The Commons: That’s enough

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 6:32 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. It has been a long year. (Granted, no longer than any other year, but still, 365 days—or however many we’re at now—is an awful lot.) So you’ll forgive the Prime Minister if he didn’t seem all that interested this afternoon.

As Nycole Turmel hectored him about the latest problems to afflict the fabled F-35s, Mr. Harper fiddled with his mail, a particularly well-sealed envelope seeming to resist his attempts to open it. Apparently figuring he couldn’t get it open in the time allotted to Ms. Turmel to state her question, he put it aside long enough to get the gist of her complaint. He then stood and repeated his platitudes from memory.

“Mr. Speaker, I know very well that every time the government provides our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need, the NDP loudly opposes that and votes against it,” he sighed. “We are working on the best advice of the Canadian industry, including the Quebec industry, including our men and women in uniform in the air force, and we will continue to move forward and make sure that they have the best aircraft that are available when we have to replace the current fleet.”

So Support the Troops, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Continue…

Someone said a bad word

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 3:37 PM - 0 Comments

During QP, Justin Trudeau shouted the phrase “you piece of shit” in the general direction of Peter Kent. Afterwards, he stood and apologized. And then Peter Kent stood and demanded that he apologize. And then the Speaker stood and informed Mr. Kent that Mr. Trudeau had done just that.

More later.

‘An act of sabotage’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 11:37 AM - 0 Comments

Japan, India and Tuvalu add their concerns.

The tiny South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, one those most at risk from rising sea levels caused by climate change, was more blunt. ”For a vulnerable country like Tuvalu, its an act of sabotage on our future,” Ian Fry, its lead negotiator said. ”Withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol is a reckless and totally irresponsible act,” he said in an email to Reuters.

Critics in Australia are using the Harper government’s decision to scorn the Australian government.

Leading the world

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM - 0 Comments

France is unimpressed.

“Canada’s announcement that it is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol is bad news for the fight against climate change,” ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told journalists. ”It is out of the question to relax our efforts or to break the dynamic of the Durban agreement,” he said.

China too. The Guardian, New York Times and CNN take note. John Ibbitson says we should all be ashamed. NDP MP Laurin Liu says the Environment Minister was sidelined at Durban.

Canada out of Kyoto

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM - 0 Comments

Freshly returned from Durban, Peter Kent announces a withdrawal from Kyoto.

“We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Kent said outside the House of Commons. ”This decision formalizes what we’ve said since 2006, that we will not implement the Kyoto Protocol.”

Canada signed Kyoto in the late 1990s, but neither the current Conservative government nor their Liberal predecessors met targets. Kent says the move saves Canada $14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets.

Andrew Leach has tried to sort out the idea that staying in Kyoto would actually mean, so far as penalties might be concerned. More from Andrew here and here.

Full statement from the Environment Minister after the jump. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 4:59 PM - 0 Comments

The NDP leadership contenders made their first impressions. Bruce Hyer napped. Robert Chisholm defended his unilingualism. Paul Dewar proposed a new kind of vote subsidy. Thomas Mulcair pitched cap-and-trade.

Chuck Strahl complicated John Duncan’s timeline. The citizens of Attawapiskat turned away the auditor, who’s costing them $1,300 per day. Peter MacKay had a history with helicopter rides. The Liberals double-checked. A retired major came to the minister’s defence. And the minister threatened to sue. Peter Goldring became an independent. MPs failed in their duty. And Jim Hillyer celebrated (and then kind of tried to sort of apologize). Continue…

The Commons: The tiny, perfect Conservative

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. She is a pair of dimples in a room full of jowls.

Meet Michelle Rempel, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. She is short and smiley and perfectly patronizing. She speaks without holding a script, gestures with confidence and seems even to listen to what her counterparts are saying (even if only in search of a turn of phrase she can turn back on her opponent). Only 31 and barely six months into her first term in Parliament, she is already feigning indignation like she was born here. And so the government side is surely thankful that Peter Kent has been out of town this last little while. Continue…

Peter Kent versus the world

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Environment Minister spreads the good word.

Environment Minister Peter Kent repeated his sharp criticism of Kyoto at a high-level session of the Durban talks. “Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past,” Mr. Kent told a large audience of delegates and climate negotiators on Wednesday. “For Canada, the Kyoto Protocol is not where the solution lies,” he said. “It is an agreement that covers fewer than 30 per cent of global emissions.”

As he spoke, six Canadian activists stood up and silently protested by turning their backs on him, wearing T-shirts that said: “Turn your back on Canada.” Security guards quickly rushed over and escorted them away, leading them through a narrow corridor at the back of the room and then evicting them from the conference. But the protesters won louder applause than Mr. Kent, whose speech was greeted by a smattering of polite applause from delegates.

