So you would have been happy with an election a few months after parliament began in 2006--all because Harper didn't form a legislative coalition and made every motion a confidence motion? I'm sorry, but you and I have differing POV on parliamentary democracy. If we didn't have 154 members voting in favour of a motion, the majority of the population do not support the motion.
I have no problem with elections. That's the exercise of democracy. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why Canadians always complain about going to the polls. If there is parliamentary gridlock, then we should go to the polls and give a drubbing to those responsible....I am sure many would have been happy to penalize the Conservatives at the polls for that behaviour.
In your view, parliament should only operate in a majority either by a single party or coalition. You simply disagree with minority governments. That's not how parliamentary democracies work. We don't mandate that ruling parties must be able to attain 50% of the houses support. We ask that they pass bills with a simple majority. And I note that in this case, the Liberals had no obligation to support the government, not being part of any coalition. They did it for their selfish reasons....not ready to go to the polls. How is that acting in the best interest of democracy?
No, I'm not. See Glen and CDL's posts. I would add that what you describe is how the PST works, which is why it is bad for the economy (especially for industries with long value chains).
The GST shifts the tax burden from domestic producers, to foreign producers. Yes domestic producers are affect by GST, but every dollar of GST paid on foreign goods is a dollar in corporate income tax not paid for domestic producers (if the tax on business sector is zero sum).
I understand how the GST works, with it taxing only the value added at each stage. But I still fail to see how tax burden is shifted to foreign producers who are taxed at the end of their product cycle, when our domestic business incur the GST at every step of the way. Arguing that GST offsets corporate taxes is a rather specious argument. It doesn't work where our imports are coming from countries with significantly lower costs. In this case, the GST works against the domestic producer because the tax on a higher retail cost is still higher. This is particularly so, when these are goods coming from jurisdictions with whom we have free trade. The only way to keep foreign goods out is by imposing trade barriers which are now increasingly illegal under the various agreements we commit to. Indeed, applying carbon taxes on imports would be difficult to do and possibly illegal under our WTO agreements.
You're exactly right, and that includes predictions that the price will remain the same. What firms do is develop robust plans: no matter what direction energy prices go, they have recourse (through retrofits, subsequent equipment purchases, etc.) that reduce costs under each scenario.
I'm presently working for a firm that is spending hundreds of millions on assets that are sensitive to the price of energy.
Then you surely know that there is hardly a company that spends millions only to turn around and recapitalize in 4 years. Even fast movers like the IT industry, don't replace all their stuff on a 4 year cycle. I am not knocking the fact that taxing energy is a good idea. But the time frame could endanger a number of our industries that are energy intensive. Indeed, today's Toronto Star has mentioned in its opinion of the Green Shift, that transit companies will be in trouble from higher diesel costs. I doubt anybody here wants that.
There are little things airlines can do to increase fuel economy. $17 a barrel will not bankrupt airlines. The cost will be passed down to consumers, and the airlines that are most efficient at reducing their fuel consumption and otherwise serving customers will be more competitive.
Have you followed the list of airlines that are in trouble or going bust around the world? There is no airline in the world that can handle $140 barrel oil. Air Canada has one of the most efficient fleets in the world, and its struggling. There is a point, beyond where this won't be passed down to consumers, it'll just result in businesses (in this case airlines) just migrating to jurisdictions without carbon taxes (china, india, south america, etc) or shutting down.
IT is quite energy intensive, and the industry has worked on it quite extensively. Intel has put substantial resources into developing processors and architectures that require substantially less energy, and thus throw off less heat, saving even more in cooling. Also, nothing requires that server farms use coal-based power. If wind, solar, etc. is cheaper, so be it.
First off Thermal Design Profiles, while having improved, have not appreciated at the rate at which Mr. Dion assumes we will accomplish the Green Shift. I would love to see how he plans to migrate us to a less energy intensive service economy, while attacking the capital base of sectors like IT.
As for wind and solar....I'd agree with you, that we need to emphasize these more, along with nuclear. But there are still many challenges, for example, I would argue though that wind is unsuitable for significant power generation, due to its impact on grid stability and its habit of counter-cyclical generation.
I think they chose a time frame that is roughly a government mandate, which is not unusual for this country. I haven't heard them mention meeting Kyoto deadlines, but this certainly won't help us meet them any time soon. This is gradually adding a brake to our CO2 emissions.
