Liberal Green Shift - High Risk and Potentially High Reward (Video Blog Post)

I think Nik is right when he says this is partially about winning votes on the left and nibbling away at the NDP and Green Party voters. I would also say Quebeckers will become engaged with this plan and forget their recent dislike of the Liberals.
If he succeeds that way he will take the Liberals over the top in the polls and he can then focus on hammring the Tories for tehir do nothing approach to just baout everything. The Tories are losing the battle over the economy because Flaherty is seen as an attack dog in Ontario and has lost the confidence of business across the Country as well. Populist economics are generally a disaster and we are heading that way under Harper/Flaherty.

Therefore a well rounded environmental plan,and Dion's is one, along with sound fiscal proposals by the Libs, will destroy Harper and his nasty bully type politics.

[updated Mon Jun 23 06:28:01 EDT 2008]

In terms of the timing, it may be a while before an election occurs, and even then, the Green Shift will be phased in over four years. For businesses, having a clear plan provides a degree of certainty that allows them to plan ahead -- unlike the current chaotic situation where they know something is coming, but they don't know what.

You're right that the Green Shift is a lot more complex to message than a talking oil blob screaming lies and fear, but it can be effectively communicated, and Dion obviously has more confidence in the intelligence of Canadian voters than Harper does.

There's a subtext to last Thursday's Green Shift announcement: Dion is appealing to hope, and a forward-looking vision. Harper is appealing to fear, and is clinging to a fossil-fuel-intensive past. Hope and the future are easier to sell than fear and the past.

[updated Mon Jun 23 06:57:38 EDT 2008]

Mr Harper seems obsessive about controlling what other people say and yet sometimes can't even control himself. He says that this Green Shift plan will 'screw' the West, 'screw' the whole country. This is un-prime ministerial language, stepping over the line into the vulgar.

The PM puts forward the preposterous notion that this plan, like the National Energy Program, was deliberately designed to harm the economy of western Canada. He is showing his true Reform Party colours. It's this kind of divisive thinking that caused that party to be little more than a Fortress Alberta, regional rump party that never went anywhere.

Canadians have talked a lot about climate change but haven't wanted to pay for it. I think this plan's revenue neutrality will make it easier for Canadians to accepts. In the total absence of anything substantive from any of the other parties, the Liberals just may have found the winning strategy.

[updated Mon Jun 23 07:54:57 EDT 2008]

This summer it will be make or break for both the Conservatives and Liberals. On the surface Dion's plan may look good, but as always the devil is in the details, and that may be the factor which will be the downfall of the Liberal plan.Lets not forget that the Conservative plan has not been fully disclosed, the Liberals have shown the back of their hand which gives the Conservatives a chance to accentuate their programme and we can be sure it would be a far better explained plan than the Liberals will ever come up with.
A big factor is also the Liberals signed the Kyoto agreement with no intention to implement it.As a matter of fact they did do nothing for the 13 years the liberals were in Govt.Anyone can do better than that.

[updated Mon Jun 23 08:02:43 EDT 2008]

Nik .Thanks for the chance to discuss a very important issue. We will have many different opinions , as many as there are posters, but hopefully if we set partisanship aside long enough we will come up with some useful ideas. Our eco system can be saved if we can make changes that will benefit all. New jobs going green can lead to prosperity and help save our planet.

[updated Mon Jun 23 08:50:17 EDT 2008]

I've always believed that we should stop trying to use big government regulation to deal with issues like this (environment). I strongly agree with a tax shift as a step in the direction of full cost accountability, having the price of things reflect their actual costs in our economy and to reduce the amount of taxpayers money that is abused to pay for externalities.

I have to admit to being surprised about how the politics is happening in Canada. This is a more (lower case c) conservative plan of harnessing market forces rather than a (lower case l) liberal plan of harnessing government regulation. Instead of this being proposed by the Conservatives and opposed by the Liberals, we are seeing the opposite dynamic.

I disagree on the timing issue. The fact is that a tax shift requires political will to carry out, and given governments have fallen in love with income taxes it will be hard for them to increasingly move away from this backward form of taxation. It is only when society sees a problem that they are then willing to justify change.

I disagree with focusing on Canada's poor as a justification for not moving forward on this policy. We need to find other mechanisms to deal with poverty in Canada, and having government subsidies on costly products rather than social welfare focused on individuals is simply inefficient and counter-productive.

