Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Blog Central, Inkless Wells

The stars align

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:32am - 0 Comments

I have to say, I’m liking Stéphane Dion’s Permanent Tax on Everything™ more with every passing day. The advance reviews are so awful, it has to be good. Remember when Jean Chrétien and Stéphane Dion introduced the Clarity Act in 1999? No, no, you probably don’t. Well, it produced a poo storm of majestic proportions, is what it did, with the press gallery and the super-genius Liberal caucus (Official motto: “If Only We Had Paul Martin Leading Us”) leading the lamentations and grinding of teeth.

“Let sleeping dogs lie,” they said. The very same people who had said discussion of secession rules was a bad idea when separatists were doing well in the polls now argued that discussion of secession rules was a horrible idea because separatists were doing badly in the polls. “Right policy, wrong time,” they said. What they certainly never said was “36 seats in Quebec,” and yet that’s what the Liberals got, including a four-point advantage over the Bloc in the popular vote, after a federal election campaign in which the sovereignist brain trust invoked Chrétien’s supposedly hated name so frequently it sounded like some form of Tourette’s.

Now here’s Stéphane Dion with his Green Shift Permanent Tax on Everything™. The super-genius caucus hates it; the Globe’s chief political strategist wants sleeping dogs let lie; the Tory brain-in-a-jar election team thinks it’s idiotic. None of this is a guarantee of success, but Wells’s Second Law holds that an Ottawa consensus is an awfully tempting thing to bet against.

Tags: Stéphane Dion's Permanent Tax On Everything

More by Paul Wells

22mpg

Keep in mind that right now BC has a Carbon Tax law, but no carbon tax – that doesn’t kick in until 01 July. The true political impact won’t be felt then either, because Gordo has launched his “I believe Al Gore is Correct Tax” by giving all taxpayers a $100 Eco-Bribe of sugar to help the medicine go down.

$100 bucks is about a tank of gas & a Grande no fat with swirls for us good folks in BC. The anger felt now will really rise up after the Eco-bribe tankful is gone and the latte has been digested. I know people who despise the NDP but will give them their vote unless Gordo backs down.

Another really cold winter like we just had and our Spring election will be a very different affair for Gordo. His conversion on the road to Kyoto will likely be a few years late and 2.4 cents/litre short.

People here are doing the slow roast on this one.
Paul Wells

So they’re going to vote NDP to protest against a tax. Because there’s no defying the common sense of the common people.
Ted

Funny how $100 is now insignificant, 22mpg.

Back in the 2006 election, when it was a $100 (before tax) baby bonus, $100 was apparently arrogant to think that this did not matter to parents.

Back in the 2006 election, when it was a GST cut (instead of an income tax cut, and a GST cut that would help cause inflation to quickly eclipse the cut), $100 was better in your and my pocket now than the government’s.

Back in the 2006 election…

… oh, you get the point.
Fiumara

The Clarity Act was a brainstorm for Chretien because it’s similar to a bill introduced during the 2nd Session, 35th Parliament, 1996-97, by Harper who introduced Bill C341, which went to first reading and then was squashed by the Liberal majority government of the little shyster from Shawinigan.

It’s also based on the Supreme Court ruling that identified the points covered by the law (clear question, defined majority and consent of the provinces). It was also the same court hearing that the Liberals tried to avoid but were forced into participating in because of the the lawyer from Quebec – Guy Bertrand – who filed a private suit against the Quebec government asking that future referendums like that of 1995 be prevented.

Otherwise, we would still be debating separatism thanks to the Liberals.
billg

Um…here’s a strange thought..why not take the next 20 years and get our GHG emissions under control? Does that seem too simple? Mr Moffatt..Canada has no control over the worlds GHG emissions. If you were to be honest you would agree with that. Canadians could all live in tents and eat grass for the next 20 years and the worlds GHG emissions would still rise, so, why not take the money that is going to be pissed away with GHG Trading and Mr Dion’s carbon tax and work towards the next 20 years? Again…why does no one in the MSM ask Ms May or Mr Dion that simple question? Mr Wells??????
tc

so winners and losers?

winners: urban canadians with access to public transit, who work in offices, and who are more likely to vote liberal.

losers: rural and suburban canadians with less or no access to public transit, who are more often in trades or commodity based industries, and who are more likely to vote conservative.

i think this is what an earlier commenter meant by a plan to syphon money into the hands of liberal friends. but they didn’t mean Liberals, they meant liberals.
Scott M.

why not take the money that is going to be pissed away with GHG Trading and Mr Dion’s carbon tax

What money do you suppose is going to be pissed away with the carbon tax? The cost of a hundred jobs or so in CRA to administrate the tax? Or are you suggesting they’ll make a mistake and have the income tax reductions be greater than the carbon tax revenues?

