Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

Mulcair wonders why Harper would head north as Duffy trial resumes

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-wonders-why-harper-would-head-nor...

On cooperative options

The apparent theory that the senior partner in a coalition would support the possibility and the junior one would oppose it is rather hard to square with the parties' positions in 2008 and (pre-Orange Wave) 2011 - and as May's wont, serves to give Trudeau an excuse that he's done nothing to deserve.  In fact, the parties' track record is this. The NDP is open to cooperation to replace the Cons with a better government no matter what the party standings say, while the Libs have refused to acknowledge the possibility at every turn. And between that reality and the policy conflict which seems to have arisen between the Greens and the Libs, May's declaration only serves to confirm that Canadians wanting change should ensure that the NDP is in a position to deliver it - with Green support if necessary.

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2015/08/on-cooperative-option...

Is Trudeau really ‘just not ready’? Maybe

On the whole, I find that Stephen Harper regularly feels like Mr. Trudeau’s smart-ass and nerdy first cousin, and Mr. Mulcair like his wise and experienced uncle.

Mr. Trudeau has been criticized for a series of foolish gaffes that seems to have brought his popularity crashing back down to Earth. For me, two other matters have been far more disillusioning. One was the egregiously crass opportunism of welcoming into the Liberal fold hardline Tory defector Eve Adams and her notorious hardball-playing fiancé.

The second was his acceptance while an MP of many handsomely paid speaking engagements proffered by groups in the wider public sector. Education groups, library groups, charities, health associations – all of them hard-up, not-for-profits – offered newly elected MP Trudeau between $10,000 and $20,000 to speak to them. That was appalling thoughtlessness on their part. What was worse, he accepted, even though he agreed publicly he didn’t need the money.

Think about it. After becoming an MP in 2008, Mr. Trudeau raked in $277,000 in speaking fees from 17 such speeches until he stopped to run for leader. What does that say about his good sense and his judgment? I confess it outrages me still, and it should you, too.

Nor did the man do himself a favour when he claimed that he didn’t talk politics at these speeches, although his topics had included youth issues and education. Hello? How can these not be political issues, especially if you happened to be your party’s parliamentary critic for youth, as he was? And as education critic, are you allowed to charge school boards when you address them? What was the man thinking?

As of this moment, according to the polls, it’s a reasonable bet the Conservatives will win most seats, but not a majority. So the NDP, which should come a strong second, together with the Liberals, should easily be able to form a majority unity government (though probably not a coalition). As of this moment, that will make Mr. Mulcair the Prime Minister and Mr. Trudeau his lieutenant. That sounds like a good result for Canada. I presume the two are quietly preparing for this eventuality.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-trudeau-really-just-not-...

Key witness Nigel Wright to testify in Mike Duffy trial

Against the backdrop of the federal election, Wright is acutely aware his testimony also casts a shadow on his former boss, Stephen Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/11/key-witness-nigel-wright-t...

didn't i just read or hear somewhere today something about japan firing up a repaired nuclear reactor?

Will Nigel Wright be good to go?: Tim Harper

With his former chief of staff in the witness box, Stephen Harper will cede control of a campaign in which he has set the tone.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/11/will-nigel-wrigh...

NorthReport wrote:

In our politics, telling the truth gets you in troubleL

inda McQuaig, the prominent Toronto NDP candidate whose innocuous and true statement about the oilsands has turned into a controversy, is the latest to be caught in this political vortex.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/11/in-our-politics-tel...

 

I wouldn't worry once Nigel Wright starts talking Linda McQuaig's comment will be forgotten.

But the McQuaig episode is illustrative of a larger problem: namely, that our politics do not allow for serious — and truly honest — discussion of the most pressing issues of our time.

McQuaig was accused, by the prime minister and many others, of heartlessly ignoring the economic needs and employment anxieties of Albertans. With falling oil prices, Albertans are understandably feeling fearful for their economic security.

But who is, in fact, robbing Albertans of hope? Those who pedal the view that we can keep on pouring new infrastructure and capital into digging up tarsands oil, or those who say we must move rapidly and boldly to transition away from fossil fuels?

Honest leadership would mean speaking frankly about climate realities. It means acknowledging that a new global climate treaty is coming, that it will require that Canada leave much of its oil, natural gas and coal reserves in the ground, and that in anticipation of this eventuality Canada must invest extensively in renewables and green infrastructure that will allow us to leap into this transition.

There are a lot of jobs in this necessary future, and these should be championed, instead of simply pointing to the jobs that will (and must) disappear.

......

The impulse to be cautionary and dull during an election, which is particularly strong among progressive parties when electoral victory appears within reach, almost certainly underestimates voters. It may even be counterproductive. I suspect a sizable chunk of Canada’s non-voters sit on the sidelines awaiting bold solutions to serious challenges, or at least honest discussion commensurate with the severity and urgency of the threats we face to our climate, social fabric and democracy. New data from Innovative Research Group, reported in the Hill Times this week, suggests parties looking for the progressive vote will gain electorally the stronger their positions are on the environment, civil liberties and health care — since these are areas where people feel very strongly one way or another.

