During a current swing through Western Canada, Liberal leader has some sincere words for western Canadians.
We fucked up! Sorry!
"God knows this party has made mistakes out in Western Canada and I know them," Ignatieff admitted during a speech in Regina. "We have to be honest enough with our neighbours and citizens to say 'We didn't always get it right. We didn't always listen with respect. We didn't always understand what had to be done.'"There are numerous examples of the Liberal party's careless approach to western Canada. Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program is merely the foremost among them.
It's likely in this vein that the Liberal party was utterly foolish to come west and try to peddle what essentially amounted to NEP II -- Stephane Dion's proposed Green Shift program.
Except that Stephane Dion's Green Shift was actually Michael Ignatieff's Green Shift -- and he seems to expect that western Canadians are somehow going to forget.
Canadians -- and, especially, western Canadians -- will remember that a carbon tax was central to Dion's Green Shift. The problem for Ignatieff was that he proposed the carbon tax first and probably even pushed Dion behind the scenes to implement it as part of the Liberal party's platform.
Ignatieff at least seems to understand the utter folly of trying to run on something like a Carbon tax in Western Canada.
"The dumbest thing you can do is run against Western Canada," Ignatieff noted. "The dumbest thing you can do is run against the energy sectors in Western Canada."
The Green Shift policy, regardless of any corporate or personal tax reductions, would have reaked havoc on the energy industry, resulting in higher energy prices for every Canadian.
Western Canadians, being not nearly as naive or foolish as the average Liberal party strategist has always imagined them to be, knew this. Even the calls for a softening of the policy by western Liberal candidates like David Orchard went largely unheeded, and the Green Shift led to a decisive Liberal defeat in the west.
"The retail politics of this were pretty tough for us," he mused. Yet Ignatieff wants to continue his dabbling in energy policy.
"We want to bring energy policy and environmental policy together around a simple goal, which is to make Canada the most efficient user of energy and the most efficient developer of sustainable energy on the planet," he said. "When we elaborate those policies in detail, I think it'll be a vote winner out west."
This is a fine idea. But Ignatieff has proven adept at bungling energy policy so badly as to have his ideas absolutely clobbered in the realm of retail politics.
Ignatieff thought he had a winner before. He and his party insisted that the tax would be revenue neutral (despite the fact that there really is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax).
Regardless of whatever Michael Ignatieff may think, western Canadians don't have a short memory. When he comes back to Western Canada to address the issue of energy policy, he'd better have something a far sight better than NEP III.
Otherwise, Ignatieff will join Trudeau and Dion amongst the Liberal leaders who fucked up in regards to Western Canada.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Far and Wide - "Busy Guy"
Kristian Klima - "Conquering West or conquering rural Canada?"
Iggy is an opportunist. He is essentially an american seeing as he has spent more yrs of his life in the states than he has here in Canada, the country he wishes to rule. He knows NOTHING about the west! HOW CAN HE!?? The only window into the west he has is the discolored, hazy, distorted, fucked up porthole that the liberals have labeled "THE MONEY PIT!". I`m almost insulted that he would even come here, (although that IS his job) and try and peddle the thinly veiled new LOVE for the west! Of course we must change our ways and put our heads down in shame and relinquish our stupid conservative capitalist ideals, but if we come out into the light then we can tolerated. I FUCKING HATE being pandered too and lied too by these less than honest, less than ethical and more than just a little HYPOCRITICAL socialist idealists. Stay home Iggy! We don`t want you and we are not fucking listening anymore.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're talking about cuts both ways, however. As an Albertan, it bothers me more than a little to see many in this province tar the provincial Liberals with the same brush as the federal ones, even though people like Kevin Taft and Dave Taylor were also vocal critics of the Green Shift, and had policies that were worth a second look, like ensuring the bitumen upgrading was done in Alberta, or at least in Canada, so that the wealth stayed here instead of being shipped south of the border. Arrogance, corruption and pandering are not just the purview of Liberals-Conservatives can do them just as well.
ReplyDeleteHow about Ralph Klein throwing books in the Legislature, yelling at committee members and demanding if they were "calling him a liar", storming out of press conferences saying he's "had enough of this crap", or making jokes about Belinda Stronach not having a conservative "bone" in her body?
