Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Canadian Federal Scientists, Professionals Union Launches Anti-Harper Campaign

The union representing scientists and other professionals in the federal public service is abandoning its tradition of neutrality in elections to actively campaign against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) says delegates to its annual general meeting have agreed the union should be more politically active heading into next year’s federal election.

In particular, delegates have agreed that the union should energetically expose the damage they believe the Harper government has done to federal public services.

Members of the union have complained bitterly about what they claim is the muzzling of federal scientists and political interference with their work....

...

Postal union president says workers will follow Harper around the country

The national president of the postal workers union says he’s not telling anyone how to vote on Oct. 19 – just so long as it isn’t for Conservative Stephen Harper.

Mike Palecek says his members plan to follow Harper around the country and get involved in local campaigns to remind voters of cuts to Canada Post that resulted last year in the end of door-to-door delivery in many Canadian cities....

terrytowel

Adam Vaughan writes OP-ED slamming NDP for its Scarborough Subway Flip-Flop

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/14/adam-vaughan-on-toronto-transit-plans

bekayne

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/the-closing-of-the-cana...

The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Please walk me through the problem again? A politician runs as an Independent in a municipal election and supports light transit and is defeated. The federal NDP supports funding a percentage of projects (usually a third) forwarded to them by the elected councils of municipalities.

At least show me where during the civic election that Olivia proposed that the federal government should impose its views on the development of transit in Toronto or other municipalities across the country.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Harper years have not been terrible?

I guess you can be ignorant being an American trying to explain Canadian politics.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Please walk me through the problem again? A politician runs as an Independent in a municipal election and supports light transit and is defeated. The federal NDP supports funding a percentage of projects (usually a third) forwarded to them by the elected councils of municipalities.

At least show me where during the civic election that Olivia proposed that the federal government should impose its views on the development of transit in Toronto or other municipalities across the country.

From the Toronto Sun

Under her plan, if elected Olivia Chow would scrap the Scarborough subway extension and its 30-year, 1.6% tax hike and then work to secure funding from other levels of government to help fund the downtown relief line and/or the TTC’s state of good repair costs. Once that agreement is inked, Chow would then ask council to approve a dedicated tax hike (around the same amount as the Scarborough subway tax increase) to raise around $1 billion - the city’s share of the funding.

The former NDP MP and ex-city councillor would also lobby the provincial government to resume funding around 50% of the TTC’s operating costs - a practice the province ended back in 1998.

“We can’t have a national conversation led by a mayor who either doesn’t know the truth about transit, or won’t tell it,” says Chow

“Unlike John Tory I will be guided by the experts not a failed mayor.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/29/olivia-chow-to-unveil-transit-fundi...

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

Adam Vaughan writes OP-ED slamming NDP for its Scarborough Subway Flip-Flop

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/14/adam-vaughan-on-toronto-transit-plans


Ahhh, the dreaded flip- flop.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

adma

mark_alfred wrote:

No one thought Outremont was winnable either.  Or Alberta.  So, maybe Eglinton-Lawrence.

Actually, pre-Mulcair, the NDP was already treating Outremont as their most 'targetable" QC seat.  So the foundation was already there for Mulcair.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Please walk me through the problem again? A politician runs as an Independent in a municipal election and supports light transit and is defeated. The federal NDP supports funding a percentage of projects (usually a third) forwarded to them by the elected councils of municipalities.

At least show me where during the civic election that Olivia proposed that the federal government should impose its views on the development of transit in Toronto or other municipalities across the country.

 

 

From the Toronto Sun

Under her plan, if elected Olivia Chow would scrap the Scarborough subway extension and its 30-year, 1.6% tax hike and then work to secure funding from other levels of government to help fund the downtown relief line and/or the TTC’s state of good repair costs. Once that agreement is inked, Chow would then ask council to approve a dedicated tax hike (around the same amount as the Scarborough subway tax increase) to raise around $1 billion - the city’s share of the funding.

The former NDP MP and ex-city councillor would also lobby the provincial government to resume funding around 50% of the TTC’s operating costs - a practice the province ended back in 1998.