I am also surprised at how a simple math question has been made excessively complex by many of the commenters.

For an "average" person, the tax shift won't make any difference to their lives in the short term before they change their buying habits. The increases in taxes on some goods will be offset by the decreases in their income and other taxes.

For those using more than their fair share of carbon emitting energy, their taxes will go up. Another way to look at it is that their government subsidies will be reduced, and they will be forced to pay their fair share.. For those using less than their fair share of carbon emitting energy, their taxes will go down.

There is this fear that we can't trust any government to actually be honest about being revenue neutral. I believe that this conversation should be separated from the conversation about whether the policy proposal is sound. I've not been a fan of any of the parties who have seats in the House of Commons, and I'm no more likely to trust a Liberal than I am a Conservative or NDP politician. While there are individual persons from the parties I trust, I don't trust any of the parties as a whole. Given this, my lack of trust can't influence my thinking on this policy.

I haven't seen the details of the Liberal plan yet. I tried to go to their website and download the document, but bugs in their website have meant that it won't work on my browser (Mozilla 3 on Linux). Hopefully they will hire a better webmaster if they are going to be running an election campaign on this policy.

I have heard that it is more complex than it needs to be, and includes more platform ideas than simply a green tax shift. This is unfortunate as complexity makes the selling that much harder.

[updated Mon Jun 23 09:27:38 EDT 2008]

Hi All,

Nik, Dion challenged Harper to a debate about this issue. I think that would be a very good thing, but all options and players need to be at the table. This issue is too important for the typical partisan response. In addition to Dion's Carbon Tax, the NDP have a well developed and costed Cap and Trade plan, with some tax options. The Conservatives have an essentially toothless version of cap and trade. The Greens floated a carbon tax strategically just before Dion. The Green plan is draconian enough to make Dion's plan look palateable, deliberately I think.

By all means let's debate the issue and look at all options. Perhaps a consensus could be reached if partisanship is put aside. It worked on the apology to Aboriginal Canadians, which, IMO, has been the high point of this government's tenure.

Let's try to do the same with environment and climate change.

[updated Mon Jun 23 09:33:23 EDT 2008]

Before I comment on the different aspects of the "Green Shift" that Nik elicited I will make an initial reaction to it. BTW, I dislike policians placing names like Green Shift (or any other) on policy. To me it detracts from the seriousness of the issues and of what they propose to undertake.
First, a negative one! I don't like tying greenhouse gas reduction into taxes. I would have wanted him to say we will reduce emissions, period. Framing it around other issues complicates the matter and makes it more difficult to sell. While I don't believe Dion will have much difficulty selling to the more intelligent Canadians. His personality and communication skills may make it difficult for those who do not exercise intellectual thought processes in evaluating policy. Both Chretien and Mulroney could more easily talk to that segment of the population.
I have no difficulty with Dion's communication. I appreciate his intelligence and clear reasoning in how he expresses himself. I agree with what he is trying to do. It's the way he is doing it that raising doubts.
Nik, as usual, covers the salient points. Some I agree with, some I don't.
Personal implications I am happy with. I believe that it is the first step to positive reduction of GHG's. That is the most important. Taxes I don't worry about. I expect a small reduction, but I would be willing to have a tax increase if it were start to undoing the damage we've done to the environment and make an effort to bring it back to what Mother Nature intented. If we don't , the tax bill we pay now will be nothing compared to what we will be forced to pay in the future. We must not saddle the next generation with that burden.
Looking at it from a political point of view I agree with Nik that it's essential that Dion send the message of need, the urgency of that need, and how this proposal will gratify that need, if he wishes to have success in his political future.

I will have to continue this later, as I am interrupted by a pressing personal need.

[updated Mon Jun 23 09:56:22 EDT 2008]

The biggest criticism I've heard so far is that the timing of Dion's plan is all wrong. I would just like to say that Dion did not pick either the timing for global warming or how fast it has to be acted upon. Can we afford not to act NOW?

[updated Mon Jun 23 10:58:57 EDT 2008]

This will certainly be a test of the Dion leadership and it won't turn out well for him and his party in the next election.

While the lefties in the country and of course the envirofascists will love the plan because it makes them feel like something is being done it will not sell among the vast majority of Canadians.