How about Stephen Harper getting David Emerson to cross the floor after the Tories had criticized Scott Brison for the very same thing, despite the clear wishes of Emerson's constituents? How about the sleazy "Not a Leader" ads, which insulted my intelligence by not actually saying anything that Dion's own missteps didn't already confirm, and only seemed to be run for crass political gain? How about Harper breaking his own fixed election date and then openly musing about restricting our bitumen exports, all while not actually bothering to release a platform until three days before the election?
How come the Liberals can't do such things, but the Conservatives can? Can someone please explain this logic to me, that apparently such things are alright when Conservatives do them?
By the same token, just as we criticize Quebecers for apparently not getting over the constitutional debates of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, without actually seeing their point of view, how do you think it looks to the rest of Canada when we criticize any kind of environmental policy and the transfers we make to the rest of Canada, when from their point of view we resemble spoiled rich kids?
Many people don't realize just how much this province has done for the country, and how much it continues to contribute, but the attitudes of people like Craig Chandler and the Western separatists don't help our image at all.
Similarly, don't forget that the West as a whole, including Alberta, are not just straight-up American-style conservative ground. The NDP has has long terms in office in B.C., Saskatchewan and remains in office in Manitoba, the Liberals came in close seconds in a number of ridings in the last Alberta election-in Calgary, of all places!-and popular demand forced the Stelmach government to hike the oil royalty rates and Ralph Klein to cancel the Third Way initiatives.
Even then, when you've got Peter Lougheed musing about bringing back something similar to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, selling oil to China, and expressing concern about the amount of water the tarsands are taking up, and Neil Waugh criticizing the Alberta government for letting the bitumen processing jobs get shipped south of the border along with the bitumen itself, you can see that Alberta isn't all Blue Toryism-there's an undeniable streak of Red Toryism throughout the province too. Yes, we lean to the right in this province, but it's more to the center-right.
Is it un-Canadian to hold conservative, capitalist values? Absolutely not. Many people I'm friends with, or otherwise have a strong respect for, lean this way, and that's perfectly alright.
By the same token, though, I deeply resent the idea that I'm somehow un-Albertan for being skeptical of many aspects of NAFTA, being center-left on certain aspects of social policy, or deciding to vote Liberal or Green if I feel they're the best choice. Being able to speak your mind freely and honestly, even if your views might not be popular, is an integral part of the Alberta populist tradition, but this cuts both ways. Just look at someone like Craig Chandler, who tells people that if they don't conform to his ideals, they're not welcome in Alberta-in his view, apparently only conservatives are allowed to be mavericks.
Interestingly enough, Jared, Klein had all of the necessary documentation to back up his claims in the so-called "are you calling me a liar" incident.
ReplyDeleteHow the opposition in Alberta believes they can use an episode in which they were actually proven wrong as evidence that Klein was a poor leader remains beyond my comprehension every time I read about it.
These guys were caught fishing for a scandal that was non-existent and they just won't let go.
In my opinion, the problem with the provincial Liberals isn't any kind of tie to the federal Liberals. It's their lack of worthwhile policy.
"The problem for Ignatieff was that he proposed the carbon tax first"
ReplyDeleteThat is true, with one very important caveat that gets lost in the discussion. Ignatieff proposed that all money generated from the tax would return to the province of origin for the "break" side. That policy was directly as a consequence of not wanting to divert money from one region to another, to NOT handicap Alberta and others. What that stipulation should tell western Canadians, there was no hint of a money grab, it was fair within each jurisdiction. I suspect the reaction to this form of a carbon tax would have quelled some suspicions, or at least denoted some sensitivity.
Interestingly enough, Jared, Klein had all of the necessary documentation to back up his claims in the so-called "are you calling me a liar" incident.
ReplyDeleteHow the opposition in Alberta believes they can use an episode in which they were actually proven wrong as evidence that Klein was a poor leader remains beyond my comprehension every time I read about it.
If Klein had the documentation, why didn't he just reply to the committee's questions and use the evidence to back him up, instead of blowing his top and yelling at them? All it did was make him look arrogant, as if the question wasn't worth responding to.
A calm, blunt rebuttal would have left the opposition with egg on its face. Instead, Klein just came across as a bully. It was the way he said it, rather than what he actually said, that made him look bad.
