June 2017:
Jagmeet Singh comes out against Kinder Morgan pipeline in climate change plan
One hour ago (Feb. 17, 2018):
Jagmeet Singh not picking sides in pipeline battle
Hallmark of a true leader - not afraid to change his mind.
Jagmeet Singh's new position on Trans Mountain pipeline
Sat, 2018-02-17 11:09
#1
Jagmeet Singh's new position on Trans Mountain pipeline
Sat, 2018-02-17 14:46
#2
From the article:
Singh said the expansion project shouldn't move forward until an updated environmental assessment is done.
So what he's actually doing is not becoming involved in the personal conflict between the 2 leaders. The core of his position has not changed at all.
Sat, 2018-02-17 15:02
#3
From the article:
Singh said the expansion project shouldn't move forward until an updated environmental assessment is done.So what he's actually doing is not becoming involved in the personal conflict between the 2 leaders. The core of his position has not changed at all.
Why don't you look at Singh's personal website (before it gets edited...). It is based on his June 2017 position. It says "NO" to Kinder Morgan expansion. Period. It says nothing whatsoever about waiting for an "updated environmental assessment". And the reason it gives for saying "NO" has nothing to do with the "environment":
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), must be respected. Canada must obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. This is why we must oppose the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the building of the Energy East pipeline. Not only does significantly increasing oil production and international oil exports through these pipeline projects undermine our efforts to reduce our emissions, but it conflicts with UNDRIP. Canada needs to commit to UNDRIP and this means saying no to the Kinder Morgan and Energy East pipeline projects.
Want to reconsider your comment?
Sat, 2018-02-17 15:46
#4
What's to reconsider? The BC government has thrown up all sorts of regulatory roadblocks on the pipeline expansion process to, if not stop it, at least slow it down. If that strategy succeeds, there will be no Kinder Morgan pipeline. That strategy and approach is exactly what the CBC article paints Singh as being in support of.
Sure, sometimes a stated reason changes from time to time, but if I'm understanding your position correctly, your position is "no Kinder Morgan," correct? If the delay tactics work and Kinder Morgan doesn't get done, isn't that a success in its own right?
Sat, 2018-02-17 15:59
#5
I'm not talking about my position. I'm talking about Singh's.
In June 2017 (and to this very day on his website), he says: "NO to Kinder Morgan expansion, because of UNDRIP."
Today, at the NDP convention, he says: "NO expansion before an updated environmental assessment."
He didn't just change his reason (from respecting Indigenous rights, to awaiting an environmental assessment). He changed his answer - from NO, to well, MAYBE, but not yet.
Am I imagining things here? I'm just trying to quote his own words. Let me know where I got it wrong. And at the very least, shouldn't he explain why the position he ran on for the leadership, and which is still on his website, has now changed?
Sat, 2018-02-17 21:31
#6
I'm not talking about my position. I'm talking about Singh's.
In June 2017 (and to this very day on his website), he says: "NO to Kinder Morgan expansion, because of UNDRIP."
Today, at the NDP convention, he says: "NO expansion before an updated environmental assessment."
He didn't just change his reason (from respecting Indigenous rights, to awaiting an environmental assessment). He changed his answer - from NO, to well, MAYBE, but not yet.
Am I imagining things here? I'm just trying to quote his own words. Let me know where I got it wrong. And at the very least, shouldn't he explain why the position he ran on for the leadership, and which is still on his website, has now changed?
Because on his website he is only representing himself. Now he represents the party. As far as I know the party hasn't taken the position that Trans Mountain shouldn't go ahead.
I think the best tact is the least controversial and easy to defend. The environmental assessement was insufficient and there is no evidence that a major bitumen spill in water could be cleaned up. Until that evidence is presented the project should not move forward.
Another tact to take would be to require the money be set aside for removing the pipeline at end of life so we aren't stuck paying it like we will be for all the abandoned oil wells.
Sat, 2018-02-17 21:47
#7
Unionist is right that whether or not the environment is an issue given NDP policy on UNDRIP Singh should be continuing to flat out say No to Kinder Morgan.
The federal NDP committed to respecting UNDRIP. Kinder Morgan and Site C both are opposed by affected First Nations and that is against the rights expressed in UNDRIP. Currently under the Liberals First Nations' rights under our constitution are being read down to the insignificance level when it comes to the ability to oppose corporate greed on their territories. Basically the Liberals are saying that there is no mechanism for a First Nation to prevent the government from okaying destructive economic activity on their territories. The NDP in BC has done the same thing with Site C.
Sat, 2018-02-17 23:31
#8
Unionist is right that whether or not the environment is an issue given NDP policy on UNDRIP Singh should be continuing to flat out say No to Kinder Morgan.
The federal NDP committed to respecting UNDRIP. Kinder Morgan and Site C both are opposed by affected First Nations and that is against the rights expressed in UNDRIP. Currently under the Liberals First Nations' rights under our constitution are being read down to the insignificance level when it comes to the ability to oppose corporate greed on their territories. Basically the Liberals are saying that there is no mechanism for a First Nation to prevent the government from okaying destructive economic activity on their territories. The NDP in BC has done the same thing with Site C.