“We can’t have a national conversation led by a mayor who either doesn’t know the truth about transit, or won’t tell it,” says Chow

“Unlike John Tory I will be guided by the experts not a failed mayor.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/29/olivia-chow-to-unveil-transit-fundi...

You missed the point, when she advocated for a specific subway proposal she was trying to be elected Mayor not running to be part of the federal NDP .

What galls me about this stupid story is the idea that any federal party should have a policy that says they will override municipalities' priorities on local issues and refuse to fund anything except the projects an Independent candidate previously supported in a losing civic elections bid.

Now there's a way to piss off every municipal council in the country.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

adma wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

No one thought Outremont was winnable either.  Or Alberta.  So, maybe Eglinton-Lawrence.

Actually, pre-Mulcair, the NDP was already treating Outremont as their most 'targetable" QC seat.  So the foundation was already there for Mulcair.

I think the Eve Adams debacle might make a lot of Liberals who want change in Eglinton-Lawrence to look for a better party.

mark_alfred

adma wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

No one thought Outremont was winnable either.  Or Alberta.  So, maybe Eglinton-Lawrence.

Actually, pre-Mulcair, the NDP was already treating Outremont as their most 'targetable" QC seat.  So the foundation was already there for Mulcair.

"targetable" and "winnable" are two different concepts.  Placing a high profile person in a targetable seat means you expect a decent showing.  Placing them in a winnable seat means you actually feel you can win.  The fact that they did win Outremont means even targetable, never mind winnable, seats are possible.  And also 'no hope in hell', which many of the Quebec seats and many of the Alberta seats, were designated as.  Because in spite of this designation, many of these seats were won by the NDP.  So, Eglinton-Lawrence is all of the above:  targetable, winnable, and no hope in hell.  Like Quebec and Alberta, Eglinton-Lawrence shall be the NDP's come October 19.  Mark my words.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

There is an article in Salon.com about an independent candidate in the new riding of Mission Matsqui Fraser Canyon. He has put an interesting campaign video up on YouTube. I thought it was pretty amusing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Why does the LPC and its shills on this board think Canadians are so stupid that they can't understand the NDP wage proposal and feel they have to explain it to Canaidans? More LPC and their shill supporter arrogance, that's why.

bekayne

adma

mark_alfred wrote:
"targetable" and "winnable" are two different concepts.  Placing a high profile person in a targetable seat means you expect a decent showing.  Placing them in a winnable seat means you actually feel you can win.  The fact that they did win Outremont means even targetable, never mind winnable, seats are possible.  And also 'no hope in hell', which many of the Quebec seats and many of the Alberta seats, were designated as.  Because in spite of this designation, many of these seats were won by the NDP.  So, Eglinton-Lawrence is all of the above:  targetable, winnable, and no hope in hell.  Like Quebec and Alberta, Eglinton-Lawrence shall be the NDP's come October 19.  Mark my words.

Actually, I'd deem Outremont more a "University-Rosedale" kind of seat, i.e. by Montreal standards, not quite in NHIH territory.  (And one thing in particular that made Outremont targetable: it was neither monolithically federalist or monolithically nationalist--that is, the NDP had wiggle room to come up the middle.  Coupled with the fact that the polyglotness made it the most "hip urban Torontonian" of Montreal seats, i.e. strangely compatible with a Layton/Chow vision.)

Northern-54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BtNN164Pnc&feature=youtu.be

 

This is an NDP internet ad that I think is pretty effective in the media chosen.

Pondering

Northern-54 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BtNN164Pnc&feature=youtu.be

 

This is an NDP internet ad that I think is pretty effective in the media chosen.

I am biased against the NDP, having said that I think it's terrible. It's patronizing. Why would I want children who don't understand what they are reading to read aloud to me? I don't think it's appropriate to use kids this way.

Jacob Two-Two

You're more biased against reality than anything else. The NDP just gets caught in the delusional crossfire. Hating the NDP is perfectly valid. Hating the NDP while praising and promoting the Liberal party is a sign of someone with serious problems.

Brachina

Its cute and funny, tongue in cheek, get a sense of humour Pondering.

