Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Anyone can be environment minister

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:02pm - 70 Comments

The Scene. Demonstrating their interest in climate change as a matter of great consequence, the official opposition led this afternoon with Michael Ignatieff’s 95th, 96th and 97th attempts to convince the Prime Minister that the government’s spending priorities are woeful and that the Liberal home care proposal is a superior alternative. After the Prime Minister had batted away these entreaties just as he had the previous 94, the Liberals sent up Lise Zarac, a backbencher, to ask about the latest report of the environmental commissioner and his passingly troublesome suggestion that the government lacked anything like a comprehensive plan for what the Prime Minister once termed “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.”

And here, in the form of Chuck Strahl, did the government demonstrate the seriousness with which it views our potential apocalypse.

In fairness, John Baird, the government’s part-time environment minister, was away this day—off to carry this country’s banner at climate talks in Cancun. But Mark Warawa, the Conservative who has for four years now held the title of “Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment” and who presently collects an extra $15,834 per annum as compensation for performing that task, was most certainly present. And while Mr. Strahl is certainly a fine performer and seemingly a pleasant enough man, it is unclear what, if anything, he has to do with leading this government’s efforts against what is perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.

Indeed, of all the ministerial portfolios, environment is perhaps one of only two or three that Mr. Strahl has not, in the course of a 17-year political career, been somehow assigned. He is presently the Minister of Transport. Previously he held the titles of Minister of Indian Affairs, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Minister of Agriculture and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As an opposition member he was variously his party’s assigned critic for democratic reform, cultural industries and public sector renewal. He was an assistant critic for foreign affairs. He has toiled as a member of committees charged with studying Canadian heritage, fisheries and oceans, sport and the “conversion of military industries to civilian purposes.” He was once apparently a member of an internal cabinet committee on energy and the environment, but is not at present.

His is an entirely honourable history of public service. None of which would presently explain why he stood this day to officially convey the government’s attitudes toward climate change. But convey he did—in just the sort of self-assured, loudly voiced manner for which he was likely assigned the task of doing so. Indeed, if there is one thing that has defined this government’s environment ministers AR (After Rona), it is this impervious manner of speaking.

“We welcome the commissioner’s report,” he explained. “We of course are working to address those concerns that were raised. We welcome his suggestions. In fact we are already taking action on preventing and preparing for environmental emergencies, something that he highlighted, strengthening our water monitoring program and investing in climate change adaptation. Those recommendations are welcome and they are consistent with what the government is already doing.”

For sure, any suggestion that this government draft some sort of plan is in keeping with this government’s long-standing stated interest to do something about doing just that. The only thing standing in the government’s way, you’ll understand, is everything and everyone.

“We are dealing with the Copenhagen accord right now in Cancun to make sure that all major emitters sign on the dotted line,” Mr. Strahl later explained for the benefit of the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair. “There is no use having an accord when the major emitters of the world are not signed on and doing their part. We want all world economies to be part of this program.”

In short, it seems, there’s no use us doing anything if we can’t be sure every one of the other 202 sovereign states in the world are going to do at least as much—”We not only have to have adaptation strategies and mitigation strategies, but we have to have worldwide strategies. All of the world’s economies need to buy into the same program. We have to reduce those GHGs. It cannot be Canada’s solution. It has to be a worldwide solution,” Mr. Strahl polysyllabically explained.

Not that this rather daunting precondition for action seems to be discouraging the government side. In fact, Mr. Strahl promised that the Environment Minister would “shortly” have a “climate change adaptation framework” available for review. This a mere three and a half years after Mr. Baird announced an intention to turn the metaphoric corner. One imagines Mr. Baird is now this close to getting the signature of his counterpart in Djibouti necessary to make that possible. In the best interests of reducing our national carbon emissions in the interim, you are advised to keep holding your breath.

A short while later, Mr. Warawa managed to stand long enough to boldly proclaim that, “there has never been a government more committed to cleaning up the environment than this government.”

The opposition laughed uproariously at this.

“The Liberals laugh but what a mess they created on the environment,” Mr. Warawa shot back.

