Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Global warming? You can have it

Adam Radwanski, May 12, 2008 at 12:49 PM EDT

It doesn't require a very long memory to recall the days when the New Democrats, more than any other party, were the greenest of federal parties. But with that turf increasingly crowded, the NDP seems to be seeking out (ahem) less green pastures.

Although they've since been followed by the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democrats were the first to jump off the ethanol bandwagon - setting in motion a series of events that may lead to the Tories' biolfuels legislation getting deep-sixed. And on the other big enviro-question of the day, they're proving equally skeptical - rejecting out of hand the Liberals' carbon tax pitch.

“We don't see putting a charge on the backs of individual Canadians through taxes as the way to go” sounds more like a quote from John Williamson than from Jack Layton. But that was the message from the NDP leader last week - one he's followed up with this almost McTeagueian campaign against high gas prices at the pumps.

The NDP is not about to jump in bed with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, at least not on a regular basis. But having apparently decided there's not enough to be gained from a fight with both the Liberals and the Greens for environmental votes, Layton is shifting toward a populism aimed at a different corner of the electorate.

If it keeps up, this isn't going to play especially well with the NDP's urban activist base. But the hope is clearly to appeal to lower income (even middle-class) voters for whom global warming isn't the most pressing concern. That's a demographic the NDP has increasingly struggled to get in its corner as it's lost its grip on organized labour. But having lost its grip on green voters, the party is apparently trying to go back to its roots.

  1. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Adam has hit the nail on the head.

    The NDP have lost their grip.

    On reality.
  2. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: I disagree.

    The NDP bush wackers have no doubt figured out that low to middle income earners, fixed incomers, small business, transportation and rural communities are just beginning to realize the implications of high, and higher, energy costs.

    Furthermore, the IPCC cannot even pass a resolution on hard caps or timelines because the infallible, the science is all in, there is no question your grandchildren will die apocalyptic global warming theory is unravelling.

    Therefore, why would a populist party support the carbon tax cherry on top of the inflationary energy desert about to be served to the whole country.

    The conundrum for me is that I don't want to vote for B.C. NDP or the Green Knight Gordo or the Absent Minded Professor Dion.

    Can we have a new leader, a new party .... I wanna use my vote.
  3. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: A carbon tax is a tax on success. The more we succeed as a country and as individuals the higher the carbon tax will increase. The intent of the carbon tax is to change behaviour. So unless we succumb and change our habits i.e. gas guzzlers, use less energy and basically stop buying anything the Liberals, if they ever get into power, will simply keep increasing the carbon taxes they collect.
    This is a recipe for disaster for middle income Canadians and the Canadian economy as a whole. With the announcement in Windsor today let's add a carbon tax to the automotive sector and see what happens.
    Dion is out of his mind if he thinks Canadians are going to allow him to destroy their standard of living.
    This will ensure that Harper gets a majority in the next election.
    However, based on Dion's past actions he will probably flip flop on this plan when he sees the reaction of ordinary Canadians. Only the envirofacists love a carbon tax.
  4. Blue Magic ...... from Mississauga,, Canada writes: Good post. I don't think the NDP has anything to prove on the green file. And Jack being againts a carbon tax just proves that the NDP have more cred on the file then the liberals.

    As long as the government is turning lands into parks with conservation, and doing smothing about smog. I am cool.

    But once a politician starts to tell me that he wants to change the weather by taxing me, well I call BS.
  5. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Does this mean they'll take the green out of their green and orange banners, the ugliest banners ever devised?
  6. J K GALBRAITH from Canada writes: Michael: I am surprised you are so interested and knowledgeable about the NDP. I would have thought you would not worry about them.
  7. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    If it was't so sad..it would be funny!

    A Liberal Dion led LPC trying desperately trying to woo the socialist/communist left of the NDP to garner votes to defeat the CPC...... Totally disregarding the centrists of the present LPC and the former PC members!

    Perhaps the Bob Rae-Gerard Kennedy-Justine Trudeau influence- a Scary "Three Amigos" of Socialism and the "Revenue Neutral" Carbon Tax schemes to fleece the Middle Class once again!

    Poor Steph, lost with his truly moronic trial balloons of Carbon TAXES that have traction only for a Dion led LPC annihillation.....

