Jim Prentice Uses Environment Budget to Prop up the Oilsands

When Jim Prentice was given the Environment portfolio, it was not because he couldn't do any worse with it than Rhona Ambrose or John Baird, but because the Oil Sands were in trouble. Nations were beginning to refuse Alberta's 'dirty oil', and without Alberta's 'dirty oil', the Conservatives could not play 'dirty politics'.

Prentice defends oilsands following National Geographic article
Environment minister says it's 'just one article'
February 25, 2009
CBC News

Canada will continue to push the important role that Alberta's oilsands play in the North American marketplace, says Environment Minister Jim Prentice, despite a telling article appearing in March's National Geographic.

"It's very difficult to see the North American marketplace developing in an orderly way for energy without the oilsands being part of the equation," Prentice told CBC News on Wednesday.

The March issue of the National Geographic provides its estimated 40 million readers with a 20-page article that features pictures of sludge-covered tailing ponds and the sprawling oilfields.

Many of the pages show before-and-after pictures of the oilsands near Fort McMurray, Alta., while graphically describing how the oil is extracted — from the forest being cut down, to the peat, dirt and moss being removed, to the water stripping the bitumen from the sand, and the contaminated water flowing into tailings ponds.

The Alberta government has called the article "fair" and indicated that it appreciated that the author acknowledges the province's work on carbon emissions.

The article indicates that by 2020, Alberta carbon emissions will level off and by 2050, they'll decline to 15 per cent below their 2005 levels.

"Alberta has a rigorous environmental regime in place," said Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner. "We sometimes don't get a fair shake in the eyes of the public opinion and the media. That being said, we can do better."

'Just one article': Prentice

Environment Minister Jim Prentice defended Canada's development of the oilsands following the publication of an article in National Geographic on Wednesday. (Canadian Press) Despite the article turning international attention toward the environmental impact of the oilsands, Prentice dismissed it as "just one article" and added he doesn't always agree with what National Geographic publishes.

Canada will be pushing ahead with the clean energy dialogue agreed to by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Ottawa last week, Prentice said.

"Certainly the oilsands are always going to be part of that discussion but it's a discussion that focuses on that we have as clean [an] energy resource as possible," Prentice said, adding his discussions in Washington next week will relate to all sources of energy.

The environment minister has argued that supplying oil to the U.S. could be part of bilateral plans that would also seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create cleaner fuel. The plans could include a common cap-and-trade carbon-market system and tougher fuel standards for coal and oil industries in North America.

He said the two countries also need to discuss concrete action plans to reduce not only greenhouse gas emission levels, but North American dependence on foreign oil.

"We're of common mind," Prentice said. "We want to reduce our carbon footprint and have the cleanest source of energy as possible. But the oilsands are an important part of the overall North American supply and demand for energy and they will continue to be.

"The answer to all of this is technology, investments in technology, and that's why we'll be working together with the United States to that end," he said.

Canada has been battling a reputation as a purveyor of dirty oil in light of the Obama administration's push for the development of clean and green energy.

But Mike Hudema, an energy spokesman with Greenpeace Canada, said the National Geographic article will educate many people on the oilsands and their effects on the environment. For some people, it will be the first time they see what a toxic tarpit looks like, he said.

Those "before-and-after exhibits" in the magazine are very telling, said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a senior lawyer with the Washington-based Natural Resources Defence Council.
"
When you see what's actually happening, you begin to understand the magnitude of the environmental and public health problems," Casey-Lefkowitz said.

Obama's administration has been mounting efforts to shift the United States toward a green energy economy while placing caps on carbon emissions.

The transition will mean that the U.S. is "not going to need oil the same way as we have in the past," Casey-Lefkowitz said.

"Looking at more dirty and environmentally destructive sources of fuel like the tarsands is really a way of the past for us and especially when we look at the proposed expansion of the tarsands," she said.

The environmental destruction and pollution that an expansion of the tarsands would cause doesn't fit with the push for a green energy economy in the U.S., she said.

