Why shouldn't the NDP work with Harper?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
[b]Voters judge on the program put in front of them, and on that basis what Harper said when he was not Leader is not relevant./[qb]

---

Of course it is, they did not do a goddamned thing they promised in their campaign. What party does? Voters amy vote for them based upon that, but its not what they have gotten, nor will get from the CPC or the Liberals.

You know, now we're discussing this, I think I smell something more behind it all, am going to have to think on it more.

quote:

---

[qb]When a government unequivocally exceeds the mandate he gets from voters when/if he gets a majority, they will not survive their first term.Show one that has.
[/b]

---

Gordo.

quote:

---

[b]And the contained bait and switch done by Martin for 13 years, and by Harper so far is not unequivocally exceeding the mandate.[/b]

---

I believe Harper has exceeded the minority mandate, that he was given. Especially considering the dirty RCMP call during the last weeks of the campaign that gave him the minority.

And I agree the Liberals in cutting programs were no better, except my Rights are being threatened by Harper.

quote:

---

[b]If Harper does agree to Laytons demands on climate change action, no one, Harper included, expects for that to be attributed to a "CPC Green Plan".[/b]

---

Bull shit, their busy re-writting history on this and many other things as well, it is baird that is being touted as the one. I will say again voters who ARE NOT politically aware do not even know the NDP are writting it for the CPC.

quote:

---

[b]They will get credit for agreeing to it, and it will take some of the anti-green tint away from them... but even they do not expect to ever 'own' climate change action even if they sign onto it.[/b]

---

Again, I disagree. Whats being told in the churches is what will sell. The msm already is disregarding the NDP in all of this new green by the CPC.

quote:

---

Appearances are important. The sight of the NDP working with their polar opposites, the extreme necons, doesn't bode well for any growth for the NDP. And, if the Cons get their majority next time around, and start implementing Harper's real agenda, the NDP will be blamed for having eased the Con's way into a majority.

---

I think the public are much more sophisticated than so-called "experts" like Laxer and won't buy the simplistic argument above (Boom Boom, you are usually sharper than this).

People just want the parties to work together to get a real plan to fight climate change. If the Liberals say it's more important for them to come back to power rather than make progress on reducing GHG emissions, voters will punish them at the polls and will ignore the bleatings of Laxer and others that it's more important for Dion to be PM than for Canada to fight climate change.

For Jack and the caucus, I think the path is preetty simple: the NDP should support a strong plan that meets Jack's 3 tests (ending subsidies to the oil and gas sector, strong auto emissions standards soon, and binding emissions caps on the big emitters right away) if Harper will agree to it. If Harper says NO, then we vote against the government and it's up to Dion and Duceppe whether we have an election or not.

Jack would only lose support if we back Harper on a weak climate change plan that doesn't meet the NDP's clearly stated benchmarks, but I see no evidence that Jack would even consider doing this.

Boom Boom, Laxer, and others: can you please get it through your heads that [b]voters decide which party gets a majority or minority[/b], not the NDP. I only wish Jack had as much power as that Laxer theory would imply. The NDP didn't elect Harper a year ago, Canadians did. It's not Jack's fault that Paul Martin was an awful PM and that the Libs ran the worst election campaign since John Turner's 84 debacle.

If Harper does win a majority next time, it's totally absurd to say Jack is to blame for that. Was Broadbent to blame when Mulroney won the biggest majority in Canadian history in '84? Did Broadbent force Turner to say "I had no option" during the debates when Mulroney attacked his patronage appointments? The level of discourse on this issue in particular is really pathetic sometimes... [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
[b]... I sincerely hope that Canadians will think twice before trusting their nation's foreign policy to a party with the record of failure currently boasted by the federal Liberals.
[/b]

---

I agree with you sgm. It is difficult for me to conclude that either Martin or Dion would have kept Canada out of Iraq, but hopefully we'll never know.