    Go for it, Steph! PLEASE!
    .
  8. I'm Not A Westerner, I Live In BC from Canada writes: Long before Harper announced his ethanol scheme, it was known, courtesy of our southern friends, to be a vote buying intended for corn farmers in the Prairies. I don't really trust our money in the hands of political parties so it's a shame that energy producers could not pay for their environmental degradation at the source and let the costs be reflected in the retail price. But we know that won't happen because externalizing those costs is a big part of the business plan.
    Anyways, if you need to haul your big ego around town in a gas guzzler, I don't want to subsidize it thanks.
  9. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Mervin:-- You equate success with consumption. We need a new paradigm and someone's got to lead the way.
  10. L Harder from Canada writes: For all the NDP's flailing, they conveniently forget that oil prices are rising and canceling the carbon tax will do little to mitigate the damage done to lower to middle income folks. What is curiously absent from all parties, is an energy policy this situation so desperately needs. Obviously a transition to other forms of energy whenever possible in combination with conservation/reorganization, and the promotion of the production of other sources of energy (not just ethanol) is necessary. In doing so Kyoto obligations would be met while positioning our economy for the future.
  11. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: A carbon tax is a great idea - provided that it is revenue neutral.

    The idea is to reduce income taxes in direct proportion to the new revenues. Those who burn less carbon-based fuel get rewarded for helping Canada adapt, but we all pay the same on average.

    Liberals might have an easier time selling a carbon tax if they were to adopt the principle of revenue neutrality. So long as Canadians are not being hosed by yet another tax, we may actually accept the idea!
  12. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Mervin:-- You equate success with consumption. We need a new paradigm and someone's got to lead the way. Here's the Liberal hidden agenda. They want to turn back time to the horse and buggy era. I hear horse manure creates GHGs as well diane marie. You may want to be at the head of the unemployment line diane marie but I certainly don't want to see my married children with young families standing there with you. Pray tell how do we reduce our heating costs in Sask. at -55C in the dead of winter. How do I get to the grocery store when there is no bus service in my area. I could take a cab but that will generate GHG's. As a senior citizen on a fixed income how do I pay for my increased everyday living costs. A 10% reduction in my personal income taxes will not offset a 30% increase in my cost of living. Only in Liberal la la land does this compute. I know you love your Liberals and Dion but he will never be able to create a new paradigm in Canada. Canadians will see through the charade of a carbon tax. Even Jack Layton knows its an assault on the middle class but the feckless leader of the Liberal party has no idea what he is talking about. You and the rest of the kool-aid drinking Liberals can follow Dion right over the cliff in the next election. Can you imagine Dion trying to explain, in his broke English, the carbon tax and tax shifting? It will be a sight to behold for Conservatives.
  13. David Gibson from Canada writes: My energy consumption is lower than most, and as low as I can reasonably get it. Any politician who thinks that I want to pay more for gas, is looking to get unelected. Put a large purchase tax on gas guzzlers. Don't punish those who are trying to help. I "NEED" gas to get to work.
  14. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Mervin:-- Jack Layton and the NDP have suddenly discovered that their former constituency is no longer viable, so they are thrashing about looking for a new one. I perceive, from your last sentence, that you aren't actually convinced that a carbon tax is necessarily a bad thing, only that it will be hard to explain. I suppose, given David Gibson's post, that's a reasonable consideration.
  15. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: Mervin:-- Jack Layton and the NDP have suddenly discovered that their former constituency is no longer viable, so they are thrashing about looking for a new one. I perceive, from your last sentence, that you aren't actually convinced that a carbon tax is necessarily a bad thing, only that it will be hard to explain. I suppose, given David Gibson's post, that's a reasonable consideration.

    I was being facistious diane marie. Dion will never convince Canadians to buy into his hidden agenda of higher taxes.
  16. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Actually I like the NDP.
    They help to split the left.

    A split left means the right govern.

    I prefer it when the right governs.
  17. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: We had a good discussion until the carbon tax twits joined in with their bellicosity and lack of facts.

    First ... prairie farmers do not grow corn. They grow wheat and canola as the primary feedstocks for ethanol and bio-diesel. Ontario farmers grown corn. Please refer to greenfuels.org/lists. It is the lobby organization for bio-fuels in Canada.

    Second .... the subsidy was given by the U.S. government, not Canada, for American corn growers and it amounts to approx. 50 cents per gallon of bio-fuel and the American farmers are planning on biofuel cropping of 30% of cultivated land however plantings have been delayed by an unseasonably cool spring.

