Maxime Bernier considers the reaction to his comments on climate change and rallies his supporters.

This is why it is so important to have an open and balanced public debate. This is the very opposite of the intellectual totalitarianism of those who would like to stamp out every dissident voice.

As I said in my Calgary speech some weeks ago, we should be the lobby of the silent majority, this majority which is not represented by the interest groups that we hear about all the time in public debates, but who will pay for the policies being adopted in the end. I encourage all those who feel concerned by this question to make themselves heard, either by leaving a comment on this blog, writing to your elected officials or to newspapers. Thank you to those who’ve done it. I can assure you that you are having an impact.

Maxime Bernier posts some of his interview with La Presse.

Question: Should the scandals involving the IPCC serve as a reason for the Canadian government to abstain from doing anything until we know more about the issue?

Answer: I quoted Prof Patterson who said this. I believe however it would be unrealistic to do nothing, for many obvious political reasons. My position is that we should be cautious instead of ambitious when tackling this issue. That’s why I totally support my government, which has shown caution even if it brought us criticism and condemnations from environmental activists.

CBC has the unedited version of the letter Maxime Bernier sent to La Presse.

Data from tree rings in the forests even show some cooling; that’s why they were replaced by temperatures considered more accurate from meteorological stations in the IPCC graphs. This is what the famous quote about the trick “to hide the decline” by British researcher Phil Jones, which created such controversy during the “Climategate” episode, refers to.

For whatever it is worth, here is Time magazine’s primer on the so-called Climategate emails.

Asked, via e-mail, whether Environment Minister Jim Prentice believes in “anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming,” Mr. Prentice’s press secretary sends along the following response.

“Yes.”

Apparently in response to a request from the Prime Minister, Michael Ignatieff writes to inform Mr. Harper of all the issues the Liberals would be keen to work on when Parliament resumes, including cap-and-trade, pension reform, pay equity, government oversight, mental health, maternal health, veterans, prorogation and Afghan detainees.

Observe the Ignatieff in its familiar habitat.

Standing on a square stage in the middle of the room, grey jacket removed and placed on back of chair. He wears black shoes, dark blue slacks, light blue shirt, sleeves rolled up. He holds the microphone in his left hand, gestures with right. Students seated on all sides, he talks broadly of economic restructuring, innovation, energy efficiency, democratic engagement, social security, China, Brazil, Africa, foreign aid, intellectual property, personal responsibility, productivity, internationalism and education. He promises to be concise, he asks everyone else to be civil. After about 15 minutes he calls for questions. A line of about 16 young people forms behind a microphone set up in the audience.

So has the Liberal leader opted to open his year with a nod to both the past and the future—a return to the university halls from which he came, standing amidst the hopeful young minds of this country’s tomorrow, prefacing a restart to his Prime Ministerial ambitions and perhaps even relaunching the Liberal Party of Canada. In the capital a week before Parliament would have opened, he stood this afternoon before a crowd of 250 at the University of Ottawa. A 20-minute walk from the House of Commons, he attempted to make sense of here, there and everywhere else beyond both.

“One of things, I think, that drives all of politics is anybody who’s in politics always asks the question, ‘Who’s not in the room? Who’s not included? Who doesn’t share? Who doesn’t participate? Who doesn’t benefit from what I’ve got?’ ” he asked. “That’s the core political instinct, in my view. ‘Who’s not in the room? Who’s out in the cold?’ ” Continue…

The Scene. He opened with pleasantries—”Happy New Year,” he said—and then a joke.

“I’ve hope you’ve all had a good rest. Time with your families,” Michael Ignatieff said, surveying the cluster of reporters in front of him. “Now your family’s thrown you out and told you to get back to work? Same here.”

Aside from a working crew tearing up the front steps to Centre Block—access to our democracy, quite literally, being demolished!—Parliament Hill was quiet and dark, security guards standing around without much to mind. Mr. Ignatieff stood at a lectern in the foyer, behind him the closed doors of the Commons, behind them a group of university students participating in a mock Parliament—the closest the chamber will get to functioning democracy for some weeks yet.

Mr. Ignatieff proceeded with his prepared remarks.

“Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament, shut Parliament down on New Year’s Eve, when he thought no one was looking,” he reviewed. “He thought Canadians didn’t care. And it turns out they do care … Canadians are not as cynical as he thought.”

So it is that our cynicism apparently has its limits. Or perhaps it is merely that some don’t appreciate having their cynicism so unashamedly confirmed. Either way, here we are, openly and heatedly discussing the parameters of Parliamentary democracy, tens of thousands of Canadians signing up for a Facebook group that trumpets the word “proroguing.”

“We’re listening,” the Liberal leader continued. “And we’re going to be going back to work.” Continue…