Northern-54

Its intent was to get young voters to pay attention to what is happening at the Duffy trial, in particular, what was said in the emails among staff at the PMO Office (and Duffy's lawyer).  It worked in my household.  All 3 of my 20-25 year olds watched it.  While one of my daughters reacted somewhat similarly as Pondering, she did find out what was said in the emails and she had no trouble figuring out (among other things) that PMO staff thought there was something illegal going on and took steps to try to hide it.  My other daughter and son both found it hilarious and similarly had no trouble understanding it.   They thought it was a youtube video much like other youtube videos, intended as humour appealing to people like themselves while at the same time conveying information they would otherwise ignore. 

The one thing I had to explain was that the people involved were Conservatives. I don't know why but my children assumed that when there are lies being spoken and illegal things hidden that it is must be about Liberals.  Maybe it is because of all that Gomery Commission when they were children.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:
Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

i'm working on the premise they're extracting no matter what.

if they're extracting it anyway and shipping somewhere else to be refined it might as well be done here. it would be harm reduction imv.

of course the best harm reduction would be to leave it there and start rebuilding the destoyed lands.

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Northern-54 wrote:

Its intent was to get young voters to pay attention to what is happening at the Duffy trial, in particular, what was said in the emails among staff at the PMO Office (and Duffy's lawyer).  It worked in my household.  All 3 of my 20-25 year olds watched it.  While one of my daughters reacted somewhat similarly as Pondering, she did find out what was said in the emails and she had no trouble figuring out (among other things) that PMO staff thought there was something illegal going on and took steps to try to hide it.  My other daughter and son both found it hilarious and similarly had no trouble understanding it.   They thought it was a youtube video much like other youtube videos, intended as humour appealing to people like themselves while at the same time conveying information they would otherwise ignore. 

The one thing I had to explain was that the people involved were Conservatives. I don't know why but my children assumed that when there are lies being spoken and illegal things hidden that it is must be about Liberals.  Maybe it is because of all that Gomery Commission when they were children.

All three of your children seem politically ignorant, a common condition amongst that age group most of whom pay attention to politics for a few weeks before an election, my daughter included. It makes me wonder what they would know about Liberals and where they found out. Sounds to me like they have been indoctrinated, which is also very common as parents infuence  their children.

Where is the humour in the video? I've watched "what kid's think" videos in which kids are asked what they think about current events. Those are sometimes funny mostly because kids have a way of percieving things differently and they are candid.

Having kids reading stuff to me that they don't understand in a political advertisement is weird. If they asked them what they thought about what they were reading that might have been interesting.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:
Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

i'm working on the premise they're extracting no matter what.

if they're extracting it anyway and shipping somewhere else to be refined it might as well be done here. it would be harm reduction imv.

of course the best harm reduction would be to leave it there and start rebuilding the destoyed lands.

Why work on that premise? If it is true we are doomed. What makes you think the oil sands will still be developed if there are no new pipelines.

quizzical

the billions  already spent. and we pretty much are. they don't need to be developed further everything is in place just to continue as is. the Transmountain is going to go through no matter what and  imv it may as well carry refined as oposed to bitumen. and if they're going to refine it might as well ship it east too.

don't  think i'm in favour. i'm not. just spent enough time in the patch to see the reality  they will do whatever they want no matter the government or the people if there is a favourable to them federal government.

the only hope we have is to get Harper out and keep the Liberals out. they are  cut from exactly the same corporate controlled cloth as Harper's Conservatives.

mark_alfred

Tom Mulcair expected to speak live at 11AM today (Sunday 16 August 2015):  link

mark_alfred

Mulcair spoke from the Montreal Pride march.  Mulcair says if elected PM the NDP will correct the service records of LGBTQ thrown out of military for being gay & issue apology. 

Brachina

 Good, glad to hear it.

Doug Woodard

Cuts to MD/PhD funding greeted with 'horror' by medical scientists:

http://www.cbc.ca/1.3190215

I'm wondering why just before the election.

Does someone in the PMO think that the base will be pleased by sticking it to the pointy-heads? Or does the boss think that any time is a good time to put the squeeze on socialized medicine?

quizzical

it pleased the religious base.

Unionist

Doug Woodard wrote:

Does someone in the PMO think that the base will be pleased by sticking it to the pointy-heads? Or does the boss think that any time is a good time to put the squeeze on socialized medicine?

