Rovik

This can potentially turn into a real opportunity for the NDP, especially in Quebec. Yes, she shocked that she won; yes, there was some controvery about the signatures and yes, her online profile was embellished by a staffer but consider this: - She seems to have made a good impression on her first trip to the riding. - Her name is now well known, not just in her own riding but across Canada. I can't say same for many other MPs especially those Alberta Conservative MPs, who tend to only came out around election time. - She is a young, single mom coming in with no experience. This especially appeals to youth, women and people who like rooting for the underdog If I was her, I would work like heck to improve on her French; purchase a house in the riding, participate in as many riding events as possible to get to know the people, and get to know the local issues. If she does well and after she has some experience behind her; get her involved into topics such youth, childcare and women's issues (and allow her to ask questions in the house re: these issues.) Perhaps go on youth-oriented shows such as Muchmusic and YTV to fight for youth issues and be involved in committees. If she does well, she can really raise support not just for her but for the NDP in Quebec and potentially in Canada.

Just to add; Newfoundland and Labrador also has gas prices regulated and that was brought in by a Conservative govt. (must have been a socialist Conservative govt)...I have to laugh..how many times do those fervant right wingers try to mislabel as a purely socialist, communist or marxist govt. It has no basis in truth (the NDP are a social democrat govt.) As long as people try to mislabel the NDP this way, I have no objection to people calling the Conservatives fascist (I don't believe this but as long as the right wingers mislabel the NDP, then it's only fair for the Conservatives to be mislabelled in return)

I never bothered to read the 47 pages in the thread. This is what I believe; those who are outraged by this were not going to vote NDP in the first place (I suspect diehard Con and Lib supporters). All others will see this as what it really is; a smear campaign. They are either going to ignore this and decide who to vote for as per normal or this may actually persuade them to vote NDP as a way to show their displeasure at this american-style politics. And many will assume that someone in either the Conservative or Liberal campaign was behind this (be it true or false).

I'm so sick of the people's obsession with the NDP 90s Ontario Rae govt. and today's NDP govt. And the sad thing is that the media and many columnists and opinion pieces also focus on this. How about the difference between Devine and Harper or how about Hatfield and Harper or even Smallwood and Iggy. No one in the media or these rabid anti-NDPers ever mention those bad Conservative/Liberal govts. This is just a small part of the big picture. The Conservative and Liberal dominated media are in complete character assassination of the NDP and their leader more so than I ever seen them ever go against Harper or Iggy. Yes, the party should be looked at but what going on now in the media is bordering on fear-mongering, midinformation and bias-based wild speculation. I mean columns like the NDP will raise mortgage rates is clearly wild speculation from an extreme anti-ndp view. If the NDP do drop back on their polling numbers, it won't be because of attacks from the Libs, Cons and Block, it will be of the rabid Conservative and Liberal influenced media that will say and do anything to keep the Cons and the Libs as the dominant two parties.

Let's see; I'll follow your example (you used in a previous post) and use provincial govts to make a point. Both Manitoba and Sask. have had NDP govts that were fiscally responsible (their economies never imploded..shocking stuff). The NDP would obviously have different goals then the Conservatives but they would have to be fiscally responsible if they want to continue to retain power. Some of the worst fiscally fiancial provincial govts recently have either been Liberal or Conservative. Ontario, and New Brunswick are not in the best of shape financially for example. It's not horrible policy at all and if the banks start to discriminate in who to lend their money, then they should be accountable for and should be penaltized because of it. I'm not saying that all people with bad or no credit should be giving credit but one would have to look at each one case by case.

And the Conservatives don't have right wing nut jobs that would love to curtail freedoms and force their social views on the rest of us? The cap for credit cards is good policy. The banks will still make profits off prime + 5, though it may cut into the billions in profit that they make. And heaven forbid, a CEO might only make $250000 in bonuses instead of several million (for example.) There are credit cards out there that charge up to 29% , yet when an individual puts money into a bank he/she only gets 1 or 2% interest... well the system is broken and the average joe is the one who suffers.

The NDP are a social democratic party not a marxist party. If people try to mislabel the NDP like that, than I can't argue against people that say that the Conservatives are facist (I don't believe it myself but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.) Hmmmm... and Harper doesn't have his people toe the party line? That's right, he lets his members vote and say what they believe and not what the party may believe. Wait a second, what am I saying...this is Steven Harper I'm talking about.