    Other Fuels .... what a load of coulda, shoulda, woulda and where the H'll did paradigm come from? EU presently uses approximately 30% nuclear generated electricity, France 78%. EU is aiming for 20% alternative energy, solar and wind, by 2010 however projections are it will hit only 18% with Spain being the leader in wind and Germany in solar. The U.S. has said it will rely more on coal (all three candidates and Bush), China and India use coal and Canada ships coal to the latter. SaskPower presently has a carbon sequestration project funded by Sask. and the Federal Government at the Shand Power Station, Poplar River coal fired power plant.

    Maybe, just maybe, Layton, not a stupid man, can see the obvious and realizea a carbon tax is a non-solution at a bad time and he can make political inroads with an opposition.

    Only Stephan and Gordo are so detached and belligerent to propose a tax on an inflationary requirement of life in Canada as a solution to what???
  18. Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes: Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: "A carbon tax is a tax on success. The more we succeed as a country and as individuals the higher the carbon tax will increase."
    You seem a bit fixated on one definition of success, Mervin. I would be far more inclined to call our current income tax a tax on success, and why not gradually reduce it in line with a gradually increasing tax on pollution? Why do oil executives and radio station promotions need to drive around in Hummers? Surely you don't call that success?
    In the big picture, I think success at this point needs to be defined as those behaviours which allow us to maintain a recognizable civilization over the next 50 years.
  19. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: Wow. It seems like no one read the details of Dion's proposed carbon tax. Pitched as revenue neutral, it comes with offsetting reductions in income tax for the middle-class and under. In addition, Dion floated the idea of special breaks for low-income or rural individuals who would be particularly punished by this.

    This addresses every point made by those decrying the policy so far in this comment section. Please get informed before rejecting this policy.

    ***

    Also, the NDP are completely out of touch. Unions are rendered obsolete by labour laws, and weakened by a less unionized society. Buzz Hargrove endorsed Martin in the last election. Who is actually in the NDP's corner, I wonder?
  20. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Gasoline will not be taxed as part of the proposed carbon tax that is being developed, according to reports in the media. The marketplace is doing a fine job of making gas unaffordable as is. We need a two part strategy: 1) a carbon tax and 2) subsidizing the upgrade of buildings and housing to increase energy efficiency. Should any house be built today without geothermal? Building codes need to change.

    The CPC screwed up a good program (Energuide) and replaced it with a crap program (ecoENERGY). Energuide paid for the energy audit. It turns out that the energy audit is the most valuable part of the program (by guiding homeowners on how to improve their efficiency). For example, we're spending over $7000 to replace several windows (8 windows, 1 patio door) in our home. The ecoENERGY program will give us a $270 rebate. This is less than the cost of the energy audit that the LPC program paid for but the ecoENERGY program does not. Remember Harper making claims about all of the money going to auditors rather than retrofits? Turns out that the rebates on retrofits, apart from a $20,000 investment in geothermal, is trivial (as in the above example). So, what was of value was the energy audit, which the LPC program paid for. What is of virtually no value are the retrofit rebates. That's what the CPC program is restricted to.
  21. Chili Palmer from Calgary, Canada writes: The NDP is not long for this earth. It peaked in the late '80s, but it wasn't that hard to see the difficulty in keeping steel workers, champange socialists, hippies and single mothers under the same tent. Their collective interests do no align.

    Merv, has it occurred to you that living in a remote community is not your birthright? You can buy a home in a place like Thunder Bay for $50K--lock, stock and barrel--where you can walk to the grocery store. Your generation had the easiest ride in the history of humanity; I'll save my sympathy for the Burmese.
  22. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: The NDP going back to it's roots is a very interesting concept, but I don't see it frankly. I think the results of past elections speak volumes about the NDP, they've never got past their roots & likely never will.

    The NDP's roots are based solely on mediocrity, their a protest vote the disenfranchised electorate flock to, much like the Green Party.

    One tries to champion labour the other the environment, neither issue alone will ever break either one into big time politics. Neither can take a definitive stand on an issue within their chosen realm let alone an issue outside of it.
  23. Black Bart from West, Canada writes: A carbon tax will hurt the poor most of all, as it will apply to the cost of heating and transportation. Minor nuisance for the wealthy, additional cost for the poor - as we are currently seeing writ large in global food prices.

    Dion's Carbon Tax accomplishes no more than high fuel prices are already doing, just grabs more for the government - meanwhile the Conservatives have strayed far from the fold and are pumping billions of dollars of our money into ethanol subsidies, following a huge increase in the US ethanol subsidies.