Earlier this week, Mr. Kent promised the Harper government wouldn’t withdraw from Kyoto during the Durban conference, but wouldn’t comment on what might happen after the talks. Officials from Brazil, Germany, India and South Africa are unimpressed.

Kyoto might be finished, but what next?

By John Geddes - Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM - 0 Comments

The policy Stephen Harper’s government on climate change has been so weak that anyone interested in the issue could be forgiven for assuming that the official Canadian stance going into this month’s negotiations in Durban, South Africa is indefensible.

Environment Minister Peter Kent has been brushing aside questions about persistent reports that Canada plans to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol at the close of the conference, which is meant to set the stage for a new phase in the global protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Continue…

The Commons: Convictions without courage

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM - 0 Comments

Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press

The Scene.“Kyoto is in the past,” Peter Kent intoned today at an announcement about something else. Not that he was confirming his government’s intention to withdraw from it. But not that he was denying it either. “This isn’t the day,” he explained.

Doing stuff is easy. It’s justifying the doing that’s hard. And so Mr. Kent is not yet ready to say for sure that the government is willing to do something about what it now only implies. The correct day for that is apparently scheduled to be a month from now, just before Christmas. But then someone who knew as much went and told the evening news. Only now Mr. Kent is insisting on pretending that didn’t happen. ”I wonʼt comment on a speculative report,” he said this morning.

He will say that the previous Liberal government’s decision to commit to the protocol was “one of the biggest blunders they made.” And the Prime Minister did once dismiss the whole thing as a “socialist scheme.” And the Conservative platform in 2006 didn’t even mention it. And successive governments have now spent more than a decade successfully ignoring it. And the current government has said it won’t extend past next year its commitment to it. But let it not be said that the government is prepared to actually withdraw from it. At least not yet. At least not that Mr. Kent is willing to say.

Not that the government’s unwillingness to announce a decision stops the opposition from lamenting that decision. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM - 0 Comments

The long-gun registry split the NDP leadership contenders. Paul Dewar talked medical infrastructure. Nathan Cullen pitched energy policy. And Romeo Saganash explained how the NDP can grow.

Charlie Angus brought attention to Attawapiskat. Justin Trudeau quizzed Peter Kent, who spoke of treachery and dismissed himself. Rob Anders napped. Bob Rae was named parliamentarian of the year. Rob Merrifield and John Weston were dutiful partisans. Two New Democrats tried to sing along. Patrick Brown allowed that all MPs love Canada. Rick Dykstra segued. The NDP turned up new emails in the G8 Legacy Fund affair and Tony Clement pleaded his innocence. Jason Kenney brought props. And MPs debated disturbances in the House.

Continue…

The Commons: Grumpy old men

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 6:02 PM - 0 Comments

Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

The Scene. Whatever Joe Oliver and Peter Kent are actually accomplishing in their capacity as ministers of the crown, these two children of the 1940s have at least the basis of a promising buddy comedy.

If memory serves, Mr. Oliver’s first forays were mostly unmemorable. Then, at some point, the Natural Resources Minister started shouting.

Recent weeks have been spent metaphorically shaking his fist at the official opposition and imploring them to get off his metaphorical lawn. He has linked them to Hugo Chavez and “European socialists” and “jet-setting Hollywood stars” and, worst of all, “European bureaucrats.” He has said that their only priority is to protect the interests of “their foreign socialist comrades and billionaire U.S. limousine liberals.” He has accused them of standing in the way of social services for children and health care for the elderly. He has ventured, in the course of a single sentence, that “NDP members have never met a job creating private sector policy or project that they do not want to kill, a tax they do not want to raise, a regulation they do not want to impose, a freedom they do not want to curtail, an issue they do not try to use to divide Canadians, and a fictitious problem they do not want the government to solve at great cost.” One day he concluded his remarks with a cry of “send in the clowns!”

All of this, apparently, because the New Democrats have some reservations about the Keystone pipeline project. And all of it committed to the record in the sort of tone—grumbly and impatient—that is generally employed to advise hippies that they might cut their hair and get a job. Continue…

Peter Kent dismisses himself

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

With a written statement of the minister in her possession, Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan again confronted Peter Kent yesterday about cuts to ozone monitoring.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has twice denigrated reporters when his position is challenged. But clearly the real problem is the news reader across the way. I have the briefing note which says there is no duplication in Canada’s ozone monitoring networks, which means they cannot be optimized and streamlined, only cut. Answers to an order paper question signed by the minister also says there is no duplication. Will the government finally admit there will be cuts to the ozone program?