And, indeed, by that standard, this government’s achievement is not all to be laughed at.

The Stats. The environment, 11 questions. Government spending, six questions. Health care, four questions. Firearms, aboriginal affairs, trade, arts funding, the census, employment and veterans, two questions each. Bloc Quebecois, the economy, copyright and Air India, one question each.

Chuck Strahl, six answers. Stephen Harper, five answers. Leona Aglukkaq, four answers. Vic Toews and James Moore, three answers each. Christian Paradis, Rona Ambrose, Gerald Keddy, Stockwell Day, Tony Clement, Diane Finley and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, two answers each.

Bookmark and Share
  • LivbloginJunkie

    Chuck Strahl, full-time Minister of Awesome

  • gottabesaid

    If these comment boards are any indication, conservatives don't believe in man-made global warming. Huge generalization, I know — If I'm wrong, my apologies. But if I'm right, aren't conservatives annoyed when the government pays lip service to having to reduce GHGs? I guess it must be comforting to know the government isn't really serious about dealing with AGW in any meaningful way. Still… slinging this much BS after a while must be irritating, isn't it?

    • madeyoulook

      You're right. It is irritating. Why, it's Martinesque.

      • gottabesaid

        The fact that the Liberal government talked big on the environment and did nothing is undoubtedly a source of much disappointment and shame for today's green-minded Liberal supporters. Conservative inaction on AGW, however, seems to be a badge of honour among Conservative supporters, what with AGW being a great liberal hoax and all. I'm just wondering if they wish the government would back up their inaction with words, rather than playing nice to the greenies by saying GHGs are something that need to be reduced. I can't wait for a Conservative environment minister to stand up and say what he, the PM and the rest of the party are actually thinking: "Yeah, this whole global warming thing, we just don't buy it. It's a liberal hoax." Ah, but truth from politicians isn't something we should expect. Politics come first.

        • madeyoulook

          You're right. The CPC should distinguish itself from former PM Dithers. They are playing a hypocritical game, spewing junk they think their political enemies want to hear. Their political enemies don't believe them anyways. Their political allies don't believe them either, or at least secretly and not-so-secretly hope they are lying.

          But, then, look at the fiscal conservative turkey Harper had Flaherty unleash upon the nation in the form of a federal budget. Enemies harrumpf "Not enough!" and once-allies say "WTF?"

          • gottabesaid

            "They are playing a hypocritical game, spewing junk they think their political enemies want to hear."

            Political enemies? They don't give a rat's ass what their political enemies think. They're not ever going to believe them, or vote for them. They're spewing junk they think the electorate — or at least the sizable portion of the electorate that believe AGW is real — want to hear. They've done a good job of keeping the base happy by doing nothing on the AGW file, while fooling enough people into thinking they're doing something about AGW.

          • madeyoulook

            They don't give a rat's ass what their political enemies think.

            Then please explain Flaherty's recent tenure at Finance.

            The Canadian people were wise enough to know Martin was lying through his teeth talking up Kyoto and tut-tutting GW Bush over the *cough* morality *cough* of ineffectual enviropreening. Why do you suppose they believe a word of the CPC lip service?

            UPDATE: I shall walk myself back a bit. At least this government has properly recognized that major emitters spewing more and more with abandon is a bigger deal than anything teeny weeny Canada might or might not do. And they have been consistent with that truth. So I shall grant them that.

          • gottabesaid

            Bit of an oversimplification to say that the stimulus was set up to ameliorate the Conservatives' political enemies… though it was undoubtedly part of it. I'd argue that, politically, they needed to do SOMETHING, because NOTHING wasn't going to fly (rightly or wrongly). Seems to me that the whole stimulus program was international in scope… all the G8 nations were doing it, and Canada pretty much had to play ball (rightly or wrongly).

            Who knows… maybe they don't believe the CPC's lip service. Maybe people don't care. Still, it doesn't make sense to me that they're 'faking green' to make the NDP and Liberals happy… they're doing it because they know if they say 'AGW is a big liberal hoax', it's gonna sacrifice votes they need for a majority.