    Less taxes, smaller government - at least Jack has one eye open. More power to him - I like having a third and fourth party in the House of Commons, rather than the polarized us-agin-them nonsense we see south of the border. If Jack opened the other eye, might even have to consider voting for him :)
  24. Jonathan Cooper from Toronto, Canada writes: Carbon taxes may hurt the rural poor, but the urban poor mostly can't afford cars and live in apartments with utilities included. Most Canadians live in cities, and most poor people also live in cities. Most people who vote NDP live in cities too, so I'm not sure why the NDP thinks that it's a good idea to change their policies to appeal to the most die-hard Conservative supporters (those living in rural or exurban areas).

    While I understand why some prefer the rural lifestyle, I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to live in a particular place if they can't afford it. There are always options - move into town, live closer to your work, or get a more fuel-efficient car.
  25. D K from Canada writes: "Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: A carbon tax is a great idea - provided that it is revenue neutral.

    The idea is to reduce income taxes in direct proportion to the new revenues. Those who burn less carbon-based fuel get rewarded for helping Canada adapt, but we all pay the same on average."

    Actually, you will need to eat less and but less stuff to be 'neutral'. Revenue neutral means the government doesn't lose any money. Doesn't mean you won't.
  26. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Jack Layton's strategy is puzzling to say the least. For a party that has no chance of forming a government and is slipping in the polls, they sure like to disagree with the Liberals on everything, including on ideas that the NPD would have traditionally supported. The NDP has sold their souls to the devil. They would cut off their noses to spite their face. The parties have become so politically polarized that they won't agree with a good idea on the grounds that it wasn't theirs. Very depressing indeed...
  27. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: A carbon tax is a great idea - provided that it is revenue neutral.

    The idea is to reduce income taxes in direct proportion to the new revenues. Those who burn less carbon-based fuel get rewarded for helping Canada adapt, but we all pay the same on average.
    --------------------
    The problem with the idea to tax those that polute and reduce general taxes to make the carbon tax revenue neutral is, what happens when these polluters start to clean up their act (which is the purpose of the tax) and do not pay as much into the carbon tax? Does this mean that general taxes will increase to offset the lost revenues from these now clean polluters?

    Are we going to face a yo-yo effect of taxes going up and down based on out carbon output?

    Also, when have you ever known the Liberals to remove a tax. Look at that lying sack of crap we call McGuinty. He created the health tax because of the defecit yet when we no longer have a defecit McGuinty refuses to reduce the health tax....that goes to everything and not just health.
  28. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: '...
    Poor Steph, lost with his truly moronic trial balloons of Carbon TAXES that have traction only for a Dion led LPC annihillation....."

    Same as the trial balloons on ending poverty, and raising the GST. I don't think the problem is Mr. Dion. I think Mr. Dion should tell his balloon supplier to make them out of something other than lead.

    As for Diane Marie, in Canada it is production and not consumption that is the main generator of carbon and that is why we are successful. Consumption is just another byproduct of our success.
  29. You know me as Dije from Ottawa, Canada writes: So this means that in about 6 months, the Conservatives will be doing the same.

    The Liberals were always good for stealing NDP ideas but when Conservatives do it too you know things are just getting weird.

    Poor Taliban Steve
  30. Tim Bernard from London, Canada writes: I'm not an NDP supporter but this criticism has gone on about Jack and his party for quite some time. Guess what ? They've increased their seat totals and are more influential than ever. Can you say Outremont ?
    The truth is when Canada's natural governing party is self destructing.. you naturally don't jump in the boat with them.. Instead you sit your own boat just far enough away to not get pulled in, but close enough that all the surviving swimmers have no other place to go. Jack's bright enough to realize that his party has a chance to replace the Liberals as the number 2 party. In the end, this should be Jack's goal.

    These Liberals are walking in places they shouldn't be anyways. The Chretien/Martin power lay in the fact that they were Fiscally Conservative. Hell, as a party that passed a bill declaring marriage as something for a man and a woman (I was against this) they were also somewhat socially conservative. These liberals are instead abandoning the political middle and taking a hard turn to the left. (Have you ever seen a left wing party win in Canada ?)

    As for Carbon Taxation, I would admire a government who at least had the balls to say people who drive cars should bare the burden of the damage they do. Instead, these people are pussyfooting...trying to tax me in a way that avoids the pumps... Ways they think I'm less likely to notice.

