News

"The Green Party is calling for carbon taxes that would increase gasoline prices by at least 12 cents per litre as a way to help avert what it calls global environmental mayhem," The Canadian Press reported Tuesday in its story May calls for carbon tax

"We need carbon taxes," Green Party Leader Elizabeth May proclaimed as she introduced her party's new climate change plan, entitled A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe [PDF].

"Right now, the Green Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party prepared to state this obvious reality," she told a news conference Tuesday in Ottawa.

Ms. May urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to adopt her party's proposals, and criticized the Conservative government's climate-change plan as a model for planetary disaster.

"Please steal these ideas," Ms. May urged Mr. Harper.

"This is no time to align ourselves with the laggards of the world," she said, referring to the environmental policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Mr. Harper was in Germany, where climate change is expected to be a divisive issue at a meeting of G8 leaders.

So what do you think? Is Ms. May right? Or do you prefer the Tory "green plan?" Or the Liberal or NDP approach?

We are pleased that Ms. May was online earlier today on The Hill_Live, our weekly federal political discussion from Ottawa.

Your questions and Ms. May's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Ms. May is an environmentalist, writer, activist, lawyer, and leader of the Green Party of Canada, who became active in the environmental movement in the 1970s.

She is a graduate of the Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario.

She was senior policy adviser to the federal minister of the environment from 1986 until 1988.

Ms. May became executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada in 1989, a position she held until March 2006, when she stepped down to run for leadership of the Green Party of Canada.

Ms. May is the author of five books, including her most recent How to Save the World in Your Spare Time, a manual for activists.

She holds two honourary doctorates, and the Elizabeth May Chair in Women's Health and the Environment at Dalhousie University was created in her honour.

She has served on the boards of numerous organizations, including the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on Environment and Economy and is currently is a member of the Earth Charter International Council.

Ms. May became an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2005.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Ms. May, to The Hill_Live, our weekly discussion program on federal politics. We have a huge volume of questions for you today from our readers.

Let's start, though, by looking at the big picture. Regardless of the environmental and economic merits of the carbon tax you proposed yesterday, do you think there is any realistic political chance that this will be accepted by the other federal political parties? Or were you mostly drawing a line in the sand to coincide with the G8 summit?

Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada: Hi, Jim, thanks for inviting me to the online forum.

The Green Party sees its role as advancing the right solutions — even if they are not immediately politically popular.

When all the other parties pander toward what they believe Canadians want, it's no wonder that so many citizens demand leadership. Leadership is taking stands and advancing solutions that really make sense, before they become "flavour of the month."

So, do we believe a policy of tax-shifting — reducing income taxes and reducing payroll taxes while putting a charge on carbon — will be accepted by other political parties in Canada?

"YES!"

But only because we trust in the wisdom of Canadians to look at the whole picture, accept that tax-shifting is not the same as tax increases and move public opinion in support of green tax-shifting.

Once the other parties see the public is ready for solutions that make sense, they'll move to catch up with public opinion.

We also did want to "draw a line in the sand" around the G8, but that is not why we announced our detailed climate plan yesterday.

It is why we focused on the danger of the Harper government aiding and abetting the Bush Administration in driving countries away from the only functioning multilateral framework we have — the Kyoto Protocol.

The Prime Minister's effort to deceive European audiences about Canada's actual targets is serious and disquieting.

His speech in Berlin, for example, put forward the Canadian goal under his government's plan as a "20 per cent reduction by 2020." He did not mention that, unlike the rest of the world that uses 1990 as the base year against which emission reductions are measured, his government is using 2006 as the base year.

The difference is large. Twenty per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 is still more than five per cent above 1990 levels, and thus 11 per cent above the Kyoto target (six per cent below 1990) which Canada is legally bound to reach by 2012.

Eight years late and 11 per cent above the target!

David Oh, Aachen, Germany: Regarding the Green Party suggestion by its leader Elizabeth May to bring in a carbon tax, I agree with this in principle.

It is the single most-effective thing the government can do to send a strong signal to industry and citizens to spur CO2 reduction — not by choking the economy with yet another tax, but by opening a door for consumers to choose the most-economic means to go about their lives while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It would also restore international credibility in the climate change arena by signalling that Canada takes global warming seriously, and is taking action to fight against it.

However, I find one thing missing from Ms. May's announcement. Her platform sorely lacks any specifics for reduced taxes elsewhere. The idea of a carbon tax — already barely palatable to most Canadians — would be rejected outright without noticeable personal and corporate income tax cuts. By "noticeable," I mean to a degree that will be clearly felt at each paycheque. [Do you have any such plans?]

Elizabeth May: Mr. Oh, thanks for your question and your support in principle.

I am glad you have given me an opportunity to talk about how green tax-shifting will allow us to reduce the tax burden on Canadians.

We will cut income taxes. We will cut payroll taxes. Both should have a positive impact on the economy . . .

We know many Canadians will be impacted by higher gas prices and that some of them fall below the income levels at which others benefit from income tax cuts. So we have a plan for improved income support programs to alleviate poverty.

We will also ensure that seniors, rural Canadians and poor families do not suffer due to higher energy prices.

