One of the richest people in the world, George Soros favours a carbon tax.

George Soros, currently the 99th wealthiest person in the world, can teach any government a thing or two about economies and taxation policy. Certainly Mr. Harper would do well to listen.

Click for video

In this far-reaching interview primarily centred on the spreading global financial crisis, Mr. Soros also speaks to the challenge of climate change and indicates his preference for a carbon tax despite the political opposition to it.

There is a common interest. And this belief that everybody pursuing his self-interests will maximize the common interests or will take care of the common interests is a false idea. It's a suitable idea for those who are rich, who are successful, who are powerful. It suits them to justify you know, enjoying the fruits without paying taxes. The idea of paying taxes is an absolute no-no, right?

Unpatriotic. So, yes, you must have, in my opinion, you need, for instance, a tax on carbon emissions. But that is unacceptable politically. So we are going to have cap and trade. And the trading will have all kinds of loopholes and misuse of the regulations and all kinds of ways of making money without actually dealing with the problem that it's designed to cure. So that's how the political process distorts things. (Video | Transcript) George Soros, as interviewed by Bill Moyers

Stephen Harper opposes a carbon tax; in fact he proposes to reduce taxes so much that the federal government will be forced to slash programs, and certainly will have no spare capacity to react to crisis (such as now) or invest substantially in new areas. Who is making these decisions? Someone who hasn't run a substantial business ever in his life, and a finance minister that left Ontario deep in debt.

Who makes more sense to trust? Backing a carbon tax are hundreds of economists joined with some of the most smartest, and wealthiest, people in the world. Can we really trust Stephen Harper, on record as a climate change denier, who hasn't run a business bigger than (or even as big as?) a submarine sandwich franchise?

I'll put my money on Soros any day.

Harper's ideas are dangerous and he is not worth the risk of being given even a another minority government.

[Editor: While I favour a carbon tax and believe cap and trade has its place, an election is apparently no time to be discussing what should be an easy to understand concept given political interests are focussed on blowing up any rational attempt at discussion in the pursuit of partisan objectives that map on to their ideology. My primary interest in pushing on this button is that the do-nothing lobby / the climate change denial lobby, is as strong as ever. If you don't think the climate-change denial lobby isn't still alive and kicking, look at this U.S. Senate Republican (Harper's closest allies) weblog.]

Reporting in from the soon-to-be-Emerson-free riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, I give you my slightly tongue-in-cheek account of the most recent almost all candidates debate.

Conservative candidate status: no show (and no surprise)

Collingwood Neighbourhood House has a fine reputation of organizing a respectful and inclusive meeting. Perhaps a little too inclusive for some tastes, since other than the MIA Conservative, six candidates showed up. Still, a full house is democracy in action, although no doubt more than a few in the audience were wondering what differentiated the candidates from the Marxist-Leninist (MLPC) and Communist parties who shared the stage.

After the meeting concluded I spoke with the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) candidate, suggesting he should work out a deal with the MLPC gal to take over the leadership of their parties on a platform loosely labelled "I am not the merger candidate", and then proceed to merge the two parties almost immediately afterwards. You know, like Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper. As a combined force the CPC (Communists) and the MLPC's could be a super-pinko force to be reckoned with in this country. Kinda like that other CPC.

Moving right along, the moderator set the mood off appropriately, noting that our riding has had something of a tumultuous few years, what with David "I wanna be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare" Emerson deciding to negotiate a party switch with the Conservatives before the folks sweeping the polling places were done. For most riding residents that was the last time they saw Emerson.

Judging by the catcalls issued Emerson's way, and the cheers the crowd gave themselves in recognition, no one at the meeting seems concerned that we'll likely not have a cabinet minister representing the riding any time soon. While we may have inadvertently elected a cabinet minister in Harper's government, we certainly did not get representation. Not too many bridge and highway tycoons live in Vancouver-Kingsway it turns out.

I'm not going to report on the quality of the debate; for that one can visit Vancouver-Kingsway.ca for a full set of videos for most of the questions asked during the debate. I didn't take the video so please do not wish harm on me for editing out the Marxists and Communists!

I will however provide the results of my patented Applause-O-Meter (a metric "metre" version is on the drawing board). Objectively, and via the AOM, I'd have to say NDP candidate Don Davies received the most applause of the evening. Subjectively I will stray briefly to opine that he received the most applause for his articulate comments in response to one question on floor crossing where he reminded the crowd that his was the only party that fought for floor-crossing legislation in the last parliament.

A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Helena Guergis, Conservative MP for Simco-Grey

Ironic flashback: Helena Guergis, in her first posting as a Parliamentary Secretary to newly minted in blue David Emerson, forever won title to both the Irony Award and the Applied Hypocrisy In Action trophy. In the parliament prior to David Emerson double crossing 46,168 voters, Guergis had signed on to a private members bill seeking to restrict... floor crossing. As they say, hypocrisy loves company.