No, they definitely chose a time frame that was Kyoto focused. It'll be part of their election strategy to trumpet how the Green Shift will help us meet our Kyoto commitments....wait for it. I'd be less opposed to it, if they weren't using artificial deadlines. They didn't do anything with a decade in power, but now they are willing to sacrifice industry at the altar of Kyoto. To me that's less a plan, than an election sop. But once they release the whole deal, we'll be able to better judge it.....
Resources form a very small % of our GDP, especially once you exclude oil and gas, since this industry will hardly skip a beat under a carbon tax. I did check where I live. Where I live, finance, auto manufacturing, food processing, IT, retailing, etc. are all much larger industries than pulp and paper.
Pulp and paper is very low value added. We rape our forests so other countries can publish books. The industry is a sacred cow because it is what keeps a bunch of almost-ghost towns alive in Northern BC, Quebec and BC.
What you are proposing is a recipe for serious division in our country. Yes, our economy is increasingly services based, however, I don't think its very Canadian to sacrifice rural towns and industries just to achieve some foreign imposed targets. That right there is exactly why the ROC hates Toronto. And I doubt that heartland could survive without the hinterland. For example, given the enormous impact of the resource sector on our stock exchanges, what do you think would happen if we taxed these sectors out of existence? Those service sector jobs at some level, do depend on a miner and a factory work somewhere in this country. They may not be a significant sector of our national economy but they comprise the entire economy for many areas of this country. Sacrificing these industries would mean sacrificing entire parts of our country.
The green shift isn't benign, and it won't shift the entire corporate tax base. It will hurt some industries (coal power generation, steel, cement, and pulp and paper) and help others (you know, the ones that form the basis of our economy).
And where do you suppose, we would get coal, steel, cement and paper? Outsourcing our environmental challenges is not an effective solution. That's an out of sight, out of mind approach. Usually that means, shipping them off to China. Entire pulp and paper mills have already been shipped whole to Asia. Has that helped the Canadian towns where these industries operated? How does that help meet our goal of combating climate change when they operate in jurisdictions with fewer restrictions and then ship their products half way around the world to our retail stores.
Frankly, there are very few industries that would be ruined by such an increase in energy cost, and if they will, they will be ruined anyway given the increasing scarcity of oil. If they bought their equipment in 2003 when oil was $30 or $40 a barrel assuming prices would remain the same, they are already screwed and deserve to go out of business for their terrible management.
You know as well as I do, that businesses don't pull energy price forecast out of thin air. Find me any credible economist in 2003 who predicted 140 bucks a barrel in 2008. What's more if oil prices are that high, then why do we need the Green Shift? The market is already doing more, than Kyoto, the Green Shift, carbon credits, etc. could ever do.
I'll wait until they officially release their platform, but I think the idea was the levy duties on goods from countries without carbon tax or cap/trade schemes using some assumptions about how much carbon was used in their manufacture
...
I'll agree with you about Kyoto. I've never though it was perfect.
This is key. I will not vote for any platform that ships high paying industrial jobs to a third world jurisdiction that is does not apply high standards for labour, the environment, etc. I have yet to hear an answer from all those rabid Kyoto supporters on how they plan to prevent (or mitigate) the migration of first world industries to China et al. Indeed, it is exactly this migration that has resulted in China building one new dirty coal power plant a week. I am sure that's somehow really good for climate change.....
I have my doubts that the timeline is too quick. I'd ask industry what they have to say, but I have a feeling that they can deal with it quite readily.
Assuming they can deal with it is not the sound basis for forming a national industrial policy. The Liberals have my vote, the moment they say they consulted and mediated with industry on this plan.....but I see no mention of that anywhere.
It isn't a substantial change in oil price we're talking about. If they can't deal with a 3.8% annualized increase in energy costs, I'll try to make sure I don't own any stock....
3.8% is well above inflation. Given the significant price rise of many other resources, such an increase in annual energy costs, could well be the straw that broke the camel's back. Find me a sector that can handle 3.8% annual price increases on just one of their inputs. And this being energy, means that some businesses will have their other energy intensive inputs see similar rates of inflation. What's more, many of these costs will be passed on to consumers. I wonder if the government is ready to commit to a 3.8% income tax cut every year, so our standard of living is not severely impacted.
A carbon tax is all about implementation. It would have to more than revenue neutral to prevent damaging the economy. We would have to provide industry significant tax breaks to compensate for the lag in the capital cycle and provide them various other incentives, so that they don't just pack up and leave. Dion is on shaky ground here. He is already facing the wrath of rural voters and has had to backtrack and offer more incentives. I am not confident that he will have anything better, but let's see what turns up.....
