Canadians Welcome Debate

Stephane Dion’s little debate challenge, is turning into a useful talking point and strategic pivot. Dion is now armed with the sentiment that “Canadians overwhelming want us to debate”:

An overwhelming majority of Canadians want to see Stéphane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper square off in a televised debate on the Liberals' proposal for a carbon tax, a new poll shows.
"Canadians appear to be ready to see Harper and Dion discussing policy away of the confines of the House of Commons, and this might help Dion," said Mario Canseco, director of global studies for Angus Reid Strategies.
Almost 70 per cent of Canadians are keen to see that debate happen, according to the Toronto Star/Angus Reid poll released yesterday.
Canseco said the political duel could work to Dion's advantage as he tries to pitch his party's carbon tax proposal to voters.
"More than anything, it gives Dion an opportunity to shed the label of weakness," Canseco said

The money quote:

"Harper might never agree to this debate, but Dion will have a chance to say that he was willing to meet him anytime, and that the onus is on the Prime Minister," Canseco said.

And there it is, whether Harper agrees or not is a side issue, what does matter is the optics. Dion wanting a debate, the public agrees and Harper is on the defensive. That is a terrific position to be in for Dion, because he does address the “weakness” factor and it is left to Harper to find excuses, or agree. I hope the formal letter includes the “will of Canadians”, it would be a nice touch :)

The Grand Conspiracy

The last few days, we have heard the "separatist" angry, as the usual suspects focus on the easy whipping boy, those dirty Liberals who want to ruin the "west". Yawn me a river. Liberals conspiring to hurt Alberta, NEP II, as though tackling GHG emissions is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room, recognizing the OBVIOUS, tantamount to blasphemy.

Now it seems, a growing convergence stateside wants nothing to do with "dirty" oil. Have the Liberals infiltrated the American political system? First, the likely next President:

"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance . . . and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long-term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, Mr. Obama's senior energy adviser.

The remarks amount to a shot across the bow of Alberta's oilsands industry, which is planning to boost production from 1.3 million barrels a day to 3.5 million barrels over the next decade.

"The amount of energy that you have to use to get that oil out of the ground is such that it actually creates a much greater impact on climate change, as well as using much more energy than even traditional petroleum," he said.

"And I think it's an open question as to whether or not the Canadian resources are going to meet those tests."

This comes on the same day, American mayors join to focus their sights on the tar sands:

Mayors from the U.S.'s largest cities singled out Western Canada's oil sands on Monday as they called for a crackdown on fuels that could cause catastrophic global warming.

"The production of tarsands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse," said the resolution.

This resolution sends a clear signal to Alberta and to oil producers that they need to get a grip on their greenhouse gas emissions," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group.

In response:

Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier also blasted his U.S. counterparts, saying they need to visit Alberta in person to "get the facts on oilsands production."

"This resolution suggests a lack of understanding," he said

I recommend inviting the mayors for a tour, so they can get the "facts". Don't forget to see the tailing ponds!

A Point Of Clarification

Some partisans are cautioning other partisans, not to read too much into a poll, which demonstrates an openness to the Liberals "the color you get when you mix blue and yellow" Shift (is that okay?). Just as a point of clarification, speaking for myself, I hardly view one finding, on a vague question, as "victory". More correctly, it just serves as another useful piece of information to suggest the Liberals might be well positioned moving forward.

How this whole debate shakes out remains to be seen, whether the plan is an albatross or a savior, completely debatable, reasonable people have differing views. My own mental math supports the concept, policy wise and from a political perspective. The first test, and a daunting one, if you consider the pre-emptive strikes by the Conservatives and others to define, was for the Liberals to release their plan and simply keep their head above water. I don't think it much of a stretch to say the initial launch was largely successful, easily Dion's best moment to date as leader. Pleasantly surprised is how I would characterize the opening, a fair response from the media, some helpful allies, a positive tone, a sense of coherent strategy, contrasted with a seemingly unglued Harper and friends. I like what I've seen.

My primary reaction to the latest poll is just another positive sign, a complete rebuke of the Conservatives claims of "crazy" and "screwed". That doesn't translate to any sense whatsoever that the Liberals are well on their way to forming government, or even any claim that the plan will be understood and appreciated. What I think you can say, based on a sense of the initial launch, it has been anything but a bad week for Liberal fortunes. All you can hope for is opportunity, and I don't think it entirely biased to argue that this plan presents just that. Opportunities are what you make of it, and in this case, also how your opponents react, who's more effective.

