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.Thanks for engaging, but no, you're not correct. He has not said he's opposed to the pipeline. Most importantly, the NDP has not said it's opposed to the pipeline. The Young New Democrats have said they're opposed to the pipeline.
When people and parties don't speak clearly, it's so that when (tomorrow) they change what we thought their position was, they can say: "Oh, so sorry, it's our fault you misunderstood, here's what we really meant."
If that's what you call "wiggle room", fine - then he should say, "I have no position right now on whether or not the pipeline should be built - it depends on the following list of hitherto unknown factors: how the Supreme Court will rule; outcome of further negotiations; a new/improved assessment process; etc. - so get back to me later."
Unless, of course, he thinks that by talking the way he does, people who want to hear "opposed" will hear "opposed", and people who want to hear "my jury is still out" will hear that. My personal opinion is that politicking of that nature undermines democracy and makes its proponents untrustworthy opportunists.
This is exactly what he is saying. He is opposed to it as it stands, a qualification that can change with the wind. It is still opposed but I agree that it is not what you and many are looking for.
Since I think he figures he cannot stop it, it may be that he does not want to spend capital on laying out an opinion that at the end of the day won't make a practical difference.
I think he might be able to get away with this for a time given his position, even if some do not like it. I also think this weasel words approach has to end if this is still a debate one year from now as it won't wash in an election. Also the media have not actually pinned him on this -- in that sense they are doing him a favour or just sure that he won't answer. Nobody is saying okay so you are opposed: what exactly in terms of a change would it take to be in favour? At that point he would have to state what is clear to many and that is that there is no known process that is going to get the social license he is saying it has not been garnered. By choosing a technicality (process) he gets to be opposed as it stands without clarifying if he is fundamentally opposed.
Yes, he is hiding in the shadows as a politician. So long as he is not running in an election that would put him in charge of the file, he may fudge the issue pretending that he could be satisfied to some and that he is against to others. My guess is that he would like to go into the next campaign like that if possible. If the Liberals blow the deal on bad process, then he never has to give his real opinion. If the deal is done then he might think he can avoid it.
Problem is, I suspect that this deal will not be over and the fight will only have intensified. He will run out of time. However, it is possible that he can take an opinion at that time -- if he has to -- and not have lost much more than if he did it now.
In other words he is only not going to make it definitive if he does not have to and he thinks it won't make a difference.
My guess is that he actually is against and does nto want to pay the price of saying so and does not think that there is enough upside to go beyond the qualified opposition he is now presenting.
The national party is in the same position. Without being able to make a difference why woudl they do this knowing that it would result in the disafiliation of at least the Alberta NDP, a sitting government?
I suspect that many who are against in the NDP understand that this process might come to a reconning but until it does accept that the party does not need to pay this price.
Now where things would get uncomfortable would be if there was a process that meant the NDP could make a difference. If Trudeau was really smart he could do that. At the moment only the Liberals have to be definite in their positions. Trudeau could call for a national parliamentary consensus forcing all parties to take a stand that is real. Then there would be no cover for the NDP. It would also force the Conservatives to cosign the screwing of Indigenous people and the environment -- just so they could not hold it over the Liberals later. I don't think Trudeau is that smart.