    Hell when I first started hearing about Carbon Taxes, the price of Oil was about $30. Now, its $125. I would challenge people to see what that dynamic does to Al Gore's CO2 chart before people start trying a Carbon Tax. A higher oil price is actually the best enviro-protection anyways because China, India and the U.S. can't simply opt out. Frankly, if we alone reduce our consumption in Canada.. all we do is marginally reduce competition for the resources.. letting other countries pay less for it.. and reducing their need to switch to environmentally friendly energy resources.
  31. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Does anybody analyze anything substantively or simply chew the political gum?

    Despite a very favourable run of stocks, I read the ROB morning market blog that describes hesitancy and uncertainty by investors, me included. A client phones to ask when he should sell investment properties, as many such properties are already on the market. The U.S. dollar appears to have hit basement on the ABCP crisis but now the effects of high fuel must trickle down.

    This is today's economic environment. Layton, just like every one of his NDP predecessors, can see it. Tough times are ahead. Introduce a tax? Why not just flail yourself like religious fanatic.

    And not one solid proposal. Nuclear? 439 reactors create almost 16% of the world's electricity in the most advanced countries ... U.S., Western Europe, Japan. Canada produces over 25% of the marketable uranium. Duh?

    Transportation infrastructure? My analysis of real estate is that future value will be determined by access to public transportation. It's not rocket science and Campbell did not go far enough with his transporation mega-project.

    Go back to your moronic gum chewing. I see two leaders, Harper and Layton.
  32. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Dion says:`Bring on carbon tax`. Dion goes on as he did with Kyoto protocol. As Ignatieff said at time of leadership convention:`Stephane we did not deliver.`The only achievement was Stephane calling his dog Kyoto. Dion is all talk and no action. As Dion said:`Do you know how hard it is to set priorities?`The only action of merit would be to resign and allow LPC to chose a real leader. Time for a non-leader leader is over. Just go Stephane and leave room for a real pro for LPC true leadership.
  33. Andrew J. from Toronto, Canada writes: I should point out that a carbon tax has been proposed by "envirofascists" such the Fraser Institute and The Economist magazine. A revenue neutral carbon tax has been the official policy of the centrist (some would even say right of centre) Green Party for a few years.

    But with $125/bbl oil and natural gas at >$10/mcf, is an additional tax really necessary? Perhaps, if only to recapture some of the external costs of carbon sources of energy. Why should oil companies get all the windfall, unless they planned to reinvest it in green technologies as opposed to more exploration and development?

    As for the social justice angle, I'm surprised that no party (to my knowledge) has proposed a rebate program geared to income for the carbon tax similar to the GST rebate. But no rebates for those living in remote regions. They should pay the full cost of using carbon sources of energy, and move to the city if they don't like it.
  34. Tim Bernard from London, Canada writes: Frankly I think the idea of a Carbon Tax is insidious. Here's why.
    A Carbon Tax is a tax on consumption, which sounds good because one can assume it attacks those most likely to damage the environment, but it also disproportionately attacks those who are forced to consume all of their income.

    There is probably no item you consume which doesn't have a carbon footprint. Diapers, soaps, food, school supplies, and books all have carbon footprints. A carbon tax will result in increasing the prices of all of them. The poor mother of three who is forced to spend every cent of her income on these things is going to be paying a heavy portion of her income. She comes out proportionately worse that others from the change if she currently cannot afford a car. (Since the price of gasoline is the one fuel they are promising not to raise the price of)

    Some other person has 10 Million Dollars in the bank invested in low risk securities. He makes 250,000 dollars a year, pays half in taxes, spends 100,000 and adds the other 25000 to his savings. His money is also growing by his investment return. Because he doesn't spend nearly all of his money, carbon taxes don't affect him as disproportionately as they do the poor mother. In fact, he probably owns a few vehicles and does a lot more damage to the environment (and he is the one the liberals don't want to piss off which is why no one is talking about increasing the price of fuel at the pumps)

    Some method is to be put in place to supposedly make this system revenue neutral. So let's just assume that every lobby group in the country isn't going to be lobbying for more taxpayer money. (You know.. the ones who say my taxes shouldn't be lowered because they need the money).

