The article also explicitly states that this will not apply to gas prices (and will be offset etc.). I don't really think its that hard a position to explain, so I don't think the Conservative fear campaign will work.
Warren, about your third bullet: any real solution to the climate change problem involves higher prices. Dion's proposal is GOOD POLICY, period. On average, people do not pay more taxes, but relative prices change so as to create a disincentive to pollute. Sorry, but there is no magical way to change people's behavior in order to meet Kyoto-style targets -- any real solution implies higher, and potentially much higher, gasoline prices.
So, what is more important...policy that is good for the country, or policy that is good for the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, when the two have clashed in the past, the interests of the Party prevailed (Remember the Party's hysterical opposition to the GST and NAFTA?. Mulroney may have many faults, but he was always willing to go ahead with good policy that was not necessarily popular. I certainly hope that Dion will not fall into the trap of shelving what is an essential measure to control emissions -- and most likely the only effective one -- for the sake of electoral politics. If the party rejects this, they cannot be taken seriously on environmental issues.
If I owned an independant coffee shop in the same area I would immediately hire this woman. The PR alone would be huge.
Tim's seems to be losing its "Canadian" brand similar to the way Labatt's and Molson's did.
----
Yes just what we need ,higher gas prices. I would ask Dion what price gas should be to make this work...$1.00, $1.35...$1.60...$2.00?
Canadians, the Conservatives will argue already received billions in tax cuts.
It is clear that Canada is the whipping boy for Kyoto. The world demands our energy and other natural resources, most of which produces a great deal of GHG's. But while they use these resources they insist that we be held responsible for the emissions.
Canada was very reluctant to sign the Kyoto accord and did so without negotiating a reasonable deal.
It was signed by the Chretien gov't primarily for political purposes knowing full well that we could not reach our targets or for that matter knowing that most other nations would fail as well.
Trying to reaffirm our commitment to Kyoto in the next election campaign is foolish. Even if it is good politics,which I don't think it is,it is dishonest.
The biggest polluter in Canada as Jack Layton suggests isn't the "oil patch", it is Toronto. People are responsible for GHG emissions.
----
Re: the OHR tribunal.
It seems to me the decision to only fund Catholic schools in Ontario is discriminatory. Others no doubt agree, yet I have never heard this being adressed by this body.Can anyone enlighten me as to why this is?
just wondering..
Interesting that they canned a person for giving away a timbit to a baby yet the Timmies in Kingston regularly give away timbits to people with dogs in their cars. True.
Funding only catholic schools would otherwise be discriminatory, but it is done pursuant to the constitution. The Charter of Rights only overrides legislation and actions by the provincial or federal gov't.
Not even close to being ready to let go of the Mark Steyn-Warren Kinsella Rumble For The Jungle Debate...
It's too important a possibility. I listened, this morning, to His Steyness interviewed on the Brekenridge (sic) show. I was almost shocked at his response when the host informed him you were willing to debate him...
Steyn, without any question, prides himself on his command of the English language. He has a kind of discipline when delivering an insult. His gig, as a matter of fact, is to insult and make is sound VERY la.
But the very mention of your name reduced him to a pissed of seven year old. He basically said you are a dirty bum and he sees no point in spending one more moment in your company.
He's SCARED Warren! Not sure, exactly, what the basis for the fear, but damn sure he is scared. So do not let him off the hook. Keep calling him out, because, in fact, if this guy is going to sit in a television studio, baiting university students, for God's sake, demanding that they come out and face him, but duck the challenge of facing an adult, then he's nothing more fancy than chicken.
I refer you to Envirowonk on the price of gas (and it's effect on GHG):
http://envirowonk.com/content/vi...ent/view/124/1/
450 million gallons (admittedly the puny AMERICAN gallon, not our mighty former IMPERIAL gallon) less fuel consumed - the result of higher prices. Alas, as the Canadian consumer has no desire to change, they must be tricked into adopting a new life style. I know of one family living in Barrie, both working in Toronto who are spending $1000 a month on gas. Time to move?
We have still not reached the cost in constant dollars of gas during the OPEC embargo in the late 70's btw.
Hope you caught Mark S. on The Hour last night. He is his own worst enemy when it comes to public forums.
Ms. Lilliman has been rehired at Tim Horton's:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releas...html?
view=print
It's not necessarily true that a gas tax will increase prices, either. Basic commodity supply/demand theory says that, in presence of price-inelastic supply (which is what we have right now, which is why oil is double the price of last year), the incidence of a tax on a commodity falls mostly on the producer; see e.g. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...as-tax-follies/
In fact, this somewhat undermines the case for a carbon tax applied to gas, since it may not create any substantial disincentive -- but as a poster says above, incentive realignment is exactly what we need to save the planet.