The way I look at it, Liberals have finally launched, successfully discarded the booster rockets and now try to successfully navigate the proper path to see if we reach target.

Canadians Ready To Embrace Economic Ruin

Try to wipe the smile off my face, just try:

A new poll finds suggests the Liberals could score votes with their controversial "green shift'' environmental proposal.

The first national poll since the Liberal leader Stephane Dion announced that he would impose a carbon tax to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions has found Canadians are beginning to pick sides.

While a majority remain undecided, 14 per cent say they are in favour and 17 per cent are opposed.

But once the policy is explained to respondents, the Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey found that 47 per cent liked the idea and 39 per cent were opposed.

Significantly, the poll found that most of the opposition to the idea comes from Conservatives.

To be honest, that result is better than I would have thought.

More here:

The key finding, said pollster Bruce Anderson, is that Canadians who did not describe themselves as Conservatives were favourably disposed to the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Two-thirds of Liberals, 59 per cent of New Democrats, 62 per cent Parti Quebecois supporters and 48 per cent of Green Party supporters said they were in favour of the policy – all, except for the Green Party, by wide margins.

The Liberal green plan is also finding double-digit support among women (48 per cent in favour, 34 per cent opposed), voters under 35 years of age (61 versus 26), and in voters east of the Ontario-Manitoba border (49 versus 37), all segments the Conservatives need in order to win a majority.

“It does have the potential to be a game-changer for the Liberals,” Mr. Anderson said.

Also interesting, a third of Conservatives like the proposal (I guess none of them are online ;)).

Howl away with your childish fear mongering, it would appear Canadians are smarter than you think. If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of Conservatives scrambling.

The Empty Chair

I've read a few news items today, wherein the Conservatives are deflecting any call for debate with Harper, saying Dion had his chance in Question Period, but he failed to show up. Speaking of not showing up, Harper's attendance record the past two months:

June 20th absent

June 19th absent

June 13th absent

June 9th absent

June 6th absent

May 30th absent

May 29th absent

May 28th absent

May 27th absent

May 26th absent

House off for week

May 16th absent

May 12th absent

May 9th absent

May 8th absent

May 2nd absent

May 1st absent

Harper had an impressive 48% attendance record, maybe Buckler should learn the phrase "when you live in a glass house, don't throw stones". As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a Don Martin column a few weeks ago, wherein he suggested the PMO were purposely keeping Harper away from Parliament, to avoid all the questions of scandal and missteps.

Anyways, I'm sure the Conservatives can come up with better, sometimes their genius just takes a few days to ferment.

On a side note, Harper has apparently already begun the summer barbeque circuit:

Let's Dance

Clearly, the Liberals think they've hit on a winner, with the debate angle. Keeping up the pressure, Dion will write a letter to Harper, which will be available to all media outlets. Perfect:

Dion challenges PM to 'green' debate

OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion took on a rare aggressor's role Sunday with Stephen Harper, daring the Prime Minister to debate him over the Liberals new green plan.

The Liberal Leader made the challenge on CTV's Question Period Sunday, where he also characterized Mr. Harper as vulgar for suggesting the Liberal plan would “screw” taxpayers. “I would be very pleased to debate it at any time,” Mr. Dion said. “And let me tell you one thing ... I will always debate in a respectful way, in a meaningful way, because it's what Canadians deserve.”

Sources said that Mr. Dion intends to make his request official with a letter to the Prime Minister. It's the first effort of an aggressive sales pitch which began after the announcement last week.

Harper's people better develop a better talking point- is there a Canadian alive that still believes our question period is a place for serious debate?:

“If Mr. Dion wanted to have a debate with the Prime Minister he should have, for starters, shown up for Question Period during the last week that the House of Commons was sitting,” Sandra Buckler said.

Next.

So far so good.

Calling Out Harper

Who's playing chess now? The best defence is a good offence, and Dion has successfully turned the tables on Harper. I view calling for a television debate on climate change as a strategic stroke of brilliance. Dion basically calls Harper out, leaving a simple question- what are you afraid of?

