Let’s compare a few examples and policy differences:
1)Economic policy:
On economic development, the reason the Liberals had to buy TMX is because all the red tape (C-69) scared away any private investment. The process took too long and was too expensive.
The Tories would repeal these onerous laws is the promise
I will take apart the Libs on several points.......but on the above, the commitment made below sounds pretty much like what you're looking for..........one review (federal or provincial) and a time cap on how long it takes:
. The main thing I liked is the deferal of capital gains tax if companies re-invest in Canada.
Only for two years, like the Liberals brief HST holiday, I don't think its likely to do much. It may cause some acceleration of investments already planned, but if you have to realize the gain and make the investment within 2 years, I find it improbable you would trigger substantial new investments in that window.
That’s a good thing. Again here Tories proven right with Carney abandoning the capital gains increase.
I actually disagree on the merits of the policy here. I favour a capital gains increase, and that's as someone who very much reaps the benefit of the low inclusion rate. My only gripe was that they made the change complicated and reduced potential revenue from same.
2)Climate change::
I am a pro carbon tax supporter. However, Pierre was proven right that the Carbon tax was a failure by design. The Liberals bungled it with the Maritime heating oil exception and other exceptions. While Carney was smart to zero it out it shows the Liberals stopped believing in it themselves. The policy didn’t reduce our carbon consumption because in my opinion it should have been offer not by rebates but by income tax reductions. The carbon tax to me is a consumption tax.
I agree that the consumer carbon tax didn't work out politically; the choice to go w/the rebate was a political one (you can see me give you back the money) and one to ensure low income earners who pay relatively little income tax got the money back.
That's one of the challenges on doing an off-set tax reduction. If you simply lower the entry level bracket, that cut passes through to everyone who pays tax in that bracket from low income to high income. Meanwhile those who don't pay income tax, would see nothing; yet still feel the effect of consumer price increases.
There are ways to address this, that would arguably be better than what the Liberals chose. You could raise the basic personal amount, but recover that from high income earners/cap their benefit; while using the HST tax credit to top up low income earners who otherwise wouldn't see any benefit.
Of course, you could also legislate hard caps on pollution that are inviolable and skip the tax entirely. There are trade-offs every which way.
On principle no country on earth leaves their mineral and oil wealth underground. They use it to build up their own wealth. Why should Canada be different?
I'm fine w/this, to a point..........though I think all of humanity is short sighted in that we don't have a clear plan for how there will still be non-renewable resources for everyone in 250 years time.
3)Housing:
The Tories are much more likely to reduce regulations and allow the private sector to do the work here.
On what do you base this conclusion?
***
Also, Toronto now has among the most permissive zoning regimes going, there are some obnoxious bits that need to tweaked from bike parking standards to loading zone requirements........but we're mostly there.
I'm not sure what regulations you think stand in the way of building in a City that has built more housing than any other in North America the last decade.
I’d love to have them abolish some of the boutique programs like the FHSA or the CMHC or the other ones the Liberals have put together for their housing accelerators they have not delivered.
? Uh..... the CMHC financing programs are virtually the only reason anything is being built right now, and certainly no affordable housing project is viable without them.
4)Social programs :
The Liberals only limited success was with the daycare program. Yes you are right Ford screwed it up with rules but the Feds could have forced his hand as they control the funds. Here I can give the Liberals credit that the daycare program and the revamped child care benefit was likely their only core successes policy wise. The dental is too early to tell and pharma-care is barely a program with only a few medicines covered.
The Tories here are a blank slate as they haven’t said what they would do except to keep these programs in general. They are likely to look at more private sector involvement and deregulation. Maybe they will tackle more on mental health or health care in general.
So wait a minute............. you don't really take issue w/the social spending, except to say the results aren't fully in..............but you have faith based on no promises and no evidence that the Conservatives will magically find money for mental healthcare...or that some sort of private sector solution will do something to lower the cost of drugs or dental?