At the same time, quotes from Paul Martin don't prove what someone would or would not have done. Quotes can be misleading, as witness this [url=http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/layton.html]interview[/url] during last year's election campaign:

quote:

---

Carole MacNeil: But do you fundamentally believe that when there is a person like Saddam Hussein in the world that there is the potential answer of going in with troops and taking that person out?

Jack Layton: You're darned right.

---

This exchange was pretty revealing, as it was made about 9 months before Layton first called for the withdrawal of troops from (southern?) Afghanistan:

quote:

---

Carole MacNeil: OK, this is a question from Harjinder Rana, a 19-year-old from Waterloo, Ontario. She asks: I'm wondering, with Canadians stationed all over the world, in countries including Afghanistan, Haiti, Israel, and the former Yugoslavia just to name a few, where does your party stand on the military's budget, which is in need of a serious boost for peacekeeping reasons?

Jack Layton: Yes, well as I've said we support the military. We support some increases in particularly that kind of peacekeeping work.

Carole MacNeil: And, in Afghanistan as well?

Jack Layton: And we shouldn't be spending money, and anyone who thinks we're going to get on star wars missile defense for free I'm not sure what they're smoking.

---

Yet, had you told me in 2002 that the U.S. would invade Iraq and that Canada would not have supported the invasion as it did in 1990, and as it did the invastion of Afghanistan just one year before, I might have doubted your sanity.

So one never knows. Which party deserves our "trust" in foreign policy matters? Perhaps none of them. Perhaps what they need - whether it was Chrйtien in 2003 or Layton in 2006 - is a constant and vigorous fire licking at their backsides to help them make the right decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
[b]Indeed they can, and I trust you believe Layton's quotes on unilateralism don't deserve to be taken out of context.

Eh, unionist?
[/b]

---

That was precisely my point, sgm.

And I trust, in turn, that you acknowledge that Layton never said once, in almost 5 years of Canadian participation in the U.S.-led adventure in Afghanistan (Oct. 2001 to August 2006), that Canada should pull out immediately?

I think issues of war and peace require close attention. Anyone who "trusts" that "their" party will do the "right thing" represents a danger to me and my country.

ETA (clicked too quickly): Mr. Blair's Labour Party is an example that leaps unbidden to mind.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
[b]Can you explain further, unionist?

I think I've acknowledged before that Layton's first call for a pull-out came in the second half of 2006.

Or haven't I?[/b]

---

Ok, sgm, sorry for being so ironic. Let me [i]spell it out for you[/i].

You said Paul Martin deserved no credit for keeping Canada out of Iraq. [b]You are correct.[/b] I agree. I went further and said I had no confidence either Martin or Dion would have made the same call as Chrйtien.

Then you raised the issue of "trusting their nation's foreign policy" to a party, based on quotes from its former leader and its current deputy leader. [b]I agree[/b], the Liberal party must never be trusted on issues of foreign policy (or any others I can think of).

I then cited some quotes from Layton, and an almost 5 year record of [i]failure to oppose[/i] the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan (and even much worse, if you read the entire interview I linked to - please do), and I now raise the questions:

What would Jack Layton have done as PM in October 2001?

What would Jack Layton have done as PM in March 2003?

Why would you want to "trust" anyone, let alone those who have difficulty understanding basic notions of anti-imperialism, with Canada's foreign policy?

Indeed why, other than as a partisan election slogan, does the question of "trust" even arise? Canadians should debate and discuss these issues, and whoever is in power should manifest our wishes and needs.

