Jagmeet Singh In Conversation with Macleans @ 8PM on CPAC

Someone should ask Mr. Singh if he thinks that interprovincial free trade in wine is a good idea.

That should appeal to the 0.0002% of Canadians who care about electoral reform!

If that's the worse they can say he did great. He did take a stand on the pipeline. He said the process to approve the pipeline was inadequate. He switched focus to sustainable jobs and the future in which we are moving away from oil. I think he needs to emphasize the inadequate process even more. BC is taking the perfect stand by insisting on spill clean-up assessment as that is the core reason the pipeline is being opposed. If people were not worried about that the pipeline would be allowed through in a flash because there would be insufficient opposition. It stays away from the more complex argument of climate change and who and what should be done about it. 

It's no accident that Trudeau's argument in favor is focused on the climate change argument. His argument is that we need all three, a carbon tax, environmental protection as in the new plan for the coast, and the pipeline to pay for those things. 

The weak spot in the argument is environmental protection. Trudeau can't produce studies showing that a bitumen spill could be successfully contained because there are none. If he feels his coastal protection plan proves a spill could be cleaned up he should present the proof part. 

Singh defended both NDP premiers very well by stating they were each representing the interests of the people who elected them. 

Singh fielded questions on the future platform, obviously too soon for that and on the Leap Manifesto. He also spoke about indigenous children and the government continuing a court battle against giving them equal funding. He spoke about students struggling to pay tuition and about the percentage of young people in precarious work and about carding. He focused a lot on common values. 

The article mentions Guy Caron was close. It's Guy Caron who whispered in Singh's ear when he made the mistake of saying an indigenous person would only need two languages, their own and one other. I was supporting Caron for leader although not strongly enough to join and vote. I was concerned that he didn't have the charisma to win. I get the sense that Singh has Caron as one of his closest advisors. 

Apparently people from The Leap have arranged for people who organized for Sanders or Corbyn to speak at the convention. The writer insinuated this could be a problem for Singh but I doubt it. "The Leap Manifesto" just presents the argument that we have to transition to sustainable jobs and practices. 

He was clever to say that Trudeau is as good guy, but then contrasted his own experience of life pointing out that he had experienced having to support his family when his father was ill so understood precarious work from a different perspective. He humanized himself in speaking of his fiancee as his partner and most important supporter.

Overall impression he was relaxed and spoke very well, not an hmmm or an ahhh to be heard. He came across as genuine, warm and friendly. His sense of humor and his intelligence showed. 

All in all very successful interview for this point in time. No damaging clips. Things could always be better but I would definitely classify it as a strong interview. 

I assume he will get another chance to introduce himself to Canadians after the upcoming convention. His most important task, the party's most important task, is to familiarize him to Canadians. Get people to like and admire him as a person. 

You would "submit" the number is between 10% and 20%? Based on what?

Justin Trudeau has paid absolutely no price at all for abandoning his electoral reform promise. His poll numbers have consistently been at 2016 election levels and up. There is no stampede to the NDP based on this. Therefore I have to conclude virtually no one cares about it. 

If you want my support, you can keep raising my wages so it is easier for me to pay my rent, and so I can use my debit card instead of my credit card when I have to buy stuff I need like new shoes with no holes in them. The NDP can quit with the sour grapes when the Liberals raise the minimum wage in Ontario (which, believe it or not, has had a pleasant knock-on effect on my own wages here in Quebec. Ontario's rising tide has lifted my boat. Yay!). The NDP can fight against anti-union legislation which makes it difficult to organize people like me. They could do so much to help the working poor, and they do nothing.

The election is about *ME* and what *I* need to live on, both now, and for my pension. When the Conservatives tried to screw me for $14,000 on my pension, I went into high gear to get rid of them. If you don't give a rat's about my money, I will turn my back on you. If you try to rip me off, I will make you regret the day you ever opened your mouth.

When the NDP gets a klew about this, maybe they will do better. Quit with the arcane political bullshit of concern only to policy wonks and political scientists and people who have nothing better to do.

Some of us out here actually have to work for a living. 

And why would Mr. Singh say EXACTLY the same thing Trudeau did about this issue ("the next election will be the last under FPTP etc.") Does he think that anyone will trust him on that? What if the NDP get a phoney majority and realize no one gives a rat's about the issue? I suppose then the Greens will say "The next election will be the last under FPTP"

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

Yeah.  I was in the room.  He definitely is in favour of MMP.  He emphasized "proportionality" at least three times.

He did well, btw.  Extremely likeable.  How that will translate in a federal campaign remains to be seen.

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

More coverage: 

Jagmeet Singh Promises Next Election Will Be Last Under First-Past-The-Post

*If he wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/06/jagmeet-singh-promises-next-elec...

