Friday, October 17, 2008

Tax Shift/Green Shift...Why didn't Michael Ignatieff think of That?

Oh. He did.

Well. Thanks for reminding me.

Je me souviens. Right Ms. Frulla, M. Volpe, M. McKay, M. Corderre, M. Rodriguez, M. Karygiannis, M. Proulx? Who's next? Probably one of these people.


Ignatieff has come out as a supporter of Kyoto, but he has also conceded that Canada will not meet its targets under the accord.

He said Canada should aim to cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and he has proposed heavier taxes on dirtier kinds of fuel.

A big part of his plan is what he calls a "polluter pays" approach.

He's proposing, among other things, a direct federal tax on companies that produce greenhouse emissions.

He refutes the idea that such a tax is a "plot to punish Alberta for its success," saying it should be offset by reductions in other taxes so there is no net tax increase.

He said it's not enough to rely on voluntary initiatives and subsidies to encourage businesses to reduce harmful emissions.

"This would represent an environmental tax shift from taxing activities we want to encourage to taxing activities we want to discourage," he said. And any excess payments the government receives would be returned to the source province to fund emissions reductions programs.

Update: Senator Smith says the GREEN SHIFT lost us the election.A couple of comments for you on that one Senator Smith. 1. Weren't you one of the National Co-Chairs in charge of helping sell our platform? 2. Who was it again you asked to come back to Canada to run for leadership?


Mark Francis said...

The Green Shift was sold wrong. The NDP and CONs have variants on cap and trade, which will raise consumers prices without granting any tax cuts to consumers.

It should have been a slam dunk to sell a carbon tax shift as superior.

James Curran said...

My point exactly Mark Francis.

Deb Prothero said...


The other aspect of the cap-and-trade system that was never highlighted and yet has been proven throughout its implementation is its susceptibility to corruption. Pals get off easy and corporations don't actually reduce emissions they just deal in a new market with twisted financial outcomes. Something like Credit Default Swaps that are now threatening the global economy.

Deb Prothero said...

One more thing, thanks for producing the list of Ignatieff supporters. It would appear that the campaign failed on purpose so that Ignatieff could get another swipe at it.

Obviously all people on the list are not working against Dion. I did hear Wayne Easter on the radio yesterday advocating for giving Dion more time.

DeanC said...

Mark Francis x2

I am extremely disappointed with how it was sold, it really is a good policy and I hope to see it stay in the platform. A couple of things we never heard but should have:

1) Mr Harper: We can not bring in a complicated new tax.
Mr Dion: Mr Harper it is very simple, when you came in you raised taxes on income so you could lower taxes on consumption, we want to do the reverse, but instead of raising the GST we will tax carbon instead because this will help the environment, you have no plan for the environment.

2) A carbon tax is a better tax because unlike income, with a carbon tax you can reduce your taxes payable by reducing your carbon footprint. Also a carbon tax is harder to cheat than other taxes.

3) A carbon tax is superior to cap and trade because...

We totally allowed our opponents to frame this issue against us. I don’t know if Mr Dion messed this up or he wasn’t advised well but whatever it was it needs to change.