The winner takes all voting system that we have in canada gives the partys seats that are in NO WAY consistent with the amount of people that vote for those partys. So you cannot plan to co operate with harper on the environment without the posibility that he will get the most benifit.
The FIRST thing that harper did was cancel programs that help home owners to use less energy per year. (Because his oil industry backers want their product used as quickly as possible).
One thing that will help the NDP is PR in Canada.
Proportional representation will also help the environment. A hell of a lot of the voters want PR and a hell of a lot of voters want to save the earth. If you make NDP support conditional on the implimentation of PR in the next federal election, I am pretty sure you can get minority government or coalition government next time.
You got to do this BEFORE the election.
In winner takes all, the harper cons can win a majority of seats on 30% of the vote.
WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME ANYMORE FOR MISTAKES LIKE THAT!
You HAVE to force the hand of harper. He is NOT going to go for any form of PR.
But dion might.
And there is no need for a referendum in canada.
The government can impose PR.
I find it absurd that the people of canada consistly vote for left wing coalition governments but the system often returns a right wing majority government or at the moment, right wing minority government.
The people didnt vote for a right wing minority government. The voted for a big broad left wing coalition.
If there were more co-operative people in the left wing, you would change the system and have consistent coalition left wing government.
If the NDP ties PR to the environment, anyone who fights against it will fall away in the dust.
The current NDP dream is to grab enough liberal votes to be number 2 in the country. But if that means harper having a majority government (as is likely) you are doing a great disservice to
your voters.
If you and the liberals come up with a PR system, (it will be MMP if the partys chose it or very likely stv if a CA choses it),
you can win a BIG majority for your coalition in the next election and smaller but comfortable majoritys in following elections.
Make no mistake, Proportional representation will eventually come to canada. It is how the modern world works. Bring it in yourselves and you have some control over how it works.
Fight it and you will be viewed by history as a pack of dull minded luddites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]

Hate to be a broken record, but no, that won't be the reason, since Canadians have not had a legitimate majority government since early in the 20th century. The Conservatives don't need anywhere close to a majority of Canadians to vote for them in order to get a majority government.[/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Comfort Zone voting worked for the Liberals, it will work for the CPC too. In fact it has, they took over the PC's and thus became "Tories", and look where they are! The realities that they are not the Tories do not matter it is comfort zone dwelling. In many Canadian minds, we again have our 2 legitimate comfort zone governing parties back.[/b]

---

I remember when Harper won a minority that people were concerned about working with the Conservatives. The fact is that the previous Martin government had not even been in power for 2 years, and there was a strong anti-election sentiment across the country. Harper's government has only been alive for just over a year, and people still don't want an election, they want the government to work (or more cynically, I could suggest that they simply want the politicians to go away and leave them alone). If we commit to bringing down Harper ASAP no matter what, that sends a message to the public that we are immature, self-centred, and still in kindergarten. The Conservatives, being the most popular party in the country and most likely to form a majority, will simply play on Canadian's election fatigue and say that the only way to have an effective government is to hand the Conservatives a majority. In that political mix, people will vote based on their feeling of election fatigue, and the relevant issues won't matter at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Somewhere else on this forum I suggested Flaherty's next budget will be somewhat benevolent, just to impress the electorate that the Cons aren't scary at all, then an election will happen, the Cons will get their much desired majority, and then the [i]real[/i] neocon agenda will emerge.[/b]

---

Maybe I said this earlier, but I believe there is simply too much of Harris in Flaherty for him to consider making meaningful concessions to the NDP, and he would probably cut a deal with the Bloc, given that it fits in more nicely with the Conservative desire to weaken the federal government and have the provinces compete with one another in a race to the bottom.

Don't also forget that many core Conservative supporters oppose everything for which the NDP stands, and would crucify him if he even budged at all. And these Conservatives feel the same way about having to work with the NDP as we do the NDP working with the Conservatives.

And really, this "Harper eats babies" rhetoric is over the top, and ridiculous. As [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005794&p=... eloquently stated:[/url]

quote:

---

If you want the vast, vast, vast majority of Canadians to roll their eyes and tune out, all you have to do is start doing this silly Chicken Little "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" routine and start using all this absurd over the top rhetoric about the Conservatives. It only discredits the messenger.
When they bring in specific policies, we should be critical, but getting into all these ad hominem insults and name calling is silly. Its gotten to the point where even the most inoffensive and anodyne Conservative policies (like fixed election dates) gets denounced as "fascist". Does anyone seriously expect the Canadians electorate to take this stuff seriously? They probably see a lot of people on the far left the same way they see people on the far right - as histrionic cranks in tinfoil hats who see eveything as a vast conspiracy.