Nobody can dispute the merits of an "adult" conversation, to allow Canadians the opportunity to make up their own minds. Whether you think Dion "crazy" or not, the onus is now on Harper to rise to the occasion, put his inflammatory remarks to the test. Harper has characterized the Liberal plan in such a dismissive way, he should relish the opportunity to pound Dion with his reckless plan. Anything less, and Dion has successfully marginalized Harper as nothing more than paper tiger, spewing nonsense, but cowardly resisting a serious discussion.

Dion seizes the initiative once again, he has laid out the terms and Harper is forced to react. I would suggest, if Harper ignores the proposal, that Dion use that at every turn, as proof that Harper is "not a leader". What does it say about Harper, that he would refuse to debate a man, which his supporters constantly argue, lacks a basic grasp of English? Afraid to debate Stephane Dion, on an issue which apparently "screws" us all, how can one not jump at the opportunity?

Let's hope all the surrogates take up this theme, and constantly put out the idea of a debate. This ensures that every interview with a Conservative asks the question, leaving Harper and company to scramble with weak excuses, or take up the challenge. Either way, that dynamic is a political win for the Liberals. As people try to sift through the conflicting messages, what better way than to have the two principles engage each other? Match the bravado with action Mr. Harper, or risk being so marginalized that you aren't taking seriously, yelling from the bleachers, but afraid to take to the pitch. I fail to see the downside for the Liberals here.

Fear Mongering (with poll)

I was thinking about all this bombastic, over the top, rhetoric coming from the Conservatives and their sympathizers, over the Liberal Green Shift. Trying to be predictive here, what else can we expect to hear in the coming days:



On a side note, I did a quick survey of our local grocery stores, and they do report a significant run on all canned goods and bottled water, as people prepare for the coming apocalypse. On that score, I hope to have my underground, steel reinforced shelter, completed by late Sunday. Fingers crossed.

Economist: Most Canadians "Better Off" Under Liberal Plan

Quite a contrast, to the "better store up on canned goods" mentality of the Conservative HOWLERS, spewing their bombastic nonsense everywhere. Don Drummond today, the economist previously hired by this government, because he is so "highly regarded". "Better off"? The horror:

Economist gives thumbs up to Dion's green plan

A prominent Canadian economist says Stephane Dion's "Green Shift" carbon tax plan is "a good start" that will leave the general Canadian taxpayer "better off."

"The idea itself is very sensible," Don Drummond, the chief economist at TD Bank, told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

Drummond said that "in most cases" the average Canadian will "be better off" because of income tax breaks and additional federal benefits included in the plan. He also noted that the Liberal plan also addresses a "bizarre situation" on energy taxes.

"We have a fairly stiff tax on gasoline. We have a lower level tax on aviation and diesel. But we have no tax of other pollutants from energy (such as coal). So, it levels the playing field," he said.

Put that in your hysteria pipe and smoke it.

Stephane Dion: The Canadian Obama?

There was one aspect of Dion's speech yesterday which has gone entirely unnoticed, but could prove relevant. Dion specifically made reference to a new kind of politics that bridges the "right vs left" disconnect. The idea of a coalition, a different approach to politics. Sound familiar?

A minor reference, in a major speech, but one the could be a factor moving forward. I'm not for a moment suggesting Dion has the innate tools to replicate the Obama phenomenon in Canada, he clearly doesn't. That said, I would advise the Liberal leader to cultivate this argument more, because tactically it's a winner. Let's keep one thing in mind, if we are going to have a fall election, which appears likely, it will occur just as the American race is heating up, it will, in many respects, compete with the "sexy" race down south. When you consider the dominant theme, that being "change", Obama preaching a new political paradigm, it isn't hard to see how that ideal could bleed into Canada. Obama is wildly popular in Canada, any politician who can indirectly attach themselves to his thrust could enhance their chances.

Which brings us back to Dion's comments yesterday, phrasing which wasn't an accident, although quite subtle at this point. Consider the landscape ahead, and I think it pretty shrewd to frame the debate in such a way that it could draw analogues to Obama, if not in personal attributes, but within the broad strokes. Dion's best chance in ultimately selling his plan, is if he offers it up as a departure from the cynical, tell me what I want to hear, tactical considerations. When Canada is bombarded, come the fall, with talk of change, talk of breaking the old right vs left divide, Dion would be well served to continue using similar language, it just might provide indirect validation, at the perfect moment.

