Shallow analysis by Glasgo and her party

By Letter to the Editor on February 27, 2019.

Re: Impact of Alberta’s carbon tax on local church, Jan. 29.

Michaela Glasgo complained about a local church having to pay $50,000 per year carbon tax. Pastor Steve Pahl corrected her error, stating that the church’s actual yearly payment of carbon tax is not $50,000 but $5,400.

Ms. Glasgo made a mistake. Anyone can, but the mistake she made is not instructive of anything in and of itself. What is instructive is the response by Ms. Glasgo and by the UCP after the mistake was corrected. Speaking about the lower, correct amount she said “…groups are feeling the stress… This is especially true for not-for-profit, community groups…”. She also said “some carbon tax advocates would prefer to belittle individuals and organizations that are feeling the stress of the NDP’s carbon tax…”. She also stated ” This is still a sizeable sum for a not-for-profit…”.

Speaking for the UCP was its communications director, Christine Myatt, who said “A $5,400 carbon tax bill is not inconsequential, especially for a non-profit organization.”.

Let’s examine what it is Ms. Glasgo and the UCP are complaining about. The church pays $5,400 per year in carbon tax. There are 1,500 church members. Therefore the carbon tax costs each member $3.60 per year, or about one cent per member per day. This is the “stress” which Ms. Glasgo and the UCP allege “groups are feeling,” and which, according to them is “…not inconsequential…”.

The remarks of Ms. Glasgo and of the UCP show very shallow analysis and thought which they seem to have picked up from the Harperites whose thought and analysis on the carbon tax is: Tax bad, no tax good.

I think Ms. Glasgo made the mistake she did, initially, because she was too ready to believe something she wanted to believe. I prefer my elected representatives to dig deeper before speaking and to obtain facts and to examine and analyze relevant facts before speaking. This sorry story is just another sad example of UCP fearmongering and refusing to think. Attitudinally, they are not fit to govern.

Gregory R. Cote

Irvine, Alta.

10
-9