Gary Doer defends Alberta oilsands

Nope, no one I know has ever gone to a going away, or retirement, party for someone whom they worked with, and didn't agree with on all things.

Never seen it before ever.

Afterall...they might just get painted with the same brush of the former collegue, by those who did not like him, even though they have lived thier lives in direct contrast to what said person who is leaving has espoused.

Frankly, I thought such small mindedness went out of progressive discourse, especially from those of us who have brethern that we do not agree with, perhaps on nothing even, but associate with anyway. And  we even go to going away parties for them, without worry that some would paint us like our departing brethern.

Polunatic2 wrote:

But what is the NDP's energy policy now?

Quote:

Halt any new tar sands development until carbon emissions are capped, significant environmental and health impacts are addressed, and protected areas are set aside.

Quote:

We must ensure that NAFTA is reformed in ways that meet our priorities:

• Renegotiate NAFTA's Chapter 11, which unreasonably limits Canada's sovereignty in regulating foreign investment in the public interest.
• Renegotiate NAFTA's Chapter 6, which unreasonably limits Canadian sovereignty over its energy resources and may prevent Canadian energy security.

The NDP's plan on energy is to actually have a made-in-Canada national energy policy written by Canadians and not dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America, the way it is now since Tory and Liberal trade betrayals wrt FTA-NAFTA.

Nope,  not on my part, nor on most's, I suspect, but apparently you were, as you started this topic as if it were something new and amazing...

Keep in mind that as Canada's ambassador Doer must put forth the position of the government in all Canada-US matters regardless of what his personal opinions are (not that I actually believe he has any). The real issue here is the policy of the Canadian government, and bashing Doer over this (much as I dislike him) is a distraction.

Anyways, as I said earlier, I don't think Doer has any strong beliefs. How else can his moves to protect the east side of Lake Winnipeg as a UNESCO heritage site be reconciled with his defence of the tarsands?

That has a very easy answer; not all Manitobans and NDPers, or even Canadians, are you.

Actually, try rereading my posts, this time for clarity, I make no claims regarding Doer at all, the only thing pising me off is attempts to somehow suggest that what he does implicates the federal NDP and their supporters in some way.

All the while knowing pulling such nonsensical shit, is just going to create a brouhaha, is a just of big piss off, too. It is deliberate malice as far as I can see.

Thanks for the link Fidel. I'm in general agreement with re-opening NAFTA.

Quote:

when conventional oil reserves run dry in Alberta in a few years' time

Polunatic2 wrote:

Thanks for the link Fidel. I'm in general agreement with re-opening NAFTA.

Quote:

when conventional oil reserves run dry in Alberta in a few years' time

Isn't that yet another reason to demand a 20 or 50 year or permanent moratorium on new tar sand projects? 

I'm not an expert on energy, so it's difficult for me to say. I think the way the NDP looks it, there have been billions and billions of dollars in oil and gas profits that were siphoned out of Canada along with the oil and gas. Some countries put Canada to shame wrt to sovereign wealth funds accumulated from their oil exports over the years. Some of that money should have been invested in r&d'ing renewable and sustainable energy technologies. Other rich countries are way ahead of Canada as far as energy conservations and efficiency, and alternative energy are concerned. Personally, I don't think there is one WOW! alternative technology but a combination of approaches will be necessary for a generation or two until such time as nuclear fuel cycle can be completed and that technology made safe and reliable. Or perhaps the second-rate wind and tidal power will become permament alternatives. Scientists say that the sun produces all the energy we need and if harnessed effectively by either solar radiation collectors or our own powerful reactors, there should be plenty of energy for everyone for a very long time. But technological advances take time and money. The profit motive and so-called free markets for energy have been working against us by what I can see.

Fidel

You are correct, that we should visit NAFTA.

From my understanding the Mr. Doer and his NDP government has been planning for new oil and gas fields in southern Manitoba for several years now. 

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts Fidel. I'm not an energy expert either. The Harper government seems to be putting a lot of eggs in the carbon sequestration basket. If it's even seriously feasible, it will take many years to develop. In my mind, sequestration presumes continued growth of greenhouse gases - why not if you can just bury the stuff some time in the future? Yet more reasons not to seriously develop alternative energy production and infrastructure and continue to gobble up and destroy huge tracts of territory. Does the NDP have a position on carbon sequestration? The Green Party supports it. My suspicious gut feeling tells me that it's a huge scam. Can't Canada make do with the projects that are already underway in order to sustain demand? 

