40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, immediate action is not required. It is desired, and I maintain that the overfocus on GHGs is not true environmentalism. If people want to go green, it takes a lot more than an obsessive over-focus on one aspect of how we pollute our world.

I totally agree with this. I also think that when the economy starts sliding on an international scale you have to protect your own economy. Now is not the time to make things more business unfriendly, or implementint a tax that could potentially increase the price of consumer goods, or shift revenues from the only provinces that are in have states at an accelerated rate.

Its admirable to want to fix the environment, but like Kyoto, the optics of the green shift are less about the environment and more about funding social programs and securing votes in Liberal areas of the country.

With the Chinese building up their infrastructure and using cheap labor to lure even more business to themselves, why should we be chasing out jobs over seas. China doesn't seem to want to change, and I'm sure that Canada standing up and saying look at us, we're green is not going to make these heavy polluting nations stop what they're doing.

Education, cultural shifts, and tax incentives to corporations to change their methods is the way to go, not arbitrarily slapping a tax on emmissions and then hoping that the organizations that you tap won't just pass that tax onto the consumers, or even worse move their manufacturing to a country with cheap labor and no emmission standards.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is especially ridiculous that Calgary still doesn't have a decent blue box program, and those of us who do try to recycle end up having to go to one of the about four recycling locations within the city where the bins are always overfilled.

We get one starting Jan 1st.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Rathji

We get one starting Jan 1st.

I know, but other major cities have been running one for years, and doing so more efficiently and cheaper than Calgary is planning.

Or hell, one just has to go ten minutes north of the city to see how Airdrie handles its recycling program. No blue box program, but effective bag limits on garbage, an excellent centralized recycling facility, and a well organized landfill site where they also sort out stuff that can be recycled or reused from general trash.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yep businesses are leaving, thanks (in part) to heavy investment in Oil sands which has driven our dollar up to the detriment of Canadian manufacturing. The reason businesses are leaving Sarnia have more to do with Oil sands extraction than with non-existent GHG regulations. I still don't get your point.

OMG. Question. Where abouts do you live?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

LOL what?

Wow...

Those Conservative attack ads sure have done their job in completely misrepresenting the Green Shift.

No....that would be DION.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Ok so what policy levers do you propose we use to change our culture? One tonne challenges?

I remind you that immediate action to reduce our GHG emissions is required.

According to who? And when you say immediate, does it have to be economically crippling like the Green Shift will be? Or can we start out doing the little things first and work or way up?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I totally agree with this. I also think that when the economy starts sliding on an international scale you have to protect your own economy. Now is not the time to make things more business unfriendly, or implementint a tax that could potentially increase the price of consumer goods, or shift revenues from the only provinces that are in have states at an accelerated rate.

Its admirable to want to fix the environment, but like Kyoto, the optics of the green shift are less about the environment and more about funding social programs and securing votes in Liberal areas of the country.

With the Chinese building up their infrastructure and using cheap labor to lure even more business to themselves, why should we be chasing out jobs over seas. China doesn't seem to want to change, and I'm sure that Canada standing up and saying look at us, we're green is not going to make these heavy polluting nations stop what they're doing.

Education, cultural shifts, and tax incentives to corporations to change their methods is the way to go, not arbitrarily slapping a tax on emmissions and then hoping that the organizations that you tap won't just pass that tax onto the consumers, or even worse move their manufacturing to a country with cheap labor and no emmission standards.

Good post Cap.

[octothorp]

For the Liberals, the sad thing is that they really did not need a central piece of policy to campaign on this election. The overall demographics of the country favour the liberals, and if they don't provide the Conservatives any ammo and if the Conservatives do not have major policies of their own, the pendulum will swing back to the Liberals' favour. It's been this way for the last 80 years: the Conservatives need Grit corruption or major, energizing ideas of their own to gain support, while the status quo will favour the Liberals.

But rather than playing it safe and running a campaign on the faults of Harper's government, Dion introduces an ambitious and confusing concept that provides the Conservatives all sorts of ammo.

