News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 371     0 

2018 Ontario PC Leadership Race

Who do you think will win the PC leadership race (not who do you support)?

  • Patrick Brown

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • Christine Elliott

    Votes: 25 83.3%

  • Doug Ford

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Tanya Granic Allen

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Caroline Mulroney

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
MTown said:
Provincial Liberals? They implemented a cap-and-trade system which is generally agreed (by economists and climate scientists) to be less effective than a carbon tax in actually decreasing GHG emissions. As for where proceeds from their scheme are going, I have no idea. Cap-and-trade is not a carbon tax. It's a shell game.
Click to expand...

Its essentially a tax (on gas, electricity, natural gas, etc). The Liberals promised to spend that money on programs that would help us lower our carbon footprint.

But who trusts this government to spend any money wisely?
 
No, it's not a tax. It's a shell game whereby a cap is introduced on the amount of GHG emissions that will be permitted and participating organisations pay for and trade credits based on their perceived need or laziness in adapting their procedures to lower GHG emissions. It's not a tax. It's a pretty convoluted system that accomplishes little in terms of reducing GHG emissions.

As for who trusts this government to spend money wisely, I don't know. People who believe in them? Some economists? Their mums? I sure as hell don't trust them to reduce GHG emissions by substantial and effective levels. Money isn't as important to me, personally.
 
MTown said:
No, it's not a tax. It's a shell game whereby a cap is introduced on the amount of GHG emissions that will be permitted and participating organisations pay for and trade credits based on their perceived need or laziness in adapting their procedures to lower GHG emissions. It's not a tax. It's a pretty convoluted system that accomplishes little in terms of reducing GHG emissions.

As for who trusts this government to spend money wisely, I don't know. People who believe in them? Some economists? Their mums? I sure as hell don't trust them to reduce GHG emissions by substantial and effective levels. Money isn't as important to me, personally.
Click to expand...

Cap and Trade is what it is.

This government is collecting taxes on energy and claiming they are putting all of that money back into our economy. That is part of their program.
 
Petrol taxes, for example, aren't part of the cap-and-trade regime. Petrol prices may reflect the cost to business of the cap-and-trade regime, yes, but that doesn't make them a tax.

Anyway, yeah, where is the money going?
 
Last edited:
Did you read the article? Even though the caption on the leading photo is misinformation, the rest of the article doesn't say anything about added taxes. The cost of the credits is being passed on to consumers, obviously. Why wouldn't it be? Businesses can't eat all their costs. That doesn't make it a tax. A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue imposed on incomes, business profits and goods and services.
No one under the cap-and-trade regime is forced to buy credits, though obviously certain industries have no option because of the nature of their business.
It isn't a carbon tax.
A carbon tax levies a compulsory contribution to state revenue on all purchases of GHG emitting products and services.
Cap-and-trade sets a ceiling for GHG emissions for industry and any organisations not meeting the limit can trade unused emissions space to others for payment.

Different things. I get that they both incur costs to business but it simply isn't true that cap-and-trade is a compulsory contribution to state revenue which is the definition of a tax.

If the Liberals were more concerned with reducing emissions than they are about retaining power they would have opted for a more efficient, fair, and straightforward carbon tax instead of the convoluted, complicated, unfair cap-and-trade system we're stuck with now that includes all sorts of ridiculous exemptions for favoured industries. I'm sure they had other reasons other than politics, or they will claim so anyway, but it's a joke, really. I'll give Patrick Brown one thing: at least he wasn't scared of doing it the right way regarding imposing costs on carbon emission.
 
narduch said:
This government is collecting taxes on energy and claiming they are putting all of that money back into our economy. That is part of their program.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what underpins your perceived notion that they have been hiding what they're doing with the proceeds; it takes but a quick Google to answer that question very clearly.
 
MTown said:
Oh, so now, Mulroney has changed her mind and is now opposing a carbon tax. Which leaves only Elliott who thinks it's a good idea but wants the opinion of the membership to be heard in regards to this before she forms a position on it.
Click to expand...
Elliott also came out against it today. No choice really
 
It’s disappointing that all 3 candidates are talking about is the Carbon tax and Liberal waste. No one has said what they would cut in the Pc program to pay for the new tax cuts.
 
Before Patrick Brown stepped down as leader, I was considering the PC's over the Liberals. His centrist message and embrace of the "progressive" view was a good thing. Now they are all about climate change denial and sucking up to SoCons. Remember when moderate Bill Davis retired and Frank Miller took over?
 
animatronic said:
First actual surprise of the campaign: Religious nutso wing is fronting someone that makes Doug look moderate: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...-and-mother-of-4-to-run-for-ontario-conservat
Click to expand...

I don't know....I'd rather listen to people like her all day than to greasy rubbish-talking folk like Ford. At least this woman stands for something and believes in it. Even though I may disagree with a lot (everything, probably) that she believes in, I can respect people like that. Ford just rages about ambiguous concepts of elitism and waste and efficiencies. He deals in straight cons. People like him I have zero respect for.
 
Videodrome said:
Confirmed! We have a standard bearer for all SoCon issues.
Click to expand...
It's obviously a leverage play by Campaign Life Coalition. If she can control a block of voters the Jesus freaks can pressure a mainline candidate for support. The interesting race to watch is which of the three main candidates bends over furthest - even 10% of the voters would make her the King/Queen maker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top