---

There are several people who would happily restrict the role of the NDP to being a junior partner in a Liberal coalition. For the first time in history, the NDP has a chance to move beyond that. I hope the party does.

I find the anger against possible co-operation illogical in another sense. Supposing that the NDP was even able to get specific concessions that they could support on the Enviroment, it doesn't automatically follow that they'd support any other legislation in fact I think Layton has made it clear that he'd only support specific legislation if it was pretty much copied verbatim from the NDP policy book.

If the [i]never[/i] vote the same way as the Cons attitude is the official Canadian left position, then that would be very disappointing. Letting your opponents take a position on something, and automatically opposing it not because you disagree with it, but because you disagree with their legitimacy as a government or ideological position, lets them define the issues and the direction of the debate. You'll be so obsessed with attacking them, that you'll forget to present your own positions. For far too long the left in this country has been obsessed with defending social programmes against non-ceasing attacks from the right, or neglect from the centre and moving back to old ways of doing things and assuming that that would be compelling enough to [i]eventually[/i] convince Canadians. In doing so they neglect to providing their own vision for the future. In a sense the left has become conservative as it consistently wants to protect everything, but doesn't really lay out what it wants to do. If the left thinks there's a problem with X or Y, but presents itself in a conservative way by wanting to protect everything that currently exists, it will undermine its own arguments. This is just another example because frankly instead of portraying a potential vision, the NDP would be wasting their time joining the "meeeeee tooooo" chorus led by the Liberals and Bloc (which as the fourth party they'll get squeezed out in) about why they can't support the Cons on a specific issue. Also, the fear, as Paul Wells points out really makes the left look like a cheap date.

quote:

---

What would Jack Layton have done as PM in October 2001?

---

You may recall that Jack wasn't even the Leader until January 2003. Given the reality (or at least the perception) of September 11th, it would have been far more difficult for any Leader to oppose the original invasion of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]I could suggest that they simply want the politicians to go away and leave them alone)[/b]

---

That is just another comfort zone of which I was speaking!

quote:

---

[b]If we commit to bringing down Harper ASAP no matter what, that sends a message to the public that we are immature, self-centred, and still in kindergarten.[/b]

---

I agree and never advanced the position to bring them down without just reason. I advanced the position we should NOT be writing their green plan and should stop immediately. It is definitely a partisian perspective, I do not want the NDP to cooperate at all with the CPC. And perhaps that is immature, self centered and in kindergarten, of me. So be it! They make me feel icky and with the NDP helping them, it makes me feel icky towards the NDP. Limbic brain stuff I suppose. But I make no apologies or concessions for it, I simply will not vote NDP or support/work for them.

quote:

---

[b] The Conservatives, being the most popular party in the country and most likely to form a majority, will simply play on Canadian's election fatigue and say that the only way to have an effective government is to hand the Conservatives a majority.[/b]

---

The most popular party in Canada? Huh? Anything based upon this premise is quick sand, and I disagree.

quote:

---

[b]There are several people who would happily restrict the role of the NDP to being a junior partner in a Liberal coalition. For the first time in history, the NDP has a chance to move beyond that. I hope the party does.[/b]

---

I am not one of those peole who want to restrict, and I am failing to see how the NDP can move beyond where they are by supporting the CPC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
... and build a concrete bunker for la creme de la creme ?

---

Weren't they giving tours of the Diefenbunker at one time? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

[b]unionist wrote[/b]:
Quotes can be misleading, as witness this interview during last year's election campaign

---

quote:

---

[b]unionist also wrote[/b]:
This exchange was pretty revealing, as it was made about 9 months before Layton first called for the withdrawal of troops from (southern?) Afghanistan

---

Is this chronology correct?