Mr. Kent stood here and dismissed Ms. Duncan’s premise entirely.

Mr. Speaker, I reject all of the assumptions of my honourable colleague yet once again. I would also again suggest that she use more reliable research than that to which she has made a practice of using.

Mike De Souza, who has been doggedly pursuing this story over the last few months (see here, here, here, here, here and here), explains the order paper response in context of recent revelations

Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 1:34 PM - 0 Comments

In case you were wondering, Minister Kent’s office hasn’t yet responded to my request for clarification. Regardless, Mr. Kent will probably have to explain himself to the Speaker now—at least so far as his second use of the term “treacherous”—because the NDP’s Pierre Dionne Labelle rose with a point of order after Question Period yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, in his response earlier to my colleague from Halifax, the Minister of the Environment called her a traitor. Since when do we call someone a traitor for going to meet with elected representatives in another country? Why is the environment minister keeping tabs on the people the NDP meets with? We maintain valuable relationships with progressive people in the United States. Instead of keeping tabs on us, he would do well to keep an eye on the hole in the ozone layer.

The Speaker said he would review the comment in question.

Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM - 0 Comments

Last week, Peter Kent used the term “treacherous” to describe the “course of leaving the domestic debate and heading abroad to attack a legitimate Canadian resource which is being responsibly developed and regulated.” In the two days after, Conservative MPs used the phrase “anti-Canada” to describe the trip of two NDP MPs to Washington.

Today in QP, Mr. Kent returned to the adjective with the following for the NDP’s Megan Leslie.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back from her treacherous adventure abroad. I am sure Canadian workers and our resource industries will rest much more quietly now that she is back in this place.

There are at least two definitions of treacherous—”hazardous” and treasonous”—that could conceivably be applied here. This second reference by Mr. Kent seems to me to be closer to “hazardous,” if only when heard with the sarcastic tone Mr. Kent used to say it. The first reference seemed to me at the time to be closer to “treasonous” (though I was not there to hear his tone at the time). A commenter in this thread did beg to differ. Still now, I think it seems to imply treason, though I suppose it could merely be an unfortunately timed attempt at withering sarcasm. (I remain fairly confident that the implication of  the phrase “anti-Canada” is fairly clear.)

For the sake of clearing up any and all misunderstandings, I’ve sent an email to Mr. Kent’s office seeking clarification as to his exact meaning.

Pop quiz

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 21, 2011 at 4:58 PM - 0 Comments

The Environment Minister was asked this afternoon to explain the contradiction reported in this story about government cuts to ozone monitoring. Twice, Peter Kent claimed the report had taken comments out of context. And then Justin Trudeau stood and declared that he was ditching his prepared question on the topic to make a more straightforward appeal.

Can the minister explain to the House what “ozone” is and what is the difference between its impact at low altitude and high altitude? I just need to know that he understands the issues.

Mr. Kent responded as follows (with a brief interruption due to heckling from the Liberal side).

Mr. Speaker, if there are any shortcomings in this House it is in the quality of the questions from the Liberal opposition. This government would gladly compare our record on the environment, in all its dimensions to … Mr. Speaker, to complete my question, again the opposition is using a questionable media source quotation of one of my staff that has been taken out of context.

Speaking with reporters after QP, Mr. Trudeau explained himself. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM - 0 Comments

Pat Martin tweeted a bad word. But refused to apologize. And claimed a kind of victory.

The government’s investments weren’t as advertised, but the future looks expensive. Supply management was put on the table and duly debated. The Royal Society asked us to think about euthanasia, but no one wanted to talk about it. The Conservative party has some reimbursements it might return. The NDP got set to debate itself as the contenders peddled their thoughts. The Liberals offered to realign the House at no extra expense. And a multi-party committee came together to consider matters of life and death. Continue…

Just another casual allegation of treason

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

After explaining to the House that opposition MPs were no longer relevant and dissenting opinions would no longer be tolerated, Peter Kent stepped into the foyer yesterday and described the visit of two NDP MPs to Washington as follows.

As you have seen this week, one of the opposition parties has taken the treacherous course of leaving the domestic debate and heading abroad to attack a legitimate Canadian resource which is being responsibly developed and regulated.  

Treachery is synonymous with treason. During World War II, the British parliament enacted the Treachery Act to prosecute enemy conspirators. Sixteen people were subsequently executed for violations under the act.

‘Anything you need’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM - 1 Comment

Peter Kent reiterates to the Star that his conversation with Vern Freedlander wasn’t as Mr. Freedlander reported it. Whatever the case, Mr. Freedlander wasn’t registered as a lobbyist.