And it still doesn't excuse his storming out of press conferences, his "conservative bone" joke, or blatantly throwing Kevin Taft's health proposals over his shoulder without even bothering to address them. As I wrote quite a few years ago in The Gateway, such a dismissal of potentially good ideas is unbecoming of a Canadian leader.
In my opinion, the problem with the provincial Liberals isn't any kind of tie to the federal Liberals. It's their lack of worthwhile policy.
To each their own, of course. I personally agree with Kevin Taft that we need to be doing more to ensure that the wealth being generated from the tarsands stays here in Alberta-which is what Conservative premier Peter Lougheed created the Heritage Fund for to begin with-and that, if the bitumen upgrading can't be done here, it should be done in other Canadian provinces, thus making sure the jobs and the wealth they create stay in Canada.
Klein apparently didn't think that he should have to produce the documentation for it.
ReplyDeleteHe gave the opposition a number of opportunities to drop the matter and walk away, as they should have. All they had were a bunch of government MLAs going fishing together and assumed that government funds must have paid for it.
"That is true, with one very important caveat that gets lost in the discussion. Ignatieff proposed that all money generated from the tax would return to the province of origin for the "break" side. That policy was directly as a consequence of not wanting to divert money from one region to another, to NOT handicap Alberta and others. What that stipulation should tell western Canadians, there was no hint of a money grab, it was fair within each jurisdiction. I suspect the reaction to this form of a carbon tax would have quelled some suspicions, or at least denoted some sensitivity."
Not really, as it still would have had two effects:
It would have effected an area of provincial jurisdiction -- natural resources -- and would have increased energy costs for consumers and business just as Dion's version of the carbon tax would have.
"It would have effected an area of provincial jurisdiction -- natural resources -- and would have increased energy costs for consumers and business just as Dion's version of the carbon tax would have."
ReplyDeleteThat's weak stuff, the environment is a shared jurisdiction, and any increase in energy costs is offset, money directly back into the province. If you want to argue against the principle of revenue neutral, it still doesn't hold, because any gain goes to the province. NEP II, get a clue.
Klein apparently didn't think that he should have to produce the documentation for it.
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt, he was wrong. He should have to produce the documentation when the opposition is asking questions about stuff like this. The fact that he didn't think so only hurt his case.
"That's weak stuff, the environment is a shared jurisdiction"
ReplyDeleteMaybe in purely official terms.
But I would recommend you listen to Linda Duncan lecture about the Harmonization Accord on the Environment if you ever get the opportunity.
The Harmonization Accord has established provincial governments as being the optimal venue for environmental protection, and as such has largely forced the federal government out of the business of environmental protection.
"Any increase in energy costs is offset, money directly back into the province."
Sending that money back to the province is unequivocally not the same thing as sending it back to the consumer or to industry. The provinces could use that money for nearly anything they wanted to.
It doesn't matter which level of government recieves the extra revenue, the consumer and business will be left holding the bag.
"If you want to argue against the principle of revenue neutral, it still doesn't hold, because any gain goes to the province. NEP II, get a clue."
But someone woul still be paying additional tax, and a government would still be recieving additional revenue. Consumers and business would still be paying higher costs for energy.
Do I really have to explain the economic impacts of something like this to you?
It sounds like maybe I'm going to have to start handing a few clues out here.
"To be blunt, he was wrong. He should have to produce the documentation when the opposition is asking questions about stuff like this. The fact that he didn't think so only hurt his case."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The opposition had no case to begin with. They should have evidence of a scandal before they start trying to capitalize on one. They had no evidence, and they pushed the issue so they could try to manufacture a scandal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"But someone woul still be paying additional tax, and a government would still be recieving additional revenue. Consumers and business would still be paying higher costs for energy.
ReplyDeleteDo I really have to explain the economic impacts of something like this to you?
It sounds like maybe I'm going to have to start handing a few clues out here."
Some would pay additional costs, others would pay less costs, that's why they call it revenue neutral. I just love these intellectually disingenious arguments, where one merely focuses on the side they hate, without any acknowledgement whatsoever of the other side. You just sound like a Con... and the kicker, you have the audacity a lesson "explaining". No thanks, you can't even read, or apparently can't grasp the concept of a counter-balanced tax regime, net neutral, supported by almost every leading economist in Canada.
Weak.
