Ex-NDP MP Jim Manly says Tom Mulcair hedging bets on Kinder Morgan pipeline

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      A former New Democrat MP says NDP leader Tom Mulcair should be honest about his position on Kinder Morgan’s plan to triple oil exports from the coast of Metro Vancouver.

      “I think that he’s trying to hedge his bets too much, and isn’t really coming clean with the electorate as to where he stands,” Jim Manly told the Straight in a phone interview Thursday (August 13). “We don’t know where he stands.”

      Manly is the same ex-NDP MP who said in a February 2015 interview that the party has “lost its way”.

      In that interview, Manly also said that the party’s “Ottawa apparatchiks” blocked his son Paul from seeking the nomination to represent the new riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith in this year’s election.

      The younger Manly is currently running for the Greens, and his father is actively campaigning for him. A portion of the elder Manly’s former Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands riding is included in Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

      In the new interview, the former NDP MP was reminded about his comments last February that the NDP has gone astray.

      “If you look at Tom Mulcair in the federal leaders' debate,” Manly replied, referring to the August 6 debate, “he was not willing to come out and say that he was opposed to the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

      “Even though you have NDP candidates in the Greater Vancouver area, like Kennedy Stewart, you know, who are strongly opposed to Kinder Morgan and the whole of the Greater Vancouver area, you know, the people there realize that this is not something that is desirable for our area, and yet Tom Mulcair is unwilling to make a commitment to oppose Kinder Morgan.”

      In the debate, Mulcair didn’t say whether he’s for or against Kinder Morgan’s plan to bring 890,000 barrels of oil day to tankers in Burrard Inlet.

      In this week’s edition of the Straight, North Vancouver Green candidate Claire Martin said that Mulcair is “flip floppy at best” about the Kinder Morgan project.

      The NDP’s candidate in North Vancouver, Carleen Thomas, dismissed claims that the party leader is taking a cautious approach. Thomas maintained that the current environmental review process is flawed, and does not allow for a fair and scientific evaluation of proposed industrial ventures.

      Manly said that Greens and New Democrats have a different approach to the oil sands of Alberta, whose voters elected their first NDP provincial government in May this year.

      “New Democrats look to have continued expansion of the tar sands, and the Greens recognize that, you know, the extraction of bitumen will continue for some time, but they do not want to see that expanded,” he said.

      The former MP suggested that Mulcair is facing a “lot of pressure” from both the oil industry and organized labour, hence his malleable position on Kinder Morgan. “And certainly now from the Alberta government of Rachel Notley,” he added.

      “But given the situation of climate, the situation that our grandchildren are going to be facing, you know,” Manly also said, “we cannot keep on releasing any more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We have to start cutting back seriously. And I don’t see the NDP has a policy that would lead to that.”



      Good for the Greens ! but .....

      Aug 13, 2015 at 7:46pm

      You have to give Liz a hand for how she has performed in Parliament. And although I wouldn't ever want a Green government, if I had the chance to vote for Elizabeth May she would get my vote simply because she is one of the few MPs actually earning her money and demonstrating that the Green Party is not a one issue party. Unfortunately, I believe that they are a MOSTLY one issue party but they have to play ball until they are a real force in Canadian politics. Props to Elizabeth for her play thus far. Being as she understands that she is not in contention, she has EARNED and used her time in the debate to raise questions that the other parties would rather avoid. Now this article is about Claire Martin and I think it's time she got some questions the Green Party would rather avoid.

      So Claire ..
      Do you think we should immediately stop all transportation and sale of Canadian oil in order to 'save the planet'?
      If answer is NO then what what do we transport it with.
      If answer is YES --->

      What do we use or sell in its stead to run our vehicles, pay for our medical system and for educating our children? If NOTHING.. we're done with each other no matter how cute you are on screen.

      If we do STOP transporting and mining oil, what will the potential buyers of our land mined and pipeline / tanker oil do in its stead?
      --- Suggestion >> The buyers are in China and if our oil is unavailable, then they will buy from someone else and burn it in the places they normally do. Right now that might be easy to do, but when the Saudis cut back production again to raise the price of oil, the Chinese will likely contact their good friend Vladimir Putin who will talk to a few of his GazProm friends about their Arctic seabed project.

      Ask Greenpeace if oil is flowing from the Arctic seabed to a Russian GazProm project today.

