Jagmeet Singh In Conversation with Macleans @ 8PM on CPAC

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture
Jagmeet Singh In Conversation with Macleans @ 8PM on CPAC

Tonight 8pm ET on http://cpac.ca : Live, feat. in conversation with from the in Ottawa. It's the leader's first long-form interview before a live audience.

https://twitter.com/CPAC_TV/status/960931521032081408

Pondering

I checked and my CPAC doesn't have it scheduled!

Pondering

Okay, I found it online. Countdown has started. I'm afraid Paul Wells is going to give him a rough ride. Isn't he pretty right wing?

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

It is on CPAC NOW.

R.E.Wood

And the subsequent headline is:

Jagmeet Singh dodges questions about Alberta and B.C. pipeline fight

With B.C. and Alberta feuding over the Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, the new federal NDP leader can’t bring himself to take sides

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-dodges-questions-ab...

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Someone should ask Mr. Singh if he thinks that interprovincial free trade in wine is a good idea.

R.E.Wood

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

progressive17 progressive17's picture

That should appeal to the 0.0002% of Canadians who care about electoral reform!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

That should appeal to the 0.0002% of Canadians who care about electoral reform!

I understand that you are being intentionally hyperbolic, but I would submit that the actual number is somewhere between 10% and 20% of the electorate, if you only include those for whom it is a key ballot question. Polls show that soft support for PR is much higher, close to 50% if I recall correctly.

Pondering

If that's the worse they can say he did great. He did take a stand on the pipeline. He said the process to approve the pipeline was inadequate. He switched focus to sustainable jobs and the future in which we are moving away from oil. I think he needs to emphasize the inadequate process even more. BC is taking the perfect stand by insisting on spill clean-up assessment as that is the core reason the pipeline is being opposed. If people were not worried about that the pipeline would be allowed through in a flash because there would be insufficient opposition. It stays away from the more complex argument of climate change and who and what should be done about it. 

It's no accident that Trudeau's argument in favor is focused on the climate change argument. His argument is that we need all three, a carbon tax, environmental protection as in the new plan for the coast, and the pipeline to pay for those things. 

The weak spot in the argument is environmental protection. Trudeau can't produce studies showing that a bitumen spill could be successfully contained because there are none. If he feels his coastal protection plan proves a spill could be cleaned up he should present the proof part. 

Singh defended both NDP premiers very well by stating they were each representing the interests of the people who elected them. 

Singh fielded questions on the future platform, obviously too soon for that and on the Leap Manifesto. He also spoke about indigenous children and the government continuing a court battle against giving them equal funding. He spoke about students struggling to pay tuition and about the percentage of young people in precarious work and about carding. He focused a lot on common values. 

The article mentions Guy Caron was close. It's Guy Caron who whispered in Singh's ear when he made the mistake of saying an indigenous person would only need two languages, their own and one other. I was supporting Caron for leader although not strongly enough to join and vote. I was concerned that he didn't have the charisma to win. I get the sense that Singh has Caron as one of his closest advisors. 

Apparently people from The Leap have arranged for people who organized for Sanders or Corbyn to speak at the convention. The writer insinuated this could be a problem for Singh but I doubt it. "The Leap Manifesto" just presents the argument that we have to transition to sustainable jobs and practices. 

He was clever to say that Trudeau is as good guy, but then contrasted his own experience of life pointing out that he had experienced having to support his family when his father was ill so understood precarious work from a different perspective. He humanized himself in speaking of his fiancee as his partner and most important supporter.

Overall impression he was relaxed and spoke very well, not an hmmm or an ahhh to be heard. He came across as genuine, warm and friendly. His sense of humor and his intelligence showed. 

All in all very successful interview for this point in time. No damaging clips. Things could always be better but I would definitely classify it as a strong interview. 

I assume he will get another chance to introduce himself to Canadians after the upcoming convention. His most important task, the party's most important task, is to familiarize him to Canadians. Get people to like and admire him as a person. 

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

You would "submit" the number is between 10% and 20%? Based on what?