Winning is winning. The primary goal is to stop the pipeline. If the reason the public will best support is environmental then it's fine in my book for that argument to be priorized even if there are other arguments to be made. If the topic of indigenous rights to stop the pipeline comes up then of course I want the NDP to support indigenous rights. I also want them to raise other issues concerning indigenous rights to adequate housing, education and medical care for example.
The pipeline has majority support in BC not just Alberta and there are two NDP premiers involved. Trudeau broke his commitment for a new environmental review and more consultations. Canadians in general are receptive to protecting the immediate environment and our waters and coastlines. It is very reasonable to demand the studies that prove bitumen can be cleaned up if that is the claim being made.
Save the indigenous rights arguments for areas where they must be used.
The right is so clever about honing their arguments down to the bare bones and tailoring the messages to the listeners. The left has to be more clever to defeat the Fords and Trumps and Harpers and even Trudeau. Maybe especially Trudeau.
Sun, 2018-02-18 12:32
#9
Pogo
Unionist, is it at least a bit hypocritical for you to demand that a leader impose his views on the party?
Sun, 2018-02-18 20:00
#10
Pondering your arrogantly dismissive anti-indigenous post is racist and disgusting. You post here regularily saying how important womens rights are but unfortunately your settler mentality does not let you extend the same support to others who do not share your settler privilage.
Sun, 2018-02-18 21:17
#11
Unionist is right that whether or not the environment is an issue given NDP policy on UNDRIP Singh should be continuing to flat out say No to Kinder Morgan.The federal NDP committed to respecting UNDRIP. Kinder Morgan and Site C both are opposed by affected First Nations and that is against the rights expressed in UNDRIP. Currently under the Liberals First Nations' rights under our constitution are being read down to the insignificance level when it comes to the ability to oppose corporate greed on their territories. Basically the Liberals are saying that there is no mechanism for a First Nation to prevent the government from okaying destructive economic activity on their territories. The NDP in BC has done the same thing with Site C.
Are there any legal mechanisms that obligate governments to consult meaningfully with First Nations when it comes to development? I know such exists for environmental assessments. Just putting myself in the shoes of the BC NDP government for a moment, if I want to stop this pipeline, then the environmental review process is where I'm going to focus my efforts. If the process needs to be reformed to better consult with First Nations then by all means let's make those reforms. In the case of KM specifically, that process is unfolding right now in real time, so you have to use the tools that you have available to you in the moment.
Sun, 2018-02-18 23:22
#12
Whenever Jagmeet is asked about the feud between Notley & Horgan and who is to blame, He says neither one of them is to blame. And if there is anyone to blame, it is Justin Trudeau for his lousy policy on pipelines that has caused this feud, Saying this is all Justin Trudeau fault, 100%
Sun, 2018-02-18 23:40
#13
Unionist, is it at least a bit hypocritical for you to demand that a leader impose his views on the party?
If I had ever said or implied that, yes, it would be. Brush up on your reading skills. This thread is about Jagmeet Singh's about-face on pipelines, not the party's. But the feeble efforts of some to deny the Leader's obvious 180 degree switch does speak volumes about a party whose members haven't read the constitution and who are more loyal to an individual than to the policies set by the membership.
Mon, 2018-02-19 00:46
#14
Pogo
Sorry I was going by posts. I long ago moved on from following the minutae of party policy. If the reversal was not from his pre-leader stance then I apologize.
Mon, 2018-02-19 00:47
#15
Unionist, is it at least a bit hypocritical for you to demand that a leader impose his views on the party?
If I had ever said or implied that, yes, it would be. Brush up on your reading skills. This thread is about Jagmeet Singh's about-face on pipelines, not the party's. But the feeble efforts of some to deny the Leader's obvious 180 degree switch does speak volumes about a party whose members haven't read the constitution and who are more loyal to an individual than to the policies set by the membership.
Are you saying he expressed opposition to the pipeline while he was running for the leadership position? If he did change his position after being elected leader do you not think that is in response to the NDP caucus and executive? That is he is no longer expressing his opinion. He is speaking for the party not himself.
Mon, 2018-02-19 08:31
#16
As recently as November 2017, he is on record as taking the pro-BC position - at the BC NDP convention.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/11/06/Singh-BC-NDP-Kinder-Morgan/
Mon, 2018-02-19 08:39
#17
Are you saying he expressed opposition to the pipeline while he was running for the leadership position?
Respectfully - did you read my opening post? He didn't "express opposition" - he said NO to Kinder Morgan expansion and to Energy East, unconditionally.
If he did change his position after being elected leader do you not think that is in response to the NDP caucus and executive? That is he is no longer expressing his opinion. He is speaking for the party not himself.
As far as I can tell, he changed his position the day before yesterday. No explanation, nothing. And of course, no questioning by his loyal party members, sadly. Even in this thread, it's difficult to get the point across.
