I think the reason Elizabeth chose to make the media aware of our plan had to do with piggybacking on media attention. As you say, we’ve had a tax-shift/carbon tax policy for years. Up until Dion adopted it (albeit watered down), the GPC policy failed to get much MSM attention. The Wednesday presser did get a fair bit of media play.

The other reason for the GPC release speaks to Dion’s blatant attempt to woo new, possibly soft, GPC supporters over to the LPC ranks. Here’s a blog that discusses that effort. This overt attempt to attract our supporters makes an additional argument for getting Elizabeth in the TV debates, as well as an additional argument to the Greens=Liberals, Liberals=Greens BS.

So, we come to a question. If this is longtime GPC policy, what was the excuse for the Wednesday PR event? BTW, I have it on top authority that the Wednesday release was pushed up from a later, undisclosed date.

The documents Elizabeth released are significant and new. Up until Wednesday, we didn’t have documentation of a “fully costed” plan. The PDF’s that accompany the press release at greenparty.ca offer copious examples of various income levels and demographic groups showing what the GPC tax shift will mean to their annual bottom lines. This is important supporting material and warranted a dedicated press release and media blitz.

All that said, we are definitely seeing some pundits comparing the GPC’s “extreme” plan to the LPC’s “moderate” plan. I take issue with the labels. Since both plans aim for revenue neutrality, what’s the difference if you shift $15 Bn or $40 bn. It’s a shift rather than a new, additional tax. The average Canadian’s bottom line would be about the same. In fact, using the GPC tables versus the LPC’s calculator, most individuals and families would actually fare better under the GPC’s $40 billion shift.