Is It Victory For Federal NDP If Trans Mountain Is Killed?

No.

..the indigenous perspective must be included in any analysis.

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..the indigenous perspective must be included in any analysis.

Of course, but the narrow question asked in the OP is if the NDP benefits from Trans Mountain being killed.

..undrip is at the center of the disputes. how can it be that the fed ndp benefits from being so quiet about that?

..that is the ndp position. are you asking do they loose seats from being fake? yes!

..you can see what i am saying re horgan in bc. he is pro undrip yet he excludes undrip from his dealing with natural gas and fracking. bc folk see this. this actually matters on the ground. 

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just listening to Jagmeet Singh news conference, and it seems he is picking a side - John Horgan and B.C.

Well, he almost certainly has more to lose in BC than he does in Alberta, with its one NDP seat and long-standing history of sending almost nothing but Conservatives to Ottawa. Like I said, the pipeline issue could probably help the federal party in BC a bit.

By the way, MM, it might help to clarify the discussion if you tell us what you meant by a "Victory" for the NDP. If you mean they could pick up a few seats here and there, maybe even a net gain if things go well elsewhere, I'd agree. I don't think it'll be a substantial change from 2015, though.

epaulo13 wrote:

..the indigenous perspective must be included in any analysis.

Agreed -- politically the federal NDP has to make connections to do this and speak to their membership about that. This probably has not happened. The issue can only be avoided by the federal party for so long at which time they will have to address the members they have on different sides of this issue.

Sean:

How do you think the federal NDP taking an anti-pipeline position "increases difficulties for the Alberta NDP"? The federal NDP is a third-place party with pretty much no influence on what happens. John Horgan, as the premier of a province with millions of people, is far more powerful than anyone in the federal party, and I don't get the impression that either Notley nor the pro-pipeline crowd in Alberta cares what he thinks.

From everything I've seen, the Alberta NDP's mandate on pipelines is pretty strong. The only thing I could maybe see them balking at is if it actually does get to the point of launching serious economic sanctions or boycotts against BC. You might have some Albertans thinking "Gee, do we really wanna do this to our friends, cousins, and holiday homes?"

Mighty Middle wrote:

So it is official, Jagmeet Singh has come out to officially oppose the Trans Mountain Pipeline.  He says he is making his opposition to this pipeline clear - based on a flawed scientifc review and lack of consultation with First Nations people.

So he is aliging with John Horgan and B.C.

Jagmeet Singh says his team have spoken with Rachel Notley's team but he has not personally spoken with her.

And you think Notley is going to be happy with this? She's going to villify the federal NDP to Albertans. Notley is the biggest shill for this pipeline.BIGGEST.

As many people have pointed out,she is a right wing turncoat because she wants to keep her job. And that's what this whole thing is about. No different than Trudeau.

Speaking of Linda Duncan...

“There were no resolutions that came forward anti-pipeline.” said Duncan. “In the section on environment, all the ones that came forward were very positive. I’m delighted that a bill that I’ve tabled three times — an environmental bill of rights — the right to a clean healthy environment, and the right for the public to participate in decision-making, that was passed resoundingly by the party.”

Granted, this quote is a little out of context, but assuming Duncan is saying what she appears to be saying, we can possibly conclude that she thinks it's better for her to be viewed as pro-pipeline.

https://tinyurl.com/yb2v6dme

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You can question the value of an ally but losing one is still important. There are people within the province of Alberta who are Federal NDP supporters. Now if the Provincial NDP was a strong government popular in the polls this would not matter. It isn't. The Federal NDP pushing against the pipeline also potentially risks the Federal Liberals going against -- not by a direct position but by letting it fail somehow. If the pipeline fails so does Notley at this point and this increases that risk even if only moderately. If the Federal Liberals charge ahead with the pipeline they will lose some support to the NDP in some places. It could be possible for them to let it fail while still being in favour moderately so as not to truly irritate any side. Yes the dynamcis change for Notley even if we can say the risks are not that high.

So, basically, you're postting federal New Democrat supporters in Alberta who are going to turn against the provincial party, but not because the party has been espousing enviromental heresy since LEAP was passed. Rather, because Singh has now announced himself as being at odds with Notley on Kinder Morgan, and these federal-supporters think that, in a schism between the feds and the provs, the feds' position should always be the one that they support?