I think it's just good financial management - cutting useless programs to help pay for training Ukrainian troops, bombing Iraqi and Syrian civilians, you know, the money's gotta come from somewhere.

 

quizzical

jerrym wrote:
quizzical wrote:
why is the price too low to justify it?

refining  oil and selling it to Canadians instead of our importing it is way more environmentally friendly and money generating.

In the very short run it might work. However, not only environmentally, but economically this is disastrous. 

Linda McQuaig was right -environmentally we will have to leave a lot of the oil sands in the ground to avoid a global disaster. I won't restate the reasons (unless you indicate you want that) as they have been stated many times by many people. 

Of course we should totally ignore the ravings of a radical, envrionmental, socialist revolutionaries like the Saudi Arabian Minister of Oil and natureal Resources and Linda McQuaig.  

jerry, if you kept reading you would've noted i'm not in favour of having the tar sands or the pipelines. i'm just stating the conclusions i've drawn from existing in the oil patch for the last 2 years and living in the heartland of the Transmountain pipeline.

i believe they're going to continue to extract bitumen for the next few years. and because i believe they're going to do  it even against public disapproval there might as well be a refinery doing it here. for me it is making the best out of bad circumstance. i believe in taking harm reduction approaches if nothing else can be done in the now to stop it.

Brachina

 The right complains about political correctness, but they have they're own political correctness, just say the words "Tar Sands" and watch them lose they're shit and get all offended.

jerrym

quizzical wrote:

why is the price too low to justify it?

refining  oil and selling it to Canadians instead of our importing it is way more environmentally friendly and money generating.

In the very short run it might work. However, not only environmentally, but economically this is disastrous. 

Linda McQuaig was right -environmentally we will have to leave a lot of the oil sands in the ground to avoid a global disaster. I won't restate the reasons (unless you indicate you want that) as they have been stated many times by many people. 

Nonetheless, many people still do not realize that this is not sustainable economically, as the following two articles testify. 

Quote:

Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables

This is the beginning of the end.

The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back. 

The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added. 

The Beginning of the End

Power generation capacity additions (GW)Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Power generation capacity additions (GW) Bloomberg New Energy Finance

 

Even Saudi Arabia sees the economic handwriting on the wall, as noted by Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources.

Quote:

A Saudi man walks on a street past a field of solar panels at the King Abdulaziz city of Sciences and Technology in May 2012.

Ali Al-Naimi’s statement is striking as Saudi Arabia’s wealth and influence is entirely founded on its huge oil wealth and the nation has been one of the strongest voices against climate change action at UN summits.

“In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we’re not going to need fossil fuels,” said Naimi at a business and climate conference in Paris on Thursday. “I don’t know when - 2040, 2050 or thereafter. So we have embarked on a program to develop solar energy,” he said in comments reported by the Guardian, Bloomberg and the Financial Times. “Hopefully, one of these days, instead of exporting fossil fuels, we will be exporting gigawatts of electric power.”

Naimi also said he did not think that continuing low crude oil prices would make solar power uneconomic: “I believe solar will be even more economic than fossil fuels.”

Paris is the venue for a crunch UN climate change summit in December and Thursday’s conference was part of the French government’s preparations. The Saudi signal provides a ray of sunlight for those hoping for a strong deal to tackle global warming.

“Saudi Arabia is sending a strong signal to all oil producers and companies they must plan for an energy transition,” said Mark Fulton, former head of climate research at Deutsche Bank and advisor to the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI).

“If Saudi Arabia is starting to hedge its bets by developing solar capacity, this could change the fundamentals of the oil market,” said James Leaton, CTI head of research.

 

Of course we should totally ignore the ravings of radical, envrionmental, socialist revolutionaries like the Saudi Arabian Minister of Oil and Natural Resources and Linda McQuaig.  

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

the billions  already spent. and we pretty much are. they don't need to be developed further everything is in place just to continue as is. the Transmountain is going to go through no matter what and  imv it may as well carry refined as oposed to bitumen. and if they're going to refine it might as well ship it east too.

don't  think i'm in favour. i'm not. just spent enough time in the patch to see the reality  they will do whatever they want no matter the government or the people if there is a favourable to them federal government.

the only hope we have is to get Harper out and keep the Liberals out. they are  cut from exactly the same corporate controlled cloth as Harper's Conservatives.