At this point in our tally Mr. Davies continues to lead in the Applause-O-Meter, pushing his tally higher having noted to the audience that he's been a resident of the riding for over a decade unlike any other candidate and certainly unlike the last three members of parliament (Emerson-pick a party of convenience; Leung-Liberal parachute candidate; Waddell-NDP also lived elsewhere). It turns out that Davies will have to share the finally-running-a-candidate who lives in the riding mantle with fairly recent riding resident, the earnest and also well spoken Doug Warkentin.

Since this is my awards ceremony (and none matter but the October 14 tally) I've awarded Doug the coveted "first time the Green Party has run someone comfortable in a suit here" award. He also did a fine job with his answers. Sadly for him its not a very environmentally concious riding at all, but he's in politics to shift opinion for the long haul we are told, so I don't feel sorry for him. Applause is earnest but the AOM indicates Mr. Davies still winning that score.

Liberal candidate Wendy Yuan has her own bone to pick with David Emerson. While I don't recall seeing her pounding the pavement for months and months with over 1,000 other De-Elect David Emerson marchers and volunteers, I accept that she wasn't happy with the turn of events or how it may affect her at the doorstop in this election. The applause meter reads polite-but-generally-perfunctory.

I have to issue a special award to the Libertarian party candidate, Matt Kadioglu, for taking the least amount of time to respond to questions. Such dedication to the public good was warmly, and sincerely, appreciated by the crowd including your reporter. I did note however that for a Libertarian Matt seemed to be off message as there was in some cases a decidedly interventionist twang to some of his responses.

I guess that just goes to show that when people believe the end of the world as we know it has arrived, politicians of all stripes will tailor their messages. This is probably a good thing, as long as they mean it.

Lets talk about the sign war. Depending on your particular vantage point in the riding, its virtually a three way race, although I detect Mr. Davies has an edge overall. While main streets sometimes lean red, blue, or orange, the lawns within the neighbourhoods of this incredibly diverse riding seem predominantly orange.

Yet lately I must say the Conservative candidate has been doing a bang-up job of getting his signs up on main streets. You'd almost think we were in Calgary West given how much blue is out there. Its all an illusion of course - Mr. Rayek is simply working his tail off to prove to the powers that be in his party that they can in the future trust him with a more winnable riding than what we affectionately like to call our home, The People's Republic of Vancouver-Kingsway.

The race? One upon a time I'd have said it was the Liberals to lose but in this election the race has probably significantly tightened between Ms. Yuan and Mr. Davies. While the MIA Conservative won't be a real factor, he'll probably steal some votes that might otherwise head Yuan's way, and that, in addition to lingering resentment over the Emerson debacle, will favour Davies.

The organizers of the meeting are to be commended for running an informative and respectful meeting which was, as usual, very well attended. I'm sure the Conservative could have shown up and not be lynched. But the Conservative Party of Canada doesn't really believe in representative democracy or exposing candidates to the questions and observation of pesky voters, who are, after all, quite disposable as Harper has shown.

Whatever the result in this election is, I urge readers to think ahead to the next race, due to be called in about a week and a half. My prediction for the electoral contest after this one is an upset victory for the hammer and sickle. Yes, that's right, in the next election I predict we'll see a far more powerful merged Communist and Marxist-Leninist Party at the dais, and we shall all march as brothers and sisters into glory together I am sure. That is if they don't revolt on either other first. Long live the revolution my brothers and sisters!

I’m running to win this election. If I don’t win this election, I’m sure my party will look for another leader. Stephen Harper, Saturday October 11, 2008

Please Canada, send Harper to the benches for good.

Full story from the Toronto Star | Commentary by Macleans' Kady O'Malley

Canadian scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) call upon May to use her vote power and influence to help defeat Conservatives

Strategic voting is tough for party loyalists. Using your party to help defeat another, rather than use any gains in perception, strength, breadth and membership to continue building your own party - well that's a hard road to travel for many. But it might be the right road to travel for those in a position to really make a difference.

Three Canadian climate change scientists are asking Canadians to look within their hearts and consider smart strategic voting. This builds upon the momentum the popular movement Vote For Environment has achieved and which, I believe, offers real hope for our country. What makes Vote for Environment effective is that its an organized effort to maximize our power as individuals.

A list of ridings (PDF) where progressive / green oriented voters can really make a difference is attached to this post. (Source: voteforenvioronment.ca).

VICTORIA – Three senior Canadian members of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on Elizabeth May to lead Greens to make the difference in more than 50 close ridings where the Conservatives are set to win with a fraction of the expected Green Party vote. The leading Canadian climate scientists making the call are Dr. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto and Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.

Riding projections on VoteForEnvironment.ca and seat models from various polling companies show that in the so-called 519 and 905 regions, and across southern BC the Green Party vote is many times greater than the Conservative margin of victory.