I ask because at one point in the [url=http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/layton.html]interview[/url] Layton speaks of Bob Rae as having been "just chosen by the Liberals into looking into how to fund post-secondary education."

According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Report]Wikipedia[/url], that appointment happened in the summer of 2004, which would mean that the interview comes from the time of the 2004 election, not the 2005/2006 election.

Other details lead me to think this interview is not from the last election as well, such as the reference to Ignatieff as a 'Washington based writer' and not as a federal candidate, which he was in 2005/2006.

Anyway, moving on to the question of what the Carole MacNeil interview (and MacNeil is [i]very[/i] far from her best in this interview, I must say, since some of her hypothetical questions are literally unintelligible) might indicate about Layton's hypothetical position as PM in 2003, I really don't see what the grounds of concern are, frankly.

Based on Layton's comments, that is.

To review, here's what unionist has chosen to highlight as part of the 'revealing' exchange:

quote:

---

Carole MacNeil: But do you fundamentally believe that when there is a person like Saddam Hussein in the world that there is the potential answer of going in with troops and taking that person out?

Jack Layton: You're darned right.

---

What unionist doesn't emphasize is that the first sentence of Layton's response to MacNeil's question about a 'potential' answer to someone 'like Saddam Hussein' is surrounded by multiple rejections of the unilateralist approach of the Bush administration and its allies, as exemplified by the Iraq invasion of 2003.

So, for example, Layton also says this in the same interview, regarding the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq prior to the war:

quote:

---

And, were problems encountered with Saddam Hussein? Well, of course, this man was a terrible political leader. [b]And, the question is: do we assign to one nation in the world the right to say, 'ok, I've decided that that guy is terrible, I'm bombing the heck out of that country?' is that how we want the world to unfold? Our answer is, in the NDP, no.[/b] We want international context for decisions.

---

Truly, I don't see much here that is out of step with the comments Bill Blaikie and Alexa McDonough made in the House of Commons in the spring of 2003.

To be clear: Layton isn't J.S. Woodsworth, nor do I think he's ever claimed to be of the pacifist stripe.

I could be misinterpreting the MacNeil interview, but what I take from it is that Layton opposes not the use of military force [i]per se[/i], but such uses of force as fall outside the limits of current international law.

Speaking as one would like to see even stricter limitations, I say this: "Would that the same could be said of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada!"

Do Layton's comments in the MacNeil interview of (I think...) 2004 really provide grounds for believing he'd have led Canada into Iraq in 2003, as unionist seems to imply?

I don't think so, for my own part.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Yes, the bunker at Carp is totally Dr. Strangelove. And someone said there was another bunker at the east end of the city, part of a contingency plan for the fat cats who might have been closer to that end of town, if and when the Russkies nuked the capital. Duck and cover! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

---

Gahhh. You've just given me the mental image of the "fat cats" re-populating the world after a nuclear exchange, with hundreds of little Diefenbakers running around. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
[b]This article, and Rabble got mentioned in the Toronto Star

Jamey Heath, a former NDP communications director, posted an op-ed rant on the left-wing rabble.ca website recently, excoriating those who criticize the NDP for attempting to help the Tories rewrite their much-criticized Clean Air Act. [/b]

---

Funny, I don't feel excoriated? Should I? Hey you others out there do you?

BTW, would never vote Liberal, which is what is teeing me off so much about May, what alternative does one now have?

oh, I got it, stay with the party you have invested the major portion of your life to, because it is the best fit ideologically, and be able to feel comfortable about expressing feelings as to why you disagree in anyone aspect occuring.

This all, or nothing, mentally, appears to be drifting left. If some are thinking NDP voters should not be able to express dissatisfaction, that could lead one not to support by action or word, but yet still give the vote, they are in error.

The best they could hope for is that once one has expressed dissatisfaction, that the person would then not speak badly in the future either. And that they adopt a strictly non-partisian stance in the pulic view.