With the introduction of his green shi.t Dion has placed a bullseye on his forehead and he will be attacked mercilessly as people begin to understand the impact on their daily lives.

There are no GHG reductions in the plan. Why? That's because Dion has no idea what the impact of this policy will be on the environment.

There will be no competitive pressures on industry to change their processes to be more environmentally friendly because they will all be paying the carbon tax. So ergo they will simply pass their increased costs onto consumers. In fact because the carbon tax is hidden they may raise their prices a couple of points more to help their bottom lines.

With this plan the Liberals will pick the winners and losers within the country. Some businesses will do well. Others not so well. Some taxpayers will pay more and some less. For some it will be revenue neutral. For others they will pay big time.

This is not an environmental plan but a tax plan. Including some $2.9 billion for child poverty within a so called environmental plan is a disguised new social program which we know the Liberals love.

Dion is being disingenuous when he says that there will be no increase in the price of gas at the pumps. However, his plan levies the carbon tax at the wholesale level. There are three processing levels when gas is being produced. Each will be charged the carbon tax and those increased costs will be reflected at the pump. Sure the Liberals say they won't increase the cost at the pumps but in fact the oil companies will most certainly.

Most Canadians will experience significant increases in their cost of living and at this point nobody really knows how much those increases will be but I suspect that with virtually every good and service experiencing higher costs consumers will feel the pinch big time.

Dion talks about his plan being revenue neutral. Revenue neutral for who? All Dion is saying that what the carbon tax raises he will spend in other areas. Giving a 1% reduction in the tax rate and providing refundable and non refundable tax credits will do little to compensate for the increased costs experience by the population. Its smoke and mirrors.

Giving a 1 1/2% reduction in the lowest tax rate will do little for the working poor in Canada but it sure sounds good when the media shows the rate as a 10% reduction in the lowest marginal tax rate.

Harper's plan is much more detailed than critics give him credit for and that is the fault of the Conservatives who have been very poor in communicating their full policy. It as well will increase costs for consumers but at least the companies who are considered the main polluters will be forced to reduce their emissions first through intensity based targets and then absolute reductions. The target of 20% reduction by 2020 is similar to the Liberal plan.

What happens if the carbon tax is so effective that revenue from that source begins to decline? Given tax reductions accompany this plan the Libs will have to jack the level of the carbon tax beyond $40 a tonne in the fourth year and keep increasing it in order to pay for its programs. That means the impact on Canadians will be significant in the years to come.

My suspicion is that ordinary Canadians will see this hoax that Dion and the Liberals are trying to impose on them. The country will become divided East against West, rural against urban etc. Not only will the economy be negatively impacted we could see a real Separation movement in the West again rear its ugly head as Alberta will never accept an NEP deux. Sask. has already come out against the plan saying it will kneecap the Sask. economy as it is just moving forward.

Dion may be trying to buy votes in Ontario and Quebec by transferring Western wealth to them but he certainly will not win any votes in the West with this plan.

[updated Mon Jun 23 11:37:54 EDT 2008]

Hi Nik:

I agree with your assessment except for one thing.

You say: "...but what we do know is that the political focus will be on Stephane Dion and the Liberals in the coming months. A look at the last few elections suggests that whoever is focused upon does not fare well."

During an election campaing, ALL opposition parties (even the Bloc) will have an environment plan that would blow the Conservatives out of the water. The focus would be on the Conservatives in a "the cheese stands alone" kind of way. Canadians hearing about this daily for weeks can't possibly be an advantage for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have painted themselves into a narrow corner on this issue. It will be difficult for them to find more elbow room without creating the impression among their base that they are flip-flopping. This would be exploited by ALL opposition parties.

The Conservatives say the next election will be fought on "leadership". I still think the issue will rather be "leadership style".

In either case, a leader has to be front and centre.

This worked for Harper early on in his mandate when he became Minister of Everything. Lately though, the PM has not been very visible. Other than the apology and going on TV to say "crazy" and "screwed", he's taken to rushing out of the country when things get hot.

Meanwhile, we're starting to see more of Dion. He's touring the political shows, getting air time on the news, challenging the PM on-air to an "adult, respectful debate" despite his inferior communications skills -- the PM doesn't seem to be rushing to accept even though he has the communications advantage; that alone is very telling -- and even dares to show his face and speak in the Liberal commercial for the Green Shift.

Harper gets a cartoon to speak to Canadians on his behalf.