Some would pay additional costs, others would pay less costs, that's why they call it revenue neutral. I just love these intellectually disingenious arguments, where one merely focuses on the side they hate, without any acknowledgement whatsoever of the other side. You just sound like a Con... and the kicker, you have the audacity a lesson "explaining". No thanks, you can't even read, or apparently can't grasp the concept of a counter-balanced tax regime, net neutral, supported by almost every leading economist in Canada.
ReplyDeleteGuys, come on. You're both better than this. This is exactly what my original article on the Green Shift back in August was meant to address, to try and show both sides of the debate and give each one the other's perspective.
Steve, as much as I'm frustrated with the tendency of some Albertans to demonize anyone who's a Liberal, Albertans still have reason to be very, very leery of any type of carbon tax proposal. When you say that some would pay additional costs, many Albertans figure that they're probably going to be the ones who will do most of the paying. It seems like Ignatieff is recognizing this, or at least attempting to convey that image.
The original National Energy Program came at a particularly bad time. Alberta had already taken a nasty punch to the gut from the collapse in oil prices, and we were (metaphoricaly speaking) doubled over. The NEP was a kick in the teeth to us, when we were already reeling over the initial oil prices. Hence why so many Albertans are jittery about anything that involves Ottawa and natural resources. Many of us (as opposed to the radical decentralists who would prefer to maximize provincial autonomy in every way) are fine with Ottawa having a say in things like health care, but natural resources are all but off-limits...which makes Harper's arrogance in threatening to restrict our bitumen exports all the more galling, and all the more annoying when he can apparently get away with it just because he's a Conservative.
And Patrick, the reason a lot of people feel we need a carbon tax is, like I said before, because of the environmental pollution resulting from oil and gas development. One of my undergraduate Political Science courses gave us a lot of interesting material on the effects of sour gas development on farmland, a problem only highlighted by the work of writers like Andrew Nikiforuk, not to mention news reports on the health of the people at Fort Chipewyan, the Energy and Utilities Board scandal (which suggests that there are a lot of landowners out there who are angry at what oil and gas development is doing to their land and livestock), or even requiring people to evacuate their homes (a First Nations classmate of mine who lived on the Enoch reserve had to be evacuated several years ago when a sour gas well began leaking near her home.)
If not a carbon tax, then what? How will we, as Albertans and Canadians, respond to the environmental challenges? WIll a cap-and-trade system be a provincial initiative, or a federal one? After all, we're not the only polluters of this nature in Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador will probably have to face the same problems in Hibernia and the Grand Banks, while Ontario is still using coal-fired power plants. Wouldn't a national system be able to integrate every type of fossil fuel consumption in the country, and thereby make it easier on businesses by giving them one set of rules to deal with, instead of eleven or twelve?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that our insulting each other won't get us anywhere.
I'm a loyal reader of both your blogs, and you're both better than this. You both gave me a voice when I tried to help calm things down over the coalition fiasco back in December, something I very much appreciate.
Please, just try and have a look at each other's points of view and you'll realize that you both have a number of valid points.
"Some would pay additional costs, others would pay less costs, that's why they call it revenue neutral."
ReplyDeleteWho, precisely, would pay less costs under a carbon tax?
Everyone consumes energy. Everyone. Everyone consumes products that energy are necessary to produce. Everyone.
Do you really think that business is going to decline to pass the costs of a carbon tax -- absorbed in terms of extra production costs, extra overhead cost, demand for higher wages in order to compensate for higher energy prices -- to the consumer?
If you do, Steve, you have no idea how the business world operates.
"I just love these intellectually disingenious arguments, where one merely focuses on the side they hate, without any acknowledgement whatsoever of the other side. You just sound like a Con... and the kicker, you have the audacity a lesson "explaining". No thanks, you can't even read, or apparently can't grasp the concept of a counter-balanced tax regime, net neutral, supported by almost every leading economist in Canada."
By which you clearly define "leading economist" as Liberal economist.
Plenty of economists also opposed the carbon tax. There was no unanimity among Canadian economists on the carbon tax.
Steven, I've laid out the case not only against the carbon tax but also for Ignatieff's responsibility in that debacle fairly clearly.
You're the one who wants to try to ignore the problems with the proposition, and degenerating into a manufactured sputtering outrage in order to avoid it.