          • madeyoulook

            Just to clarify: I don't mean "what they want to hear" as "make them happy" so much as I mean it as "look / sound like them." Which, frankly, has me baffled.

          • gottabesaid

            1) How do you go back into comments you've written and change them?

            2) Thanks for the clarification.

            The Conservatives have the anti-AGW crowd sewn up no matter what they say. The anti-AGW crowd isn't enough to get them a majority, so they need to get at least a part of pro-AGW crowd who aren't attached to any particular party (like myself). So, the government isn't going to plant itself overtly in the anti-AGW camp. So… a half-assed GHG-reduction plan does the trick!

            That's a horrible oversimplification, I admit…people don't vote with only the environment on their minds, after all… but I think that's the basis of the government's environmental policy.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            1) You gotta sign up for an intensedebate account.

            2) I don't think that's a horrible oversimplification at all, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

          • madeyoulook

            You are, sadly, describing an awful lot of this government's policy on many things. "Principles be damned!" would appear to be some underlying philosophy coming out of Langevin.

            1) Get an Intense Debate profile. As long as no one has replied to your post, you have an "Edit" option and even a "Delete" option(*). Except for minor spelling and punctuation corrections and tidy-ups, I try to be as transparent as possible about significant modifications to a comment with an all-caps "update" title.

            2) No problem, I saw that my weak word choice was leading you astray.

            (*)UPDATE: I notice the "delete" option remains even if a comment has received a reply. That seems a little unfair to anyone who took the trouble to reply, however…

          • gottabesaid

            Weak word choice was leading me astray? Usually it's scotch. Change is nice, I suppose.

          • john g

            Excellent discussion, you both hit the nail on the head. I don't believe that man is a significant contributor to global climate swings, as I don't believe that the climate models are advanced enough to be able to accurately model the real world; there are too many unknown factors that have to be assumed away which are very likely significant contributors

            And yes, it bothers me that the Conservatives continue to pay lip service to it; but it would bother me even more if they ever escalated beyond lip service and started creating carbon taxes, skyrocketing our utility bills, or otherwise hobbling the economy to make a fraction of a percentage change in the amount of global CO2 emitted, while massive holes in "accepted" climate science continue to be uncovered.

            When you delete a comment that has replies, you get the little message that says "This comment was deleted by the user" so that the replies are preserved. If the comment had no replies it is removed altogether.

          • Emily

            We put 90 million tons of CO² into the atmosphere every 24 hours, and the amount is increasing decade by decade.

            Of course it affects our climate.

          • DPT

            you can assert that all you want it doesn't maek it so . LOL.

          • Emily

            Why no….if you don't 'believe' in it, 90 million tons of CO² will simply vanish.

            Poof…magic.

          • harebell

            Saying there are massive holes in climate science without actually stating one doesn't make it so either.
            Are there gaps in knowledge, yes, but there is also a lot of knowledge too. Saying we don't know everything so we should do nothing cannot be an option. That logic can be applied to all life's decisions.

          • boswald

            Martin was PM for 2 years, and while he has been given the nickname dithers he was incomparison to harper a real busy beaver. Perhaps the only measure of action you could accord tubby harpo with is how quickly he broke his own promises — much faster than chretien, quicker than mulroney. a floor-crosser into his cabinet, a bagman into his senate and cabinet, minutes after being sworn in. He lollygagged a lot before axing the income trusts, but no doubt he was dreaming of that hockey book he hopes john howard will write for him…

        • frobisher

          I think we'll have to wait for Mr. Fantino (Unless Yosemite Vic gets shuffled there) to take the Environment portfolio. He's a straight-shooter who can be counted on to stand up and tell it like it is. Fantino will surely say he likes to call AGW a 'theory' of some stripe.

  • madeyoulook

    Anyone? Really? Can I be environment minister? Please? I would love to jet on down to Cancun in December and join all my jetsetting envirofriends at the swim-up bar as we tut-tut over the little people doing stupid things like heating their homes and boiling water so the kids won't die of diarrhea and driving their grandma to the doctor and stuff. Pick me! Pick me!

