Cathy McLeod thinks she sees a duck


Conservative MP Cathy McLeod tries to explain how you know when a cap-and-trade system is actually a carbon tax.

Cap + Trade does not gen 21B in govt revenues. #NDP clearly has a carbon tax outlined in 2011 platform. Looks + walks like a duck it is…

Let’s explain this again. There are two ways to operate a cap-and-trade system: either the government sells pollution permits to companies and the government gets the revenue or the government gives away the permits to companies and the companies get the revenue from selling the permits to each other. Cap-and-trade could very well generate government revenue or it could not. Either way, a price on carbon is established.

But again, by the current logic of Ms. McLeod’s own government, it doesn’t even matter that the NDP expected their 2011 proposal to generate government revenue because, again, according to Ms. McLeod’s own government, anything that establishes a price on carbon is equivalent to a carbon tax. Ms. McLeod and other Conservatives can point to the booking of revenue in the NDP’s 2011 platform if they like, but their interest in the question of revenue has already been rendered moot by their fellow Conservatives.

Ms. McLeod, for the record, was first elected, as a Conservative, in 2008. That year, the party’s policy declaration included support for “a domestic cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.” The party platform she ran on included a promise to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system. She was a Conservative MP when that pledge was repeated in that year’s Throne Speech. She was a Conservative MP a year later when Jim Prentice announced an offset system that would “generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … by establishing a price on carbon.” She was a Conservative MP when the Harper government claimed in December 2009 to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.” She was a Conservative MP in May 2011 when Peter Kent allowed that a continental cap-and-trade system could be something to consider in the future. And she is presently a Conservative MP in a Conservative government that refuses to definitively rule out implementing a cap-and-trade system if the United States is prepared to do likewise.

That’s a lot of quacking to account for.

Here again is everything you need to know about the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.


Cathy McLeod thinks she sees a duck

  1. Peter Kent: Carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax,
    because to be a realistic dollar figure, it would get Canadians at the
    gas pump for example, and right across the economy, but at the gas pump,
    it would get us to where Europeans are.

    Oh Peter, you are so not going to get a xmas card this year from HWMBO [ he who must be obeyed]….i should warn you there’s a very real possibility that you wont be allowed to pat Cheddar either.
    Now, let’s go over this one more time shall we? A JOB KILLING NDP CARBON TAX! That’s all. Just leave the fancy stuff to us, the professionals, ok!

    Your friendly reminder from your friendly PMO

    That reminds me, Mr Dion’s proposal to not put the CT on gas doesn’t sound all that bad now, does it?

  2. Countries in northern Europe have strong green regulations, strong economies and low government debt. Under Harper, Canada has the worst environmental record among developed countries. And although he will say we have “the strongest economy on the planet” and the lowest debt “by a country mile” this is nothing more than stat-cooking and outright lies.

    Here is Canada’s actual economic standing among developed countries. Our environmental freeloading has not created a single job or any other economic benefit:

    * OECD productivity (2011): #17
    * OECD productivity growth (2011): #24
    * OECD government debt/GDP (IMF 2011): #25
    * OECD Unemployment rate (2012 Q1): #17
    * OECD GDP growth (2011 CIA): #14
    * OECD trade balance (IMF 2011): #24
    * Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (2011): #12
    * Conference Board of Canada Economy Rankings (2011): #11
    * WEF Global Competitive Index (2012-2013): #14

    Time to ditch the job-killing free-market ideology. It didn’t work for Bush Jr. It won’t work for us.

  3. C’est ne’st pas un duck’. C’est un canard.

    • “Ranking third among the world’s oil exporters, with production peaking
      at 3m barrels of oil a day, Norway has 51 active oil and gas fields in
      the North Sea, and believes it has more than 7bn barrels of undiscovered
      reserves. Its oil and gas sector is the world’s richest: its employees earn $180,000 on average a year.”

      And by Harpereconomic logic i guess we can look forward to all that lovely oil wealth and its assets to come fooding our way in one big gigantic freedom loving wave.

  4. And now maybe its time that we regular commenters send the link to this post and ask Ms. McLeod for comment. All of us. Every day. Until one of us gets a comment that actually answers how not a tax one day becomes a tax the next.

    • She posted the same thing on her Facebook page, so I commented there if anyone wants to join in.

      • And she replied. You’ll have to see this for yourself, because nobody ought to believe anyone who says a grown woman, never mind a Member of Parliament, responded with this “Cathy McLeod wrote: “PPPpPPpPPPppo”

        • I did check, I am thoroughly confused. I think a Member of Parliament just pocket fb messaged you.

          • Are you telling me you can’t see it on Cathy McLeod’s Facebook page? Because I can (as well as the email that she commented). Or, what does “pocket fb message” mean?

          • I can see the “PPPpPPpPPPppo” message, when I wrote pocket fb messaged, I meant that she probably looked at the comment on her phone and did not properly exit the application, you’ll notice if you look at a QWERTY keyboard that ‘p’ and ‘o’ are right next to each other. She probably sent the message by accident, she probably doesn’t even know it was sent.

          • Ohhhh, Thanks. Yes, let us hope so, in spite of my resolve to no longer give Conservative MPs the benefit of the doubt, being proved wrong so many times before. Although, the downside for her is she admits to reading my comment–and then not having the courage to actually reply to it. Else, why would buttons pushed while walking around end up there?

          • Yes, it is likely that the comment was seen. Why was there no response from her? I personally can’t answer that question. She seems to be quite active on her twitter feed and fb page, you would hope that she could explain her comment, rather than just post for the sake of posting. My cynicism towards this particular exchange will vanish when she offers more than a snark and engages in actual discussion.

Sign in to comment.