"I can't say what we're going to do precisely, because that decision is made by Stephane Dion, not me. But, my sense is that it's important that we listen to the concerns of the people that produce our food. Respectfully, I don't think we're going to change it substantially, but we've got to show that we're listening"
"It's no secret, leadership is about listening as well as leading, and I think we want to show we're listening."
I guess the question then becomes, is it better to be dogmatic, or pragmatic, even though that pragmatism lends itself to obvious counters of backing down or flipping? The Conservatives would jump on any alteration as proof of a problem, so one would expect some hesitancy in terms of optics. That said, the Liberals have said from the start that the plan would be presented, then we would enter a summer dialogue to discuss the plan. Inferred in that approach, room to listen and react accordingly.
The Liberals aren't the government, the Green Shift isn't a piece of legislation, it is a policy. The important point for the Liberals, if any changes do occur, that they aren't pandering or being opportunistic, but receptive and progressive in their thinking. Contrast that approach with the Conservatives, who arrogantly ignore any outside opinion, particularly from issue experts, and you show a contrast. We listened, and we see what some are saying, so we've made adjustments to incorporate those concerns. The principle remains the same, and any tweaking is probably of the minor variety, but the Green Shift was always a starting point. Whether that rational explanation can be heard over the rabid nonsense of the Conservatives will be an important question, but the central argument actually feeds a bigger theme.
I'm of the view, that you try to get it right. If issues or concerns develop, which causes you to rethink, then stubborness or ideology shouldn't preclude an evolution of thought. If the Liberals do tweak, I think it a testament to a pragmatic approach to governing, rather than any statement on "sticking to your guns". Present any adjustments as a sort of cross Canada committee, where proposals are vetted, different opinions are expressed, then amendments are made to reflect that consultation, resulting in a stronger package.
Cue the predictable, mindless Conservative retort...