    Fly from Canada. To Cancun. In December. To talk about how bad warmth is. There must be at least a half dozen jokes just waiting to burst out.

    • tobyornotoby

      Really?

      I'd rather restore effective federal environmental assessment, swap corporate tax cuts for environmental incentives, create real targets for ghg reductions and implement the best ideas from all parties on how to get there (including regulations, taxes, carbon trading, all of it). I'd also like to create an east west power grid to get Alberta and Ontario off coal generation and make environmental performance a criteria for all federal infrastructure funding.

      • tobyornotoby

        I forgot to say: Vote tobyornotoby for Environment Minister

      • madeyoulook

        And I'd rather jet on down on someone else's dime spewing more carbon to get my fat ass there than many of the taxpayers footing the bill for me will spew in a year. C'mon: It's a beautiful resort, the food and booze are on someone else's house, and it's probably a fantastic way to , um…, intercourse with likeminded persons from around the world. I will even applaud when the award is given out to the most verbose liar making grand projections that shall never be achieved:
        http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnemen…

        Vote MYL. Because honestly, my intentions expressed in this campaign pamphlet most closely align with everyone else partying working hard to save Mother Earth in Cancun right now.

        • tobyornotoby

          I think a junket like that can only be enjoyed by someone genuinely freed of the cares of state. If I thought you really didn't care, I'd invite you to be parliamentary secretary. ;-)

  • Anon 001

    Well, you gotta give Team Harper this much: after almost five years and a $50 billion deficit later, they have mastered the art of the 30-second non-answer in QP. Bravo!

  • Emily

    Harper and the gang don't believe in global warming, man-made or otherwise, and Canadians are well-aware of that.

    What you see in QP is what you used to see on a midway trying to sell you tickets to view the fat lady

  • kcm

    'We have to reduce those GHGs. It cannot be Canada’s solution. It has to be a worldwide solution,” Mr. Strahl polysyllabically explained.'

    Shorter Strahl: until everyone signs on, no-one [especially Canada] should sign on.

    Well, i guess you could call it leadership, in a backassward sort of way.

    • Emily

      LOL I don't see how, but then the govt doesn't intend to make sense on this file.

      • kcm

        Well they're making sure we aren't being taken for suckers – we'll get our exceptions and considerations because we're a Nothern winter nation with high energy needs and costs ; and SA must have its case considerd because they have nothing else to fall back on ; Austraila needs to keep cool – which is expensive ; India simply can't afford to fall behind China ; China's well on its way to economic superpower status – can't stop now…

        • Emily

          Lots of excuses, no action. Doesn't add up to leadership.

          • kcm

            I was being facetious/sarcastic…something like that…or maybe it's despair?

    • Kathryn_C

      I think you would more accurately call it follower-ship but that's just awkward.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Mr. Strahl polysyllabically explained.

    I love how Wherry inserts adverbs like "polysyllabically" into sentences for no discernible reason. They're like Easter eggs for logophiles like me, and Wherry occasionally hides them in his BTC sketches just for the hell of it.

    I'm going to mail him a ten-dollar bill if he uses the word "ejaculated"—the non-seminal meaning, of course—in one of his upcoming sketches.

    • kcm

      Is, Baird was ejaculated from the house! worth ten bucks…er no, five even…maybe not.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        You're thinking of "ejected".

        "Ejaculated", in its non-seminal sense, means "uttered abruptly" or "blurted out". It's a wonderful verb that can be applied in many ways to Question Period.

        • kcm

          You're thinking of "ejected".

          Am i ? :)

          • madeyoulook

            Eeeeeww…

        • Fido

          It is also a query in the colloquial sense. Roughly, something like this: "Eh, Jack, you lay Ted?

        • Kathryn_C

          I always have a mental giggle when I read "ejaculated" used that way in Victorian fiction.

