Dion’s Carbon Tax
Unless you’ve been living in a cave or off on another planet for the past week, you’ve been hearing about “Dion’s carbon tax.” Stephane Dion, who has previously spoken out against a carbon tax and made assurances that he would not impose a carbon tax, has apparently changed his tune. Now that Dion has embraced this long time tenet of Green Party fiscal policy, he’s being conferred ownership of the idea. It’s “Dion’s” carbon tax, according to the media.
So, maybe a few Greens might feel like Dion “stole” a top plank in our platform. What can be done about it? Even if we stage an all-out campaign to remind people that the Green Party has embraced a carbon tax for years, it’s doubtful the media or anyone else will cease and desist with the label or the notion that the carbon tax is Dion’s baby.
Already, even before any hard details of the Dion version have been disclosed, the debate is raging. Nearly all of CTV’s Question Period on Sunday morning was devoted to the carbon tax. The Canadian blogosphere and op-ed pages are abuzz with pro’s and con’s. The parties are staking out their positions. We hear that Dion plans to spend the summer getting the word out and selling “his” carbon tax.
Fine. Let him sell it. Let the Grits sell Green Party policy. There are more of them, they’ve got more money than we do and they seem to be prepared to do the hard selling. Either we sold it to them or they took it from us. Now, they can sell it to Canadians and I propose that they get not too much help from us. They’ve got everyone from Andrew Coyne to David Suzuki in their corner, after all.
With all due respect to and notwithstanding Elizabeth’s unique non-compete deal with Dion; there are 306 ridings in which Greens will be competing with Liberals. Even though they have embraced one of our big policies, they are not the Green Party. At least one prominent Canadian Liberal blogger has divvied up the prospective vote and thinks the Liberals can use the carbon tax to siphon off 50% of our Green Party support.
Not long ago, Elizabeth posted an excellent blog item defining the uniqueness of the Green Party. She listed 31 policies that were GPC-only. I’m taking the liberty of quoting those here.
- A carbon tax, an indispensable step in getting the prices right in energy choices and allowing reduced income and payroll taxes.
- “Income-splitting” to reduce the tax burden on middle class couples.
- A continuing role in Afghanistan but within a transformed U.N. mission, legalizing and regulating the poppy trade for medicinal use, and bringing in more Islamic nations into the peace-keeping, security efforts in Southern Afghanistan through the U.N.
- An end to asbestos mining and export to developing countries. (truly outrageous that for all the talk about asbestos, only the Green Party is prepared to call for banning mining and export.)
- The phase out of nuclear power and uranium mining.
- The reform of the Divorce Act to make family law less of a battleground.
- To launch a national dialogue toward a Guaranteed Livable Income.
- The legalization of marijuana, to be controlled, regulated and taxed.
- The six month notice to get out of NAFTA with immediate re-negotiation of key provisions.
- Support for open source software and net neutrality.
- National shift to GE-free, organic agriculture and regional food self-sufficiency.
- A moratorium on new projects in the tar sands.
- Creation of a federal Department of Tourism
- Protect drinking water at its source (no other party will do this--the BC NDP jailed citizens for trying to protect drinking water).
- Amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to enshrine the right of Canadians to an ecological heritage that includes breathable air and drinkable water.
- Pass federal legislation to prohibit bulk water exports.
- Establish a National Parks completion budget; protect at least half of Canada's Boreal Forest in a network of large interconnected protected areas as called for in the 2003 Boreal Forest Conservation Framework
- Zero waste, including laws requiring lifetime stewardship of products
- A cancer prevention strategy that includes a toxic-free Canada -- taxing toxics and pollution; ending the production and use of the most dangerous toxic chemicals by 2012.
- Pan-Arctic waste management strategy.
- Shift funding from mega-freeway projects like Pacific Gateway that encourage urban sprawl and use the funds instead for public transit.
- Implement Genuine Progress Indicator (or Index of Well-being)
- Enact "living will" legislation to give person the choice to die with dignity.
- Explore establishing a new crown corporation to bulk purchase and dispense generic drugs - to bring down the costs of pharmacare.
- Pass pay equity legislation; immediately implement full pay equity for women employed in the federal sector and develop tax incentives for companies to meet gender and pay equity.
- Press professional societies to remove unnecessary barriers recognizing the professional credentials of immigrants.
- Canada must support and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
- Revamp CIDA to focus on developing community-based green economies, poverty alleviation and programmes to combat and adapt to climate change.
- Declare Canada a nuclear free zone.
- Reform WTO, IMF and the World Bank, placing these under the authority of the UN General Assembly and shift the direction of international trade away from free trade to fair trade.
- Scrap the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership).
And they call us a one-issue party!
We can strike the top item off of the list of uniquely GPC policies but there’s plenty more meat on that bone. There is a wide gulf between Green Party policies and Liberal policies despite attempts by opposition parties to portray us as peas in a pod. We need to be ready to define the differences and convince voters that there is a lot more to the GPC than one purloined policy.