That's quite a difference!

One has to ask if Harper's personal brand is so bad outside Alberta the party can't use his image or voice in advertising. If that is the case, there's a HUGE problem.

You say: "Likewise, the policy will likely shed a new spotlight on the Conservative approach to the environment. After the Conservative attacks subside, expect Canadians to shift their focus on the Harper government’s track record and approach to the environment. If that transpires, the short term Conservative advantage may turn to a disadvantage."

I agree. Being front and centre not only applies to the leader but to their policy as well.

Here, an important shift has taken place. All of a sudden, while Dion is spending almost all of his time speaking of what Dion wants to do for Canada, Harper is ALSO spending most of his time speaking of what Dion wants to do for Canada.

A first blush, you'd think this puts the focus on Dion, but it actually puts the focus on Harper's lack of policy. A vaccuum is never a good thing in politics (as Dion has finally learned) because others will always be all-to-willing to fill the space. People eventually ask: "If it is so bad, what's the alternative then?". Harper, so far, does not have an answer.

The recent drowning of the ducks in Alberta (given the very lax post-exploitation environmental clean-up laws) won't help. The Conservative decision to compromise Canada's future by using lakes -- when we all know fresh water is the oil of the future -- as toxic dumps for mining activities will come back to bite them hard.

You ask: "Even if the plan is judged sound and the need exists, can he effectively persuade voters and can he withstand a well-financed and likely fierce Conservative counter-attack?"

If the Conservative attack continues to be as shrill and strident as it is now, NO amount of financing will help. Repeating things more frequently and with more volume rarely convinces anyone of anything. It only serves to ensure you'll be tuned out eventually.

If Dion continues to find the appopriate public debate counter-tone to what Harper and Conservatives adopt as tone, regardless of the message, Dion will come out on top.

Besides, Dion does have a bonus card we can't discount. A significant chunck of voters who care about the planet will look to Elizabeth May's interventions (even if they'd never vote Green) to get a more objective take on whom between Harper and Dion is the best to lead on this issue. May's support gives Dion some street cred. The value of this can't be discounted.

(continued below)

[updated Mon Jun 23 13:58:33 EDT 2008]

I am not inclined to follow any "savior" especially a self proclaimed political eco-warrior. Dion's proposal is too much, too soon when we appear to be in the middle of an energy crisis----bad timing. In my opinion, the Law of Unintended Consequences is going to financially slaughter those who can least afford higher prices / taxes that will never be "neutral", "self cancelling" or whatever euphanism they wish to apply. What is thought to be POLITICALLY opportune is not economically opportune at this time. Is there not something about "slow and steady" wins the race ????

[updated Mon Jun 23 14:41:47 EDT 2008]

nik. Could we ask everyone to come up with a five point plan to solve what is a very serious problem. We could all judge the results and send it off to Bulldog Baird since he has no ideas of his own. Of course he probably would just ignore any suggestions we might have.

[updated Mon Jun 23 18:52:41 EDT 2008]

Nik shows his lack of understanding when he says this is the wrong time to address the environment. Is Juneuary in BC right now - the climate is changing fast and dinosaurs like Stephen, Jack and Nik should wake up.

[updated Mon Jun 23 21:44:58 EDT 2008]

Nik.I believe we have confirmed my suspicions. We are a nation of whiners. This issue is one of the most important that you have let us discuss. Instead of coming up with solutions we do nothing but complain. Is it impossible to come up with ideas to help alleviate the problem.
Recent topics like the Bernier affair, the Cadman affair, Harper's image, Flaherty poking Ontario with a stick and others seem to interest us more than this. Solutions are possible if we all get off our butts and get in the game.

[updated Tue Jun 24 09:15:23 EDT 2008]

Hi Nik

Stéphan Dion has thought long and hard before inviting the Nation to have a frank discussion on the environment. The liberal proposals to shift the tax from an income base to a consumer base will invariably lead to a lessening of our dependence on fossil fuels. The “carrot” and the “stick” works every time. The beauty of the plan is that we can make huge strides to clean up our part of this environmental mess at virtually no cost to our economy.
Of course it will be difficult to convince the average citizen that this plan has wisdom. Dion is gambling that Canadians are smart enough to look a little deeper into the proposal and start asking questions putting the focus on the environment where Dion believes it should be. He is not a very good politician and his English; brings the word painful to mind but he believes this is right and that Canadians are not as shallow as their Prime Minister thinks they are. The opinion that Stephen Harper has for the citizens he represents is reflected in the new attack ads.
I agree, many who intended to vote for the New Democrats or the Green will be tempted to unite behind Dion stop Harper from forming next government. I suspect many Progressive Conservatives silently agree with the direction of this tax shift.