"This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy" Harper

Crazy economists:

"Carbon taxes are not a bad way to go in addressing global warming," said Doug Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets.

"I think most economists would probably be generally favourable to them. It´s about as efficient a way as is out there."

----


"TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond analyzed the plan and said the carbon tax is good idea"

“Pollution must have a price tag. Currently it is too cheap to pollute, and too expensive not to.”

---

"If we're serious about reducing greenhouse gases, we have to have a carbon tax or its equivalent," Mark Jaccard said.

---

"If people are serious about changing behavior, to reduce the amount of carbon, you do have to increase the price of a lot things. The Liberal is quite straightforward. The reality, if we are going to do it, this is the type of change we need to be looking at"

Economist Bill Robson President CD Howe Institute

---

Letter sent to British Columbian government, arguing for carbon tax, signed by 70 economists:

"We are writing to urge you to include a revenue neutral carbon tax in your upcoming budget. Your government identified action on global warming as a critical policy goal. We believe that a carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to reach that goal."

Signed by:

Carbon Tax Letter Signatories

UBC Economics

Siwan Anderson, Paul Beaudry, Mathilde Bombardini, Gorkem Celik, Clive Chapple, Brian Copeland, Michael Devereux, Erwin Diewert, Catherine Douglas, Mauricio Drehlichman, Mukesh Eswaran, Patrick Francois, Giovanni Gallipoli, Robert Gateman, David Green, Yoram Halevy, Joseph Henrich, Viktoria Hnatkovska, Atsushi Inoue, Tsvetanka Karagyozova, Ashok Kotwal, Amartya Lahiri, Thomas Lemieux, Kevin Milligan, Hugh Neary, Donald Paterson, Michael Peters, Angela Redish, W. Craig Riddell, Shinichi Sakata, Henry Siu, Rashid Sumaila, William Troost, Okan Yilankaya

Sauder School of Business

Richard Barichello, Anthony Boardman, Keith Head, Thomas Hellman, Sanghoon Lee, Peter Nemetz, Thomas Ross, Ratna Shrestha, Veikko Theile, Ilan Vertinsky, Ralph Winter,

Faculty of Land and Food Systems

Richard Barichello, Katherine Baylis, Sumeet Gulati, James Vercammen,

SFU Economics

Steeve Mongrain, Gordon Myers, Krishna Pendakur, Arthur Robson, Nicolas Schmitt, Simon Woodcock,

Public Policy

Dominique Gross, Jonathan Kesselman, John Richards,

University of Victoria Economics

Merwan Engineer, Martin Farnham, Elisabeth Gugl, Malcolm Rutherford, Herbert Schuetz, Paul Schure, David Scoones, G. Cornelius van Kooten,

University of Northern British Columbia

Paul Bowles, Ajit Dayanandan, Fiona MacPhail

Canada is in serious trouble, if these "crazy" people are some of our most respected economists. And, what was John Baird thinking, when he hired Drummond and Jaccard (which he himself called "two of Canada's leading economists") to formulate his anti-Kyoto presentation to the Senate?

A simple question, since when do economists endorse a plan which will ruin our economy? If, as Mr. Harper argues, this policy is "crazy", why does it seem to have such widespread support? What are we to make of this headline, from "Oilweek" no less?:

"Economists give Liberal carbon plan guarded praise"

OTTAWA _ The Liberal party´s carbon plan received tepid endorsement Thursday from economists, who say the much-ballyhooed "green shift" won´t by itself solve the climate change conundrum _ but it also won´t leave the economy in tatters...

Crazy isn't it?

Dion "Shift Happens" Poll

Just for fun:

Center Stage

More comments on the details later, but I wanted to focus on Dion and his performance today. Passionate, measured, thoughtful, humorous, inspiring, driven, strong, clear and honorable.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I've been an uneven supporter of Dion, frankly I don't think he deserved better, if one is being fair. That said, I see today as somewhat of a new chapter, this is they type of resolve and vision that is infectious. This speech completely obliterates the "not a leader" characterization, simply because everything Dion said encompasses the adjectives of leadership.