Beyond the emissions, the oilsands are destroying the Athabasca River, raising cancer rates in nearby communities, destroying the boreal forest and animal habitats, she added.

"There really aren't technology fixes to make it better at this point," she said.

The Bloc Québécois and NDP also slammed the Conservative government for not doing enough to clean up the oilsands.

"We hope [the article] will help move all governments, especially the federal government that has not used tools at its disposal to protect the environment, to protect the health of aboriginals and others in the region and to … end subsidies to the big oil companies for those projects," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Jim Prentice, rather than raising concerns over the National Geopgrapic article, in relation to the environment, not just lost revenue for his fianancial backers; dismisses it as 'just one article'. Does he read at all?

Cheap oil, but at what cost?

Oilsands Truth

U.S. mayors call for boycott of Alberta oilsands

Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

Cleaning up Alberta's 'dirty oil'

Canadian worries over Alberta's oil sands

Alberta's 'dirty' oil a sticky problem for Charest

Canada's 'dirty oil' challenge

Investing In Oil Sands: Alberta's Dirty Secret is Out...

Obama's fight against 'dirty oil' could hurt oil sands

Alberta Oil Sands - Irresponsible & Dirty Oil

If he has trouble reading, maybe he should just listen:

Alberta Dirty Oil: Tar Sands Explained.

Canada's Dirty Oil Problem

Prentice promises details of emissions policy
California move could hurt oilsands
By Kelly Cryderman,

Calgary Herald

May 7, 2009

As California was poised to approve a low-carbon fuel standard that could thwart future Alberta oilsands exports, Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canadians can expect details of national carbon pricing systems before the end of the year--when dozens of countries will gather in Copenhagen for an international climate change conference.

"By the time we get to Copenhagen, we will have a full suite of Canadian policies that deal with all sorts of major sources of emissions," Prentice said Thursday from Syracuse, Italy, where he was attending a meeting of environment ministers from leading industrialized and developing nations.

Also on Thursday, California's Air Resources Board held hearings on whether to adopt a landmark low-carbon fuel standard-- designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels by 10 per cent. The California regulations will examine not only what comes out of tailpipes, but also emissions from the actual production of fuel.

But before any final decision was made, Canada and Alberta officials spoke in defence of the oilsands.

The stakes are high. Although California does not use oilsands-produced oil now, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers-- which also spoke at Thursday's hearing--considers the most-populous state a potential market. And the standard adopted in California is widely expected to act as a national model as the United States moves forward on more aggressive climate change policy under President Barack Obama.

Alberta Energy spokesman Jason Chance said it's important Alberta defend itself, as it's believed the regulations will target Alberta oilsands exports.

The province argues that oilsands production does not necessarily result in more emissions than other heavy oil sources, when the transportation and processing is considered.

"We are concerned that it would put Alberta oilsands crude at a competitive disadvantage to other crudes from Mexico, Venezuela and even heavy oil being produced in California," Chance said. "We're simply asking for equal treatment."

However it is widely recognized that compared to conventional oil production, oilsands sites produce significantly more greenhouse gas emissions. For some projects, emissions may be four times as high.

Back in Italy, Prentice said the ongoing meeting of G-8 and emerging economy environment ministers is a particularly important one because it leads up to a December meeting in Copenhagen. That upcoming gathering of world leaders is meant to determine a new global greenhouse gas reductions pact.

The minister said that in the months before Copenhagen, he will outline plans for pricing all major sources of carbon emissions-- perhaps through a cap and trade system, as is planned in the U. S.

"We still have to make some decisions there," Prentice said, adding he will soon move on the coalfired electricity and transportation sectors.

Whatever is developed, it will need to dovetail with U. S. policies, Prentice said. The minister will be in Washington, D. C. on Monday for further climate and energy talks.

This week, Environment Canada reported that Canada's greenhouse emissions are on a "significant" growth trajectory, thanks largely to the oilsands, an increase in the number of vehicles and greater reliance on coalfired electricity.