I sincerely hope we have a good discussion of this subject during the summer months; we should take the time to take a good look at each party’s platform and compare them.
But at all times be cautious not to create divisions within our country. It should not be a west – east debate, but a difference of opinion on how to best move this beautiful country forward on a democratically decided path.

[updated Tue Jun 24 21:54:51 EDT 2008]

I would like to know who approved "Green Shift"? Did anyone ask people on the street what they thought of when they saw "GREEN SHIFT". I would fire the marketing manager (or what ever they call the person in that post).

[updated Thu Jun 26 00:54:04 EDT 2008]

Dion’s strategy of pedaling the tax increase as “cost neutral” will not fool Canadians and we are already seeing the cracks in his plan. Dion’s stated cost of $18 billion offset by tax cuts to business and taxpayers of only $15 billion already makes voters suspicious of both his goals and his wisdom in achieving it. How will the other $3 billion be made up, through cuts to programs and services? Dion has stated that one goal for this revenue is to fund the implementation of the Kyoto Treaty which means big payouts to foreign governments in order to buy emission credits without actually reducing any GHG emissions. Where will this money come from if the plan is “revenue neutral” and how will it actually help the environment? If it is from the $15 billion then further cuts to taxes will not be possible. If it is perceived as a waste of money it will further damage him politically. If funds for the purchase of carbon credits from other countries is not coming from the $15B which programs will be cut to fund it?

The other fundamental flaw in the plan is that it cannot help but raise the COL for lower and lower-middle income earners. Even Dion agrees that taxing producers will cause prices to rise on goods. Producers will pass these costs on to consumers. The plan is to offset these increases with tax cuts but it does little good to give someone a tax cut that is already paying little or no income tax. For instance, a taxpayer raising a family on 35K a year already pays little or no income tax but the overall cost for virtually everything they consume will now increase resulting in a much higher COL for those who can least afford it. He promises to offset this by giving more tax credits to lower income earners so in effect not only would those affected be paying no tax they would receive additional income from the govt. The problem is that it is unlikely that these credits would even come close to offsetting the overall COL increase caused by the plan. So in the end this plan is not only ill conceived it is cruel. There is also the net effect of causing the Canadian economy to experience higher inflation than necessary and to what degree that will affect the business climate and consumer confidence is not know but we can be sure that it will not be positive.

Earlier criticisms of the Dion plan were countered from the left with “wait for the details of the plan”. Now we know the details and they have proven that those earlier criticisms were well founded. This is a bad plan and trying to sell it with strategically worded phrases like “gas TAXES will not go up under the plan” but failing tell Canadians that gas PRICES will go up significantly will not change that and in fact is just dishonest. Anyone who believes that downloading costs to business will not be passed on the consumer and result in job losses is naïve to the extreme. Fortunately most Canadians do not fall into that category and will not be fooled.

[updated Thu Jun 26 08:50:52 EDT 2008]

With no mention of any GHG reduction targets in this so called plan, other than the name, I have a hard time seeing how this has anything to do with the environment. It seems the Liberals think that simply raising the price of something will curb its use but considering the fact that gas has doubled in the last few years and this price rise has had little effect on consumption this thought is simply not true.

Consider the logic, Dion says he will put more money back in our pockets from other tax breaks yet this very mentality would say if you have more money, you have more to spend, which means producers have to produce more to fill the demand, which creates even more GHG's. So even if this lie worked as the libs say, it would if anything add to the GHG's.

On the other side, if technology could allow us to produce "everything" with much less or cleaner energy we could continue to grow our economy while at the same time reduce GHG's along with sharing this new technology with the developing world. This by the way is the basis of the Conservative plan.

This green shaft is simply a tax grab and a joke. Dion wants to fund social programs and liberal supporters with everybody elses money, seems like more stealing of my money.

What is needed if anything is to use a carbon fee with all monies going towards the research and developement of cleaner energy and energy efficiency. Electric car/trains, an East-West power corridor, further developement of our abundance and opportunity to produce clean electricity, maybe even "back to" trolley buses?