It breeds cynicism in politics when there is such an obvious disconnect between measurable facts and what is deemed acceptable within the paltry boundaries of mainstream political discourse. What would happen if they started telling the truth? We just don’t know. But perhaps a sense of common purpose would arise, as we have seen in the face of previous crises.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/11/in-our-politics-tel...

nicky wrote:

Perhaps I assume too much Pondering in thinking you agree with the article you posted above. That is Linda McQuaig only spoke the truth and is being unfairly assailed for doing so. What then do you think of Justin's ignoble comments about Linda? 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...

That's politics. Not saying we cannot have an adult conversation about the oilsands. Because the stakes are so high in this election, you need to be careful in what comments can be clipped. This is why the Cons have tightly controlled, scripted events and talking points for all cadidates to use. When you go off message, that just opens the door for others to attack. Especially during an election.  Interesting to note according to the NDP press people, Linda will not be having any more comment about the oilsands. As a star candidate, the NDP planned to showcase her during this election by appearing on political panel shows. But after her 'oil in the ground' comment, I doubt she will be appearing on any panel shows from now until election day.

From the National Post : Kelly McParland: McQuaig’s latest outburst undercuts Mulcair’s sanitized NDP

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-mcquaigs-lates...

The long ascent of Tom Mulcair

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/11/the-long-ascent-of-tom-mulcair/

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/11/ndp-conservatives-gear-up-attacks

Mulcair courtise la région de Québec

Selon M. Mulcair, «Stephen Harper n’a rien fait pour la région» depuis qu’il est au pouvoir

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/447381/mulcair-courtise-la-regi...

Once again, you claim to agree with a position, but support the party opposing the position, while criticising the party that accepts that position for not promoting it strongly. Once again, you make no sense whatsoever.

You may be right terrrytowel in the sense that voters do not want to pay the price to stop global warming. However, if Canadians take that path the longterm price will be catastrophic for Canada and the world. CBC's The Current had an exellent discussion of the economic, as well as environmental problems associated with full development of the the oil sands and why Canada will suffer if it pursues the damn the torpedoes approach to oilsand development. 

Virtually all (97.1%) of environmental scientists agree that we must leave at least 2/3 of global fossil fuels in the ground in order to avoid a global warming catastrophe. I strongly suggest you watch The Current podcast below to understand the danger we are in. As it says in The Current podcast, all our politicians know how terrible situation is, but they are afraid to fully admit it because they are afraid of being punished politically. 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-11-2015-1.3186670

The following video by National Geographic describes the devastating effects of global warming. Many of these are already occurring. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_pb1G2wIoA

The Cons obviously have no intentions of dealing with this under this circumstance. Trudeau attacked Linda for threatening the oilsands. Mulcair is saying he will implement an environmental review process to guarantee we meet our international commitments and has shown some backbone as Quebec Environment Minister by resigning to protect a park from development. No guarantees that he will do enough but it is better than the Liberals who signed the Kyoto Accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and then increased them by more than 20%, more than any other country in the same period. The Cons dropped out of the Kyoto Accord and have blown through even its own extremely weak emissions standards.

ETA: In June of this year the G7 agreed to totally phase out fossil fuels by 2100. All G7 members, except Canada and Japan had wanted to totally phase out fossil fuels by 2050 as they have all begun to make this change, in order to mitigate the effects of global warming. (Japan is trapped using fossil fuels now that it has abandoned nuclear energy following the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown created by an earthquake. Japan's  Abe government restarted its first nuclear reactor today but it faces  a long process in restarting the industry both technically and because of 60% opposition to nuclear energy following Fukushima). In order to get Harper's and Japan's agreement they agreed to do this by 2100 instead. Of course Harper does not worry about what happens to his or our grandchildren. 

Quote:

 

Canada has joined other Group of Seven leaders in pledging to stop burning fossil fuels by the end of the century, but Canadian officials are playing down the promise as an “aspirational” target and Stephen Harper says it will only be reached through advances in technology.

In their end-of-meeting statement, G7 leaders called for an end to fossil-fuel use by the global economy by 2100 as well as cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 that lower them as much as 70 per cent from 2010 levels. ...

A Western diplomat said European countries in the G7 went into the meeting looking for stronger language about moving to a global low-carbon economy, and it was Canada, a net exporter of energy, along with Japan, who wanted to push back the stated timelines for that ambition. In the end, one diplomat noted, the G7’s final communiqué, which calls for decarbonisation of the global economy “over the course of this century,” allows each country to put a different interpretation on whether that would happen nearer to 2050 or 2100.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-commits-to-ending-fo...

Quote:

According to the Washington-based Center for Global Development, Canada has fallen to dead last compared to 27 other OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) when it comes to climate change remediation. This is due to our withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, our high per-capita fossil fuel consumption, our cold climate and large land area, as well as continually rising carbon emissions - largely due to oil sands development.

On the international scene Canada is part of the problem, not a solution.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2014/03/climat...

So, while the scientists of the IPCC send out yet another warning of global changes, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification, from an economic point of view Canada has little incentive to change because the dollar value of the Arctic will continue to rise, along with the temperature. 

