But asked about the indirect costs to consumers of the Tory plan to regulate emissions, Mr. Kenney said that calculation will have to wait until later this fall, when the regulations are published.
Environment Minister John Baird later told The Canadian Press that the regulations will not be published during an election campaign.
Won't be published during an election, isn't that a gigantic, not to mention convenient, cop out? The absurdity of poking holes, pointing to costs of another's plan, when you avoid the same scrutiny by simply taking a pass on accountability. The ambiguity allows the Conservatives to attack a concrete offering, while countering with broad stroke mumbo jumbo. This slight of hand only works if we let it.
We do have some indications of the possible economic impact, should the Conservatives implement their plan. Baird himself admits to .4 -1.0% of GDP, which translates to tens of billions. The lack of certainty allows the Liberals to effectively fill in the gap, and they would be wise to bring forth some independent analysis of the broad strokes, to present a compelling picture. In other words, the Conservatives only get off the hook if we let them, and strategically we can manipulate their lack of hard data, fill the void if you will.
I want to see some visual presentation, whether an ad, a flyer, a press release, a press conference, whatever, that does a compare and contrast of the two approaches. Here's the Liberal costs, clearly spelled out, along with the tax breaks, independently verified versus the trickle down costs of what the Conservatives suggest. It is imperative that we don't give the Conservatives the cover, we clearly spell out, in a factual way, the hypocrisy of telling Canadians that Dion wants to take money out of your pocket, when the Conservatives already admit the same scenario with their plan. That speaks to fundamental dishonesty, utter hypocrisy, not to mention the simple fact that the Liberals are the only one's to put money back in your pockets, the package not a one way affair. The Liberals are being up front with Canadians, the Conservatives hiding their cost, hiding their plan, failing to come clean with voters. Who is really trying to "trick" voters here, we can make a powerful case if framed properly.
The above highlights the already assumed Liberal theme on style. Dion, honest and sincere, offering a positive vision, Harper's slight of hand, content to fear monger, content to attack. Contrasting the two plans, not only helps sell the Green Shift, it also puts the spotlight on approach, what type of dialogue do Canadians want from their leaders, which approach is high signal, which is unattractive?
As far as I'm concerned, this whole debate is a farcical exercise, the Conservatives NOTHING but smoke and mirrors. The Liberals don't have to defend, there is amble room to expose the Conservatives as dishonest frauds, their attacks not supported by simple facts, facts which reveal the worst in politicians, an insult to the intelligence of voters. Stephen Harper thinks you're stupid, is he right?