As far as GHG trading is concerned, that’s money that stays in the hands of business (handed from one business to another). Are you suggesting the government instead tax the first business and take the money away from them (giving no benefit to the second business) and “work towards the next 20 years” with it?

Where is the money being “pissed away” with a revenue neutral tax? Are you simply bemoaning the fact that CRA will need a few more people to run the tax? Did you also bemoan the increase in CRA staff when the Child Care Credit went into effect? How about when the tax law changed on Transit Passes? Income Trusts? I can assure you, all these things result in hirings at CRA.
JB

Paul Wells said “In fact, I’m fairly sure that if you read the fine print of Dion’s plan, seniors like the one in John G’s plan are to be rounded up and executed. Systematically, and in the cruellest possible manner.”

Paul .. come on. This is a Liberal plan, not Conservative. Look for the kinder-gentler “Euthanasia Plan” to take care of this side of the ledger to be rolled out at the same time. And don’t even get me started about the cost side of that equation.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

“Mr Moffatt..Canada has no control over the worlds GHG emissions. If you were to be honest you would agree with that.”

Way to miss the point. I wasn’t even arguing that Canada *should* decrease their GHG emissions. (I do think they should, but I wasn’t arguing that.

My point was this:

Tories have, historically, been proponents of Canada doing more than their fair share or “punching above their weight” as John puts it. Whether it be World War I (my example) or The War on Terror (Paul Wells), it’s something Canadian Tories have prided themselves on.

But when it comes to GHGs, the argument has now become that because we are so small our contributions will inherently be meaningless.

You can argue that some goals are more worthy than others. You can argue that some goals are more achievable than others. But this “we’re so small” line of reasoning argument, I would suggest, is historically speaking a very un-Tory position to take.
Scott M.

i think this is what an earlier commenter meant by a plan to syphon money into the hands of liberal friends. but they didn’t mean Liberals, they meant liberals.

Ah. By liberal they meant urban. Well, you may actually have a point there. The government will have to do a balancing act… they want to discourage suburban sprawl and encourage density (transit, etc) but they don’t want to affect farmers and other non-commuting rural people.

It’ll be interesting to see how they strike that balance.
Wayne

Scott: you have touched upon my favorite subject of late and that is the widening gap between urban and rural voters = there are going to be alot of political surprises in this are especially with the the advance of the Conservatives with the rural vote.
tc

urban vs rural has as much potential to break the counrty along the sask/manitoba border as english vs french along the ottawa river ever did. add to that the fact that rural candians will feel like they are being poached to pay for urban canada’s fixation on climate change, then add to that the big tax breaks urban canadians could recieve while the rural people pay more. this is an extremely divisive policy.
tc

obviously i am exagerating a bit about breaking the country, but it will take the rural/urban divide and cleave it wide open.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

TC wrote:

“…so winners and losers?

winners: urban canadians with access to public transit, who work in offices, and who are more likely to vote liberal.

losers: rural and suburban canadians with less or no access to public transit, who are more often in trades or commodity based industries, and who are more likely to vote conservative.”

Well, this might be a real problem with the plan (concieved in the broader sense, beyond the CT bit). For example, LC mortgages are a good idea if you are near public transit, they mean doodly otherwise. Hopefully, there are incentives in the plan that will appeal to people who don’t already vote Liberal.

(Mind you, show me a single Tory initiative that appeals to anyone outside of Alberta. But the point is to expand your vote, not make people who already vote for you wish they could vote twice).
john g

My apologies in mixing up the World Wars Mike Moffat but everything I wrote about WWII applies equally to Canada in WWI.

My problem is not just with the goal, though I do have a big problem with that as well. But forget that. Even if I were to have an epiphany that climate change is something real that must be defeated, our contribution is maxed out at 0.5%.

And when you consider the fact that emitters of almost 50% of the worlds GHGs are given a free pass by the environmentalists…well, continuing with the war analogy, Canada’s contribution to WWI / WWII (and the War on Terror for you Paul) would have been for nothing if the USA and Britain were sitting on the sidelines.
22mpg

“comment by Paul Wells on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm:

So they’re going to vote NDP to protest against a tax. Because there’s no defying the common sense of the common people.”