Harper Afraid of Election Tells Us Worst is Over

So Harper is saying the worst is over, but how can we possibly believe him? He told us that last September, and look at what has happened since.

While I hope he's right this time, I believe the announcement is politically motivated. Realizing he's down in the polls, Harper's shying away from an election, so needs to make us feel all warm and fuzzy. This could also mean that he may actually listen to the demands of the NDP and Liberals when it comes to fixing EI.

His ideology tells him that people like sitting at home collecting pogey, but the Canadian people are telling him otherwise.

Yes we are doing better than the U.S. but before we can really start to look forward to better days, their economy also has to rebound. I'm cautiously optimistic , but not holding my breath.

GDP data shows Canada over worst of crisis - PM

Reuters

by David Ljunggren

June 1, 2009

OTTAWA - Although Canada's latest gross domestic product figures are bad, they were better than expected and show the economy is over the worst of the crisis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Monday.

Statistics Canada said the economy shrank by 5.4 percent in the first quarter of the year. The decline was not as bad as the 6.6 percent drop expected by analysts.

"We do anticipate that this was the worst quarter, the first quarter of this year ... The worst is behind us, we will have better quarters going forward. That's our very strong sense at this point," Harper told Toronto radio station CFRB.

Saying there was "reason for optimism", Harper cautioned there would be further job losses and said Ottawa was ready to take more steps if necessary to help the unemployed.

Opposition parties are demanding Ottawa make it easier for the jobless to claim benefits and some legislators have mused about defeating the Conservative government over the issue, although an election any time soon seems unlikely.

"The country needs an election like a hole in the head. Nobody wants an election. It is not good. It is not in the interests of the country at a time where our economy is so challenged," said Harper.

Quite a change of tune, coming from the man who'd rather run attack ads then our country. And also a complete 180 from two weeks ago when he threatened to huff and puff and bring the House down.

Tories Ready to Take on the Liberals Over EI

By Alexander Panetta,

The Canadian Press

May 13, 2009

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised his opponents - and even some allies - by issuing what appeared to be an election threat over employment-insurance reforms.

After signalling for weeks a willingness to enrich employment insurance to help workers hardest-hit by the recession, the Conservatives veered sharply Wednesday.

The prime minister categorically rejected a Liberal demand for a single, nationwide eligibility requirement for EI at a uniform level of 360 hours worked.

Harper could not have been any clearer during a debate with Liberal

Leader Michael Ignatieff: he rejected the idea three times, in both official languages, and declared himself ready to “take him on” over the issue.

“Canada has a very generous employment insurance system,” Harper said in response to Ignatieff.

“If that leader wants to go out and tell Canadians that he thinks they should pay higher payroll taxes so that people can work 45 days and then collect EI for a year, every single year, in every single region of the country, we are ready to take him on.”

The exchange touched off speculation on Parliament Hill: was the prime minister holding out for another EI proposal from the NDP, simply in order to keep the Liberals from taking credit for any changes? Was it an attempt to force the opposition to back off its EI demands? Was it an election threat?

Two Harper spokespersons declined to elaborate and said Harper’s remarks stand for themselves.

Even Conservative insiders said they were caught off-guard by the exchange.

Most had been expecting to accommodate the opposition request, given the Tories’ weak poll numbers and lack of interest in fighting an election.

Ignatieff said a few weeks ago that failure to set a minimum threshold of 360 hours to collect benefits could force an election.

Harper says the only reason the Liberals are now proposing the idea is to unite the opposition - to “pull the coalition back together” - against the government.

Harper’s opponents did appear united after Wednesday’s exchange: they all accused Harper of mischaracterizing their request, and of politicking on the backs of the unemployed.

They said the Liberal proposal would make workers qualify after 360 hours, but that benefit levels would continue to vary depending on personal or regional circumstances.

It is also described as a temporary measure to be withdrawn after the recession.

Ignatieff called the prime minister’s reaction puzzling.

