Somewhere, reasonability can always be found in political debate.
Unfortunately when it comes to issues like the environment, it wasn’t to be found on the floor of last month’s federal NDP convention where delegates debated the leap manifesto that promotes an end to oil infrastructure projects and stops just short of demanding oil remain in the ground and that we end all forms of large scale agriculture.
But does that necessarily mean the answers can then be found on rural Saskatchewan’s coffee row? Or are the answers to be found in the partisan press releases we are seeing from government caucus condemning all aspects of the leap manifesto debate as unworthy of consideration?
The thought crosses one’s mind not only in the wake of the radical leap manifesto but also in the partisan reaction from the NDP’s opponents.
Before we venture too far down this road, however, let us acknowledge that reasonability is seldom found smack dab in the middle.
And given the uncompromising tone of the leap manifesto, it seems its proponents care little about compromise.
After all, is it reasonable to believe locally produced agriculture production is viable in a world where large-scale grain, oilseed and livestock operations struggle to make a go of it?
Is it reasonable to stop pipelines as a means of transporting oil natural gas and other petroleum products throughout North America when the alternative is the risk of another Lac Megantic disaster?
Is it even reasonable to think that this will shut down the oil sands or that we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels by the middle of the century?
And most importantly of all, are any of these lofty goals worth the price of thousands upon thousands of loss jobs in the oil sector?
But does that mean we ignore all aspects of this debate … or, worse yet, deliberately misinterpret the views of locally elected New Democrats?
For starters, all the federal NDP agreed to do is debate it at the constituency level. This is a far cry from adopting it as party policy — especially at the NDP provincial level in Alberta and Saskatchewan where the leap manifesto is opposed.
Yes, even Saskatchewan’s NDP caucus opposes it — this, notwithstanding NDP MLA Cathy Sproule’s support of the motion so that it could be voted at the NDP constituency level.
In fact, Sproule said in an interview she personally opposes aspects of leap manifesto prohibiting pipeline development, ending large-scale farming and keeping oil in the ground.
Of course, that may cause one to wonder exactly what is that Sproule supports … other than notion that we should have a debate. Also, Sproule has promoted the phasing out of electrical-powered coal.
But if a meaningful environmental debate is what Sproule wants, is that really a problem?
Contrast this with what we saw in a recent Sask. Party caucus news release put out on behalf of new Estevan MLA Lori Carr.
In that release, Carr said “the NDP want to shut down our province’s oil and coal industries.”
“It makes you wonder where the NDP’s priorities are,” Carr said. “Why is the NDP’s Finance critic actively working against jobs in our province?”
Well, she isn’t.
In fact, as a financial critic, Sproule actually has legitimate reason to ask why a debt-plagued Sask. Party government has already spent $1.5 billion for a clean coal scrubber in Carr’s Estevan riding that hasn’t exactly worked.
If we can’t make clean coal viable, shouldn’t be debating whether it’s still viable? Wasn’t phasing out coal-generated electricity also what the former Progressive Conservatives in Alberta were promoting long before the arrival of that province’s NDP government?
Clearly, there isn’t much middle ground in the Leap Manifesto.
But does that mean we ignore all environmental issues it touches?
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 22 years.