And Mulcair promoting Energy East for years was in service of the environment? They will do whatever they want no matter the government if it is financially lucrative and that includes the NDP who is supporting the development of the oil sands.

So far the people have prevented the oil companies from building several pipelines from Alberta and they will succeed in blocking Enery East too because Quebec has a tradition of physically protesting and of civil disobedience. If Quebecers have to they will physically prevent crews from putting in a pipeline as B.C. activists have only in much larger numbers.

Bitumen may be worse than conventional oil but that does not mean conventional oil is acceptable. They can't pay Quebecers enough for us to allow a new pipeline through the province threatening our land and water. It is not a net benefit to Quebec.

Conventional electoral politics is for managing the status quo and using small moderate incremental steps to enact change, tweaking the system not overhauling it. We are debating which party will successfully complete more of those small incremental changes than another.

I can't speak to Trans-mountain as I am not in BC but I am betting on the people of B.C.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/to-connect-the-pipeline-conn...

As befits a federation, section 92(13) of the BNA Act gave the provinces legislative authority over “property and civil rights in the province.” But realizing that provincial politicians would often be tempted to play beggar thy neighbour against other provinces, the founding fathers put balancing provisions in section 92(10). Subsection (a) gives the federal Parliament jurisdiction over railways, canals and “other works and undertakings” (including pipelines in today’s world) extending across provincial boundaries. British Columbia, or any other province, simply does not have constitutional jurisdiction to block a pipeline coming from another province if federal authorities approve it.

Even stronger is the so-called “declaratory power” found in subsection (c). This allows Parliament to declare a work, even though “wholly situate within the province,” to be for the general advantage of Canada, or of two or more provinces, and therefore to come under federal jurisdiction. Parliament could invoke the declaratory power over all the local roads, bridges, storage facilities, hydro connections and any other physical installations necessary to construct and maintain a pipeline.

I'm sure the above is true but it would be a very bad idea for Canada to play chicken with Quebec by trying to force Quebec to allow a pipeline through the province.

You may have missed this:

The Ontario Energy Board says the environmental risks of the $12 billion Energy East pipeline project outweigh the
potential benefits, and warns it will drive up natural gas prices.

"What we have found is there is an imbalance between the economic and environmental risks of the project and the expected benefits for Ontarians," said OEB vice-president Peter Fraser as he released a report on Energy East.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ontario-energy-board-says-en...

Alberta lets the oil industry do whatever it likes but that doesn't mean the other provinces have to do the same. Existing developments will continue to be mined but they will produce less and less unless new developments are opened up. If the oil industry wants to build a refinery in Alberta they will but it appears that they don't want to build one there or they would already have done so instead of spending millions and years trying to get pipelines approved.

jerrym

Pondering wrote:

And Mulcair promoting Energy East for years was in service of the environment? They will do whatever they want no matter the government if it is financially lucrative and that includes the NDP who is supporting the development of the oil sands.

 

You seem so willing to criticize the NDP, which I don't agree with on this particular policy, but avoid at all times criticizing your fav, Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals, despite comments like this.

Quote:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said McQuaig's remarks, and Harper's reaction, show that both the NDP and the Conservatives hold "extreme positions" on the economy and the environment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mcquaig-oilsands-re...

 

Trudeau's comment basically states he will follow a fossil fuel's policy that involves development of the oil sands and other carbon dioxide emitting projects to a level greater than the NDP, but less than the Cons (kind of vague, but Trudeau often is). So if think the NDP is not going far enough with regard to fossil fuel development and other policies, why do you continually endorse Trudeau's and the Liberals' more tepid approach?

 

 

Pondering

jerrym wrote:
Trudeau's comment basically states he will follow a fossil fuel's policy that involves development of the oil sands and other carbon dioxide emitting projects to a level greater than the NDP, but less than the Cons (kind of vague, but Trudeau often is). So if think the NDP is not going far enough with regard to fossil fuel development and other policies, why do you continually endorse Trudeau's and the Liberals' more tepid approach?