The so-called Red-Green deal applies to one riding only. It indicates a high level of mutual respect between the two party leaders. Neither Red-Green nor Dion’s carbon tax change the fact that there is myriad of issues on which GPC and the LPC are diametrically opposed. Dion is not pulling any punches when he woos would-be Green voters. Here's a quote from the March 17th by-elections.
In a news conference, Dion acknowledged the Green party's gains in Vancouver Quadra.
"It took a lot of our vote. And to me it's a very welcome challenge. It's for us to show that the best way to be green at the next general election will be to vote red."
(Source CBC)
The carbon tax is how he's attempting to show that. A cynical type might think Dion is merely fishing for GPC votes with his new conversion. Liberal commitment and follow-through are not exactly their strong points, so it will be up to environmentally conscious and concerned voters to determine if Dion's embrace of a carbon tax is sincere or merely a vote grab aimed at getting half of the GPC's 10% support. Thankfully, now that the Liberals have adopted this policy, we can count on the Conservatives and NDP to remind voters of Dion's flip-flop and that "13 years of Liberal inaction" we're always hearing about. Even if Dion can successfully sell the idea of a carbon tax, he still needs to convince voters that he'll "get it done."
While the old-liners are busily tossing mud at one another, we can remind voters, when necessary, that a carbon tax has been central to GPC policy for years (no flip-flopping) and that it is just one good Green policy among many.
Some of our unique positions will resonate better than others and some may appeal strongly to specific regions. Here in Haldimand-Norfolk, for example, we have the Nanticoke generating station. The idea of building a new nuclear plant to replace the coal-fired station is being actively pursued by local councils and Bruce Power. Our unique stand on nuclear power will win votes in this riding.
In certain ridings, our marijuana policy may be the clincher. In manufacturing regions, our position on the SPP, NAFTA and our push for green collar job creation may be the best selling points.
If Dion is able to sell his new policy to voters, he’ll have pre-sold one Green Party policy. We can thank him for that and proceed to sell the other ones ourselves.
- Jim Elve's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Blogs are personal opinions, and may not reflect the position of the Green Party of Canada. For official party policy please visit the policy and press release sections.







Comments
Shifting the agenda to our strengths
Good post. There was a poll published by the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago which (re)confirmed that the Green Party is the party most trusted by Canadians to lead on environmental issues. Think about that for a moment. It's the issue we are most identified with but for a party with zero elected representatives to be the most trusted on any issue, never mind something as important as the environment, is absolutely incredible. Taking a page out of our song book isn't going to change that.
Even without the other differentiating policies we have up our sleeves the more the spotlight is on environmental issues the more we (and the environment) will benefit. Politicians try hard to set the agenda to where their strengths are. It looks like Dion is going to do it on our behalf.
We can't stop the media from calling it Dion's carbon tax and we shouldn't even try to. It's a done deal. We don't even have to point out that the liberals are not the best suited to "get it done", that will be done on our behalf too courtesy of the NDP and Conservatives this time.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
The subtlety of language - the terms can define the debate
It is interesting, and has been noted in several other places on this blog, that the terms used to frame a debate can determine its path. Those opposed to any form of carbon use fee have rapidly changed Dion's proposal from a tax shift to strictly a carbon tax.
I think that we need to be sensitive to this, and use the term tax shift whenever we can. Even Garth Turner http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/05/18/he-gets-it/ refers to it as "a tax shifting policy which will place a price on carbon", and elsewhere that "others say the plan – which they reduce to the words ‘carbon tax’ – is political suicide".
Those who do not wish to see a price on carbon usage will continue to call it a tax. Those of use who wish to get excess carbon out of the atmosphere need to be just as dogmatic.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Opinions expressed are my own.
How about when we're
How about when we're referring to the Liberals' version, we call it a "carbon tax" and when we're talking GPC policy, we call it a "tax-shift"? ;)
My main point is that the tax-shift/carbon tax policy has been co-opted by the Liberals and as far as the media and public are concerned, the Liberals own it. It is only by defining and promoting GPC policy other than the tax-shift that we can retain support that is being actively wooed by Liberals.
I think it's a good policy but I am concerned that we don't turn into salespersons for the Liberals if they make it their key platform plank.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Is it possible to maintain the distinction?
Thanks, Jim (Elve). I appreciate your comment, and it made me smile. I definitely did not come to the Green Party so I could promote other parties.
The way I am thinking, though, is that the public policy debate will be framed, in general, by the language used to describe the issues. So, I don't think that there would be a distinction in the public perception between the Liberal tax shift and the Green tax shift around carbon usage. It is more likely that as the term "carbon tax" is use more frequently, people will mentally draw a line down the middle of the page, with parties "for" a carbon tax on one side and parties "against" a carbon tax on the other. And because the question is framed as "who wants another tax", we will be on the wrong side of the page. The framing has a big hand in determining the outcome.
