The Post-Prentice Environment: A Q&A

There can be no good environment ministers in the Harper government, only soldiers with marching orders.

Newly-appointed interim environment minister John Baird will likely represent Canada at the upcoming climate talks in Cancun, Mexico at the end of this month. In a conversation with The Mark, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May voices her concerns about Baird's appointment and explains why she thinks Canada can make no progress on the environment portfolio while Stephen Harper is prime minister.

The Mark: How do you see Jim Prentice's political legacy, and particularly his legacy as environment minister?

Elizabeth May: Well he certainly emerges with his reputation as a decent human being unscathed. I’ve come to know him as a member of the Harper cabinet. I got to know him better of course when he became environment minister. The areas in which you have to say he has some credit to his name are in the area of national parks, certainly creating the marine conservation area at Gwaii Haanas, expansion of parks in the North, and the other area where some credit is deserved is in the listing of Bisphenol A within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Unfortunately on the climate front – I think the response to the climate crisis is a top priority – on that the record isn’t good. But it really couldn’t be because the Harper government is notoriously top-down and Mr. Harper doesn’t want progress on the climate front. I know that Jim Prentice told reporters as he left Copenhagen – which was a complete unmitigated disaster for climate – "well we accomplished everything we set out to do." So that’s a very tragic indication of what his marching orders were and I don’t know how much his marching orders may have differed from his own beliefs. I have no way of knowing if he wasn’t fully committed to making sure nothing ever happened on climate [change].

TM: We know that John Baird is taking over as interim environment minister now that Prentice has resigned. During this interim period, do you think Baird will be able to successfully manage both the environment portfolio and his other responsibilities, including [acting] as government house leader?

EM: Well he wasn’t able to do a good job for the environment when he was doing the job full-time. So I’m quite sure he won’t be doing a good job part-time. But again, Mr. Baird – like Rona Ambrose and Jim Prentice – takes marching orders on this as in all matters in the Harper government from Stephen Harper and from the Prime Minister’s Office. I worked in a minister of environment’s office from ’86 to ’88. In those days there wasn’t this centralized control in government. There was true cabinet government. Ministers responsible for their portfolios brought issues to cabinet. Cabinet as a whole would discuss issues, but on the day-to-day business of running a department – making announcements, making progress – there wasn’t control from the Prime Minister’s Office. This is new and it’s very dangerous and in the case of climate change what it means is it’s almost pointless to say "Well, was Prentice any good? Was Rona Ambrose any good? Was Baird any good?" Because as long as Stephen Harper is prime minister, it’s screamingly clear we will be one of the worst industrialized countries on Earth in obstructing progress in global negotiations while increasing our emissions at home. Those are the marching orders.

TM: What reasons might there be behind the prime minister's decision to give the portfolio to Baird and not to a member of the caucus who could devote more time to it?

EM: Well, he sees it as an area that can cause trouble. He knows the public cares about it and he wants to make sure whoever’s handling the climate issue and the environment file doesn’t speak out of turn or actually do anything. Also I imagine he’s trying to avoid a large-scale reshuffling of cabinet, particularly now that it’s pretty clear that Peter MacKay will be leaving as well and he wants to make a large-scale reshuffle later. But the fact that he thinks so little of the upcoming climate negotiations that the minister of the environment would be a part-timer, when the world is meeting in Mexico at the end of this month and into December, speaks volumes about how little he thinks the issue matters. Bear in mind this is the prime minister who also just this year told G20 leaders that climate change wasn’t going to be on the G20 agenda. And it’s quite striking how when the G20 met in South Korea just a few weeks ago, climate change was much more part of the discussion and the communiqué included much more language about the urgency of moving forward in Mexico.