I don't endorse either party on the oil pipeline issue. I have said for ages that protesters are blocking the pipelines. If we leave it up to the politicians they will all go through. The NDP is not superior on the environmental file. Mulcair denounced Keystone based on jobs not the environment. Neither party "wins" on this file. Environmental protection is not a reason to vote for the NDP.

jerrym

Pondering wrote:

jerrym wrote:
Trudeau's comment basically states he will follow a fossil fuel's policy that involves development of the oil sands and other carbon dioxide emitting projects to a level greater than the NDP, but less than the Cons (kind of vague, but Trudeau often is). So if think the NDP is not going far enough with regard to fossil fuel development and other policies, why do you continually endorse Trudeau's and the Liberals' more tepid approach?

I don't endorse either party on the oil pipeline issue. I have said for ages that protesters are blocking the pipelines. If we leave it up to the politicians they will all go through. The NDP is not superior on the environmental file. Mulcair denounced Keystone based on jobs not the environment. Neither party "wins" on this file. Environmental protection is not a reason to vote for the NDP.

 

However, there never seems to be a reason to not vote Liberal for you.

Policywonk

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:
Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

i'm working on the premise they're extracting no matter what.

if they're extracting it anyway and shipping somewhere else to be refined it might as well be done here. it would be harm reduction imv.

of course the best harm reduction would be to leave it there and start rebuilding the destoyed lands.

Why work on that premise? If it is true we are doomed. What makes you think the oil sands will still be developed if there are no new pipelines.

Railways? Refining nearby?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Tweet from Pundit's Guide retweeted by Jame Valcke:

Pundits' Guide ‏@punditsguide 51m51 minutes agoWith Melissa Wastasecoot in Brandon-Souris, #NDP has nominated 16 indigenous candidates - more than any other party now, or ever! #elxn42 

This makes me feel very proud. The NDP is putting forward a head-and-shoulders superior group of candidates then either of the two other tired, boring, old-line-parities. While there are certainly areas of policy where the NDP should be doiing much better, this is a clear illustation of the NDP's committment to inclusivity.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Tweet from Pundit's Guide retweeted by Jame Valcke:

Pundits' Guide ‏@punditsguide 51m51 minutes agoWith Melissa Wastasecoot in Brandon-Souris, #NDP has nominated 16 indigenous candidates - more than any other party now, or ever! #elxn42 

This makes me feel very proud. The NDP is putting forward a head-and-shoulders superior group of candidates then either of the two other tired, boring, old-line-parities. While there are certainly areas of policy where the NDP should be doiing much better, this is a clear illustation of the NDP's committment to inclusivity.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I read a tweet by Kevin Russel regarding a tweet accusing Tom Mulcar of edploiting children in an ad. Does anyone know much about it. https://twitter.com/calgarykiaguy/status/633010007227785216  It seems to me the Libs are clearly determined to try and smear the NDP as much as they can, and as we have seen on this board since the election call. I maintian for the Libs it ISNT about getting power, its about surpassing the NDP as number 2. The Libs don't care about anything but power. And as for all of Trudeau's promsies, which no doubt some on here will use if they reply to my tweet, my answer is, yeah, yeah, run left, govern right. Oh my they'll say, the cupboard is bare.

.

socialdemocrati...

Calgarykiaguy is one of the least credible and effective people on twitter, even as far as partisan attack dogs go. Every day he spams a series of homemade fliers with the thinnest and pettiest of attacks on anyone who isn't a Liberal. I'm shocked that he hasn't been reported and shut down as a spam account.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

The NDP is not superior on the environmental file.

It is, actually. But to see that, you have to pay attention to something you habitually ignore, which is actually the most important thing of all (which is why you ignore it): Namely, their record.

Mulcair has a strong reputation as a strict enforcer of regulations. His relentless pursuit of polluters who were slipping through the many wide cracks in the system is well known in Quebec. The Liberal party is widely known for the exact opposite. Passing regulations that it fails to enforce or even pay attention to. And of course, Justin has no record on anything, as always.