I would submit that there are probably at least as many, if not more, New Democrats in Alberta who, seeing a schism between Notley and Singh, would say "Well, if Singh doesn't like what Notley is doing, screw Singh". In which case, it would be federal, not provincial, candidates who could be in trouble. (Admittedly, the only one with anything to lose would probably be Linda Duncan.)

 

 

Ok and you want to say that the NDP coming out against pipelines is not going to reflect difficulty for the Alberta NDP who shares a membership and will face confusion on whether they are really for pipelines of not in Alberta -- right? You are going to say nobody in Alberta will care that a membership in the NDP provincially supports a party federally they disagree with?

Come on -- I did not say it is catastrophic. I did say it increases difficulty becuase the federal NDP is more related to the Alberta provincial NDP than another provincial NDP.

If you look at the airplay of politics in Alberta you know that Notley is in a position where she is attempting to show toughness becuase she is accused of being soft on the issue by pro-pipeline Albertans. She is accused of having no federal influence -- even on her own Federal Party.

Argue if you will (which I am not challenging) that this is not huge, but I cannot see how you can maintain that it is nothing.

Unionist wrote:

Hey Sean - did you see my question above your post? Just wondering whether you can answer. Or anyone else.

 

I did not assert this and have found nothing to substantiate it. I merely responded to the effect of it taking the unsourced statement at face value.

Ok, Mighty Middle. Let's agree that YOU WERE MISTAKEN when you said, "So it is official, Jagmeet Singh has come out to officially oppose the Trans Mountain Pipeline."

I wish it were true. But please, please, be more careful before posting statements like this. Besides being false, it has just led to pointless exchanges by people who believed it.

Happily, the Young New Democrats have taken the right position on this. I'll reproduce it here soon.

ETA: We crossposted. Now you're saying this:

Mighty Middle wrote:

As I said in my post above, Singh said as of today, based on the governments flawed scientifc review and lack of consultation with First Nations people, he can't support this pipeline in its current form.

WHERE DID HE SAY THAT? How about a direct quote? Is that too much to ask??

Mighty Middle wrote:

You can watch the video as I'm not going to transribe his words. He made it clear he opposes Trans Mountain in its current form as there was a lack of Nation to Nation consultation.

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/61319337

This tactic of telling people to go search for themselves when you were the one to raise something is pretty obnoxious.

Put simply provide a reference becuase others should not have to do the work possibly to find you were mistaken.

Most people here who want to introduce new facts do not make others then have to work for it.

So if it is not worth transcribing it is not worth you mentionning it and not worth us reading it.

..watched the video including the questions. yes he says he doesn't support the pipeline. i find his position interesting and i think it well worth considering.

Unionist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..watched the video including the questions. yes he says he doesn't support the pipeline. i find his position interesting and i think it well worth considering.

Sorry to be pugnacious, epaulo13, but I have not seen any quote whatsoever that Jagmeet Singh "OPPOSES" the pipeline. If you heard something to that effect, please share. Mighty Middle just keeps repeating it but won't provide a quote.

..i haven't read anything that quotes singh either. but like i said he said it in the video and i might add he said it a few times. now if that doesn't get included in news reports where does that leave us? 

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

If I'm wrong, I'll be very happy. But I don't expect to be very happy today. Especially not when Mighty Middle says, "IT'S OFFICIAL, THE NDP OPPOSES THE PIPELINE", and then can't find a quote.

From the Huffington Post (via Canadian Press) April 11, 2018

Singh says he opposes the pipeline project because it was approved under what he calls flawed environmental assessment rules brought in by the previous Conservative government.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/11/jagmeet-singh-says-liberals-sho...

Ok Mighty Middle, some lessons in English:

1) That's not a quote from Singh. It's a statement by the author of the Huffington Post article.

2) To see how brilliant that author is, you might have had the integrity to quote the next sentence:

Quote:

Singh says he opposes the pipeline project because it was approved under what he calls flawed environmental assessment rules brought in by the previous Conservative government.

But he says, one way or another, the project needs to move forward.

Now that's not a quote from Singh either. See the difference between a quote and a non-quote? But why did you leave out that part? What does it mean to you?

I'll tell you what it means to me: Nothing. Because mere journalists, lacking quotes, often misinterpret and misread and oversimplify and make shit up. That's why when someone says, "IT'S OFFICIAL", I expect them to provide an OFFICIAL quote and source. Or have the humility to say, "ok, maybe I assumed I heard something, but now that I listen more carefully - I was mistaken".

I won't ask you again. Because there is no such source. It's not "official". Because it's not true. Singh is not saying "I oppose the building of the Trans Mountain pipeline". And I don't believe he ever has.