“Mr. Harper is shutting the door with the description of our proposal, which makes no sense at all. He doesn’t - he doesn’t understand EI,” Ignatieff said.

“We are going to continue to press this issue because we just know that there are 150,000 Canadians out there who ought to be getting EI who are not eligible and that seems to me to be just wrong.”

There’s been speculation the Conservatives would seek a deal on EI with the New Democrats to prevent Liberals from claiming credit. But the party leader wasn’t pleased by what he heard Wednesday.

“I don’t know why the prime minister would want to force a showdown on the backs of the people who are suffering the most in the economic crisis,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

“That’s - I would have thought that would have been off limits.”

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe also accused the prime minister of pitting some Canadians against others.

“When he says all the Bloc’s criticisms are aimed at dividing Canada, I don’t think anyone beats him at dividing Canada,” Duceppe said.

“He’s the master of the art.”

I'd Like to Fire Pierre Poilievre but With All the Tapes I Have on Him ...

Despite the fact that Pierre Poilievre has repeatedly made racist and damaging remarks, and acted in a completely dishonourable fashion, Stephen Harper has yet to remove him from caucus, or even shown any desire to muzzle him.

I know he likes that Pierre is one of his pit bulls, who is constantly chomping on the legs of opposition MPs, but when is he going to realize that that this little weasel is damaging his credibility? What little credibility he has left anyway.

After revealing the true nature of his party with his ridiculous attack on the victims of child abuse in the residential schools, he's once again showing his redneck leanings; this time with anti-black reference.

He might as well have used the "N" word. This guy has got to go.

House of Commons no place for ‘tar baby’ remark, MPs say

By Glen McGregor,

The Ottawa Citizen

May 29, 2009

OTTAWA — Opposition MPs called on Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre to apologize for using the phrase “tar baby” in the House of Commons Friday, saying the term has racist overtones.

Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, was speaking during question period, responding to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s attempts to distance himself from the Green Plan (SB 'Green Shift') proposed by his redecessor, Stéphane Dion. “On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,” he said. He repeated the line again later ....

If the Conservative attitude to everything is just 'well they said it first', then it's no wonder they're slipping in the polls. This is a remark that should not be going down in the annal of Parliament for a new millennium.

Poilievre needs to research his speeches first before risking such censure.

Besides, for God sakes, the Carbon tax is dead, despite the fact that most economists and environmentalists thought it the best idea to fight global warming. The Cons are now trying to give it another kick at the cat to create an imaginary boogey man.

Ironically, Jason Kenney's new aid, Alykhan Velshi, who was formerly part of the Bush Administration, belongs to a neo-conservative organization Foundation for the Defense of Democracies', who on their website, promote the Carbon Tax and oppose Obama's (and subsequently the Conservative Party of Canada's) 'Cap and Trade'.

Should we see if Jason Kenney has some illegitimate children he'd like to show off?

Will New Senate Bill Finally Put an End to Pre-election Attack Ads?

Stephen Harper was the first Canadian Prime Minister to ever run attack ads outside of an election campaign. He did it with Stephane Dion, managing to turn Canadians away from the Liberals last time around, but it also turned people off politics altogether.

If we really want our country to be a democracy, we need to make the election process more democratic. Many Conservative bloggers claim that it is in their best interest to encourage voters to stay home. But is it in ours?

Now a bill is before senate that may end the practice of such ads, by having their costs included in election campaign advertising limit, if one takes place within three months. I like the idea very much.

Liberal bill aims to end pre-election ad binges
May. 26 2009
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The Liberals have introduced a bill in the Senate aimed at stopping political parties from going on pre-election advertising binges.

Senator Dennis Dawson's bill - which is aimed at the cash-rich Tories - comes amid renewed election speculation on Parliament Hill.

Currently, parties can spend as much as they like on advertising in the months leading up to an election call.

Such pre-writ advertising is not considered part of a party's election expenses, which are strictly limited once an election campaign is under way.

Dawson's bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to classify all advertising in the three months prior to an election call as an election expense.