You can agree or disagree with the concepts, but anyone with a hint of impartiality must acknowledge that this plan represents a fundamental revolution in approach and thinking. This plan isn't just about carbon, it's about re-inventing our society, a completely progressive relationship between man and the planet. Has an opposition leader ever released such a comprehensive plan, that has such an underlying philosophical underpinning?

I didn't vote Liberal in the last election, the environment my chief hesitation. I didn't vote Liberal in the election prior to that, the environment being my chief hesitation. In the next election I will put all the strength in my arm to mark a dark X for my Liberal candidate. I am behind Dion 100% on this plan, today he actually inspired me, he actually gave me chills, a state I never thought possible. We wanted policy, we have it in spades, we have a vision, a clear point of distinction.

Bravo Stephane, let the rabid dogs HOWL, you have exposed them for the frauds they are. Finally, an adult has entered center stage.

Why Dion May Be In Trouble

This comment, in reference to the G and M story on the Liberal plan:

" I'm not quite getting this math. A tax cut from 15% to 13.5% is equal to a 10% reduction. It looks like a 1.5% reduction to me. What am I missing? Can someone explain how this equals a 10% reduction? "

Forget about the tax cut component, I say we pour the "windfall" into Canada's education system.

Carbon Plan Details

CBC has released more details of the Liberals tax shift proposal. Most intriguing, the Liberals will offer the idea of a "carbon tariff" on imports:

No new taxes are expected on gas for cars, trucks and buses, and special help was to be offered for low-income Canadians to buffer the higher prices they will have to pay for goods and energy.

The new details confirmed by CBC News sources Wednesday include:

Across-the-board personal income tax cuts of around 10 per cent for all three tax brackets, as people pay more for heating costs, food and other items.

A moratorium on new federal taxes on aviation and diesel fuel for the first year of the program.

Extra help for low-income Canadians in the form of tax credits so that they will get money back to help pay for higher cost of goods, even if they report no income on their tax returns.

Additional help for rural and northern Canadians to help soften the blow of possibly higher costs.

Assistance for non-profit groups that may face a crunch — for example, women's shelters that have to pay significantly more to heat their premises.

New tariffs on goods imported from countries that have no carbon taxes, as a way to even out higher costs for similar goods produced in Canada.

Enriched tax breaks for companies using and inventing green technologies, to encourage research and development as well as investment.

I thought it might be premature to roll out the idea of a carbon tariff now, but it's an excellent counter to the economic apocalypse the Conservatives will predictably argue. That's how you "lead the world" Mr. Baird, you actually do something, which gives Canada the leverage to force others to comply. This idea effectively blunts the competitive disadvantage argument, while at the same time offers an incentive to get others on board. Anybody claiming that a carbon tax will move more jobs out of Canada, have lost a key talking point.

When Rubin of the CIBC first came out with carbon tariff plan, I emailed it too a few Liberals, hoping the party would consider the idea as part of the plan. In my opinion, the idea of a carbon tariff may be the most important element in lowering the world's emissions. Nice to see this Liberal plan has a sense of the big picture on global warming.

UPDATE:

A few more details:

According to party insiders, the shift would impose a tax of $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions in the first year, rising to $40 per tonne in the fourth year.

The tax, which would be applied at the wholesale level, is expected to generate up to $15 billion per year in revenue by the fourth year.

Among the tax measures, insiders say Dion's plan would reduce the tax rate for Canadians in the lowest tax bracket to 13.5 per cent from 15 per cent. That amounts to a 10 per cent tax reduction.

The tax rate for the two middle tax brackets would be cut by one percentage point, to 21 per cent and 25 per cent. That would amount to a tax reduction of five and four per cent respectively.

No reduction is proposed in the top tax rate for high-income earners.

Depends On How You Look At It

A new Ipsos poll of British Columbians, shows a sizeable majority disapproves of the carbon tax. But, that is only part of the story:

Ipsos Reid has found that 59 per cent of those polled are against the new tax (39 per cent support) -- set to begin July 1 with a 2.4-cent-per-litre increase in the price of gasoline -- with just under half of the respondents saying they oppose it "strongly."

Opposition to the tax is greatest in the Interior, followed by the Lower Mainland and then the rest of mainland B.C.