(And indeed, it even more severely undermines the case for removing the American federal gas tax; if supply is fixed, and the current price reflects supply/demand equilibrium, removing the tax will drive the price right back up to where it is, giving more profits to big oil -- just what Americans are clamouring for!)
Tim Hortons... gotta love them.
They rehired her in the shortest press release I have ever seen.
DS
"Paying a lot for gas? We want you to pay more!"
Warren didn't you praise Obama for refusing to give in to the idea of giving a gas tax holiday in U.S.? Obama was saying people should pay more gas than Hillary was and you supported that. I agreed with Obama too on that issue, so would you oppose this Liberal initiative?
Not to mention this policy clearly states it doesn't affect prices at the pump: "Sources say that the plan would not add more taxes to gasoline."
People won't pay more out of their pockets overall (because of the large income tax cuts that go with it), economists widely approve, and it's the kind of strategy we need to be seriously combatting global warming.
The Conservatives have taken Canada's reputation down the tubes on this issue (Bali being one of our biggest embarassments on the world stage in decades). If Liberals show Canadians (and once in Government the world) that we are willing to be bold and take on the policies needed to actually make a real dent in our emmissions, then we can be seen as a leader rather than a laggard on the environment.
Early days says this policy has more support than you think anyways: http://www.thestar.com/News/Cana.../article/
422643
You've been right on some issues in the past Warren, but this time I think you've got it wrong.
GettingCanadians used to the idea that high gas prices are here to stay may be terrible politics but it's good policy. We are paying more for gsas from here on in. Our politicians should help us get used to that rather than engage in the demagoguery of insisting that it's all somebody's fault.
My guess is that if Dion runs on the carbon tax and loses, Harper will turn around and implement it in his next term anyway -- cf. Trudeau and wage controls in 1974.
I certainly don't agree with it, but I think it should be credited as gutsy for Dion to be coming out with a bold policy idea like this.
Of course, the margin between gutsy and stupid is a thin one, indeed ..
If Tim Horton's were unionized this never would have happened. Very few people who are wrongfully dismissed can hope to have their stories picked up by the national media.
Mike T.-Thanks for the response.
This is a rather poor excuse.In an example if our constitution did not permit women to vote the HRC would not here the case. If this is true, who could possibly support such a body.
Either the HRC gets to here these cases or the Constitution should be amended. The status quo is cowardly.
My 2 cents..
>> If Tim Horton's were unionized this never would have happened. Very few people who are wrongfully dismissed can hope to have their stories picked up by the national media.
If Tim Horton's were unionized no one would ever have to worry about losing their job ever, no matter what. Very few people who should be justifiably dismissed can expect the company to fire them because it just ain't worth it in the end.
And we'd be paying Starbucks prices for Tim Horton's coffee.
I don't get it? If a carbon tax is revenue neutral and a clear majority of Canadians support it (apparently there's something called Global Warming threatening an awful lot of the things we care about) why isn't it a good idea?
Politicians and pundits need to develop a longer attention span, and more holistic perspective when it comes to looking at how policy can actually work for the country, as opposed to working for short-term electoral prospects.
"If Tim Horton's were unionized... we'd be paying Starbucks prices for Tim Horton's coffee."
Not true. Tim Horton's is a very profitable corporation, I'm sure there's enough profit to share. But yeah, I guess we should screw the workers to ensure that Timbits stay at 16 cents a pop and workers get fired for giving them to babies. Good to see you have your priorities straight.
My doggie's morning ritual every Sunday is to hop in the car with Master J.B. and off to Timmies we go for a medium coffee for Master J.B. and 2 free Timbits for doggie. Gee, I certainly hope no one gets "double fired".
The gun registry was also supposed to be revenue neutral.
No debate about its purpose, just consternation about the way it was sold.
How will it be different this time?
I don't think Dion knows the lyrics to 'Stand and Deliver' any better than Allan Rock did.
If it really is revenue neutral then where is the disincentive to consumption?
Regardless of the price of gasoline, it will always be cheaper to take my wife and two kids in our four cylinder Hyundai on the thousand mile round trip to my hometown than it is to get the four of us on a bus, a train or a plane. And we don't have to rent a car to get around when we get there, either.
Revenue neutrality, if true, will only make us more prone to consider taking that trip at tax time instead of Christmas time.
I conclude therefore that Dion wants to keep me from seeing my mother at Christmas.
That's a winning strategy!
Oh, by the way, the Walking with Dinosaurs show is coming to Saskatoon in three weeks. I wonder if I'll see Stockwell Day there.
If ever there was a walking 'own goal'...
There is a Timmies that's unionized.
Commenting by HaloScan