Dawson says his bill closes a loophole that has allowed parties with overflowing war chests to circumvent election spending limits.

The Liberal Party can rebound from these ads, but can voters? When will we say enough is enough and just give up? If that's what Harper is hoping for to stay in power, it's just one more reason why he has to go.

Mike Harris and the American "Common Sense" Revolution

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The popular lore surrounding the Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris, was that someone on their "whiz kid" team suggested that their platform be based on "common sense", and eureka, the title was born.

Sounds lovely. Unfortunately it's a load of bunk.

It was actually borrowed from south of the border, and as with everything else related to Canada's neoconservative movement, came from a Republican strategist.

Tom Long and Mike Murphy

Between 1990 and their abysmal showing in the election, to 1995 when they were swept to victory, the young ideologues or "whiz kids" worked tirelessly to create a platform and persona for Mike Harris. The platform was easy, most of it borrowed from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. But selling it was going to be the obstacle.

How do you tell an electorate that you are going to drastically cut funding for health care and education and make it palpable?

First off, you don't. Instead you follow the advise of Gerry Nicholls, then heading up Ontarians for Responsible Government, part of the National Citizens Coalition. You look for an enemy. And in this case the enemy was "taxes".

When Stephen Harper was trying to figure out how to sell his Reform Party's neoconservative platform, he had his friend John Weissenberger "dig up the Conservative Party manifestos under which Margaret Thatcher had fought her first elections as leader of the opposition." (1)

But the Harris team instead turned to Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who was a close personal friend of Tom Long's. Long had spent a great deal of time in the United States and had even worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, so he knew how the game was played.

Just learning that Mike Murphy was part of the Harris team made the opposition nervous. (2) His reputation was and still is, well known as a details man. (3)

He had just come off a successful campaign for New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman:

One of Tom Long's closest friends happened to be Mike Murphy, an American political consultant who later ran right-wing extremist Lamar Alexander's unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential primary. In 1993, however, Murphy was advising another Republican, Christine Todd Whitman, in her successful campaign for the governorship of New Jersey. Whitman defeated a popular Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio, primarily on the basis of a Murphy-inspired campaign using a "common sense" slogan and pledging a 30 per cent tax cut. Since her victory, the activities of her government in implementing this plan had been carefully charted by Harris aide Bill King. In March 1994, Harris actually travelled to New Jersey to meet Whitman and discuss strategy. Two months later, the "Common Sense Revolution" with its 30 per cent tax cut was unveiled. (4)

When the Harris government's tax cuts were implemented, so too were user fees and the reduction of money going to municipalities, meaning no real savings. These were the same complaints heard by New Jersey residents under Whitman. She did follow through on the 30% tax cut, but was forced to raid the state pension fund to balance the budget. She also cut 4,000 jobs from the public service and reduced money going to municipalities, resulting in higher property taxes. So again, no one really gained. (5)

What's interesting is that Whitman's 1997 campaign was "Promises Made. Promises Kept" This became the rallying cry of the Harper government, so they too must have tapped into Murphy's messaging. Unfortunately it was just hot air after breaking his promise on Income Trusts.

" ... if you go to a Harper rally, you can’t hear yourself think for all the Tories chanting “promise made, promise kept” over and over again like a herd of demented Moonies. Some of them get so excited they smack themselves in the forehead over and over again while they chant it. During the last election Jason Kenney was forced to apply liberal amounts of pancake makeup above his eyebrows to hide the bruising.

Well thank God that’s over. Because the next time Stephen Harper or any of his minions chant “promise made, promise kept,” you might want to step back, because if there is a God, the forecast calls for lightning." (6)

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, Douglas-Gibson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3 6, Pg. 49

2. Right Turn: How the Tories Took Ontario, By Christina Blizzard, Dundern Press, 1995, ISBN 1550022547, Pg. 3

3. G.O.P. Attack Dog And Chief Hand-Holder; Lazio Adviser Has a History of Making Ads Snarl and Politicians Feel Confident, By Eisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, July 13, 2000

4. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 166

5. Conservative hopes for off-year elections, by Bernadette Malone, Policy Review No 85, 1997

6. Promise Made Promise Kept, By Rick Mercer, November 6, 2006

Down in the Polls Layton Doesn't Want an Election

As Michael Ignatieff has been slowly gaining ground, much of it has been at the expense of Jack Layton and the NDP.