    Apparently this woman who has no money might forgive the government for starving and freezing her kids because she gets a tax credit in February which will be spent and not saved against next years money shortages.
  35. Charles Learmonth from Canada writes: Dion's carbon tax is yet more evidence of how out of touch he is with ordinary Canadians. He might be chauffered to work everyday with the gas bill being picked up by the taxpayer, but in the real world people pay their own gas bills, and these days, they're pretty darn high. Dion's pledge to make the carbon tax revenue neutral is disingenous. Flaherty has spent the cupboard bare paying for his corporate tax cut bonanza and our increasingly expensive misadventure in Afghanistan. How will Dion be able to balance the budget and deliver on all his grand promises, like Kelowna, child poverty, meeting our Kyoto targets or the $123 billion infrastructure deficit Dion's proposal involves a radical and massive overhaul of our tax system. And this is no small challenge for Dion: he has repeatedly shown himself incapbale of making tough decisions. In the best case scenario the new carbon tax will rejig our tax system so that most Canadians are taxed differently, but shouldering a disproportionate burden of climate change action. The tar sands for example produce almost 30% of Canada's GHGs alone. And what ever Dion says, Canadians will get nailed with higher gas prices. Not a vote winning strategy to be sure. The worst case scenario, and the more likely one as we head into a recession, is that not enough revenues will be raised to meet debt repayments, maintain existing program spending AND pay for all the new big ticket items Dion has already committed himself to. Dion has some decisions ahead: Which social programs get cut to pay for the carbon tax? Which election promises go unmet? Do you run a deficit or admit you mispoke when declaring he'd offer even more corporate tax cuts than what Flaherty has already meted out? Either way, Dion is making himself more irrelevant to Canadians looking to make a political choice. On this issue, Layton is positioning himself as the only rational and sane alternative to Harper.
  36. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    "We don't see putting a charge on the backs....Jack Layton!

    Common sense Jack Layton? Stephane Dion moves way left with his gang, and Layton, perhaps with the council of the very wise Thomas Mulcair, inches towards the left center. How intriguing!

    Where I have a major problem with a new Carbon Tax, being deemed as Revenue Neutral, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be revenue neutral!

    Setup- Looking back at the set-up of 1994 government docs, the set up of the GST was almost $1 BILLION DOLLARS! Just do a google as I posted this yesterday.

    Next-You have a new bloated bureaucracy "Maintenance-group" that costs hundereds of millions of dollars/year (huge expense) along with the
    " Carbon Police" who will go around to verify if company reporting is accurate. ( Can you just see another Liberal opportunity for corruption?)

    Why can't one Party-and Party approach this with some common sense.
    Draft (hire) the best people and find solutions or alternatives to what exists today from cars to electric to whatever. $1 BILLION buys a lot of good people for a long time!

    A Canadian "Manhattan Project" where we sell our new found technology worldwide! Why not?
    .
  37. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Jonathan Cooper from Toronto, Canada writes at 9:30am - "While I understand why some prefer the rural lifestyle, I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to live in a particular place if they can't afford it."

    I'm afraid we do have that right, try reading the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, specifically section 6.1 through 6.4, Mobility Rights
  38. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Tim Bernard from London -

    While the NDP have increased their seat count & the percentage of the popular vote this in no way reflects an increase in influence, except in the mind of Jack. Do these voters believe for one minute the NDP will win Federally, not a chance, if they did they wouldn't vote for the NDP.

    Many people believe they have to vote, it's almost like a sin if they don't, so when their not happy with their chosen party they vote in protest, rather than not voting at all. They do so by voting for the party least likely to succeed which turns out to be the NDP & Green party, in turn inflating their standings.
  39. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: But, Brian B., the political purpose of third and fourth parties as deposits of protest or undeclared votes leaves the main parties with the opportunity to attract those voters, if they do not have a majority.

    My simple mind says that Dion has gone further left than the NDP and forgot that populists never buy into "principles"before checking their wallets.

    The Liberals know how to govern, hold power, but their Opposition relies on government mistakes, i.e. Joe Clarke, and despite muck-raking with tweezers, Harper is not self-destructing.

    Dion is making Layton look reasonable and in touch, and leaving the centre (the home ground of Canadian governments) to Harper.

    Incredible. When was the last time a party in Opposition proposed a new tax????

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Adam Radwanski

Adam Radwanski is a member of The Globe and Mail's editorial board. He blogs on all matters political, with commentary and analysis of what's making news (and what should be making news).

Blogroll

Latest Blog Posts

TIFF 2008 
Calling all amateur paparazzi
Silver-Powers 
I hear Oily likes 50
Spector Vision 
Media bias, or not
Andrew Steele 
Jacky, get your gun
Hot and Not 
Hot: Captain Jim Adams
Blogolitics 
Then And Now: David Emerson
Adam Radwanski 
Army of one
Globe on Baseball 
MacLeod: Can It Last?
Driving it Home 
The party is over
On the hustings 
Who is your master?

Back to top