"We face a critical moment," said Dr. Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC report.

"It looks like the unprecedented desire to vote for the environment could result in a terrible three way split of environmental voters in key ridings. Elizabeth May and her appeal have an extraordinary opportunity to make the change the Green movement wants to see in our government. Ms. May and the Greens alone can help make the difference between the Harper majority that the climate scientists fear and a Liberal minority under which great progress can be made to fight climate change." More

Consider this: if Stephen Harper wins a majority, we shall likely see him at the helm of this country for at least four more years but more likely he'll strive to gain at least eight years with which he can fundamentally change the country. One of his goals is to cripple any real progress on the important issue of our generation, climate change. Another, perhaps less obvious goal but no less important to environmentalists, is that Harper is, and will continue to, permanently hobble the power of the federal government to enact new national programs.

In short, by continuing to slash taxes - whether it puts Canada ultimately in a deficit or not - Harper has made it nigh on impossible for the government to put any significant new program in place. There simply won't be the money, and it'll be extremely difficult to go to the public to ask for funds. Its Harper's strategic yet simple (all the most workable diabolical are simple) to destroy the power of federalism.

This is not an abstract problem green or progressive or indeed any voter can afford to dismiss. Weakening the authority of the federal government, whether by treaty or by reducing taxation revenue, helps Harper build a case for increased provincial autonomy. That sounds good as a sound bite but when one considers the deeper issues, its a terrible idea.

We live in one large but connected country. What Alberta or British Columbia or Nova Scotia does, affects others. Environmental issues do not halt at provincial boundaries. Harper wants a weaker federation so that provinces can be emboldened to cater to their own narrow interests while ignoring issues and concerns which are in fact national in scope - like climate change.

This stuff isn't sexy to talk about on the campaign trail, but its fundamentally important.

The bottom line is Harper doesn't believe the federal government should even exist beyond a very narrow definition. Its not merely that he doesn't like Ottawa but that he wished it didn't exist at all. He will concede that defence is a natural federal obligation. But if he could wheel back the hands of time, Canada would not have a national health care system. Canada would not sign on to international treaties such as Kyoto, which obligate the entire country to meet certain standards. Harper wants no national authority to have teeth to take on provinces when its required.

There certainly will never be a national pharmacare or real day care system under his watch, and by cutting government revenue to the bone, any future government will have to raise taxes in order to create such a program. As you've no doubt witnessed through this election, the very spectre - real or artificial - of raising taxes is enough to make a villain out of any politician.

There'll be no real movement on the environment if Harper stays in office, minority or not. For even with a minority government we've seen Harper slash taxes deeply and he won't stop until he hits bone. He's not doing it because its the best plan for the country, he's slashing taxes because it helps win elections so that he can finish the job of dismantling government. We'll be adding to the national debt soon and that will give Harper an excuse to start slashing program spending. What's he going to cut?

In an upcoming article I'll demonstrate how his aggressive tax give-away is likely to push Canada into the largest annual deficit seen in over a decade.

Greens and NDP are not the only ones who have had to wrestle with these questions. I'm sure Liberals have at times thrown their votes elsewhere to stop an unworthy candidate or party. I've voted strategically myself. As a Progressive Conservative (readers will understand my emphasis has always been on progressive) I have voted strategically more often than not. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I voted against the Conservatives in the last two elections even through I was an member of the Conservative Party, however unenthusiastic. Why? I could no longer support a weak local candidate, one I knew had no chance of a) winning or b) standing up to Stephen Harper any more than I would cast a vote for Stephen Harper directly myself.

But this is not news. My lack of enthusiasm for the new more muscular Conservative Party was not because it did not measure up to expectations. The party, led by Harper, has met and exceeded my darkest expectations. At the time of the merger it was more than clear that the resulting party would be the Reform / Canadian Alliance, just with a new name. That first impression is exactly what we have today - a western rump protest party which doesn't truly believe in a strong united Canada is actually now a national party running the country, only the party's brain trust remains indifferent to whether Canada ends up being 10 little "canadas" or 1 big one. Incroyable!

For those who live in a riding on the edge, and who, like me, are concerned that any more time Harper spends in office is like a death sentence not only for the environment but for all social issues and future national aspirations, then I urge you to think carefully about voting strategically and encouraging your friends and neighbours to help in this great effort to take back our country from the most destructive prime minister it has ever seen.

The Conservatives need to go to the penalty box for bad environmental, bad fiscal, bad social, and bad federal behaviour. Lets do one better and eject them from the game!

Please consider strategic voting if it makes sense for your riding. You can determine if your riding is in play by consulting the Vote for Environment web site.

The author is a former Progressive Conservative former Conservative that has never voted for Stephen Harper directly or indirectly in his life. Progressive Conservatives fought for years against Stephen Harper and his Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party. Some still do.