I don't usually side with capitalist economists, but Jeffrey Sachs, a Harvard trained economist has an excellent article somewhere on the web. He says relying on cap and trade and other market gimmicks for reducing CO2 is folly. The answer is to invest in the future with massive spending on r&d for renewable energy technologies. Cap and trade and other gimmicks are like holding our breath and waiting for the problem to go away. We need real solutions, and the NDP says more or less the same thing. The NDP does support cap and trade, but Layton and the NDP also are calling for massive investments in green economy, research and development. Green technologies could represent made in Canada innovation, which all economists agree is vital to any country's prospects for increasing economic productivity as well as future standard of living. We've lollygagged our way through this old world economy exporting fossil fuels for too long and nothing in the kitty for a rainy day. And now it's raining cats.

janfromthebruce wrote:

People are not responsible for the actions of others - and nor are people responsible for others words. It would appear in the line of thought and reason here that if one is associated with someone and they do or say something that "one is their brothers'/sisters' keeper.

Anyway, I will wait to see what more Doer has to say and what he does - before I jump to conclusions.

You're missing the point. Doer was praised to the skies by Layton on his appointment as ambassador. Now that Doer is going to be shilling in Washington for the big oil companies who are raping the Canadian environment, Layton will have to distance himself and the party from Doer. It is Layton, not babblers, who has chosen to hold Doer out as a shining example of the best the NDP has to offer.

As the Canwest article notes, Doer "earned a reputation in Manitoba as a national leader on climate change." Don't you think a man with such a reputation should be held to a higher standard on issues like the tar sands?

And if you think that criticizing Doer for what he has [b]already said[/b] about the tar sands is "jumping to conclusions" then you are letting your party loyalty trump your own better judgment. 

remind:

"Actually, try rereading my posts, this time for clarity, I make no claims regarding Doer at all, the only thing pising me off is attempts to somehow suggest that what he does implicates the federal NDP and their supporters in some way.

All the while knowing pulling such nonsensical shit, is just going to create a brouhaha, is a just of big piss off, too. It is deliberate malice as far as I can see."

I see it more, remind, as coming from and being applauded by frustrated folks who are devoid of ideas for corrective action. And it is a damned shame to be reduced to a venue for bitter infighting by frustrated, otherwise well-meaning people because of it. New Democrats are an easy mark for snipers. But I guess to divert learned opinion here, we'd have to paint targets on the neo-cons who are laughing at our fratricidal ways.

M. Spector wrote:

And if you think that criticizing Doer for what he has [b]already said[/b] about the tar sands is "jumping to conclusions" then you are letting your party loyalty trump your own better judgment. 

Right on. I'm frankly shocked by this sycophantic 'my party (NDP), right or wrong' attitude that I'm seeing in a few posts here and elsewhere.

And the easiest course of action is the one from a purely moralistic position. 

Actually defining what ANY political party should be proposing for the Tar Patch, for instance, is out of bounds for the frustrated in attack mode. And of course, the critic has never had to assume a creative role in the theatre of the absurd.

An example of a "damn the torpedoes" proposal for positive action (beyond carping):

From a recent discussion on economics in a related thread - "Okay, but the Canadian situation in 2009, with distinct differences in position between East and West (they are two economies in conflict with one another, the Tar Patch benefits from a loonie on par with the greenback, the industrial exporting sectors require a loonie at about .85 cents to the greenback) , is not to be settled immediately by replicating 1930s Spain.

This observer is ready to say to hell with the Tar Patch (knowing full well the political implications of that postion) because of its complete lack of concern for anything or anyone out of the fossil fuel loop. Surely the rest of Canada could be brought to understand the need to get serious with them, for environmental reasons, the fate of the grandkids, weighing more importantly than the harm being done to the domestic economy."

I would only add that the completely impractical but moral tone of that recommendation fits exactly with the tone of this thread. (But it proposes something.)

And even the frustrated, apparently partyless, hue to the line about not proposing anything hereabouts, not just the Great Misled.

Doer is just a great example of how right the NDP is willing to move in order to get to power and it is illustrative that Layton holds him up as the ideal NDP leader and representative.  Until Canada gets a party with roots outside of the current clique leading all of our major parties, electoral politics in Canada is mostly a waste of energy and at best a matter of trying to make the system as deadlocked and unworkable as possible.

George Victor wrote:

New Democrats are an easy mark for snipers.

Far too easy, in my opinion. Yet the official babble fanbase™ seems wholly unconcerned.

I think the proof will be not what Doer does while he is Canada's ambassador to the U.S., (that's completely predictable) but rather what he does after his term is finished.

Similar things were said about Stephen Lewis when Brian Mulroney appointed him Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.

But, during his term at the UN, I suppose Lewis developed all kinds of contacts etc. that enabled him to do alot of excellent work after he left that post.

I've heard Lewis joke that he's "probably the only person in Canada who owe's Brian Mulroney a favour".

:D

OH george, don't spoil the fun. It is much more interesting and amusing to deal with hypotheical juxtapositions and oblique smears of  complicity by "alleged" failings to disown another's words.

.

There is a pile of over the top comments here-- some seem to want to be exaggerating what is being said in order to make some unrelated point.