It's true he said "yes" in direct response to the question, but he added a lot of caveats that are not reflected in the quote.  Paraphrasing, he said it would be put to the people in a referendum possibly after a trial but there would first be consultations with Canadians to sense where the public was on it. He made it very clear it wouldn't be imposed and that while he favored MMP the details were not fixed. 

 

It seems to me that Singh and the federal NDP fully support proportional representation.

Absolutely, but he did say it would be put before Canadians not rammed down our throats. 

Jagmeet is missing a golden opportunity for the NDP to regain seats in Quebec and regain seats in BC.  There are two extremely important issues at play in the Kinder Morgan debacle.  The first is of course the environmental and this project would not have gone ahead if it had been subjected to a vigorous review including the climate change impacts of burning this toxic gunk. Many people think that is all it took to get the Eastern pipeline proposers to back down. It took the Quebec activists to get that announcement wrung out of the Libearl government. 

However there is a second important issue and that is local control. Trudeau is handing Singh a golden opportunity. If the NDP can force the Liberals to run on the philosophy that the federal government should have the right to override both provincial and municipal governments when it comes to risk assessment of the local environment  I think they can do very well in many parts of the country.

Mighty Middle wrote:

What does the constitution say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)[edit]

In general terms, works declared by the Parliament of Canada to be "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" tend to be part of the national infrastructure.

Whenever parliament invokes the power, it gains not only jurisdiction over the work but also any necessarily incidental operations. In Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (1993), such a declaration had been made with respect to Ontario Hydro's nuclear plant. The Supreme Court held that that declaration gave Parliament the authority to regulate the work "as a going concern" which included jurisdiction over workers at the plant and their labour unions.

The declaration must be made by the passing of legislation, but in addition to declaring specific works, whole classes of work can be defined as being "for the general advantage of Canada" by default; the Atomic Energy Control Act, for example, deemed all nuclear power plants to fall into this category. From 1867 to 1961 there were 470 uses of the declaratory power, of which 84% related to railways.

So the pipeline can definitely fall under federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure if that means they can impose federal infrastructure but I think it does. That's why Notley says there's no point to the federation if the pipeline can't be forced through BC.

This is in contrast to a unitary state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (sub-national units) exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. The majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government. Of the 193 UN member states, 165 are governed as unitary states.

In a unitary state, sub-national units are created and abolished (an example being the 22 mainland regions of France being merged into 13), and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

That we are a federation is important. It's why natural resources belong to the provinces rather than the country. So, B.C. owns its natural resources and has jurisdiction over environmental protection by default.

Then the question becomes which area takes precedence. Federal jurisdiction over national infrastructure deemed to be in the interests of the country or protection of the environment, a subject not mentioned in the constitution therefore a provincial jurisdiction. 

I think it's an argument for constitution lawyers and that the answer doesn't really matter.  There is enough ambiguity for court cases to tie it up for quite awhile. If BC FNs are told they do not have the right to refuse, and construction begins, activists will try to stop it physically and they will have a lot of support. When the mayor of a city is willing to be arrested to physically block the pipeline the opposition is strong. If there are enough people they can't just keep arresting everyone. I believe the opposition is strong because it threatens an important industry and an environment that people treasure and is irreplacable. 

I believe that all of the provinces/regions are distinct from one another and that Canadians identify with their provinces therefore separatist movements can arise anywhere although some regionally rather than provincially. BC and Quebec have a lot in common. Each has developed their own cultures and have different priorities. BC is arguably more separate due to the mountains. BC is better off within Canada but BC does not need Canada to thrive. 

As I understand it so far Kinder Morgan has been unable to lay an inch of pipe in BC. Has it been built to the border? As I understand it the terminal expansion is under construction already. That is a significant investment. It shows a lot of confidence. I think they will sue to recoup the costs. 

This will be quite the explosive showdown. 

Politicians can rarely be entirely honest. not even Horgan. He can't say that he already knows the environmental review board will rule his way even though we all know there is no way to clean up bitumen from the ocean floor. Notley must fight for the pipeline whether she believes in it or not otherwise the NDP is permanently dead in Alberta. 

In terms of votes, Trudeau would be better off pleasing BC than Alberta. As long as the pipeline isn't actually built BC will forgive Trudeau in no time. He may be kicking the can down the road, just waiting out the battle. He doesn't appear to be reacting to Notley's pleas for him to do something. I don't think he has even commented on Horgan's latest move. He is just letting the official process continue. 

So what is the situation now? I know the pipeline was approved. Then Bernaby held things up by not issuing permits which was overruled. So why haven't they just started building the pipeline? Is it the cases still before the court stopping them?