Oh my! Another oldie scare tactic. Guess what? Let's talk about bad provincial governments. For one, Grant Devine's Conservative's Sask. govt. My goodness if the Conservatives were running federally wouldn't they be as bad as Devine's govt was? Wait, how about Richard Hatfield's NB Conservative's govt. They were so bad that when they lost, they won 0!!!! seats. Just imagine, if the Conservatives won federally, they would screw up the country, Richard Hatfield's NB govt. on steroids. How about the Liberals, they can't do no wrong..right? Well Smallwood's NL Liberal govt. was not one to remember; he made many a bad decision including giving away Churchill Falls. There have been many bad provinical govts of all stripes in Canada's history. Yet the anti-NDPers selectively remember only Rae's govt and forget all the rest.

A friend of mine lives in a district in which the Conservatives and the Liberals are running neck and neck. He was going to vote liberal as he was not impressed by the negativism of the Conservatives. He was also voting for the Liberals because he believed they seem to running a clean campaign. But now, the Liberals are turning blue as they are now attacking just as negative as the Conservatives. He told me that he is now voting NDP out of principle even though he knows that the NDP won't win in his district. He can't in good conscience vote for a party that has changed in a blink of an eye. I told him that they were like a wolf in sheep's clothing but now they ripped off the clothing and revealed themselves for what they truly are. I hope people see through the hate and punish the Liberals for such tactics.

Iron clad fact? I don't think so. I bet you and other hardcore Conservative supporters would believe the moon was made of green cheese if Steve Harper said it was. Within this article from Canada.com, are the reasons why this ad is based on misinformation and untruths. NDP surge makes Layton new target of attack From within this article: The Conservatives were quick to complain about the misquote of Harper in the Liberal's healthcare attack ad but they seem loose and free to misinform and manipulate the facts within their own ads. This is the heights of hypocrisy and I hope that Canadians are smart enough to see this and punish the Conservatives for this. Let's face it, even though many Conservatives may publicly say that they are happy about the NDP surge because it may possibly "split the left vote", they are privately concerned that the NDP would also defeat the Conservatives in ridings across the country preventing them from winning a majority.

Well, well.. news out that the incident is at par with Chernobyl. Japan nuclear disaster tops scale Guess the media wasn't so offbase after all. Unless this is some CNN devised conspiracy, and for them to get Japan's primt minister to play along, I didn't realize CNN had that much power.

I was going by a newspaper article I read a few months back stating that they (can't remeber who they was)estimated Newfoundland and Sask. were the only two provinces that were going to have surpluses, but if that article is wrong and NS also had a surplus, well... good for NS.

Actually the population has increased since 2008 by 3000; a small increase; but an increase nevertheless. Annual Population - Canada, Provinces and Territories; 1971-2010

Actually N+L is one of the only two provinces (Sask. is the other) to have a budget surplus, so to include N+L in your analysis would be incorrect.

Considering how dangerous a nuclear incident has the potential to be, there should be a proactive approach not a reactive approach which seems to be the case now. Having an incident, making some changes, having another incident, making more changes and so on is not good enough.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to emphasize the impact of the radiation, instead it was to say how one incident in a far away part of the world can effect other parts of the world (like a domino effect). Though the radiation was negligable, the radiation was still linked to the incident in japan. I disagree with saying that new technology would not be developed. In fact, if a project can't procede (with current technology) without unacceptable environment impact, then that project should not proceed until new technology is developed. In this way, high emphasis is placed on new technology to proceed. The wealth of this country or the impact on the planet; which is more important. And if the projects procede with less impact on the environment because of better processes and oversight then the oil worker jobs would continue as per usual. And with new technology perhaps the windmill worker in the not to distant future would contribute to the wealth of the country.

Yes, quite the logical reason that. Too bad you couldn't explain your reason in a rational, factual way instead of just "calling names."

This is not something the NDP dreamed up out of thin air. There are legitimate concerns here that need to be addressed and by blindly believing that there isn't will cause troubles down the road. In this article, Stop oilsands projects until monitoring is improved: Panel , it mentions this So obviously, these issues should be actioned upon; to do otherwise would be negligent.

Yes what's so special about some barren wasteland in Alberta? Every part of this world is interlinked through a global ecosystem; so what happens in one place can effect other places in the world. Look at the nuclear disaster that is happening in Japan; radiation being released there is travelling around the world though the jet stream. Yes, I agree we can't stop oil production (as the world today can't survive without it,) but we have to be absolutely sure that we do everything in our power to minimize the damage. And that is the question. Are we doing all we can? If it means money to develop systems to minimize the damage then we should do it, even if it impacts the bottom line. After what came out of oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and what's going on in Japan, one has too wonder if these companies are willing to do what has to been done to minimize damage (even if it means a cut in profits.) And regards to oil jobs being different from windmill jobs, we have to consider this. Are we willing to put more weight in making money or more weight in doing something that may been beneficial to the planet in the long run. I would suggest a careful balance between the two (if possible).