Justin Trudeau has paid absolutely no price at all for abandoning his electoral reform promise. His poll numbers have consistently been at 2016 election levels and up. There is no stampede to the NDP based on this. Therefore I have to conclude virtually no one cares about it. 

If you want my support, you can keep raising my wages so it is easier for me to pay my rent, and so I can use my debit card instead of my credit card when I have to buy stuff I need like new shoes with no holes in them. The NDP can quit with the sour grapes when the Liberals raise the minimum wage in Ontario (which, believe it or not, has had a pleasant knock-on effect on my own wages here in Quebec. Ontario's rising tide has lifted my boat. Yay!). The NDP can fight against anti-union legislation which makes it difficult to organize people like me. They could do so much to help the working poor, and they do nothing.

The election is about *ME* and what *I* need to live on, both now, and for my pension. When the Conservatives tried to screw me for $14,000 on my pension, I went into high gear to get rid of them. If you don't give a rat's about my money, I will turn my back on you. If you try to rip me off, I will make you regret the day you ever opened your mouth.

When the NDP gets a klew about this, maybe they will do better. Quit with the arcane political bullshit of concern only to policy wonks and political scientists and people who have nothing better to do.

Some of us out here actually have to work for a living. 

And why would Mr. Singh say EXACTLY the same thing Trudeau did about this issue ("the next election will be the last under FPTP etc.") Does he think that anyone will trust him on that? What if the NDP get a phoney majority and realize no one gives a rat's about the issue? I suppose then the Greens will say "The next election will be the last under FPTP"

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Oh, and finally. The Weimar Republic had PR before it was usurped by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party. Now, the AfD (Nazi Party II) is the *Official Opposition* in Germany, which would not have happened had they an FPTP system.

There are too many racist Canadians who want the simplistic solutions of the AfD to allow a fascist party to opportunistically drive their tanks through the loopholes of PR.

Do 50,000,000 more people have to die for the cause of Proportional Representation?

I'll take a "phoney majority" with no fascists in parliament, thank you very much.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

P17, I've made the arguments for PR dozens of times on this forum, and I don't intend to do it again. Go check out Fair Vote Canada if you would like sensible answers to your points.

pookie

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

Yeah.  I was in the room.  He definitely is in favour of MMP.  He emphasized "proportionality" at least three times.

He did well, btw.  Extremely likeable.  How that will translate in a federal campaign remains to be seen.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I understand that you are being intentionally hyperbolic, but I would submit that the actual number is somewhere between 10% and 20% of the electorate, if you only include those for whom it is a key ballot question. Polls show that soft support for PR is much higher, close to 50% if I recall correctly.

That would be an inner circle that is already in your choir.  That according to former NDP National Director Robin Sears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB6oJGv6anc

So Jagmeet is just preaching to the converted.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

Absolutely, but he did say it would be put before Canadians not rammed down our throats. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Jagmeet Singh says Canada's next election will be its last under the first-past-the-post system. That is, if his party wins government.

And, evidently, if Canadians agree.

I'm not opposed to that -- why should I, or anyone, be? -- but it looks like another example of "many a slip 'twixt cup and lip".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Jagmeet is missing a golden opportunity for the NDP to regain seats in Quebec and regain seats in BC.  There are two extremely important issues at play in the Kinder Morgan debacle.  The first is of course the environmental and this project would not have gone ahead if it had been subjected to a vigorous review including the climate change impacts of burning this toxic gunk. Many people think that is all it took to get the Eastern pipeline proposers to back down. It took the Quebec activists to get that announcement wrung out of the Libearl government. 

However there is a second important issue and that is local control. Trudeau is handing Singh a golden opportunity. If the NDP can force the Liberals to run on the philosophy that the federal government should have the right to override both provincial and municipal governments when it comes to risk assessment of the local environment  I think they can do very well in many parts of the country.

Pondering

Okay, well hell just froze over. I agree. It's not just overriding those two levels of government, it is saying that the people BC don't have the right to protect their environment. 