Unionist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i haven't read anything that quotes singh either. but like i said he said it in the video and i might add he said it a few times. now if that doesn't get included in news reports where does that leave us? 

I'll tell you where it leaves us. He never said he opposes the pipeline. He has said for a long time that Harper's assessment method was all wrong. That's not new. And now, when he has two NDP premiers at swords drawn, he has come up with this fraudulent "well, let the Supreme Court decide".

You heard him say he opposes the building of the Trans Mountain pipeline? Please take a moment, humour me, and write down his exact words. Or: write down the time mark in the video where you heard it, and I'll write down his words myself.

If I'm wrong, I'll be very happy. But I don't expect to be very happy today. Especially not when Mighty Middle says, "So it is official, Jagmeet Singh has come out to officially oppose the Trans Mountain Pipeline", and then can't find a quote. And then cites a news story from a year ago. These are desperate times, times of fake news.

..yes he opposes it based on the harper position that was carried forward by the liberals. that and the lack of consultations with indigenous folk. there is no denying he is saying this on the video.

..in the end maybe he really is for it. but i don't trust politicians and especially if they come to power. that's another issue.

The probability of an oil spill is very high, no matter what the pipeline project is. If you have a water tap in your abode, the water utility has to maintain a certain amount of pressure on the water, so when you open the tap, the water comes out.

"Sweet" Crude Oil is a lot more viscous than water. Syncrude or bitumen is even heavier than that, unless you mix it with even more environmentally catastrophic stuff to thin it out. So you need much more pressure to pump it through a pipe.

The mathematics is quite complicated, probably including differential equations, but the upshot is that the pressure on the stuff in the pipe trying to move it also has an entropy of pressure on the inner walls of the pipe, not going in the direction you intended. Molecules of bitumen are very heavy, and hence have momentum. Some of them want to go the way you want them to, helped by your application of constant pressure. Like at my job. Some of them may even want to go in reverse, which increases inefficiency. Speaking of inefficiency, how do you account for the power you need to pump the shit down the pipe?

(To explain my seeming vulgarity, I am a proletarian warehouse worker who likes to read and write in my spare time. If I do my job, it doesn't matter what the fuck you think of me. My landlord will accept the rent, and the smiling convenience store owner will accept my money for the various things he sells that I can't be bothered to get anywhere else (and for which the price differential is not worth the spare time). We handle all kinds of shit from all over the world. It is just shit we have to move. We are like a giant colon for society. Whatever it is, it is shit we have to get rid of. Even food becomes shit. Being an enzyme in a large colon, I might know what it feels like to be on the walls of an oil pipeline. It is mathematically more fortunate, as it is either shit or pipeline. In a colon, the enzymes and the shit get more mixed up so you need to get into more calculus.

Maybe you could coat the inner walls of the pipe with Teflon or something like that, and design the pipe so there is considerable redundancy. Except when it comes to my job, I like redundancy in engineering. I am a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy.

But to make the pipe have a subatomically small probability of a breach would make the cost of the pipe "uneconomic". Probably astronomically uneconomic, as the inverse of subatomic. No $1,000 per metre for you. If you claim you can do it for even less than that, you are cutting even more corners. Agency workers who really don't give a fuck. Lowest bidding suppliers who also don't really give a fuck, and who might cheat in incredibly bad ways.

In outer space, this system might be viable, because if there is a breach of the pipe, there would be a very high probability goo would eventually head to a star or a black hole, where it would be summarily dismissed. There is a very microscopic probability it would hit a planet with sentient life.

Which brings us to the fact that we are quite lucky to have a planet which supports sentient life. The odds of that, it seems, are almost zero. We have to be in "the Goldilocks zone". There has to be enough water to sustain life. As we are discovering, carbon-based life seems to depend on water. Water provides the fuel (oxygen) and the way to burn it (hydrogen). Even as we rapaciously convert the planet's bounty into unevenly distributed worthless digits in Bank databases (Canada bank deposits alone $1.8 trillion) through our biological need to survive, reproduce, and be avaricious, I love the Earth, and I wouldn't dream of living anywhere else. If the Earth goes down, I am going down with it. So fuck with the Earth, and you are fucking with my long-term survival, and those who I love, and those who I come to love after hating them first. Fuck you and your pipelines.

Which means that the more you want to pump down the pipe, the higher the probability that the pipe will not be able to handle the entropic pressure. Especially as you have built the pipe with the lowest bidder.