C.W. Rhude, Central Nova: Ms. May, I believe your proposal for a carbon tax will increase business costs to Canadian industry, reduce corporate profits, thereby reducing our competitive edge, resulting in reduced industrial sales, which will lead to increased unemployment as well as reducing total government revenues, which will definitely result in a reduction in government services.

In the end, more Canadians will be unemployed and our standard of living will suffer while Third World countries, which are less pollution-conscious than Canadian industry, will pick up the slack. The result will be a net increase in world pollution.

Your thinking is flawed when you suggest that the carbon tax can be used to reduce the burden of other taxes to Canadians. The effects of lost jobs will more than erase any additional government revenue from the new carbon tax. I firmly believe new technologies, not higher taxes, is the only way pollution can be reduced.

Would you care to comment? And please be specific — no generalities.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Rhude, these are excellent questions — and I am not saying so just because you are in my riding!

I have found that corporate Canada is innovative and able to adjust to a changing business climate once the signals are clear and the rules of the game are clear.

On the climate issue, this has not been the case. Previous and current ministers talk one line to gain votes, leave industry confused and then back off real action, often with the result of punishing the leaders and rewarding the laggards.

On the acid rain issue, 20 years ago, the government made the rules of the game clear. Sulphur dioxide emissions had to be reduced by 50 per cent on a set time table. Industry protested, but then got down to the business of business.

Companies like Inco actually increased profits once they realized that tantrums and threats were not persuasive in moving the government from its goals. The necessity of meeting the emission reduction goals drove new technologies. Inco captured the sulphur in the smokestack and sold the captured sulphur, improving their bottom line.

Putting a cost on carbon will have the same effect on business today. Some of the most successful corporations in the world have already proven that reducing emissions increases profits. IBM, Dupont, Alcan — to name a few — have all more than met Kyoto targets while saving millions. Many global corporations are very accustomed to carbon taxes.

The four most competitive and productive economies in the European Union all have carbon tax regimes.

We need higher levels of employment particularly in our province and region.

With the Green Party's strategy for a revival of our national railway, we would be building rail cars at the Trenton Car Works, not allowing it to be shut down.

Our program for energy retrofits to the existing capital stock will also drive new employment.

I'm running out of time for this discussion . . . hope I answered the essence of your question!

On to more!

Alison Shurvell, Bocabec, N.B.: Ms. May, I agree that putting a tax on fossil fuel use is a good way to discourage its consumption and I commend your party's new climate change roadmap.

However, I have some concerns about our country's ever-widening income gap. It seems to me that higher prices would only be an effective deterrent for the working poor. Those with significant wealth (those who might have much easier access to costly energy alternatives) would not find price to be an obstacle to consuming the same amount of petroleum that they always have. Would this not lead to greater access for the haves and less for the have-nots?

How would you address the income gap in your plans to ensure that the working poor are not further marginalized by rising gas prices?

Thanks for being in Canadian politics!

Carl: Ms. May, do you realize that simply increasing fuel prices — I'm assuming the 12-cents-per-litre increase applies to all fossil fuels — will also drive up the cost of all other goods, especially food, in the short term.

How will your party communicate the benefits of your initiative to people who now face higher food prices and are doubly-hit by the inability to use their main means of transportation?

Gail Cooper, Toronto: Ms. May, carbon taxes will adversely affect the poor, who will not be able to afford the higher costs of heating and transportation, while the rich can continue to pursue their extravagant lifestyles.

As George Monbiot suggests in his book, Heat, only a system of rationing would be fair to all. We would all sacrifice equally, as each individual would be assigned the same carbon quota, much like the food rationing system imposed during the Second World War. Corporations would also be given a quota.

What are your thoughts on rationing?

James Kennedy, Saint John, N.B.: Elizabeth, if a carbon tax were introduced, how exactly would it work? Would the excise tax currently on gasoline remain in place? Would the carbon tax replace it and apply to all forms of carbon, regardless of how the carbon is used? Would carbon used to produce food and clothing be taxed the same as carbon used to produce ethanol, or carbon used to produce lumber? Would the carbon that is in food and clothes and lumber be taxed? If not, why not? Would you receive a rebate when you sell carbon, just as with GST?

Elizabeth May: Alison, Carl, Gail and James, with so many similar questions, I hope you will accept a group answer.

As you will see from the answer I posted to Mr. Oh from Germany, the Green Party is very concerned to ensure that greater pain and energy poverty does not result from a fiscal shift designed to send the right signal on the cost of carbon.

Income supports for the poor, as well as reduced taxes for the middle class should actually have the effect of redressing the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in our society.

As for Monbiot's proposal for carbon rationing, if we fail to take action now, with the kind of economically responsible and straightforward approach of the Green Party, then rationing may well prove inevitable. It would be Draconian and painful, and would skip the possibility for embracing creative and voluntary choices to spur new technologies to move to a low-carbon future.

We prefer sensible action now and that is what we have porposed.

As for food prices, we do need to eat closer to where the food is grown. The carbon tax would also send a signal favouring Canadian-grown food, and that's a good thing.