Therefore, it is more important to work with other parties to implement such a policy when we believe it is the right way to go. For this to work, we must do two things. First, we have to frame the public policy debate in terms of meaningful constructs, such as sustainability, avoidance of climate catastrophe, and renewable energy sources, and address the carbon usage fee within that context. Second, we must cede our ownership of the policy and allow other parties to adopt, adapt and embrace green philosophy. This is not failure, but rather success for our nation and for humanity, and therefore, for us as a party.
Finally, I think we should take every opportunity to point out that the other parties are following our lead, and that, in the Green Party, true leadership is found in calling for a clear, reasoned path out of the wilderness. I once worked in a department where the director defined leadership as finding out where the parade is going and getting in front of it. This is the paradigm of old style politics, and I think people are sick and tired of it.
So, with regard to this issue, I think we should get to work reframing the debate by selecting language that reflects the absolute need to make immediate and drastic change to our planetary management of carbon resources. This, in turn, begins with addressing the lingering perception that the problem is "not that bad". If this helps the Liberals, well, so be it. Even if the specific measures are flawed, it is the right direction to take.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
PS (edit): Jim, I agree with the main argument of your post, which is that we need to emphasize the broader uniqueness of the Green Party. My concern is only that whenever we use the term "carbon tax", we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Opinions expressed are my own.
Good points, Jim.
I agree that it is a success when other parties adopt our policies. I've used that argument many times in trying to convince someone that a GPC vote is not wasted, even when the candidate doesn't have a hope in hell. Let them woo us by adopting our policies -- just as long as they can be trusted to enact them, once elected.
Our position on carbon taxing and tax shifting are quite clear and I don't think we need to worry about our credibility on that issue. The Liberals have sort of stolen our thunder with regard to tax-shifting. It's important and we're on the same side we've been on all along: the right side. ;)
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
What if Dion fumbles the issue?
I'm concerned that with the concerted attacks by the Conservatives (tax grab) and the NDP (regressive tax), the idea of a carbon tax will be poisoned for a long time, notwithstanding the success in BC. So far, Dion's revenue neutral message is getting buried. The Green message must be tax *shift*. Work on our strengths, stay positive.
Louis Bertrand
http://durhamgreens.ca/
Liberals don't support PR
I don't think the Liberals support proportional representation. We do.
----
Julien Lamarche, Ottawa-Vanier Greens
Jabber / GoogleTalk IM: jlam@jabber.org
----
http://www.julienlamarche.ca - julien.lamarche@gmail.com
The 4 electoral systems: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hzoxl
Dion fumbling is a big worry.
I've seen some small-g green bloggers - even Liberal supporters - suggest that the carbon tax is too important to be fronted by Dion. His own perceived weakness and lack of affinity with the voters (10% approval rating) is, indeed, a possible liability for the tax-shift/carbon tax.
Selling the idea will take near-superhuman effort by Dion and company this summer. We've been pushing carbon tax for years and Elizabeth has been on TV and elsewhere endorsing the idea. I noticed in the Hill Times, they said, "(However) Green Party leader Elizabeth May in media interviews has endorsed the carbon tax plan." Well, d'uh... it is GPC policy, isn't it?
The Hill Times article mentions a number of other endorsers but the theme is that more economists and environmentalists need to come on board. Without more details from the Liberals, that support will be a bit slow in materializing.
It is a real possibility that the next election will be fought as a referendum on carbon taxing. If Dion gets trounced, we all lose. We cannot prevent him from carrying the ball, though. Also, if combined GPC and LPC votes are counted as pro-carbon tax, we can still win such a "referendum," even if Dion and the Liberals don't win the election.
Julien, you're correct regarding us supporting PR and the Liberals not supporting. It is not an exclusive GPC policy, though.The NDP also says it supports PR -- at least until they are elected, as in a few provincial jurisdictions.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Stick to Our Guns
I agree that there is a lot more to the Green Party than just a single issue, but our Tax Shifting policy has long been the cornerstone of our party.
It was bound to happen that another political party took the idea, since it has been endorsed by many prominent experts in recent years. What troubles me is that we were not ready to pounce when Dion took the issue on.
Let's face it, Dion has fumbled out of the gates on his carbon tax. There is a lot of uncertainty right now in the general public about what he is proposing. So, this is the time for the Greens to stand up and take ownership of the issue. If you look at #2 on that list of what makes us unique in the first post, you'll notice that it is a policy that was recently adopted by the Conservatives. We should be loud about that as well.
The message is clear: we have to stick to our guns. Yes, other parties are taking our ideas, but they're doing it because our ideas are good and we've been ahead of the curve. So if voters want to move forward, they should elect more Green candidates.
Chris Kivinen-Newman
Communications Chair
Sudbury, Ontario
www.greenpartysudbury.ca