Mikey reads babble? I didn't know?

Message to Mike: You suck you shop worn apologist for imperial terror and torture. At another time and place you would have been a Jesuit giving diseased blankets to Hurons for God.

The question instead of being "why shouldn't the ndp work with harper" should be "why shouldn't the ndp work with the other opposition parties on the environment" as they were doing on the committee reviewing the environmental protection act.

I watched the proceedings when they had Ambrose on defending the clean air act and Nathan was a leading figure saying that it would be better to amend the EPA because it would be quicker as all the opposition parties were in agreement on the value of doing that.

However, Harper whispered sweet nothings into Jack's ear about how he could be the big man if he took the lead in cleaning up the clean air act. I call it sweet nothings because Harper has a way of leaving you with way less than you hoped for in the end when he plays let's make a deal with you. So the clean air act should have gone into the rubbish bin and the EPA amended as Nathan once championed with the others.

But no, we now have wasted more months to deal with a whole new bill and you can hear the bleats from Nathan about how the clean air act was delayed a few weeks by the others and how reprehensible that was. It truly is hypocritical political theatre on the ndp's part to complain about delay when they were co-authors with cpc in the delay on environmental progress in the first place.

It truly is marvelous to behold how Harper can lead the greedy and the vain around by the nose. It's his standard operating procedure for dealing with voters and politicians alike. The guy's a genius with the weak minded and those who think they can outdeal him.

[ 03 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]

Intelligent Universe has the accounts of events at the environment committee SO thoroughly twisted, I wonder where you get them from?

Since your account is so laden with distortions I'll just start over with what actually happened.

Harper did not 'whisper in Layton's ear' about Jack being the big man. [This sounds Biblical.]

Harper was uncharacteristerically caught off guard by how thoroughly virtually everyone dumped on the Clean Air Act.

He knew he was in trouble, so he took Layton on the offer to bring the Act back to committee. This had definite risks for Harper, because once in Committee the 3 opposition parties could rewrite the Act COMPLETELY. [As Stockholm pointed out, even with the votes the 3 opposition parties cannot otherwise actively create legislation without the government.]

Harper took those risks because he was in trouble, and this offered a chance to regroup. With the benefit of hindsight, we can also see that he was also gambling that the 3 opposition parties were too much at each others throats to rewrite a radically different Act. As it turns out he was right [and I'll get to that].

It was never in the cards for Layton to 'tinker' with the fatally flawed Clean Air Act and bring it back. Never.

Jack Layton was repeatedly accused of this no matter how many times he said it simply wasn't going to happen. And it was always obviously political suicide- but people with an agenda liked to repeat this myth.

Layton's expressed hope was that the 3 opposition parties would rewrite the Act around their common positions. But this was DOA- the Liberals made it absolutely clear from the beginning that they didn't want ANY act- even one consistent with the expressed positions of all of the opposition parties.

[The Bloc has since made it clear they also are only interested in stalling, and for the same reason: fuck the planet, the only thing that matters is the Conservatives looking as bad as possible in the next election.]

So the opposition party rewrite never became a topic of discussion, because it never had legs. And that was because the Liberals wouldn't allow it to have legs, not because it couldn't be done. The 3 opposition parties didn't even need the goernment.

There things stood, when the ground shifted massively and suddenly in December. Suddenly, the public DEMANDED action.

The NDP helping the Conservatives tinker with the Clean Air Act was always a myth. But suddenly it was a non-starter for the Conservatives to try it anyway- as they had obviously intended.

Merely tinkering was no longer possible, even for Harper. So in comes Baird, gren ties, reissuing [minimal] Liberal programs, etc.

And suddenly, it might be in the government's interest to go along with hard caps to put some substance behind Kyoto. Not because they were suddenly green. But because they might need to do that to survive.

Whether they do or not remains to be seen.

Meanwhile Dion is doing everything possible to make sure there is no substantial deal around hard caps for industry and curbs on oil sands development. And he grandstands around how much we love Kyoto.