The most ridiculous thing is that the Green Shift has little chance of being implemented any time soon; in order to be put into effect, it would need a Liberal majority (or a strong Liberal / NDP coalition that amounted to a majority), and this election is about choosing between a Conservative majority or Conservative minority (with a slim, slim chance of a Liberal minority). I think it's noble that Dion is trying to run a clean campaign and basing it on a cause that he's passionate about, but it's been completely misguided and mismanaged from the get-go. Really this election should be about the Conservatives, and whether they've done enough during their time to warrant a majority government. Instead of needing to run on their record, the Conservatives get to do what they're best at; run a campaign of criticism of the Liberals.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

For the Liberals, the sad thing is that they really did not need a central piece of policy to campaign on this election. The overall demographics of the country favour the liberals, and if they don't provide the Conservatives any ammo and if the Conservatives do not have major policies of their own, the pendulum will swing back to the Liberals' favour. It's been this way for the last 80 years: the Conservatives need Grit corruption or major, energizing ideas of their own to gain support, while the status quo will favour the Liberals.

I don't know if I agree with this, once the Liberal's were tossed out of power in the last election, public opinion pretty much stabalized in the middle. I think that the day and age of the dominant political party in Canada is pretty much at an end. Your going to see a lot of minority governments being in power for a very short time. Your also going to see a back and forth between the Conservatives and the Liberals. One thing that has killed the Liberals, expecially since Chretien retired is that the Liberals don't appear to have a strong leader or leadership candidate in their bull pen that can capture the nations imagination or make you over look the Liberals gaffs. Stephen Harper for all of his faults, and his lack of personality looks like a strong controlling leader. As long as the Conservatives keep thier more extreme members under control or away from the media they should win this election. Meanwhile Dion has trouble controlling his party, probably because a great deal of the Liberal's probably want this election loss so that they can toss Dion aside and start rebuilding their party.

Originally Posted by octothorp

But rather than playing it safe and running a campaign on the faults of Harper's government, Dion introduces an ambitious and confusing concept that provides the Conservatives all sorts of ammo.

I think your really wrong on this, I think Dion was screwed whichever way he went. Frankly he was hoping that his retreat strategy would keep the government in power longer so that he could rebuild his party coffers, prepare better for election and have a big scandal or two or an economic collapse to fall back on. This hasen't happened, and Dion must be crapping himself going into the debates because I think he's going to get hammered on, especially considering his main party platform is the Green Shift which is confusing, and to me badly conceived and a thinly disguised economic transfer system. And because its really his only policy, Harper is going to focus on picking it apart over two nights of debates. I almost expect to see a Brian Mulroney/John Turner style knockout punch from Harper at the debates.

Originally Posted by octothorp

The most ridiculous thing is that the Green Shift has little chance of being implemented any time soon; in order to be put into effect, it would need a Liberal majority (or a strong Liberal / NDP coalition that amounted to a majority), and this election is about choosing between a Conservative majority or Conservative minority (with a slim, slim chance of a Liberal minority). I think it's noble that Dion is trying to run a clean campaign and basing it on a cause that he's passionate about, but it's been completely misguided and mismanaged from the get-go. Really this election should be about the Conservatives, and whether they've done enough during their time to warrant a majority government. Instead of needing to run on their record, the Conservatives get to do what they're best at; run a campaign of criticism of the Liberals.

And you don't think the Liberals don't run on chriticism, come on, they've already alluded to secret agendas if the Conservatives get a majority and they've used the term neocon several times and bought up the Bush boogey man statement. Sure Dion is running on the Green Shift, but he comes across as not believing in it himself as he's making changes on the fly depending who he talks to (farm exceptions, etc). And is he really passionate about the environment, he certainly didn't show it as the environment minister as he sat on his hands and did nothing. He's passionate about it because its the only platform point that he has thats maybe different and unique, and his one main platform is probably going to cost him the election and more importantly the leadership of his party.