Traversing the Earth, an oil pipeline comes into close proximity with it. The toxicity of oil in water is immense. One part per million of oil in water makes the water impotable. Which means if you spill one litre of oil, you pollute 1,000,000 litres of water. In some places, water literally catches on fire because of oil pollution. Try and eat a fish caught anywhere near the Athabaska Tar Sands. It tastes like plastic, one of our favorite byproducts of oil. Still, we learn that if you fry oil, you can get plastic. Which gives us an insight into the petrochemical industry.

Boil it? Are you fucking kidding me? You need to distill it. Many times. You can't boil river water anywhere in Ontario. Try it.

Capitalism in its pure form (or that being monitored by an extremely suspicious Republic, or both) would manage risk. If the oil companies had to remedy the pollution they have wrought, they would all go bankrupt. So they demand the government to take on the burden of risk, by demanding they are allowed to extract profit no matter the consequences. Even from an Ayn Rand perspective, this is wrong. And as a citizen of the extremely suspicious Republic of the Earth (and of the less-suspicious Canada and Quebec), I am willing to let the Ayn Rand loonies go on this one.

Oil pipelines are corporate welfare of the worst kind. "Oh but I can make $3,000 a week in the oil patch". After taxes, the landlord (who saw you coming before he built the apartment building), the ridiculous prices for basic staples as you are out in the wilderness, and your alcohol and cocaine habit, you are really not much better off than me, who makes slightly less than the median income in an urbanity. In the city, businesses are much more worried that I can say "I will go somewhere else" than if you are in a captive market in the Athabasca Tar Sands. As the profit per your hour is probably 5 times the profit per my hour, you are being exploited 5 times as much. (Based on about 10% of your gross wages being profit) My boss has to compete. Yours doesn't. The big boss is protected from risk by the government, and the little bosses who take your money after you get paid have local monopolies. 16 tonnes and what do you get?

Fuck any kind of oil piplines. Shut down the ones we have. Close down the Athabaska Tar Sands. We will make money cleaning it up.

So epaulo13, here's what the federal Young New Democrats said, on April 9. It's a quote. Jagmeet Singh has never said this. I fervently wish he would:

Canada's Young New Democrats, on April 9 wrote:

Canada’s Young New Democrats reject the actions of the Trudeau Liberal government of continuing construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline on unceded Indigenous lands.

Once again, Justin Trudeau has failed Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island by upholding colonial systems and bending to the whims of big oil. The Kinder Morgan pipeline violates the rights and sovereignty of Indigenous peoples. It is in direct opposition of the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Water Protectors are being unjustly arrested and detained for defending our basic human right; water.

Miigwetch to the water protectors who have fought for the land and wellbeing of future generations that has led to a temporary stop of non-essential funds, we must continue to organize for a permanent halt to the pipeline. When Trudeau speaks of “national interest”, he isn’t speaking for the interests of Indigenous nations. The rights of Indigenous people ought be put above the perceived, short-term, narrow economic interests of individual governments. Trudeau says that Canada is a nation of laws. When will he begin to follow the law of free, prior and informed consent?

We call on Justin Trudeau and cabinet ministers Catherine McKenna and Minister Jim Carr to issue an apology for the mistreatment of Water Protectors and immediately abandon the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. We ask all New Democrats to stand in solidarity with Water Protectors in the fight against Kinder Morgan and the degradation of Mother Earth.

This pipeline will not get built.

Signed, Canada’s Young New Democrats

The boldface emphasis is added by me.

Source: Young New Democrats Facebook page.

I don't expect Mr. Singh to add his signature to this statement any time soon. But please, please prove me wrong.

ANother issue here is that Morneau is claiming exclusive constitutional authority and saying that Singh is groundless in asking for a reference. Here are a couple tidbits:

Section 92 (defining provincial powers) says

"92.5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon. "

I suspect that the pipeline crosses that land.

"92.10 Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: (a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:"

Section 91 reserves these excepted rights to the national Parliament long with Indigenous peoples and land.

This would suggest that the Federal government and Alberta are correct.

Then there is this:

"(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada."

This could pose a problem for Alberta's plan to cut off BC.

The problem here is that the Federal government may indeed have the upper hand in constitutional law, even though the government may be breaking promises. There is no Constitutional authority in the hands of a Porvince to uphold a promise from a party that wins election.