See, see, a carbon tax is political suicide. Well, not so fast. Seems to me, such widespread opposition should manifest itself where it counts, voting intention. Interesting then, that the Campbell government pays NO political price, in fact the gap between themselves and the anti-carbon NDP is higher than ever:

The poll shows the Liberals have the support of 47 per cent of decided voters, a number slightly above what they've held throughout the past year.

The NDP has 33-per-cent support, down three points from this time last year.

The seatless Green Party remained steady at 16-per-cent support, a level it has essentially held for the past year as well.

"I think the most important number is that at this point the vote hasn't changed one iota, despite the fact a lot of people knew this [the carbon tax] was coming," said Braid.

"It's been discussed since February and it hasn't had any impact whatsoever."

Obviously, "the most important number", actually, the only number that matters. Campbell's numbers "slightly better", the NDP down marginally, hardly supporting the political suicide argument of the naysayers. I think this disconnect speaks to the dual themes of hating taxes, but appreciating leadership. Nobody likes taxes, as acknowledged by the pollster:

"You shouldn't read too much into the opposition here," he said.

"You could insert any kind of tax and you'd probably see a 40/60 split, maybe even worse."

In other words, that's the kneejerk response, it's expected. What is relevant, if that disagreement shifts political opinion, clearly it hasn't and that's the bottomline. I'm sure the detractors will cite this poll to support their opinion, but in my view, they miss the point entirely. Last time I checked, the purest measure of opinion was vote intention. On that score, all factors considered, this should allay some fears as to the coming "suicide".

Remain Calm

I know everyone has a point of view, but some of the criticism directed towards the Liberals yet to be released plan is just over the top, bordering on absurd. I guess, in the end, it will come down to how serious a debate we have, in that sense reservations are entirely justified. The accurate reality, nobody really knows how this plan will fly with the public, there are conflicting signals, and in the end, a lot will depend on events not yet realized. Pre-judging at this point is really just handicapping.


If it's all cartoons, fear mongering and soundbites, the plan will be a disaster. If it's a serious debate, that actually engages people, then it's entirely feasible. The unknown, and the critical factor, we just don't know which path wins the day.

On the serious debate side, it's interesting to read some of the expert opinion, which offers a stark contrast from the superficial. I was reading these comments from Jock Finlayson, vice-president of policy for the Business Council of B.C, who also sits on the Bank of Canada board:

the Business Council of B.C., which had been lukewarm, said the tax will not be hard to bear.

"Households in the province should not be worse off economically," said Jock Finlayson, the council's executive vice-president of policy.

"In fact, I think a lot of them are going to be better off, marginally, with the carbon tax.

"I don't think that message has gotten out, and I say that as somebody who was not a huge proponent of even doing this."

Better off?

I searched for some other opinions from Finlayson, to see if he really wasn't a "proponent" of the carbon tax. The interesting part, it would seem Finlayson's earlier concerns revolved around the idea that a carbon tax disporportionately punished big industry. Don't tell the NDP:

"The concern we have is that although it's revenue-neutral to the government, it will have a fairly significant impact on some major trade-exposed industries," said Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of policy at the Business Council of B.C., which has led the industry protest efforts.


Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of policy at the Business Council of B.C.

These are industries that are involved in international business trading, exporting primarily, and they have very limited capacity to pass on higher input costs to their customers," Finlayson said.

The council has calculated that the carbon tax will cost those "trade-exposed" sectors more than $500 million a year once the tax reaches $30 a tonne.

As it is currently structured, 70 per cent of the tax will be paid by businesses, but only 30 per cent will be returned through corporate tax cuts; the rest will go to individuals in the form of personal tax cuts.

Well, isn't that just the argument of the other parties, that it's better to go after the big polluters, rather than target the consumer? Finlayson's criticism is that industry takes the hit under the carbon tax scheme, which is a strange departure from all the political rhetoric we hear. Finlayson also says the average person would be "better off", which again doesn't quite jive with the hysteria.

Again, the only real question, will informed opinion such as this be heard through all the NOISE.

Breaking: Elections Canada Impartial

Reading the Globe and Mail article on email exchanges within Elections Canada, it would seem the story confirms that EC takes any hint of bias seriously. Is it really a "story" that officials were concerned about a possible leak to reporters and Liberals? I would be concerned if they weren't concerned. Given the nonsensical diversions of the Conservatives, would you expect anything less?:

The documents also show that Mr. Mayrand said an internal review by the agency found no indication of a leak.