Oh, and what's your point about the "NDP caucus and executive"? Are you aware of some decision they took on this issue? Please provide a link. News to me. Not that they have any more policy-making power under the NDP constitution than The Leader does. But no one gives a crap about that document anyway.
Mon, 2018-02-19 08:43
#18
As recently as November 2017, he is on record as taking the pro-BC position - at the BC NDP convention.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/11/06/Singh-BC-NDP-Kinder-Morgan/
Thanks for confirming that, brookmere. It confirms to me that his about-face on Friday (or Saturday?) was born of convenience, not of principle. And let me repeat that his own website still says an unconditional NO to Kinder Morgan expansion.
Waiting for the inner circle to edit Singh's website...
Mon, 2018-02-19 18:06
#19
Respectfully - did you read my opening post? He didn't "express opposition" - he said NO to Kinder Morgan expansion and to Energy East, unconditionally.
Yes I just wondered if it was part of his campaign for the leadership but in hindsight it doesn't really matter. Once he became leader he became the voice of the party not just himself. He also instantly backtracked from his suggestion that indigenous people should only have to speak 2 languages to be Supreme Court Judges, their own and either French or English. Guy Caron whispered in his ear. So, he alone does not determine policy although I assume he has enormous influence.
Oh, and what's your point about the "NDP caucus and executive"? Are you aware of some decision they took on this issue? Please provide a link. News to me. Not that they have any more policy-making power under the NDP constitution than The Leader does. But no one gives a crap about that document anyway.
Precisely. Facts on the ground. I've never been in a party and I don't really see the point. From when I started paying attention to parties the party executive and leader have always been in charge and when the leader is weak the executive seems able to get rid of them the way the Liberals did to Dion and the Conservatives to Patrick Brown. Resolution committees seem to be in sync with the party establishment.
If the NDP embraces all social movements, especially controversal ones, then they are back to being the conscience of Canada and probably a very tiny one at that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the NDP in single digits if it did that.
As an example, I can live with Singh's support for PR because I am not adamantly opposed. The idea for Quebec to collect all taxes and remit them to Ottawa is just ridiculous. It shakes my confidence in him a bit but I can get over it because I don't see it catching on. He said he supports 50%+1 for separation. I'll live with it because his focus is on inequality. If Singh supported legalization of prostitution there is a good chance I would turn back to the Liberals and do everything I could to stop the NDP from winning because I see it as extremely harmful to women and I know how difficult it would be to reverse.
If Singh did such an about face that he started supporting the pipeline I would expect an explanation. As things stand I assume he is still 100% opposed to the pipeline and he is practicing diplomacy by attaching his opposition to insufficient environmental studies. There is another thread complaining he isn't supportive enough of Palestine even though the party has done a dramatic about face in their willingness to criticize Israel without adding "but the Palestinians did blah blah".
It isn't just Alberta that is in favor of pipelines. Across Canada, even in BC, the majority support new pipelines and would agree with Alberta's desire to get world prices for their oil and to sell it while they still can.
Syriza got elected by saying they were not running as right or left but wanted to unify both against austerity. It worked. They then betrayed everyone but the point is they won by rejecting the whole left right business and sticking to one issue that unified people.
Singh's single unifying issue is inequality. If he can keep people's attention on that he could make significant gains for the NDP next year but probably not huge because Trudeau is so strong and looks like he is going to promise pharmacare. If he can keep pounding on inequality until 2023 he might even be able to win as Liberal policies are unlikely to reduce it.
If, on the other hand, he is required to take extreme positions on pipelines and every social justice issue foreign and local forget it. Under those circumstances the NDP becomes a political umbrella to bring attention to social movements not a contender for government. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Social movements can use all the help they can get. But then the NDP is no longer a party vying for power to actually make changes.
The NDP has to be true to itself, to stand up for the disenfranchised, but it can do so diplomatically and with an eye to gaining the power to actually make changes.
Mon, 2018-02-19 18:11
#20
From that article:
“I’ve made it clear that I have three criteria when it comes to deciding with respect to energy projects,” Singh told reporters in Victoria where he gave a speech Saturday to the BC NDP convention. “On these three criteria I’ve stated my concerns with, my opposition to, the Kinder Morgan project.”
Any energy project needs to respect the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, meet climate change goals and objectives and create local opportunities, said Singh, who won the federal NDP leadership last month on the first ballot.
Therefore once those conditions are met the pipeline can be approved.
Mon, 2018-02-19 22:10
#21
From that article:
“I’ve made it clear that I have three criteria when it comes to deciding with respect to energy projects,” Singh told reporters in Victoria where he gave a speech Saturday to the BC NDP convention. “On these three criteria I’ve stated my concerns with, my opposition to, the Kinder Morgan project.”
Any energy project needs to respect the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, meet climate change goals and objectives and create local opportunities, said Singh, who won the federal NDP leadership last month on the first ballot.
Therefore once those conditions are met the pipeline can be approved.
Jagmeet Singh said Justin Trudeau has failed miserably on those points.