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

However there is a second important issue and that is local control. Trudeau is handing Singh a golden opportunity. If the NDP can force the Liberals to run on the philosophy that the federal government should have the right to override both provincial and municipal governments when it comes to risk assessment of the local environment  I think they can do very well in many parts of the country.

Pondering wrote:

Okay, well hell just froze over. I agree. It's not just overriding those two levels of government, it is saying that the people BC don't have the right to protect their environment. 

What does the constitution say?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

However there is a second important issue and that is local control. Trudeau is handing Singh a golden opportunity. If the NDP can force the Liberals to run on the philosophy that the federal government should have the right to override both provincial and municipal governments when it comes to risk assessment of the local environment  I think they can do very well in many parts of the country.

Pondering wrote:

Okay, well hell just froze over. I agree. It's not just overriding those two levels of government, it is saying that the people BC don't have the right to protect their environment. 

What does the constitution say?

It says we get years of litigation to determmine if the Feds right to regulate interprovincial pipelines supercedes the Provinces right to enact laws to protect its environment from pollution once the filthy bitumen arrives in the province. 

Constitutional Jurisdiction 
In Canada the power to pass laws relating to the environment is divided between federal and provincial governments. The Constitution gives the federal government power to pass laws relating to fisheries, shipping, interprovincial trade and commerce, and criminal law. The federal residuary power to pass general legislation for the "Peace, Order, and Good Government of Canada" also justifies environmental legislation. 

Federal legislation enacted under these powers includes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Fisheries Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Provincial powers cover all matters of a local nature and property and civil rights within the province. The provinces also have primary jurisdiction over agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric development. These powers give the provinces ample authority to pass most kinds of environmental laws.

Provincial governments also "own" most natural resources. Provincial provisions for exploitation of these resources may include measures intended to protect the environment. All provinces have now passed legislation on WATER POLLUTION and AIR POLLUTION. Provincial legislation also includes most WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT regulations, and the creation of ecological reserves and wilderness areas. National parks and migratory bird regulations, however, are administered federally, and the federal government is drafting new endangered species legislation. Other wildlife regulations involve interprovincial arrangements.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/environmental-law/

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

What does the constitution say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)[edit]

In general terms, works declared by the Parliament of Canada to be "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" tend to be part of the national infrastructure.

Whenever parliament invokes the power, it gains not only jurisdiction over the work but also any necessarily incidental operations. In Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (1993), such a declaration had been made with respect to Ontario Hydro's nuclear plant. The Supreme Court held that that declaration gave Parliament the authority to regulate the work "as a going concern" which included jurisdiction over workers at the plant and their labour unions.

The declaration must be made by the passing of legislation, but in addition to declaring specific works, whole classes of work can be defined as being "for the general advantage of Canada" by default; the Atomic Energy Control Act, for example, deemed all nuclear power plants to fall into this category. From 1867 to 1961 there were 470 uses of the declaratory power, of which 84% related to railways.

So the pipeline can definitely fall under federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure if that means they can impose federal infrastructure but I think it does. That's why Notley says there's no point to the federation if the pipeline can't be forced through BC.

This is in contrast to a unitary state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (sub-national units) exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. The majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government. Of the 193 UN member states, 165 are governed as unitary states.

In a unitary state, sub-national units are created and abolished (an example being the 22 mainland regions of France being merged into 13), and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

That we are a federation is important. It's why natural resources belong to the provinces rather than the country. So, B.C. owns its natural resources and has jurisdiction over environmental protection by default.

Then the question becomes which area takes precedence. Federal jurisdiction over national infrastructure deemed to be in the interests of the country or protection of the environment, a subject not mentioned in the constitution therefore a provincial jurisdiction. 

I think it's an argument for constitution lawyers and that the answer doesn't really matter.  There is enough ambiguity for court cases to tie it up for quite awhile. If BC FNs are told they do not have the right to refuse, and construction begins, activists will try to stop it physically and they will have a lot of support. When the mayor of a city is willing to be arrested to physically block the pipeline the opposition is strong. If there are enough people they can't just keep arresting everyone. I believe the opposition is strong because it threatens an important industry and an environment that people treasure and is irreplacable. 