There remain a few issues:

1) it does not matter if Doer speaks for the NDP the association is there. I raised the concern that the comment he made can damage an impression of the party especially on the issue of the environment. I did not even bother to get into whether I think that damage is fair or not-- it does not matter since I was speaking of political effects not cosmic justice. I did not think it was required for me to once again say how I support the NDP's position on the environment to observe that this is a political problem.

2) An ambassodor (or even a GG for that matter) is in fact a communicaitons position not a policy one. By taking that job from Harper, he needed to accept he will be speaking for Harper. It is too late to have concerns about individual messages after you take the position. We should not expect or want our ambassador to another country to perform some kind of opposition to the government.

3) After thinking about this over the last few days, when I think about his support for the tar sands as ambassador I actually do not have trouble with it-- that's his job. He is reflecting the position of the government of Canada. I do, however, then, have a huge problem with him agreeing to be the communicator for an outfit (the federal Conservative government) that is at war with just about everything I believe in. An ambassador is not just ceremonial. Like it or not this is a floor crossing and NDP members ought to consider that when mulling over offers for employment from political opponents. Doer is not an ambassedor for his own opinions-- his is the spokesperson for the most right wing federal government that we have ever had, one that does not believe in democracy nevermind any social values.

4) In light of the above-- I think it is fair to say on the one hand Doer's current pronouncements ought to be considered reflective only of the federal Conservatives not of the NDP and the issue is not with his individual comments on anything right now but his apparent floor crossing to such a right wing outfit.

5) The crossing from the NDP to the Conservatives is a huge betrayal of the NDP not because the party is the same as the others but precisely because it is different. Those screaming the loudest about this betrayal are more likely to be loyal New Democrats as those of other parties.

6) As for my own loyalty to the NDP-- I feel that I am more loyal by criticizing and trying to expose and resolve issues than by pretending they do not exist-- at election time I support the party but the party is weaker where people feel that dissent is unwelcome. This is a place where people ought to be respected for sharing honestly held opinions without being accused of being disloyal for doing so-- and there is no requirement to be loyal to the NDP-- we welcome people of other political parties-- or of no political party. I, for one, believe that the left intellectually is well strong enough to survive and thrive in the light of criticism, dissent and differences of opinion and will do better than narrowing the field such that everyone must agree on everything or be singled out for abuse for being disloyal. In this case I think what Doer did looks bad and said so-- since I truly believed what I said I do not apologize for it.

As for those running around saying what they do not tolerate and equating dissent as being like or akin to being mysogynistic. that's a scary tactic of intimidation. I think it smacks of attacking everyone you disagree with using whatever insult or word you believe is the nastiest.

As for what Layton might be feeling-- well he has personally put so much effort into a clear set of policies on the environment that separate the NDP from the others that I would imagine he is feeling quite unhappy about it. It is clear that he does not support this opinion so no doubt he is upset. It is fair and relevant to point that out. Why anyone could think that's an insult to Layton, I don't know- if you think about it, it's a compliment to a person who has worked hard enough on the environment to feel that as betrayal coming from a fellow New Democrat with whom he has shared many stages.

George-- I don't get your point-- it is the fact that this is a former premier whose seat is still warm going off and doing this. New Democrats have a right to be pissed without being called disloyal. I don't see many here saying that the NDP is bad because he did this-- although there is justified concern about the optics in a political world where appearances matter more than reality.

I don't really get that concerned about some individual-- but when I get betrayed by someone I may have banged in signs or made phone calls for that distinction, as you call it, makes it worse. I do not live in Manitoba but if I had ever worked on one of his campaigns I'd want to give him a call-- not because he is just anyone but because he got to that position because of the effort of many people who cannot relate to what he is doing now.

NDPers understand collective and public goods. The name Doer is a collective good-- it was built by thousands of workers who believe in things other than the tar sands. His name would not rate the back page of a paper never mind consideration for a prestige job without the efforts of all those people. It is outrageous to suggest that their complaints now could be disloyal. I'll go further-- since he decided to wear the NDP banner to victory-- in a good job-- anyone who has worked for the NDP brand and philosophy has a right to be upset at him and to vocalize it without being told they are disloyal.

If Harper had appointed a Reformatory hack to the post, we'd all be complaining about what a Tory hack the new ambassador to the U.S. was.

But every now and then, a PM has to throw a bone to partisans of other parties just to show "how non-partisan" they are...and then we all denounce the "leftie" they appointed for "selling out".

selling out the peoples' political positions  by 'representatives' is a critical problem. It should be recognized and denounced not denied and protected. Furthermore if, as it appears with the NDP, there is a culture within that continues to produce these sellouts - it must be rooted out and corrected. If that is not possible and the rot is too entrenched, then it should be abandoned or better yet euthanized. Time is running out  and too precious to waste on vehicles that don't begin to take us in the direction we need to go, because the hustlers and parasites take it over for personal and political gain.