Well, it's prediction time.
In my opinion, the biggest news story of 2007 will be the federal government's implementation of the Kyoto Accord, the first phase of which comes into force next year. It is clear that the Conservative plan is a non-starter, so it will likely be fed into the nearest paper shredder whenever the Conservatives leave office, which I predict will happen as early as the spring of 2007. My crystal ball tells me that they will lose the budget vote at that time, although it is certainly possible that the Bloc Quebecois may support the Conservatives if the Bloc's poll numbers are lower than they would like them to be.
If the Conservatives are defeated in the spring of 2007, I predict that we will see a return to Liberal government, and with that, a return to the regional preference and discrimination policies that have been the hallmark of that party's success since confederation.
If the next government is a Liberal minority, it will be especially scary for Albertans. The government will likely seek support from the NDP and/or Bloc, and will have to strike a fairly extreme position on Kyoto implementation in order to keep these partners satisfied. They will insist on billions in spending, billions in new taxes and penalties -disproportionately paid for by Alberta of course - and preferential treatment for Eastern-based industry. The Liberal government of Stephane Dion will be only too happy to accomodate these requests, since votes in Alberta are relatively scarce for the Liberals, and certainly far less valuable to them than the potential billions they believe they can extract without any expense to the people that matter.
Given these predictions, one of my new year's resolutions is to cover the Kyoto implementation issue from an Albertan's perspective, while paying particular attention to chronicling the greed, lies, fear-mongering, and outright duplicity of the Kyoto proponents.
In furtherance of this resolution, I have begun gathering articles and news clippings on the Kyoto issue. Based on the materials that I have reviewed to date, it would appear the first lines of argument that Dion will attempt will be (i) exaggerate the dangers to the environment of the petroleum industry in relation to other emitters, and (ii) repeat the canard that the petroleum industry receives excessive benefits from the public purse - thereby conditioning the public for the upcoming cash grab. These lines of argument become clear when one focusses on the public statements of Dion since he was elected Liberal leader. For example, the day after his election, he held a press conference wherein he promised to "revisit the tax system" as it pertains to the petroleum industry:
"Certainly it will mean revisiting the tax system, but not to put the money out of Alberta - to help Alberta save their water, to save their development, to avoid acid rain, to reconcile agriculture and (the) oil industry." ...
... "In particular, the advantageous tax treatment oil and gas companies receive should be reviewed," his policy states.
"It is no longer clear that this special tax treatment is warranted given the boom in development, massive profits and rising price of all types of fossil fuels."
Source: Calgary Sun
Then, from the December 22, 2006 edition of Business Edge:
Dion said he will review existing breaks for the oilsands if he becomes prime minister, and will only allow them for companies that meet high environmental standards. ...
... Dion said he would not impose a tax on gasoline but would use fiscal measures to encourage companies to adopt green technology.
Alberta's oilpatch receives an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks through a program designed to encourage new construction projects.
Dion said the Accelerated Capital Cost Program, designed a decade ago to help the then-fledgling industry, is outdated and needs to be revamped.
"We will revisit it completely," Dion said.
"Instead of an economy based on waste, we will have an economy based on recycling, on the best environmental technologies available."
Source: Business Edge
So, to summarize:
- Dion is basically confirming the Accelerated Capital Cost Program will be cancelled, which will result in an additional $1.4 billion to the Ottawa treasury (almost entirely from Alberta). None of the billions in direct subsidies and tax breaks to the Ontario auto industry, the Quebec aerospace industry, or the industries of Atlantic Canada warranted attention from Dion at his first press conference. Evidently, such things as cars, and Bombardier executive jets - which are the most polluting mode of transportation in the world - are less of a target in the gun sights of Dion.
- The additional money sent to Ottawa will "not be put out of Alberta", but will be reinvested here to save our water, development, and farmland - and to save us from acid rain. Dion does not state the constitutional basis for these new regulatory intrusions into local developments and Alberta's farms. Is this another example of asymmetrical federalism, wherein the federal government exercises powers in Alberta that it doesn't even purport to possess in Quebec? Time will tell.
- There will be unspecified additional fiscal measures directed towards the oilpatch, but there will be no tax on gasoline. However, I'm sure Dion knows that there are already an array of taxes on gasoline. In fact, gasoline is one of the most heavily taxed commodities in the country. We even pay taxes on the taxes on gasoline, so I assume Dion is saying he will impose no additional consumption taxes on gasoline. But what about regional and industry specific taxes? Does Dion have an economic study that would support such taxes? If so, where can I get it? If not, why has he ruled out a broader consumption tax?
Hopefully, during the course of the next year, I'll be able to find the answers to some of these questions.
On the other hand, I already know what the answer will be to the question of how the Alberta Liberals will respond to all this: they will go along with everything their Ottawa masters propose.
After all, you can't expect Kevin Taft to actually defend the people or businesses who pay his salary, and thereby jeopardize his appointment to the Senate, can you?