Anyway, I believe many Canadians would support less pollution/GHG's and even be willing to contribute. This liberal tax grab does neither.

[updated Thu Jun 26 13:12:06 EDT 2008]

Topic out of date" Hold on Chretien" we are not finised with you yet, I support Gomery all the way, what is needed is an investigation and full public inquiry into the conduct of Judge Max Teitelbaum a obvious supporter of Chretien and his Cronies. Because of the incompetance of the RCMP in Quebec. Problems are always in Quebec and BC is not going to stand for it, we hate Chretien and we will bring him to Justice, you can count on it. Next Election: Senate must be Abolished, All Liberal Supreme Court Judges must be fired and never appointed again. They just make a Mockery of Justice in this country, Chretien must be in jail by 2010

[updated Thu Jun 26 23:10:32 EDT 2008]

Nik, my personal concern is with the NDP. Presently, my party is being squeezed between the Grits and the Greens. So far, most of our attention has been devoted to the Liberals - allowing Elizabeth May and her party to encroach (with impunity) onto what has traditionally been our turf.

My suggestion - to Jack Layton and everyone behind him - is to concentrate some attention on May. Right now, she and the Green Party are synonymous. Damage her credibility with her target audience - the people who ordinarily would be voting for the NDP - and you recoup the support you've lost to May and her party.

You don't have to utter a single word of falsehood to damage May's candidacy - and the chances of her party. Simply ensure that all portsiders are introduced to her OWN words. She has said enough on the subject of abortion, and the "moral underpinnings" of her politics to damn her in the eyes of the very people she hopes will vote for her party.

Anyone on this site who is now or ever has been an NDP supporter should read May's interview with canadianchristianity.com, and, while you're at it, read Judy Rebick's "open letter" to May which was printed in "Rabble News." Even Wikipedia's bio on May is well worth reading.

Nik, I want it to be clear that I am NOT questioning May's credibility vis-a-vis the environment. I absolutely believe that she would close every factory in Canada - if she had the chance. All I am suggesting here is that Elizabeth May is way too socially conservative to be embraced by the people within the target audience she is eyeing.

[updated Fri Jun 27 08:45:24 EDT 2008]

Nik, the Liberals may well be able to make the environment the overriding issue of the next federal election - with the able assistance of the CBC, and their friends with the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail. But it shouldn't be. If the good folks who prepare our news for us had even an ounce of journalistic integrity, the big question during the upcoming election would be credibility.

Under the subject of "can we believe a word they say," the newsmedia should be reminding Canadians of the promises made in the past by the Grits and the Tories. With some detail, we should find out how well those two parties have done in keeping those promises. We should also be reminded of the competency demonstrated by those two parties when in office.

With all the Grits readily available here to list the many problems with the Conservatives, I will concentrate on the track record of the Liberal Party. The big item with them - of course - is the promise they made in 1993 to remove the GST. You can ask Sheila Copps about that promise. I'd like to have a dollar for every person who voted for the Grits in 1993 precisely because of that promise.

To be fair, I won't even dwell on the Sponsorship Scandal - everyone here probably remembers that episode, and there are much more important scandals to recall. The Tainted Blood Scandal was an honest-to-goodness scandal which should never be forgotten by Canadians - particularly the part involving the Chretien government's stonewalling of the Krever Inquiry.

Is anyone here old enough to remember the Somalia Inquiry? Remember how Chretien pulled the plug on it?

Does anyone remember a golf course in the Shawinigan area? Our Prime Minister at the time had some involvement with that story which reflected poorly on him.

Does anyone remember Francois Beaudoin - at one time the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada? The treatment of him - like something out of an old movie - might be applauded by someone like "Boss" Tweed or Mugabe, but it's something which might offend Canadians re-acquainted with the story.

For evidence of competency - on the part of the Liberals in office - you need look no further than the "Billion-Dollar Boondoggle." Somehow, the Human Resources Department - under Jane Stewart - had misplaced (misspent ?) $1,000,000,000.

Did someone mention the Gun Registry?

With the Grits you have two big problems: you cannot - in all honesty - believe a single word they say as to what they'll do or not do; and you cannot have any real confidence in their ability to govern competently (and keep their hands out of the till).