    • AEK

      One possible reason that this article is about five times as long as it needs to be is because Wherry gets paid by the word. This guy is the Master of the Five Hundred Word Preamble. He filled up a long paragraph reciting Chuck Strahl's political career, and then another paragraph to describe his speaking style. Yes, Wherry must be getting paid by the word.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        So you're saying that Wherry is the "Ken Dryden" of the Parliamentary Press Gallery? I couldn't disagree more.

        Unlike Mr. Dryden, Wherry has cultivated his own unique style that has nothing to do with financially motivated excessive loquaciousness.

        • Jenn_

          Well, hold on. Their styles are completely different of course, but I don't believe Ken Dryden gets paid by the word, either. And you can't seriously say Ken Dryden doesn't have his own unique style!

          I still chuckle over that caption comment. Can't remember whose it was, but he did nail Dryden's style.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I could have sworn that Dryden got paid by the word, but I'll take your word for it that he doesn't. :)

            I agree Ken Dryden's style is unique. I've noticed he's a bit more succinct these days (either that, or he has a good editor). Check out this excerpt from Dryden's new book:
            http://www.mcclelland.com/catalog/display.pperl?i…

  • chet

    It's really remarkable how tone deaf Iggy is.

    While virtually every government in the Western world (and their respective voters) have put austerity and cutting government spending properly at the top of the priority list,

    Iggy's stuck in the Liberal days of yore, touting as his signature proposal, another government entitlement program.

    There will be an election soon.

    By the looks of it, Liberals may actually end up describing the Dion reign as the "good ol days".

    • Matlock

      Seriously dude, setting aside for the moment the substance of your comments, your writing style reminds me of KCNA, the North Korean propoganda machine. I'm amazed you haven't called the opposition 'those imperialist dogs' yet.

  • chet

    Of course the epitome of tone deaf are the enviro technocrats.

    While yet another leading scientist literally scoffs at the rediculous nature of the IPCC's assertions:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/12/027…

    as the dire predictions of more than a decade ago as to what would would be happening by now, utterly fizzles out, proving the computer models to be a joke (to the complete surprise of no one who has knowlege of computer models on complex mechanisms)

    and as Europe struggles with one of the worst deep freeze's on record,

    the warmists gather in the place best known for it being a luxurious escape of the winter cold….

    to chide the rest of the world into lowering their standards of living to save the planet from "global warming."

    Simply, remarkable.

    • Amateur Hour
    • gottabesaid

      Why doesn't your government have the courage to come out and call AGW a hoax, then?

      • chet

        A good question.

        They're acting in their political best interests and are going to ride out its death in the safe part of the bell curve (the part where people now question or disbelieve it, but don't do it publicly in polite company).

        In five years, whoever the government is, Liberal or Conservative, the recognition of the bogus science behind it, and with real tangeable concerns at the forfront, AGW theory will be freely and openly declared dead.

        Until then, the political waiting game continues.

        • gottabesaid

          This is an issue like no other I've seen… the party's most ardent supporters actually hope and are counting on their own party lying on a particular issue. I defy you to find another instance where this has happened in Canadian politics. Parties lie all the time, but the party's grassroots supporters don't usually encourage it.

          I do tip my hat to you for at least being honest with me on where you stand. Then again, you're not running for office. Are you?

          • chet

            It's called political realism.

            And here's a dirty little secret. ALL the parties engage in it. Even the pure-of-heart Liberal party.

          • gottabesaid

            As I said, all parties lie, even the pure-of-heart Liberals. But — I mean this with respect, I'm not trying to be partisan — core Conservative party supporters are actually COUNTING ON their party to lie. They're not just expecting them to lie, because all parties do it, but on AGW, core supporters listen to their own government's environmental rhetoric and they actually HOPE their party is lying.

            Let's take the GST, for instance. The Liberal Party lied. But, were rank and file party supporters hoping their party's leadership was lying? I doubt it. They wanted the GST gone just like everybody else.

            If you can find another instance of this happening — any party — please tell me.