Saluting Kyoto [again] being the kind of empty promise the Liberals have always specialized in.

They signed on to Kyoto in 1997, which was just a promise to act... and 8 years later, even under minority conditions of needing to impress progressive voters, Dion was still just recycling promises, and talking 'voluntary regulations'.

Intelligent Universe talking about the NDP and government 'delaying' the proceedings is particulary weird. It is an EXACT opposite of what happened, continues to happen.

quote:

---

The question instead of being "why shouldn't the ndp work with harper" should be "why shouldn't the ndp work with the other opposition parties on the environment"

---

As pointed out, this was tryed. The Liberals flat out refused. [Not that this was something you could understand from watching the proceedings themselves- but the info was out there in the media.]

Here by the way is a Halifax columnist talking about what the Liberals did and are doing. No friend of the NDP, or the CPC for that matter, I guarantee you. And not a 'centre of the universe' guy.

[url=http://www.halifaxherald.com/Opinion/556977.html]http://www.halifaxheral...

quote:

---

Originally posted by intelligent universe:
[b]The question instead of being "why shouldn't the ndp work with harper" should be "why shouldn't the ndp work with the other opposition parties on the environment" as they were doing on the committee reviewing the environmental protection act.
[/b]

---

Liberal Revisionism.

Jack's very first proposal was to have the opposition parties cooperate on creating solid legislation to address global warming.

It wasn't Jack and the NDP that walked away.

The Liberals categorically refused to be part of any such initiative, preferring to sacrifice the environment on the altar of thei own petty electoral interests.

Stockholm, the EPA already ia a bill passed into law which a comiittee of the house charged with its oversight can amend at any time and have the amendments be brought before the House to be adopted.

KenS, It was Nathan that said it would be easier and quicker with better results to amend the EPA than to rewrite such a deeply flawed bill as the clean air act. I saw and heard him say it - I saw and heard the Liberals and the Bloc say the same.

If you want to directly refute any of the facts of the committee procedings as I've stated them - I would appreciate it - I suppose a transcript of the proceedings must be available.

As it stands, I wish you well in your attempt to understand and portray these matters in a fair and proper way.

Malcolm French, APR, revisionism eh! so what did I revise in my statements - point out the errors of fact I made by revising them. Otherwise its all just blah, blah, blah ... on your part. But then again indulging in babble on babble is a time honoured entertainment strategy - so go ahead and enjoy yourself - I hope I can resist the temptation myself.

West Coast Lefty, If Harper will truly bite the bullet on Kyoto like you say then I will gladly be proven wrong. The only guys to ever get the full meal deal has been the military because that is where Harper's heart is.

He hates Kyoto with a passion - to him it has all the appeal of the NEP. So far all I've seen him do is steel himself to accept and act like he believes but if there is anyway to undercut kyoto he is going to do it and make it look like for all the world that it is the most common sense thing any sane normal person would do.

I don't know if he can pull it off but he is really going to try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
[b] The fact is, this is the gov't we have and we should all pray that Harper will pull a Nixon in this case, as we literally cannot wait another day to start acting on climate change.[/b]

---

Have you joined some kind of new religion?

quote:

---

West Coast Lefty, If Harper will truly bite the bullet on Kyoto like you say then I will gladly be proven wrong. The only guys to ever get the full meal deal has been the military because that is where Harper's heart is.

He hates Kyoto with a passion - to him it has all the appeal of the NEP. So far all I've seen him do is steel himself to accept and act like he believes but if there is anyway to undercut kyoto he is going to do it and make it look like for all the world that it is the most common sense thing any sane normal person would do.

I don't know if he can pull it off but he is really going to try.

---

You may very well be right about Harper not being willing to bend very much on climate change. If that's the case, we'll find out by March 30 at the latest when the C-30 committee finishes its work. I agree with unionist and Josh K that Jack and Nathan need to go to the wall on the NDP amendments and not compromise on any of those fundamental points.

