Platform Dissected

Politics - Conservative Platform Dissected

As per each election, I like to do a deep dive on the Conservative Platform. The reason I like to do this is because it traditionally is the most obfuscated one, it's the one that for the last 3 elections has been filled with the most circumventive language, might be outright incorrect, and this year, has been released so paralyzingly late that literally all the advanced poll days will be complete before we get a public analysis.

So.

The actual Platform is available here. I should note that I looked at 3 major news outlets and nobody linked to it, I had to go digging through the Conservative website to find it. https://cpc-platform.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CPC_Platform_8.5x11_FINAL_EN_OCT11_web.pdf

I also downloaded this exact version of it to do my analysis. If anything changes or has any discrepancy between this version and an 'updated' version, I'll be able to changelist and track that data.

Let's dive into it. Forewarning, because it's a pdf, the formatting is gonna be REAL WONKY.







This is....whatever. I mean it's fine. If the goal at the end is to save more money for a consumer, sure. It does mean there will be considerably less budget spending money for the government. We should note that in this particular bracket, the rate has always been 15% except for once in 2006 when it was inexplicably 15.25%.




So the Carbon tax is obviously a fraught piece of legislation. Everyone is coming down on different sides of it. I think for most of us, we generally agree that it doesn't do enough. The worry is that corporations and the oil industry are unduly influencing the science of needing to reduce carbon emissions. The conservative plan to repeal is a direct appeal to Alberta (the conservative base) as one province which has just completely scrapped adherence to their own provincial carbon plan, instead defaulting to the Federal Carbon Tax.

The main issue is the Conservatives offer literally no alternative. Their stance is to let the industry regulate itself. I propose to you a rationale, there's no incentive at all for the industry to appropriately regulate itself when it comes to environmentalism. Not only that, but a fair number of large-scale oil businesses are foreign owned. Keep that tidbit in mind. And think to yourself, to what extent does an externally owned, shareholder driven company feel compelled to defend the Canadian environment?

The answer is probably not much.

This platform piece is so damning because it ignores actual governance.




Sure? This promise has no valuation to it, it makes no note of how much relief is provided, (there already is a credit for taxpayers), and it makes no note of how much it will cost.

It notes a sort of requirement, but beyond that offers us very little transparency. 

Of interesting note (I didn't clip that paragraph) but it tries to position this Tax Credit as a statement of environmentalism, that lots of people taking public transit is a commitment to Green policy. However as often noted in research studies, taking public transit is often not a Green decision, but rather a requirement of personal economy, especially in metropolitan locations. Riding bikes is a green decision. The choice between driving or taking the train is often not, but rather a financial one.



I'm not going to clip the next few pieces, but essentially there are a number of housing promises. They are:

• Fixing the Mortgage Stress Test
• No indication here of what that will cost or how. Or a timetable.
• Extending Morgage Amortization Period to 30 years.
• Sure. Okay. It's a reality that some people are having to take out 30 year mortgages, but it's terrifying to think that this will be the fix to help influence and persuade first-time-home buyers.
• Introduce a Green Home Renovation Credit
• Several provinces already have this. The valuation given is between 1000 and 20000 dollars. It gives no indication how such a program will run, nor how much it will cost. The two year tax credit is notated for the end of their tenure (if elected).
• Investigate Money Laundering
• Uh. Isn't the government doing this already? (They are). There's nothing concrete to this promise. It gives no indication of any increased expenditure, or how they might confront money laundering as it relates to the housing industry.
• Make Surplus Federal Real Estate Available
• This is a dangerous one. On the surface, it purports to be an analysis of existing federal buildings and an audit of their use. That has nothing to do with housing. Under the surface, it can also be interpreted as a thinly veiled statement of selling crown lands for 'housing' or 'other projects'. This platform note offers no information about what criteria lands may be under consideration for, how many conversions they are thinking about, nor how much money they expect to either recoup or spend on such an initiative. It is nebulous at best.
• Build More Homes Competition
• Empty promotional statement. No details given. Looks like it was written by an 18 year old in high school for a D+ effort.
• 
  

Fairness for Persons with Disabilities Act

This was a piece of legislation tabled immediately before the house was dissolved for the session. It's kind of a weird talking point, but basically, it indicates to lower the requirements for the Tax Credit and to make it refundable.

This is based on this recommendation earlier this year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/corporate/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/disability-advisory-committee/2019-full-report.html

(A summary article)
https://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/advisory-committee-says-disability-tax-credit-should-be-refundable/

The Liberals commissioned the study themselves, and have already committed to several of the report's recommendations. The others are part of an ongoing discussion. None of the commitments have been tabled into law yet, although the Liberal caucus has slated their implementation for 2020 (obviously if elected.)