Freedlander billed the Town of Huntsville a total of $16,588.51 from December 2008 to September 2009, including a monthly retainer that worked out to $187.50 per hour.

One email from Freedlander to John Finley, the Huntsville economic development and grants officer, lays out the work the consultant would do for the municipality and his fee. “I will be available for phone consultation, lobbying efforts, anything you need,” Freedlander wrote in the Dec. 3, 2008 email. Apart from the email discussing the alleged conversation with Kent and another email requesting the contact information of someone at the foreign affairs department, there are no signs that Freedlander spoke to federal officials about the G8 Summit on Huntsville’s behalf.

You’ve got a friend in government

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 1 Comment

The Star obtains new emails related to the goings on in Huntsville.

An email dated Dec. 29, 2008, has Freedlander detailing a conversation with Environment Minister Peter Kent, his former broadcast colleague, who at that time was minister of state for the Americas. His written recollection of the conversation suggests that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and John Baird, who was then minister of transport, were approving infrastructure funding applications submitted to them by their Conservative caucus colleagues.

“(Kent) told me he will whole-heartedly (sic) support the Huntsville IMC at cabinet and wanted to make sure we pass along our pitch to Tony Clement ASAP,” says the email addressed to Doughty and copied to two other senior municipal officials. “Peter tells me that right now MPs are being asked to provide infrastructure projects to cabinet for direct approvals by Baird and Flaherty. They earlier shovels get in the ground the better.”

Mr. Kent’s office denies any such conversation ever took place.

Vern Freedlander was previously referenced in an email between Tony Clement and Huntsville mayor Claude Doughty, in which Mr. Clement put Mr. Freedlander in touch with Mr. Doughty about a job. (Mr. Doughty told the CBC that Mr. Freedlander began working for the town of Huntsville on that job in early 2009. The email obtained by the Star predates that, but only slightly.)

The Commons: Looking on the bright side of global warming

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM - 36 Comments

The Scene. For sure, Peter Kent’s task is an unenviable one. He who must stand and take responsibility for the Harper government’s oft-lamented environmental policy—he who must be regularly derided by the opposition’s critics—is owed all of our empathy and perhaps even some of our charity.

But if anyone is to hold the title of Environment Minister, it might as well be Mr. Kent. He may lack the swirling bombast and fierce dismissiveness of John Baird, but after so many years in front of a television camera, he is an unflinching pitchman. And having, as a journalist, spent so many years listening to the spin of political and professional communicators, he is now an awesome weaver of words and assertions.

Continue…

Who do you mean by ‘we?’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM - 2 Comments

In September 2009, when he was environment minister, Jim Prentice met with representatives from the Alberta government to discuss a national cap-and-trade program.

“I think you would agree with me that encouraging businesses and individuals to change behaviour requires appropriate price signals,” a briefing note, which outlines “points to register” with the Alberta government, reads. ”We believe that a carefully designed cap-and-trade system will send the appropriate price signals to encourage changes and ultimately help reduce emissions.”

That was, of course, the stated policy of the Harper Government at the time.

John Baird has since warned that cap-and-trade (or at least a Liberal proposal in that regard) is “dangerous” and “unCanadian” and “incredibly divisive,” while the Prime Minister has said cap-and-trade (or at least an NDP proposal in that regard) would “wreak enormous havoc on the Canadian economy.”

Mind you, Environment Minister Peter Kent allowed in May that a continental cap-and-trade program “can always be something to consider in the future.” And, indeed, the government’s website still describes it as an “option.”

The quiet cuts

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM - 17 Comments

Environment Canada is due to shed somewhere between 300 and 700 jobs.

He said the department was eliminating 300 positions, rather than the more than 700 positions cited by the unions. Attrition will cover many of the losses, while others affected will get help to transition to new jobs.

“While difficult, this decision will allow our government to continue to invest in clear air and a healthier environment for Canadians,” Morris said, adding that the department has no fewer employees than when the Tories took office in 2006.

The list of those affected includes two biologists, seven chemists, 45 computer scientists, 37 engineers, 19 meteorologists and 92 physical scientists.

Towards 2020

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM - 44 Comments

While officials told Environment Minister Peter Kent in January that existing measures left Canada short of its emission targets, the National Round Table on the Environment finds the government has overstated projected reductions.

The report, produced by an independent arm’s-length agency, broke out eight specific federal policies and their estimates, and found that the government made reliable estimates for only three. The other five were “likely overestimated,” according to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

All in all, the package of climate policies the federal government has adopted will likely have half the effect claimed when each policy was introduced, the report suggests.