If Harper won't agree, the NDP should vote against the gov't at every opportunity (just as we've done on the 3 confidence votes since the election, the only party in the House to vote unanimously against Harper all 3 times) and drive them from office as fast as possible.

As I said above, we need tough and strong action on climate change yesterday and if this Parliament won't do it, there is no issue more worth fighting an election on than this one. Jack can stand tall and say: "We made every effort to be constructive but the Conservatives wouldn't budge and the Liberals stalled - give us 100 NDP Mps and we'll get the job done right."

I think he's going to move, though, for totally political reasons, but the rationale doesn't matter as long as we get the tough GHG reduction measures in the end. Paul Martin was totally cynical about the 2005 NDP budget deal and didn't give a flying you-know-what about affordable housing and foreign aid (as his first 11 budgets proved)- but we got him to say uncle and cough up the $$ and that's what counts.

Harper has acted against his base on several occasions - recognizing Quebec as a nation, having a token vote on SSM and confirming there will be no further attempt to reverse the status quo on same-sex marriage. Those are two big pills for his Reform base to swallow, on issues that are far less salient or universally popular than acting on climate change.

Harper is a hyper-political animal and he is hell-bent on winnning a majority - it will soon be apparent than real action on climate change is the price of admission to mainstream Canadian voters. He won't have a choice or he'll be swept out of office in the coming months.

quote:

---

Have you joined some kind of new religion?

---

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Nope, just a secular humanist who wants his son and future grand and great-grandchildren to have a planet worth living on. Climate change will take decades, centuries to fully address and governments will come and go countless times - we have to hope that all of them will carry on with this immense effort to put our society on a sustainable path. Just like the Canada Health Act has (mostly) stayed intact despite Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, Harper, etc, we need massive public pressure to make sure no government would dare let up on the fight to reduce GHG emissions.

[ 03 February 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The EPA was never a vehicle that can be used in a straightforward manner to regulate greenhouse gas emmissions.

---

[url=http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/documents/part/GHG_noi_resp/GHG_noi_res..., there was strong support from environmental organizations for the government's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases using CEPA 1999. [/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
[b]Hence most environmental organizations backing the C-30 amendment process[/b], after they digested the initial shock and suspicion of what Layton's intentions were.

---

News to me.

quote:

---

KenS: I expect that if there is an NDP/governemnt deal with hard caps on GHG emmissions that it will be praised, and that the NGO leaders will head off any Liberal attempts to sideline it before whatever it takes for consummation.

---

How on earth will the NGO's headoff any political party from doing anything - one minute you're telling us that the government only has the power to do things then you intimate that the Liberals would destroy everything green and good with their power and the NGO's would have to put a stop to it.

It just doesn't make sense.

As Boom Boom pointed out with hard evidence (thank you Boom Boom) the EPA could have been amended for Green House Gas Emissions and as pointed out by you for any other pollutants. So CEPA is the real meal deal for the environment.

All the clean air act introduced into the picture was delay.

The nice thing about CEPA is that it is already legislation so it doesn't require being introduced to the House by the government.

The committee overseeing CEPA has the full right to amend the act and to send those amendments to the House for approval. All that is required is for a majority of the committee to do so.

No one party has a majority so neither the liberals or the conservatives or anyone else on their own has the power.

The reason why people keep pointing out that CEPA could have easily done the job is because it is quite simply the unvarnished truth which NDP apologists are now trying mightily to avoid.

It is the conservatives that are bent on avoiding Kyoto at all costs delay being one of them and the NDP not the Liberals are the conservatives dance partner on this one.

The other tactic is to minimise the need for Kyoto because well it just doesn't make any sense given canadian's basic daily needs. The NDP by saving the clean air act for another delay day have given the conservatives a platform and an opportunity to make their case on their terms even if it means setting up or calling an unlikely election.

And no, the NGO's wont be able to head them off.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]