[calculoso]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...tories&s_name=

The Liberals' "Green Shift" carbon tax plan may actually be welcomed by the oilsands industry because it would create a pay-and-pollute system, says Conservative MP John Baird.

Speaking to Canada AM on Tuesday, Baird said he believes the plan would allow major oilsands polluters to maintain the status quo.

"They might actually like the Green Shift because what they could do is just simply go on, business as usual, and pay a user fee to pollute our atmosphere. We don't think that cuts it," Baird said.

Interesting thought. Raise prices to pay for the tax and not actually change anything.

The Conservatives' "Turning the Corner" environmental plan, Baird said, would force big polluters to cut their emissions with an eventual 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions.

He said it also mandates carbon capture and storage regulations, which would require industry to trap carbon emissions and store them deep underground before they are released to the environment -- something he said has never been done before in Canada.

So much for supposedly not having a plan....

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by calculoso

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...tories&s_name=



Interesting thought. Raise prices to pay for the tax and not actually change anything.



So much for supposedly not having a plan....

Christ, we really need the Dion plan then .....Harper is going to destroy the Oilsands industry, destroy Alberta and create NEPII with his hard targets. Only Dion and his Oilsands friendly project can save us now.....

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if I agree with this, once the Liberal's were tossed out of power in the last election, public opinion pretty much stabalized in the middle. I think that the day and age of the dominant political party in Canada is pretty much at an end. Your going to see a lot of minority governments being in power for a very short time. Your also going to see a back and forth between the Conservatives and the Liberals. One thing that has killed the Liberals, expecially since Chretien retired is that the Liberals don't appear to have a strong leader or leadership candidate in their bull pen that can capture the nations imagination or make you over look the Liberals gaffs. Stephen Harper for all of his faults, and his lack of personality looks like a strong controlling leader. As long as the Conservatives keep thier more extreme members under control or away from the media they should win this election. Meanwhile Dion has trouble controlling his party, probably because a great deal of the Liberal's probably want this election loss so that they can toss Dion aside and start rebuilding their party.

I agree with you on the minority governments, I think we're close in make-up to the Diefenbaker / Pearson years, which beyond Diefenbaker's 1958 government, was very back and forth. In Canada, there are ridings that will always vote Conservative, (or another right wing party), and there are ridings that will always vote Liberal. But the number of ridings that always vote Liberal are greater in number. Similarly, there's a greater number of ridings who would never vote Liberal, while there are few that would never vote Conservative. Since 1935, the Liberals have received less than 95 seats only three times, and never surpassed 180 seats. They have a fairly stable base here. The Conservatives are much more volatile, sometimes looking like they're going to disappear off the political map, other times achieving heights that the Liberals could never dream of. But any time the Conservatives have made a significant push into power, it's always been at least in part thanks to Liberal corruption: that St. Laurent's Liberals were in the back pocket of big business, that Turner's Liberals had done nothing about the generous appointments Trudeau handed out at the end of his campaign, and of course all of the corruption allegations around Martin's Liberals, or the allegations he had inherited from his predecessor's years. The Liberal voting powerbase in Ontario and Quebec will punish the Liberals if they feel that they've gone to far (and occasionally they'll embrace a charismatic Conservative leader), but they will swing back to voting Liberal, it's just a matter of how quickly.

I think your really wrong on this, I think Dion was screwed whichever way he went. Frankly he was hoping that his retreat strategy would keep the government in power longer so that he could rebuild his party coffers, prepare better for election and have a big scandal or two or an economic collapse to fall back on. This hasen't happened, and Dion must be crapping himself going into the debates because I think he's going to get hammered on, especially considering his main party platform is the Green Shift which is confusing, and to me badly conceived and a thinly disguised economic transfer system. And because its really his only policy, Harper is going to focus on picking it apart over two nights of debates. I almost expect to see a Brian Mulroney/John Turner style knockout punch from Harper at the debates.