          • john g

            I agree with you. It's a bizarre situation to be in. As you suggest, I have been forced into hoping that the CPC is lying about taking serious action on climate change, because I agree with chet that it is a political non starter to come out and say that man has nothing to do with climate change and that the government is not going to do anything about it.

            I think this unique situation is a byproduct of how dishonest and one sided the coverage of the climate "debate" has been in the media. Very very little that contradicts the "accepted wisdom" of Al Gore or the IPCC is allowed past the media filter.

            Look what happened when "ClimateGate" hit. The Canadian media (in fact, the global media) enforced a news blackout of almost 2 weeks when the ClimateGate emails were leaked from East Anglia and published, hoping that the story would somehow go away. It got so bad that a protestor had to hijack an RDI news broadcast to demand that CBC cover the story

            When this is how the media treats the topic, is it any wonder we find ourselves in this situation?

          • Emily

            Every scientific finding about climate change is online and always has been.

            There have been no 'blackouts'.

            Al Gore narrated a documentary about it, he has never claimed to be a scientist.

          • Holly Stick

            john g, you prefer your ignorant lies to facing reality. Humanity is causing climate change, as every major scientific organization in the world has acknowledged. And the stupid media has repeatedly blown the horns of every lying denialist conman from Tim Ball to Lord Monckton. The National Post has all sorts of stupid dishonest constantly claiming that AGW is not ocuring, so stop whining about mediaonesideness., it makes you look like an idiot.

            Basic physics: the more you emit CO2 into the atmosphere, the more it absorbs heat from the sun, the more the globe warms up and our weather becomes less stable and more inclined to extremes, which you would recognize is happening now if you were not a stupid rightwinger with your head buried in the sand.

          • chet

            Well said, john g.

    • Emily

      LOL Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is 72, believes in dowsing, and took a huge chunk of money from Shell before his retirement.

    • http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Pato31

      By your logic, the two days of 18C weather here that I've been experiencing in Bordeaux is clearly a sign of global warming… how does that work!!!!!

      • Emily

        If you've paid attention at all over the last few years you know how it works.

        • http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Pato31

          I know! I know! But I just can't help comparing ridiculous observations with one another to prove the illogical claims being made.

  • Mandatory Jedi

    Until China, India, and the US agree to participate in any sort of GHG reduction scheme everyone else is just blowing hot air.

    "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
    ―Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker

    • Emily

      So, we just give up and go back to the caves. Leadership is apparently out of the question.

      • Mandatory Jedi

        Even if the Death Star were to wipe Canada off the map the effect on global GHG output would be negligible.

        "Well, if there's a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet that it's farthest from."
        ―Luke, to C-3PO about Tatooine

  • Crit_Reasoning

    In the best interests of reducing our national carbon emissions in the interim, you are advised to keep holding your breath

    I liked this line.

  • Phil_King

    It still surprises me when people are in doubt concerning the effects of CO2 on worldwide climate, when paleo-geologists and paleo-climatologists have indicated time and again that there simply isn't another mechanism that can explain major changes to macro-climate as well as the rock-weathering/CO2 theory.

    I offer for your consideration the following presentation by Richard Alley from Penn State University at the fall 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting.

    It's lengthy, but as far as I'm concerned is removes all reasonable doubt.
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture…

    • Emily

      Well see, if you stick your fingers in your ears and yell la-la-la at the top of your lungs, you can retain any number of doubts. LOL

  • Holly Stick

    Meanwhile Environment Canada has been testing water below the oi sands for decades – but they haven't been testing for oil sands chemicals. D'oh!:
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/12/07…

  • ex-canuck

    Another useless article by Mr Wherry to fill up space.

  • Holly Stick

    Strahl doesn't appear to be all that honourable:

    "The federal government is facing a lawsuit after quietly opening a vast tract of a once-protected Arctic wilderness to mining claims…

    …Reid said the federal move breaks a promise made last May by former Indian Affairs minister Chuck Strahl to renew protection for several proposed conservation areas at a meeting with Dehcho Grand Chief Sam Gargan…"
    http://kitchenerwaterloorecord.ca/News/article/82…

From Macleans