So judging by records and actual experience (and it's clear why a Liberal shill like yourself would try to avoid doing so) we can see that far from being on even footing, the current NDP would be a remedy to the decades of Liberal and Conservative neglect. Obviously they are going to resurrect the protections that Harper has killed. Hopefull they'll go much farther and improve on what was there before. But even if they didn't, they would certainly enforce all the environmental legislation that the Liberals spent decades bragging about but in practice ignored completely. That would still be a huge improvement.

bekayne
bekayne
Rokossovsky

josh wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

josh wrote:

“How is New Brunswick going to be able to attract and retain top-level medical doctors when they’re going to be told, ‘Oh, by the way, our tax rate is now going to be close to 60 per cent?’”

Thank you, Mr. Harper. I mean, Mr. Mulcair.

I don't like that comment either, but I also don't consider it a valid reason to publicly condemn the NDP, and suggest that people should vote Liberal instead.

Where did I ever say that people should vote Liberal? NDP candidates are generally more progressive. However, when it comes to Mulcair and Trudeau, it's 6 of one and a half a dozen of the other.

.

Yeah because voting for or against C51 is meaningless.

The NDP campaign pitch is at least as left-wing as that of Jack Layton's last campaign, and the NDP is the only party promising to draw added revenue in order to institutionalize the first new national social infrastructure program to be implemented since the 1970s, not to mention Mulcair reinvigorating the call for senate abolition as first appeared in the Regina Manifesto in 1933, as a central campaign plank.

There is in fact a clear distinction between the economics of increasing corporate taxes, and raising the rents on the wealthy, which if Stephen Gordon's analysis is correct, under the Liberal plan, doesn't in fact happen.

How the rich would benefit from the Liberals’ middle class tax cut

NDP promises are substantive, Liberal, mostly smoke and mirrors.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:
Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:
Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

I don't expect "unionists" to be "scientists" or even good "mathematicians", but if you had actually analyzed the data you were presented with you might have figured out that because consumption accounts for the greatest part of GHG emissions, 3.2 to 4.5 times the amount of GHG emissions caused in production of Tar Sands fuel when compared to regular crude pumped in the US or Canada does not equate with a total "well to wheel" rate of GHG emissions 3.2 to 4.5 time higher for Tar Sands based fuel.

Scary numbers aside, what it really means in "well to wheel" terms is an 8% to 32% increase in total GHG emissions. This factor is affected substantively by where the sweet crude we are talking about refining comes from and how it is transported. Since we are talking about supplying the Eastern Canadian market, we are not talking regular crude pumped in Canada and shipped overland but imported crude, transported by tanker over long distances, something that substantively reduces GHG "efficiency".

The comparison is between refined Tar Sands fuel transported over pipelines that emit next to no extra GHG, and "sweet crude" imported and refined in Labrador using cabon intensive modes of transportation.

Yes, Tar Sands extraction for fuel is less efficient than regular crude, but far more factors than simple "production" must be accounted for by the time we calculate the total GHG emission at "the wheel".

Consumption is the main factor in GHG emissions, and that is what needs to be reduced.

ctrl190

Quick question for political junkies on election law.

Are federal election candidates allowed to use election data - voter lists, phone numbers, etc. - from provincial or local elections? For instance, can Olivia Chow and Howard Hampton use lists from their prior municipal and provincial campaigns, respectively? 

bekayne

More Mark Adler:

http://www.cjnews.com/canada/mark-adler-really-first-mp-born-holocaust-s...

Adler’s claim, contained in the second sentence of his online biography – originally posted on his official website and repeated on his campaign site – is that he is “the first child of a Holocaust survivor to ever be elected as an MP.”

But the distinction apparently belongs to Raymonde Folco, who served as a Montreal-area Liberal MP from 1997 to 2011.

...

In an email to The CJN, Folco said she found it “disgusting” for Adler “to use the Holocaust in this way, for personal ends.” She later told The CJN that as an MP, she never publicized her status as a child of Holocaust survivors, while Adler is “profiting” from it.

“Whether he is the first or 15th, I should think it is your record that matters: what you’ve done and what you intend to do for Canadians, when elected.”

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I have to agree with Pondering (OMG!)

The new NDP ad using children is much too easy to attack and may not come across positively to the public.

It's a bad ad.

Pages