In the days after the high-profile raid in Ottawa, the Tories charged that Elections Canada had ignored similar electoral ad spending transgressions by the opposition, and told the media and Liberals about the raid to maximize political damage.

"With regard to this allegation of [a] leak do you have any suggestion as to how we could kill it?" Mr. Mayrand asked in an e-mail dated April 18.

"If we can dispel this story [the leak], we will have only positive media coverage," replied Ms. Vézina, the associate deputy chief electoral officer in charge of political financing. "And the alternative is that we appear to be partisan or biased or vindictive and at the moment the media seem to believe we tipped off the CBC and the Liberals."

"Our internal review indicates no reasonable ground to believe there was a leak," he wrote. "This may be pure diversion tactic/competitive frustration from a media outlet vis-a-vis another. The central fact is that media were there more than two hours after the operation started."

Ms. Vézina replied, "Ok. But however we do it we need to kill it as it seems to be the one negative aspect haunting us and damaging our reputation. Even the disclosure of the affidavit won't eliminate the doubt about the so-called leak."

EC conducted an "internal review" and found no evidence of a leak. Don't we want EC to make sure all conduct is above board, to eliminate any hint of partisanship? EC didn't scoff at the Conservative allegations, they looked into the matter, which is what should happen, if one is trying to be fair. Also noteworthy, the media and Liberals showed up a full two hours after the raid, an eternity when you consider how fast news travels.

I was reading some of the commentary to this story, and it's being spun as evidence of a cover up. I see it as vindication, obviously EC would want to "kill" any notion of a bias, after all the foundation of the institution is it's apolitical mandate. If the media is reporting a "tip off", fueled by the Conservatives predictable method of dealing with a crisis, then I have no qualms with EC monitoring coverage and trying to find evidence of a leak. And, I would suspect if any evidence was found, that person would have been reprimanded.

I'm sure this "revelation" will be manipulated, but it seems to me all we have here is a respected institution taking its impartiality very seriously, worried about even the hint of bias. Good.


UPDATE

The companion post

National Post's Ivison Endorses Liberal Plan

Okay, so I'm reading John Ivison's column in the National Post, frankly something I can only stomach occasionally. It's a quirky piece, because it spends a good portion hammering Dion's plan:

This is, of course, hogwash. The Liberals are going to propose that the Auditor-General's office confirm that all taxes raised are returned to consumers, but an audit would not take account of price increases introduced by companies hit elsewhere by the Liberal tax grab. For example, if you are Suncor, an integrated oil company that turns oil from the oilsands into crude before shipping it to its refineries to be converted into transportation fuel, and you suddenly find your costs have risen dramatically because of the carbon tax, how likely is it that you will resist the temptation to make your customers pay more at the pumps?

But:

To be fair, the Conservative cap and trade plan is equally deceptive.

Equally deceptive. Which means all the parties plans will cost you, so there goes that argument.

All things being equal, then:

A carbon tax would have the advantage over cap and trade of cost certainty, less price volatility and comparative administrative simplicity.

Ivison ends with scepticism that Canadians will buy in, once they learn that it will cost them with "their money". But, really what Ivison presents suggests the opposite. Following the logic, all the party plans will cost consumers, but a carbon tax has advantages which are attractive. That presents the voter will all four parties endorsing essentially two approaches, both of which bring cost through the economy, which means they have to accept "their money". Faced with that real scenario, as Ivison sees it, what is the best of the worst options? Welcome aboard John, although that probably wasn't you intent.

The New Pierre?

Has Pierre Poilievre been replaced? Normally, the last Member Statement, just prior to the beginning of Question Period, Pierre would stand and offer an attack on Dion and the Liberals. This tactic has gone on for quite some time, Pierre the attack dog, trying to throw off the Liberals before their questions.

Today, no Pierre, instead Harper went literally to the backbench (he can touch the curtains) and brought out rookie MP Dean Del Mastro from Peterborough to do the requisite Liberal bash prior to QP. I must say, pretty effective too, Del Mastro read off his paper so intently, it looked like it hurt.

The bigger question, has Pierre been turfed as primary attack dog? I suppose, it could be something as understandable as still having the cone on his head from being neutered last week, but still....