I note the Conservatives make no mention of any of that.




Sure. That 200 number, by the way, was established by Conservatives themselves. In case anyone tries to tell you otherwise.

I'd like to note as an aside about this, currently (and historically for that matter) Firefighters tend to need to purchase their own equipment and supplies (and clothing). Which is kind of weird. As a writer's aside, I'd much rather this money be spent perhaps on a federal program to help outfit them and alleviate this kind of purchasing unilaterally. Presumably, the government would, in theory, be more able to negotiate aggressively on behalf of Services for such procurement, which would be better leverage than individuals purchasing work boots themselves. Just saying.



Children's Benefits

There is a slew of children's benefit promises here. I recommend reading this section itself. Some of it will obviously pertain to you, some of it will not. It really depends on your own values set. For the most part, it tends towards tax credits for various things (and a new Child Fitness Credit). I don't have a lot of direct knowledge of this area personally, so it's hard for me to comment. That said, my gut feeling looking at it is that these are predominantly middle-class/upper-class benefits. Things like a 500 dollar yearly credit for extracurriculars is a program that makes certain assumptions.

This is evidenced by things like the increase to RESP. On paper it looks great, an increase to 30% from 20%, is pretty major. But it also assumes that an average family is managing to save enough for contributions to said RESP. Things to keep in mind.

I will also note, repeating myself, that none of this expresses costs for these credits/initiatives. I have no idea what this is expected to cost or how it will affect the budget.



Retirement

Like the above with Children, there are a few platform notes here about Retirement, but nothing really newsworthy. I'd actually posit that some of these things, will affect very very few people. There's obviously a note here that is basically a direct shot at Sears, for paying out its creditors before dissolving its Pension plan. Again, repeating myself, none of this expressed as costs.




Business



Uhh. Provably false? Like, it took me 30 seconds of googling to discover that Trudeau's government has been steadily lowering the Small Business tax rate? I mean in 2017 it was 10.5%, in 2018 it was 10%, and this year as of Jan 1, 2019 it was 9%. Hell, it's available here on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_small_business_tax_rate

So. Alright.

Actually, if we really want to unpack this, the Small Business Tax rate under Harper was consistently 11%. So there's that.




Huh. Interesting. Alright let's unpack this a little bit. First off, I've made no mystery about stating in the past what the onus of regulation is. While there is undoubtably some excess when it comes to regulation of industry, promising widespread regulatory removal is somewhat counter-intuitive. As our industries grow and expand, what we need is smarter regulation, not deregulation. Actually a lot of our current issues with digital privacy could be directly laid at the feet of Conservative deregulation over 12 years, to cite a case study example. 

Also, I wouldn't let those big numbers about regulations on the books fool you. That 4300 over 4 years? Amounts to a regulatory increase of about 3% during this term. It looks scary? But....I have a presumption that increasing industries you know, might require those?

"Assign a minister reporting directly to the Prime Minster", that's what Ministers do. Like, they literally report to the PM. Am I missing something here?





This is just a lot of empty promises. The government ALREADY does a lot of this. Comparative reviewing is a part of the Tax system. Also the specific example here, SR:ED (which my own company happens to be a beneficiary of) is already reviewed in such a way.


Energy Industry



This should be a major platform pillar, however, it lacks a lot of substance. There's a lot of empty promise here, about what a national energy corridor 'could' do, but no statements about exactly what it WILL do, nor where it WILL be, nor how much it will COST. I mean, it's really nice to say that such an endeavour will have no environmental impacts, but that's a little bit wishful? A lot bit wishful,

We should be asking questions about what exactly the plan is here. Not what the 'hope' is.





Bill C-69 is always going to be divisive. I can't comprehensively go over it because going all the way through the bill is lengthy, not to mention tracking through all the proposed and accepted/rejected amendments from various legislators and senators. Global news has a better summary here: https://globalnews.ca/news/5416659/what-is-bill-c69-pipelines/

Ultimately, the proponents of it believe it helps re-establish regulatory framework. Detractors often call it the "No more pipelines" legislation. It's hyperbolic and kind of dismissive. I do like this quote from the above article:

Olszynski says Bill C-69 has been politicized to rile up populist sentiment against the governing Liberals, particularly in oil-reliant Alberta. However, he says that argument is not rooted in any firm argument.

The terminology by the way in the Platform of "reduce politicization" is kind of laughable. It was the  office of Conservatives, (notably Jason Kenney) who declared about Bill C-69 that it was going to be the 'apocalypse of the Canadian energy industry'.