It will be interesting to see how long the short-term economic gains can stay ahead of the long-term environmental costs.

Bloomberg News, a business news network, reports that in 2013 global renewable energy investment surpassed fossil fuel investment for the first time, having growing nineteenfold in 20 years. 

Quote:

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. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/fossil-fuels-just-lost...

So thanks to Liberal and Con governments we are out of step as the rest of the world shifts towards renewable energy. In fact, Canada is in danger of becoming the equivalent of the buggy whip industry which died when it failed to adapt as the tranportation industry shifted towards the automobile. 

Linda has introduced into the election an issue we need to deal wtih before it deas with us. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Once again, you claim to agree with a position, but support the party opposing the position, while criticising the party that accepts that position for not promoting it strongly. Once again, you make no sense whatsoever.

The NDP spent the last couple of years promoting Energy East. They support the development of the oil sands.

You are also ignoring the issue of the Sherbrooke Declaration and asymmetrical federalism as well as the handling of the sexual harassment incident. I understand these are incidental issue to you but they are not to me.

nicky wrote:

Does Justin have a position on Energy East?

Justin, like the Liberals, really has no position on anything.  That was his message during the debate.  By labelling themselves as the party that opposes the "politics of attack and division", the Liberals end up not staking out a clear position on anything (IE, they oppose actually standing for an idea). They'll simply become a toady to big business like they always have in the last thirty years.

Regarding Energy East, the NDP were concerned about environmental issues and about the beluga whale population at the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, and put in the following motion:

NDP motion wrote:

The proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal...will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected.

The Liberals supported the Conservatives and voted against this NDP motion.  The Liberals are not a party that any progressive should even remotely consider.

North Vancouver Green candidate Claire Martin criticizes Tom Mulcair's pipeline stance

http://www.straight.com/news/505956/north-vancouver-green-candidate-clai...

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.

 Why don't the protesters bother Trudeau or Harper who also support the pipeline.

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.

I am no expert on the oil industry so this is just what I gather from a lot of reading of regular news sources from CBC to Truthout.

The reason the multinational corporations are so adament in piping the oil out raw is because the price of a refinery is very high. Refineries take oil from multiple sources. There are already plenty of refineries around the world, including some in Canada, to process all the oil the world produces.

Even with the price of oil high developers were getting cold feet and pulling out due to the stall on pipelines. The industry threatens us with rail transport but the truth is they won't develop based on rail. It's way to expensive. It's one thing to ship excess by rail, it's another to develop new sources. The price is dropping because there is an oil glut and a slow down in China, a double whammy.

The price may recover somewhat but the age of fossil fuels is over. I doubt multi-nationals will build a refinery in Alberta. If they intended to it would have happened long ago. They can get their oil elsewhere.

The eastern refineries have access to lighter crude more easily from eastern sources and it's safer than piping bitumen across the nation. That they would even consider it proves how expensive it is to build refineries.

Alberta can continue shipping out bitumen at the same rate it has been. What is being blocked is expotential development. I suspect the rush to develop is because they know time is limited. As we transition away from fossil fuels the oil sands will lose their value and become a stranded resource. They probably have no more than a couple of decades at most to get it out of the ground and I think the time is shorter than that.

Now that countries, and non-oil multi-national corporations, accept the need to transition off of fossil fuels it is a race to develop the best sustainable sources, preferably those that will continue generating profits from something that needs major manufacturing abilities like batteries. For awhile there will be lots of money to be made from going green but it can't replace the profits inherent in fossil fuels that require a constant fresh supply.

That is what the article I quoted was getting at. This transition is happening and it is happening now. We should be planning for the slow shrinking of the oil sands as new development slows, ends, and existing developments become depleted. It will be a long curve but we don't need any new pipelines or any new avenues for getting oil to market because a lot of that oil will have to stay in the ground.

Oil companies argue that Canadian oil is ethical unlike the oil from the mideast but that doesn't matter. It's not a matter of making deals to be fair to all the oil producing countries. The oil that is easiest to get to, transport and refine is the oil that the world will access first and there is still plenty of it. There will be no need to drill in Arctic waters.

Oil prices may go up again because they are so manipulated but one way or another the age of fossil fuels is waning. That makes building new refineries riskier.

quizzical wrote:

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

Could you explain how extracting bitumen from tar sands in Alberta is "way more environmentally friendly" than buying it from Venezuela? Or maybe I misunderstood.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

So you believe the age of fossil fuels is dying and yet you actively promote the candidate who attacks you if you dare to suggest that there might be a little oil somewhere that has to stay in the ground. You are as consistently self-contradictory as ever Pondering.

But you've neglected to consider asymmetrical federalism and the oligarchs, Jacob Two-Two.

thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

i would also say we wouldn't have to  "buy" our petroleum from Venezuala. it could be province to province trade agreements. oil we buy and ship in is paid for in US dollars. why make the US rich, or actually pay off their debt, when we can keep  the money here with cross Canada trade?

Brachina wrote:

 Why don't the protesters bother Trudeau or Harper who also support the pipeline.

Because you don't fault a lion for roaring.  People aren't yet adjusted to the idea that they should expect no more from the NDP than they get from the Liberals.