Yes ! Politics is irrational and the price of gas seems to be an especially sensitive point of irrationality.

People here are pissed and they want to lash out. As my buddy says, “how much damage can an NDP government do in one term”

Be careful what you ask for, yes, but BC politics is known for it’s wild & whacky ways.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

“And when you consider the fact that emitters of almost 50% of the worlds GHGs are given a free pass by the environmentalists…well, continuing with the war analogy, Canada’s contribution to WWI / WWII (and the War on Terror for you Paul) would have been for nothing if the USA and Britain were sitting on the sidelines.”

..of course, that’s why we waited in World War I for the Americans to come on board before we jumped in..
john g

Well, your knowledge of history exceeds mine, but that was a different time, and again, at least we knew that what we were fighting was a valid, real threat to our way of life. You simply can’t say the same for climate change.

And even if you could…there are 2 types of countries in this debate.

1) Those who are rich
2) Those who emit a lot of GHGs

Which one of those two have the best ability to address the problem of GHG emission? And which ones are we currently asking to carry the load?

Once category #2 shows signs that it is willing to step up, I might be more sympathetic to the cause. But until then…I’m not foolish enough to believe that Canada can shame India, China and the USA into compliance.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

Pardon me. An “LC” mortgage should be an “LS” mortgage, meaning “location sensitive”, meaning you get a break on your mortgage if you can commit to a certain level of miles travelled by public transit and etc.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

I don’t think it’s clear at all that climate change is much less of a threat to the “Canadian Way of Life” than Queen Victoria’s grandson Kaiser Wilhelm II was. But that’s neither here nor there.

You seem to be missing the entire point, though. Historically Tory politicians, such as Robert Borden, didn’t worry that their contributions would be small. They didn’t worry that other countries might not step up to the plate.

Your position, whatever merits it may or may not have, is historically a very un-Tory one. That is all I am trying to say.
sandra

News flash!!!! Our local city council has just figured out how much they will have to pay for the new BC Carbon Tax and it is $500000. That is just for municipal resources for Kamloops which is 80000 people. Can you imagine what it will cost for every municipality in BC.

Now multiply that by what Dion is proposing and you can see where this is going. Cheers.
http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

Wow Sandra, that’s a whole $6.25 for every person. Will the town close, tumbleweeds in the streets?
john g

Fair enough Mike.

But I’m not convinced that the Tories see climate change as a real problem, regardless of the lip service they pay to it. If they did, I think they would show more leadership on the issue, regardless of the non-participation of the big emitters. They don’t, and are using India, China, Russia, and the USA as an excuse not to do more.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Stephane Dion’s popularity problems in Quebec due in large part to his association with the Clarity Act?

Furthermore, a vote for the Bloc back then would in no way reverse that bill. A vote against the Liberals this time around will kill the carbon tax plan before it’s started, no?

I’m interested to see how Canadians respond to Dion’s plan. But, in so many ways, it is very politically risky, and on so many levels.
madeyoulook

So, human CO2 production is so terrible, we’re literally drowning in our melting icebergs, that we’d better DO SOMETHING to stop all that evil CO2 production. But, shh, no way would we dream of raising the price of gasoline with a carbon tax, no way, let’s just pretend that there is no carbon in gasoline, or, or, or, maybe we can ask Canadians nicely to just burn less gas in their vehicles. We’ll grab that pound of flesh on the home heating bill instead.
If they truly believe CO2 is the problem, then they should have the intellectual consistency and moral honesty to proclaim that gasoline should be taxed to the hilt, as well. If not, then please somebody explain to me what the point of all this is.
IF CO2 is turning Mother Earth into a giant EasyBake oven (funny, they tell me Mars is heating up, too, and I thought all them intelligent-life Martians would be driving Priuses by now — I wonder what major heat source our planet has in common. Hmmm, that’s a toughy, maybe tomorrow at daybreak a clue will rise up and help me out…), and IF we could turn down our CO2 output for some ill-defined greater good, then we should turn down ALL CO2 output. To paraphrase le-petit-gars-de-Shawinigan, a carbon-is-a-carbon, and when you have a carbon, it’s because the carbon is there.
So far, Dion had so much promise after the leadership contest, but he has convinced me he is unfit to govern. Will await this grand plan for revelations or confirmations, but I confess it had better be something amazing to make me even CONSIDER voting for the cash-filled-envelope-across-the-restaurant-table party.
Good luck with the sales pitch, Stephane, we’ll be watching.