I don't know about any obvious connection between earthquake sizes and tsunamis (is this proven or conjecture?) but in the last ten years we have had two big earthquakes (one in the Indian Ocean and one off the coast of Japan) and we have had two devastating tsumanis. Therefore, that leads me to believe that it's not an automatic given that we will have a large tsumani after a large Earthquake but the chances are much higher than a lower level earthquake. I truly don't believe when it's said that all reactors can survive large earthquake and tsunamis unscathed; especially if you read articles like this: More than one in 10 nuclear power plants at risk from earthquakes And if there is an accident 1 in every 20 earthquake events (for example), well that's one too many. Again, I suggest it's best not to build nuclear power plants in earthquake and tsumani zones.

The NDP released a report back in Sept of 2010. Toughen oilsands environment protection: NDP This was released after the It also mentions: Therefore to me this means that new projects should not be approved until improved environmental assessments are complete. In my mind, this should be done by an informed third party, not by the oil industry, different levels of govt. or environmental groups (in which I believe would represent a conflict of interest.) I'm sure the final say would not be from Jack Layton and the NDP but by an independant third party. I'm also sure this independant third party won't make the moratorium permanent and to suggest otherwise would be alarmism. Well in regards to these projects, I was thinking along the lines on where they would work the best and not the vote rich urban areas. For example, wind power in Newfoundland and tidal power in New Brunswick. I don't believe that economics should trump environment at any cost. If we believe it does, well then the environment has no chance and I for one wouldn't want to be around in several hundred years (the Earth won't be a pretty place). Once these projects can procede with minimum invasiveness to the environment then by all means they should procede. Here in Newfoundland, our workforce is fluid so they will go to where the work is, no matter it be Alberta or Ontario or wherever. I believe that even is there is a minor blip in the number of jobs in the oilsands, these people will find work elsewhere. And I expect with new technologies and processes, that blip won't be for long.

A nuclear power plant, one would think, would have the strictest risk contingecies. In regards in accounting for the tsumani, one would think they would overcompensate for safety considering how dangerous a nuclear plant accident can be. For example, if they expect 5m then account for more (just in case),like 10-15m, especially considering how geologically active that area is. I would hope that they didn't lowball the risk factors to get the nuclear power station built. And since nuclear can be so dangerous, even compared to oil spills and the like, then one problem with one plant should be unacceptable. I believe even an earthquake in the 8 magnitude, depending on how close in occurs to a nuclear power plant, can be problematic. Best not to even chance it and build these plants in stable geographical areas. The article mentions that a 9 magnitude could occur from the northern tip of California to Canada. I wonder if there are any nuclear power plants located between Northern California and Washington State (I truly don't know).

I don't advocate shutting down oil and nuclear energy production. All I'm saying is to have them as environmentally friendly as possible (and if that can't be done within acceptable levels, than delay until there is technology that will allow it too do so). For example, building an nuclear power plant in a stable geological environment would be one way to make it safer for the environment (compared to a high-risk reactor located next to the San Andres Fault). Of course, there is no way to completely eliminate the risk (an astroid strike for example) but you know what I'm saying. At the same time research and develop alternate energies. Yes, wind and solar are currently not feasible for widespread energy production but with research and innovation, perhaps it can be optimized to be much better in the future than it is today. Again, I don't think that many are advocating a complete shut down of the oilsands, but to ensure that any future development is safer for the environment. And yes, there are risks with offshore drilling (I don't support risky deep-water oil drilling). As far as I know, the risk to the environment is not as large as the oil sands but if they came out tomorrow and said that offshore drilling is causing great irreverisble harm to the environment (and this is proven), then yes I would support stopping it.

One would think that when factoring in earthquakes (especially if the reactor is adjacent to the coast line) that tsuamis should also be factored in. It's not like tsunamis have only started since 2006. Earthquakes and tsunamis have been linked together hand in hand since the dawn of time. Why the specs would not factor in tsunamis as a risk factor is beyond me. In regards to the reactors in California; I don't know how close they are to the coast (in regards to a tsunami hit) but if an earthquake's epicentre (say a big 9.O+ earthquake) were to be located very near a nuclear reactor, I doubt that any design specs could prevent issues from occuring.

Well the moratorium on the projects would be over once the assessments were complete. And don't have these assessments open-ended; Have a deadline date for these assessments to be complete to prevent them from dragging on. I don't believe he mentioned shutting down existing projects (hard to have assessments on projects that have already started). The tradesmen may not design the solar panels, wind farms and hydrogen cells but they would definately be there in implementing and constructing such endeavours. I really can't answer your last question since I don't know why. I would suggest that it's hard to bring up all details in the short time they have at the campaign stops.