Well I agree with everything there except the first sentence. The debates are going to be a disaster for Dion; he's entirely on the defensive. If he had come out and run a more critical campaign that the Conservatives are hypocrites and can't be trusted, he'd be on much better footing right now. Not necessarily in a position to win, but certainly not facing the prospect of a Conservative majority.

And you don't think the Liberals don't run on chriticism, come on, they've already alluded to secret agendas if the Conservatives get a majority and they've used the term neocon several times and bought up the Bush boogey man statement. Sure Dion is running on the Green Shift, but he comes across as not believing in it himself as he's making changes on the fly depending who he talks to (farm exceptions, etc). And is he really passionate about the environment, he certainly didn't show it as the environment minister as he sat on his hands and did nothing. He's passionate about it because its the only platform point that he has thats maybe different and unique, and his one main platform is probably going to cost him the election and more importantly the leadership of his party.

No, it's not that the Liberals don't run on criticism. Certainly they try to, and they should as it's the only way they're going to make any inroads. But they end up spending so much time defending the Green Shift that they can't effectively put together any coherent message about the shortcomings of the Conservative party.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

OMG. Question. Where abouts do you live?

God, no kidding eh? For someone who is so insistent on getting the "facts" straight, to blame the loss of jobs out east and the rising loonie on the Oil Sands is downright ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with the fact that world oil prices have massively increased, regardless of the Oil Sands, the fact that the American dollar is remarkably weak given their economic downturn, or the fact that Canada's manufacturing industry used a low dollar to mask innefficiency and is now paying the price.

Nope. Nothing at all. It's all Alberta's fault. Typical central Canadian, Liberal thinking.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And because its really his only policy, Harper is going to focus on picking it apart over two nights of debates. I almost expect to see a Brian Mulroney/John Turner style knockout punch from Harper at the debates.

It's a possibility. He has a policy that can not be explained in a short sound bites, and the debate format is still short sound bites of information where people are listening for several key points and ideas every time a leader opens their mouth. I read somewhere the other day that he was asked in a Q&A session to explain the Green shift and it took him over 3 minutes to do so and still no one listening understood what he meant. That is not a good sign. He better get a handle on it or he will be in real trouble because while everyone will be looking to go after Harper you can bet Layton and May are going to save some ammo for Dion as that is where their votes are going to come from.

But the other factor in this for the majority of the country is that he really does have a hard time getting his point across in English. Even on the simplest of ideas. I don't doubt he has a good brain in his head but he can't get those thoughts out in a consistently coherent manner. Reading some of his quotes and listening to some o fhis sound bites can be dizzying. WHe reminds me of that extremely aggravating prof that you knew was brilliant but who could not teach a class or get a point across to save his life. From day 1, I was shocked the Liberal party elected him as their leader.

That said, the Conservatives have to hold it together for another 4 weeks and realyl you never know when they might shoot themselves in the foot...repeatedly.

[ikaris]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but isn't the Liberal "Green shift" plan exactly what the Green party has been proposing for years (albeit with some minor modifications)?

I've gone to all the websites for each party (Liberals, Conseratives, NDP, and Green) and I'm really upset that I could not get any real information on their platforms other than the Liberal and Green party websites.

The Conservative party only talks about what they've done, and have no mention about what they plan to do (which scares me as now I think they're hiding something ).

The NDP party website is the least informative of them all; I really don't think Jack has any idea about what you need to do have this country functional. I mean seriously, how are we supposed to pay for all that he is promising? What a joke.

While I don't fully support the Liberals, I at least can understand their plan and they have a pretty good explanation. I'm pretty sure though they ripped it off from the Greens.

[fredr123]

Change of pace: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._ballot_060122

I know it's illegal to spoil your federal ballot. Why is it illegal? Do any of the CP parliamentarians know the history behind this law?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Change of pace: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._ballot_060122

I know it's illegal to spoil your federal ballot. Why is it illegal? Do any of the CP parliamentarians know the history behind this law?

You can refuse your ballot, which is essentially the same thing.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by ikaris

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but isn't the Liberal "Green shift" plan exactly what the Green party has been proposing for years (albeit with some minor modifications)?