Carbon would be taxed throughout the fuel chain, sending a consistent signal to reduce emissions. The amount of carbon from cellulosic ethanol compared to gas is such a substantial saving that the carbon tax would serve to further enhance the affordability of cellulosic ethanol.

On to more questions! (I feel like I am in a race!)

Dave Roberts, Toronto: How could you chain the fate of the Green Party to the Liberals when you're well-aware they did nothing on the GHG file? Is lip service to the Kyoto Protocol the only requirement for your support?

David R.: How can I trust that you will keep the Green Party independent from the Liberal Party? Your comments so far have shown me that you will most likely side on almost every issue with Mr. Dion. We really don't need a mini Liberal party. We need the Green Party. Prove to me I should vote for you.

Elizabeth May: Dave Roberts and David R., the Liberal Party and the Green Party have very different positions on a wide range of issues. (Check out our website for our views on the Security and Prosperity Partnership, NAFTA, pesticide use and the need for a toxics tax, etc).

Nevertheless, Mr. Dion and I share a commitment to achieve the Kyoto Protocol and toward real action on climate change. I will not defend the Liberal record. However, I did work with Mr. Dion who was Environment Minister from July 2004 until the government fell in November 2005. That was the period in which we saw real effort to develop a domestic plan. It was not the plan the Green Party would have put forward, but it would have begun to move us in the right direction.

It was, of course, cancelled by the Harper government.

On an issue as critical for the future of this planet and for my own daughter's future, I am not prepared to risk the reelection of Mr. Harper, who is clearly hostile to the goals of meaningful GHG reductions. I am willing to cooperate with the Liberals — despite other policy differences.

We will need a strong Green caucus of MPs in the next House to continue the pressure for action on climate action, as well as on other key issues.

Gary Belleville, Victoria, B.C.: Do you think the Harper government's abandonment of the Atlantic Accord and yesterday's ejection of Bill Casey from the Conservative caucus will impact your chances of defeating Peter MacKay in Central Nova in the next election?

Elizabeth May: Gary, I certainly hope so!

Bill Casey is a man of real personal integrity. He would not betray his constituents by voting with his government, despite their strong-arm tactics to keep him in line. Peter MacKay now stands firmly with Stephen Harper in the diabolical budgetary trickery of forcing a choice between the Atlantic Accord and the equalization formula.

All Nova Scotians will know that Peter MacKay, as lead minister for Nova Scotia, was unable to protect Nova Scotia's interests, and was unwilling to thwart Harper's will.

Brian MacDonald, Berwick, N.S.: I want to know what your policy is on health care and drug insurance for seniors. I also want to know what your foreign policy is in relation to a settlement in Palestine? Where do you stand on defence of the Arctic Territories?

Mike Mike: Ms. May, I am not a supporter of yours because I view you and your party as radical left with lots of talk and little substance.

Of course, most people in your camp would view me as a redneck Albertan concerned only with oil revenues and BBQing steaks.

However, I AM concerned about the warming planet and I am all for finding solutions to the situation.

That being said, I think you and most of your kind are barking up the wrong tree when you publicly vilify Canada as one of the worst offenders. China and India and the rest of the developing world are far worse . . .

My question to you is this: Other than a phony carbon tax that even you must know is not going to fly, do you have any plans regarding other issues this country is facing? Health care crisis? Ever-rising real estate prices? High inflation? Crime? Poverty etc.?

Do you have at least an idea, not a wish, on how to combat these also very important social issues?

Thanks for your time and I hope there is more to the Green Party than loud slogans and hot air blowing.

Elizabeth May: Brian and Mike Mike: I will not have time in this online forum to properly address your questions. The Green Party has a full platform with down-to-earth solutions on health care, foreign policy, crime and justice issues and poverty.

Please go to our website www.greenparty.ca to check out our program.

Charles Stringer, Edmonton: Ms. May, between the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, which party has the strongest plan for protecting the environment in your opinion? Which has the worst? Thank you for your consideration.

Elizabeth May: Dear Charles, there's no question the Conservatives have the worst plan.

Under the Harper/Baird plan, greenhouse gases will continue to rise until at least 2012. The goal of 20-per-cent reductions below 2006 levels (23% above 1990!) is not even demonstrably achievable under their plan. Too many details are missing — and the oil and gas sector, once again, is being cushioned.

The Liberal plan, with the new carbon budget, and the NDP plan, taken from the last platform are both light years better than the Harper approach. The NDP get extra points for opposing the ongoing subsidies to big oil and gas, and for opposition to nuclear power. The Liberal plan has firm targets for the biggest polluters to meet Kyoto targets.

But none of the other parties has a plan as detailed and as clear as the Green Party. We urge all other parties to steal our ideas.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks very much, Ms. May. I'm sure our readers appreciated your forthright answers. Any last thoughts?

Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada: As they say, that's all she wrote!

Many thanks for this opportunity. Any readers who want more detailed answers, please connect with me at leader@greenparty.ca

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers: We are sorry we could not get to all the many questions you submitted today. Please check back next Wednesday for the next weekly instalment of The Hill_Live.