      Mike Dean

      Aug 13, 2015 at 10:20pm

      So some Green Party Candidate's Dad is bitching about the NDP Leader?

      Sorry, but Big Daddy just ain't a credible source.

      And criticizing a party you stood for that one sad term, 27 years ago, is kinda declassee.

      bob bossin

      Aug 13, 2015 at 11:12pm

      sadly, all too true. still, first and foremost, we have to get Harper out of there, or we'll just go from bad to worse.


      Aug 13, 2015 at 11:12pm

      Yet again, another twit comes out and either clearly can't read or is completely def.

      Mulcair has stated his position which is the exact same as trudeau's, no pipeline will be supported (let alone built) without the appropriate studies that go with it. This obviously is not in-line with the green party's "no pipeline no matter what" stance. That's fine, but don't drag other leaders in it when they don't agree with you.

      A common sense approach is better than a militant approach like Harper is with "pro-pipeline" and the greens are with "anti-pipeline"


      Aug 13, 2015 at 11:43pm

      Manly may have a chance in Nanaimo but up here a vote for a Green is a vote for the CON. Glenn Sollitt doesn't have a chance in hell of taking the riding and all he will do is spoil any chance Gord Johns has in defeating the Master Whip himself, John Duncan.

      Kevin Logan

      Aug 13, 2015 at 11:54pm

      Opposition warring among itself will only turn the Island Blue.

      Steve Smith

      Aug 14, 2015 at 12:05am

      Manly doesn't seem to comprehend that it is "consumption" of fossil fuels that is the main driver of GHG emissions, and on this score, it matters little if the Eastern Canadian market is fed by Tar Sands oil, or imported oil transported up the East Coast, as it is now.

      Nor is the Green Party opposed to building any new pipelines. They are in fact opposed to "any and all current pipeline plans", according to Elizabeth May in her November 14th, 2014 statement on the pipeline issue.

      "Current" is the operative caveat.

      Other than spin, being opposed to "any and all CURRENT pipeline plans" does not distinguish the GPC from the NDP, since they could likewise claim they are opposed to "all current pipelines plans" proposed under Stephen Harper's stripped down review process, and propose more comprehensive community input, and stronger environmental controls.

      GPC is trying to make friction points out of nothing really.

      Steve Smith

      Aug 14, 2015 at 12:18am

      "'New Democrats look to have continued expansion of the tar sands, and the Greens recognize that, you know, the extraction of bitumen will continue for some time, but they do not want to see that expanded,' he said.

      In fact, the Green Party proposes that Tar Sands exploitation will go on indefinitely, proposing "conversion" to petroleum product production by the year 2100. Constantly harping about the NDP's lack of resolve on the issue seems to get them credit for having a harder line, but on close examination this simply is not the fact.

      Here is what Elizabeth May wrote on Nov. 14th, 2014:

      "We need to ensure that by 2100 Canada’s bitumen production is going to petrochemical products, not fuel. We need to recognise that as a resource it is both too valuable and too dangerous to burn."

      Source: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blog/2014-11-14/pipeline-politics

      This will have no bearing on overall "consumption", which is the main driver of GHG emissions, and is no solution for pressing land use issues affecting First Nation's in Alberta, since they are proposing ongoing exploitation into the 22nd Century.

      Who really is hedging here?

      ursa minor

      Aug 14, 2015 at 8:39am

      @ Amanda - Exactly. The Greens are as bad as the Conservatives in that they want an environmental review process with predetermined results, or no review at all. That process is a weapon that's just too easy for the other side to gain control of once your party falls on the wrong side of the polls.

      A comprehensive, transparent, depoliticized, evidence-based review process like the kind Tom Mulcair and the NDP advocate is the only way to go. Politicians shouldn't be coming out in favour or against resource development progress, Scientists should be, and they carry a lot more legitimacy about Biology and Chemistry than the corporate and political flacks who currently run the NEB.

      The Green Party wouldn't support a legitimate evidence-based review panel because just like the Conservatives, they don't believe in Science either. Greens around the world can be seen persistently railing against life-saving Stem Cell research and Genetically Modified foods that are helping to fight world hunger. At the same time, the Greens continue to support Homeopathic Medicine no matter how many patients are suckered into paying for bogus treatments that range form ineffective to fatal.


      Aug 14, 2015 at 9:50pm

      A political fundamentalist wins abstract unattainable arguments "helping the dispossessed" but perenially loses elections. They are Phyrric victorians.