Now as the threat of a summer election looms over prosed changes to EI, Mr. Layton has publicly stated that he will not support a non-confidence motion, but will continue to allow the Conservatives to run ram shod over everything that Canada stands for.

I guess I can understand his position, but choosing to leave many of Canada's unemployed out in the cold, might be a difficult thing for him to explain when an election actually takes. The NDP were always for labour, so now he's going to vote against workers.

I really like Jack Layton and have voted for him twice, but I hope he's really thought this through. If Harper stands firm on not wanting to help the unemployed, and Layton supports it .... ba bye!

Layton says he won't force summer election
May. 31 2009
CTV.ca News Staff

Jack Layton says he won't force a confidence vote in the House of Commons in the final weeks of the current Parliamentary session, but he is prepared to face the electorate should the Liberals choose to bring down the Conservative government.

Layton reiterated Sunday that his goals for the next few weeks include getting an NDP EI reform bill passed and changing the Canada Pension Plan before MPs go to their home ridings for the summer.

"Our intention is to use the remaining weeks to try to get some action on these issues in the House of Commons," Layton said during an interview on CTV's Question Period. "We won't be moving a confidence motion. We're going to try to move motions that get results for people."

The NDP has called for a range of CPP reforms, including protection for public sector pensions and more oversight for the investment practices of CPP fund managers.

The party also wants a number of EI reforms, including reducing the number of hours worked to qualify, extending benefits to self-employed workers and eliminating waiting periods.

The party's EI reform bill will be tabled in the House on June 10.

Layton said rather than try to bring down the government over the issue, he is willing to accept amendments to the legislation from the other parties.

"I don't think Canadians would want us to (force an election)," Layton said.

"What they would want us to do is get their pensions protected, get the EI system fixed. So that's exactly what we've been doing and we'll continue to do that. As to what the other parties will do, they will have to make up their own minds. We're prepared for an election if it comes to it."

Now I'm all for everything that Jack Layton is proposing and I hope that he can change Harper's mind. However, I still wonder what he will do and how he can justify, simply accepting the status quo.

This Conservative government has got to go while we still have a country left to proud of. He knows that. We know that. Maybe, like Harper, Layton is just in it for himself.

Jim Prentice Really Screws Up This Time

If you thought he bungled Indian Affairs and the Industry portfolio, hold on to your hats, because now that Prentice is in charge of the environment, we're in serious trouble.

Following his predessors, the environment portfolio has become more about protecting oil industry profits, and less about protecting Canadains and indeed the planet.

A lump of coal for Environment Minister Jim Prentice
December 10, 2008
By Matthew Burrows

Are Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s environment ministers cursed?

No sooner has Calgary-based environment minister Jim Prentice taken over from John Baird than Canada is paraded around the globe (again) as an environmental laggard by European NGOs as ministers gather in Poznan, Poland, for climate-change talks.

The two NGOs, Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, published a report today (December 10), and it won’t make pretty reading for Prentice as he attends the United Nations Climate Conference that ends December 12. The bad press will last longer than the event.

The top climate-change performers are announced in the report’s conclusion: Sweden, Germany, France, India, Brazil, the U.K., and Denmark.

“The other end of the index is to be taken note of as well,” the report states. “Especially Russia, the USA, Canada, and Austria have worrisome results. Crucially, they performed poorly in their current emissions level, emissions trend, and in the evaluation of their climate policy.”

Only Saudi Arabia, in 60th place, finished below 59th-ranked Canada.