Ultimately this is an issue that may be political calculation in that the Liberals may prefer to lose votes on this to the NDP than to the Conservatives, especially as the promise was inconvenient and they believe interferes with their spending by damaging the economy. They may feel that they can compensate enough to minimize the impact in an election and that a loss of perhaps 10 seats in BC could be offset by holding seats elsewhere. They may also calculate that the opposition to pipelines in much of the rest of the coutnry is primaraly NIMBY more than principle -- in other words they woudl not be punished greatly in Quebec for forcing on BC what woudl be unacceptable to Quebec. In fact, some in Eastern Canada could presume that this pipeline reduces demand for one in their neighbourhood.

Unionist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..nice find unionist. i wish he would as well but i believe you know that politicos have their own language.

..but prove you wrong? i don't see us as being opposed.

Oh Lord, save me! Of course we're not opposed. I said I don't believe Singh will sign on to such a statement, but I want to be proven wrong! I want NDPers and everyone to ask Singh to please take a clear unequivocal stand, even if I don't believe he will.

I've written to Singh asking him to say "This pipeline will not be built", or any variation thereof - "I oppose the pipeline", not "My opposition is based on Harper's process, so let's take it to the Supreme Court, and see what they say, then ask me again."

And yes, Sean in Ottawa, that's all Singh said in that interview. He didn't say "my opposition is based on the decision of the Indigenous people", or "my opposition is based on the need to fight climate change", or "my opposition is based on the expressed wishes of BCers not to face the risks that this pipeline would incur." He said (and has said this since 2017) that his "opposition" is based on the process. So the new "process" he proposes is a Supreme Court reference. And duh, guess what the Supreme Court will say about jurisdiction? So very unpredictable.

If I am correct you are acknowledging that he has said he is opposed but he has left sufficient wiggle room to change his mind with "new developments re process." That is unacceptable to you (and no doubt very many others). That seems straight forward.

It may be that if this is firmly a federal matter no matter which side you are on only the Feds have the ultimate power. Other parties may choose not to be very clear becuase they see no upside in a position that will be mute by the time of the next election.

Put another way, is there a path to preventing this that the NDP has that would provide a benefit for the NDP being more specific. If the NDP cannot change the result, it may feel that being vague can allow them to criticize based on whatever way the wind is blowing in the next election. I am not saying this is the way opposition parties should work but do you think this is the calculus here? At the moment the NDP position is almost acceptable to everyone as you can almost read into it whatever you like. The lack of absolute strength and conviction is unlikely to cost much and taking that stand, they may feel, has a point only if there is a path to success on this.

The other question is whether Trudeau can buy the support of Horgan by offering whatever needed to get it. Somehow, I cannot see that but I assume some people, including Trudeau, think that is possible, hence the meeting Sunday between Trudeau, Notley and Horgan.

The only plan that I ever saw to settle this is one that Trudeau has never offered and now probably cannot -- and that was if he had offered a massive injection of Federal money into Alberta to create enough activity for that province to  reduce dependency on fossil fuels -- Almost a Marshall plan to rebuild the economy of Alberta to be not oil and gas reliant. Canada definitely gained from the economic output of Alberta in exploiting fossil fuels and it gains as a national project in becoming more sustainable. It would also gain out of the value of the investments and income and save the costs of dislocation of many workers.

I have long wanted a pullback on exploitation of fossil fuel in Canada both in terms of supply and demand. However, I think that investments into building an alternate economy is important in the provinces that presently have this as their most important export -- and that is not just Alberta. This kind of investment would never be greater than what has already been invested in the East and the potential to gain is massive.

Without this you have an objection to the livelihood of another province in an unresolveable conflict.

The Liberals may also conclude that by taking Alberta's side today they can put to bed the wrongs of previous years... Of course for the economy in the long term (fossil fuels is a poor star to hitch a ride on) and for the environmental future of the country this is a mistake. For Indigenous people's it might be a signal that Trudeau will use them when he can but will sell them out when worthwhile.

A great deal is going on and we should not think that the macro agendas of the parties are not part of this and maybe even greater than current popularity.

Finally, let's understand that there is in the background a jockeying among the biggest 4 provinces to be the leading Canadian interest. When it comes to industry, Ontario has the lead, in green power that rests with BC and Quebec/NL. In fossil fuels that rests with Alberta with SK and NL implicated. We cannot pretend that Ontario has not made bick money on AB oil either. These are national projects with implications to the entire country. Solutions should also be naitonal. It is understandable that AB does not want to be slapped down and told leave it in the ground and live with that alone.