I believe that all of the provinces/regions are distinct from one another and that Canadians identify with their provinces therefore separatist movements can arise anywhere although some regionally rather than provincially. BC and Quebec have a lot in common. Each has developed their own cultures and have different priorities. BC is arguably more separate due to the mountains. BC is better off within Canada but BC does not need Canada to thrive. 

As I understand it so far Kinder Morgan has been unable to lay an inch of pipe in BC. Has it been built to the border? As I understand it the terminal expansion is under construction already. That is a significant investment. It shows a lot of confidence. I think they will sue to recoup the costs. 

This will be quite the explosive showdown. 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

As I understand it the terminal expansion is under construction already. That is a significant investment. It shows a lot of confidence. I think they will sue to recoup the costs. 

This will be quite the explosive showdown. 

I think that the owner of Kinder Morgan is a flim flam man from Enron who of course has a default of suing everyone for damages. That is why the NEB's phoney enmvironmental ok is so important.

As for an explosive situation imagine the tank farm being expanded anywhere on the Island of Montreal.

Here's what an already built tank farm in Puerto Rico looks like.

The coop I lived in for nearly fifteen years is in one of the High Life Hazard Areas.  Some of my closest friends are literally being told they must risk their lives for the national interest.

Pondering

Politicians can rarely be entirely honest. not even Horgan. He can't say that he already knows the environmental review board will rule his way even though we all know there is no way to clean up bitumen from the ocean floor. Notley must fight for the pipeline whether she believes in it or not otherwise the NDP is permanently dead in Alberta. 

In terms of votes, Trudeau would be better off pleasing BC than Alberta. As long as the pipeline isn't actually built BC will forgive Trudeau in no time. He may be kicking the can down the road, just waiting out the battle. He doesn't appear to be reacting to Notley's pleas for him to do something. I don't think he has even commented on Horgan's latest move. He is just letting the official process continue. 

So what is the situation now? I know the pipeline was approved. Then Bernaby held things up by not issuing permits which was overruled. So why haven't they just started building the pipeline? Is it the cases still before the court stopping them? 

 

pookie

Pondering wrote:

That we are a federation is important. It's why natural resources belong to the provinces rather than the country. So, B.C. owns its natural resources and has jurisdiction over environmental protection by default.

Then the question becomes which area takes precedence. Federal jurisdiction over national infrastructure deemed to be in the interests of the country or protection of the environment, a subject not mentioned in the constitution therefore a provincial jurisdiction. 

Sorry.  Nope.

Generally unwise to try and understand the division of powers/federalism from Wikipedia.

First of all, there is no residual clause in the Canadian division of powers whereby anything not enumerated falls to the provinces.  The US Constitution works that way, because it is chiefly about the powers of the federal govt.  Not us. 

Essentially, our jurisprudence states that the division of legislative authority in the BNA Act is exhaustive.  Any subject matter must either be related to one of the enumerated federal or provincial powers, or shared between them.  

The environment is shared jurisdiction.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The coop I lived in for nearly fifteen years is in one of the High Life Hazard Areas.  Some of my closest friends are literally being told they must risk their lives for the national interest.

I sympathize with them.  For real.

But at the same time, their plight doesn't seem to me worlds different from someone who must watch their childhood house be demolished because we need another highway or transit route.  Your friends don't have to stay, but at least they have the option, if they wish to gamble a little.  If it's time to be appropriated for a highway, that's it; you go.

And I grew up in Sarnia.  I think it was assumed that all who lived there accepted the risk that a dozen refineries and tank farms presented, including those who kept living there after those refineries and farms.

TBH, this seems like a marginally more progressive version of NIMBY.  Of course nobody wants the gunk.  But then who gets the gunk?  I don't want to have to vacate my house for a highway, either, but then how do highways happen?