A year ago in Bali, then-environment minister John Baird was at it himself, when he refused to commit to specific greenhouse-gas-emission reduction targets when the current Kyoto targets expire in 2012. He was lambasted for this in many quarters, adding to the evidence that Harper’s environment ministers either are set up to fail and move on by an uncaring prime minister, or they are bizarrely incompetent.

The ebullient Baird was ostensibly inserted into the position due to the abject failure of Harper’s first environment minister, Rona Ambrose. Can all this be mere coincidence?

Echoes of Bali were present in Ambrose’s sorry tenure too, this time in Bonn in 2006. Canada was due to take a leading role in the talks until Ambrose talked down the Kyoto targets and almost talked Canada out of the talks altogether.

Our reward? U.K. environmentalist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot was so incensed that he boarded a plane for the first time in 18 months, flew to Ottawa and then travelled to Toronto and Vancouver. The Straight interviewed him about the whole trip and Canada’s role on the world stage.

In January 2007, Ambrose was removed from the file.
How long will Prentice last?

At Climate change conference, Jim Prentice faces widespread criticism against Canada
December 11, 2008

PEJ News - Joan Russow - Global Compliance Research Project - During the Conference of the Parties (COP) 14 on Climate change, the Canadian negotiating team, which is espousing the Harper Conservative minority government perspective on climate change, has had to face a barrage of well-placed criticisms against Canada. These criticisms are emanating from different states, from environmental groups, and from indigenous peoples. On December 11, the Hon Jim Prentice, the Minister of the Environment, addressed the conference of the parties and held a media Conference and conference call. Like Harper, he seems oblivious to criticism.

At the Media conference, he was asked about Canada’s position on the language related to the rights of indigenous peoples. The question arose because of press releases distributed and press conferences organized by the Indigenous groups. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz Executive Director, TEBTEBBA (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education) Chair, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues had issued a statement on December 10, 2008:“It is with great sadness that today, the 60th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, some States have denied indigenous peoples of their rights at the 14th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC.

This morning indigenous peoples were shocked to see the final version of the Draft Conclusions on Agenda Item 5: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). This Document (FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23) removed any references to rights of indigenous peoples and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

This move was spearheaded by the same States (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA) which voted against the adoption of the UNDRIP by the UN General Assembly last 13 Sept. 2008.”Minister Prentice responded that there was no relationship between the negotiations on indigenous issues at the Conference on Climate Change in Poland, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) .

He added that the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not universally agreed to. “Before asking my question, I pointed out that his comment was misleading because there were only three countries at the United Nations that refused to adopt the Declaration.

I pointed out that many organizations were criticizing Canada and I referred to Canada’s receiving the fossil awards for obstructing the progress of the negotiations, and specifically for refusing to accept the 1990 baseline for C0 2 emissions.

I added that Canada had also been criticized for advocating that Nuclear Activities” should be included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) , and of course for refusing to support the inclusion of “indigenous rights” language in the document.

I then asked him if he felt uncomfortable claiming to represent Canada when his government essentially had lost the confidence of the house, when his party represents less than 40% of the electorate, and when the other three parties, representing over 60% of the electorate, voted in the 2007 parliament to support Kyoto and stronger measures to address climate change.

He responded that he did not feel uncomfortable and he had spoken with numerous groups, and he was abiding by the principle of constructive engagement and balance, and listed a number of other principles. In my follow-up question, I noted that he had ignored other principles related to the environment and to compliance, and I pointed out that Canada had signed and ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change and that in Convention, 1990 was deemed to be the baseline.

He responded that the environment principles were included in the principle of Balance. It had been reported earlier that, in an interview, Prentice had indicated that the economy would trump the environment.

He was dismissive of a number of the NGO reports such as Germanwatch that ranked Canada second to last in climate change policies:Prentice said that he would caution people to acknowledge that just because one environmental group characterizes the record of the government of Canada in one way, doesn't mean that is the reality, and he suggested that the Germanwatch group does not rank policies according to objective standards.... When asked if Canada might be persuaded to modify some of its polices such as moving closer to the 1990 baseline, he was evasive.