The NDP party website is the least informative of them all...

As for the "Green Shift" and the Green's "Ecotax", they are similar. However, Dion's "Green Shift" is primarily focused on greenhouse gases. The Greens tax looks at all environmental issues. The theory is that currently industry is being "subsidized" by not including the full cost of production into their product. For example, sulfur emitting plants cause acid rain, which causes health problems and dead lakes that need to be cleaned. It isn't the company that has to pay for the environmental effects of acid rain, but they should. So they would tax the product coming from that factory in such a manner that (a)the government would recoup the money they require to handle the negative impacts and (b) consumers would not want to pay the higher price, so they may choose to go with product B which has less of an environmental impact.

As for the NDP platform, I don't think they were as well prepared as they should have been from an online perspective. Their web site hasn't updated their platform since 2006:
http://www.ndp.ca/platform
And there is no link there from the main page, so it isn't any wonder you couldn't find it.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for the "Green Shift" and the Green's "Ecotax", they are similar. However, Dion's "Green Shift" is primarily focused on greenhouse gases. The Greens tax looks at all environmental issues. The theory is that currently industry is being "subsidized" by not including the full cost of production into their product. For example, sulfur emitting plants cause acid rain, which causes health problems and dead lakes that need to be cleaned. It isn't the company that has to pay for the environmental effects of acid rain, but they should. So they would tax the product coming from that factory in such a manner that (a)the government would recoup the money they require to handle the negative impacts and (b) consumers would not want to pay the higher price, so they may choose to go with product B which has less of an environmental impact.

As for the NDP platform, I don't think they were as well prepared as they should have been from an online perspective. Their web site hasn't updated their platform since 2006:
http://www.ndp.ca/platform
And there is no link there from the main page, so it isn't any wonder you couldn't find it.

That's a good arguement, one the liberals have been awful at promoting. I understand it, to an extent it is true but two things:

a) it's a slippery slope to start taxing producers and consumers. Because, I think I can make a better arguement that everyone around me that has smoked owes me money because my health was negatively impacted. Come to think of it, my parents owe me about a hundred grand!! I also feel that they guy who planted a tree in his backyard, and has restricted my view of downtown owes me money because he just decreased the value of the view from my office. And lastly, everyone who owns a Harley bike and has driven close enough to me that I'm distrubed by the sound of those things owes me a few bucks as well.

Your example is true, and so are my 3. I'm not sure we can draw a bright line to differentiate what is ok to tax and what is not.

b) The Liberals have shown that it costs billions to simply manage gun registries. Even the most deep rooted liberal supporter has to admit this would be an administrative gong show ... they'll need to increases the carbon tax further just to pay for all this administration.

The real long term solution is not fake value transfer mechanisms. Value transfer mchanisms never solve things, they hide things. People right now need to feel the pain of buying expensive gasoline because demand has to change. In the long run the next trillionaire is going to be someone who develops a solid reliable set of replacements. Liberal tax schemes won't.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The Liberals have shown that it costs billions to simply manage gun registries. Even the most deep rooted liberal supporter has to admit this would be an administrative gong show ... they'll need to increases the carbon tax further just to pay for all this administration.

The Liberals really FUBARed the gun registry in terms of implementation cost. It doesn't mean that anything any government does is going to be an administrative nightmare. Even now the registry exists and the administrative costs are under control. However, it's usefulness can certainly still be debated. But all that to say I'm not convinced that because some projects in the past have had huge cost overruns that I'm going to assume that all future projects will be administrative nightmares.

But as to your point regarding some magical trillionaire coming up with something that will solve the worlds problems, I think that wishful thinking. The fact is that a company making environmental friendly products is usually at an absolutely huge disadvantage to those near breaking emissions laws. If I am company X with factories that are emitting horrible amounts of pollution, what incentive do I have to clean it up? Stupid company Y spent $2billion installing scrubbers and filters, meaning their products now cost $10 more per unit than company X. It's obvious to me that company Y was stupid and should lose all their investors, no?