[updated Fri Jun 27 14:54:34 EDT 2008]

Nik, the discussion here has inspired me to come up with a question you can ask during your next survey. I'm offering it to you free of charge.

Here's the question to ask folks across this great country of ours: do you agree that no one in Ottawa would be talking about CARBON TAXES if Canada's gas and oil deposits were located primarily in Ontario and Quebec, rather than Alberta and Saskatchewan?

Those great nation builders - the Grits - have absolutely no qualms about mugging Saskatchewan and Alberta if it means winning votes in Central Canada. I can just see Stephane Dion - as the next Prime Minister - with his Carbon Tax quickly passed by his Grit-controlled Senate, insisting to Peter Mansbridge that he (Dion) cannot be at all blamed for the separatist fervour growing out west.

Will the western separatists receive the sympathetic hearing their confreres in Quebec always received? Nik, there's another question for a future survey!

[updated Sat Jun 28 12:31:50 EDT 2008]

This Plan is not correctly called the Green Shift. It should be called the Green
Shaft.

[updated Sat Jun 28 22:06:29 EDT 2008]

So far no one here has come up with any detailed analysis on Dion's plan except from partisan lines of thinking.

Dion has opened up a whole new level of discussion on the environment and in effect our system of taxation. He has promised to tax all GHG emissions in a progessive and interesting manner while giving some time for industry to adjust and/or bring on newer technologies that ultimately seriously reduce those gases. In either situation he wins as jobs will be created with indsutry efforts to reduce those GHG's. I believe that in the case of the tar sands technology will not only reduce the emissions but also the bare costs of extraction. Some of the newer plants being built now or in the planning stages are workoing in that vein. Of course they get federal R&D credits as well as provincial ones Win win in my opinion.

As part of the plan he has stated he will make it all revenue neutral and pass on the taxes collected and then some back to the population. Stilll makes sense to me although I believe it will need some tinkering once he is in power and after the civil servants have comleted their detailed analysis. Dion is in effect ultmately moving to a consumption tax type of model which will restore the GST to it's proper place in our country.

If he keeps it simple and is able to get his message across to the majority of center left voters he will have accopmlished a feat of majority government and a futuristic model of governing in a cleaner world . I say that's a pretty smart and neat way to unite the left and bring Quebec voters onside as well.

[updated Sun Jun 29 04:02:44 EDT 2008]

Finally getting back to my previous post.

Nik stated that, "Polling shows that Canadians are concerned about the environment but that when a price tag is attached, voters become more skittish."
I'm disappointed to hear that. I am reluctant to accept that many Canadians are so shortsighted. they are going to have to pay the price tag anyway. The sooner they do it the less the price tag will be. If they had done it 20 or 30 years ago it would have been miniscule., now it's getting more expensive and if not now it will be prohibitive in the future. If they are afraid of the gloomy outlook now imagine how fearful they will be with the economic reality that will be forced on them in the future

The task of corrrecting the damage done must be undertaken NOW faster and more agressively.

Canadians should not wait for Dion's or anyones leadership. They, themselves must take the initiate and see that it's done as swiftly as possible.If they are worring about the economy then surely they must do it. BTW it can be done and have the economy increase while they are doing it.

I am not focusing on Dion or how he will bring this about. My focus, and I hope that of most Canadians, will be on this Conservative government and how we can restarin them and keep them from doing more damage to Canadian society.
"A look at the last few elections suggests that whoever is focused upon does not fare well." Come on Canadians, let's all focus hard and directly and continually on Stephen Harper.
"In the closing days of the 2004 federal election, the Martin Liberals managed to fear-monger and focus on the perceived socially conservative views of Harper Conservatives. The Grits snatched victory from defeat.
Fast forward to the 2006 federal election. With all eyes on the RCMP criminal investigation announcement during the campaign, the focus shifted to the Liberals and the Harper-led Conservatives won the election."
Holy Cow! If that's Canadians are that politically challenged, then we are really in trouble. I have more respect for the electorate. I don't think those were the reasons they voted as they did.
I don't propose to know , or even guess, what will happen. I just live in hope that Canadians wake up and see the reality and get rid of this Conservative government.
The damage being done may not have too great a personal effect on me in the time I have left but having just found out that I may become a grandfather or the first time (in a few months) the urgency is so much greater. It's the furure generations we have to worry about.

[updated Sun Jun 29 06:33:34 EDT 2008]