Questions in the House of Commons

By Peter Jones

At one time questions in the House of Commons were asked to elicit information from cabinet ministers.  Then along came TV and transformed the venerable institution of Question Period into theatre . . . perhaps melodrama would be a better word.  There are few straight questions, and there never seems to be a straight answer.

Every so often a question that is not complicated comes along; a question that would not be difficult to answer if the minister at whom the question was directed had any intention of doing so.

So it was when the NDP Environment Critic Megan Leslie recently asked Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver “whether or not he believes in climate change.” Basically the Minister talked around the subject but did not give an answer.

So Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Oliver a more direct question the next day:

“Can the minister tell us if he agrees with the scientific link between hydrocarbons and climate change, yes or no?”

Mr. Oliver responded:

“Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday is the government’s policy. We will only approve projects that are safe for Canadians and for the environment. We are in favour of projects which will create jobs and economic activity and which will be nation builders for Canadians right across this country, from coast to coast to coast.”

To paraphrase the Minister’s answer: the Government is on the side of the angels, and supports nation building projects.  “Scientific link” was not referred to in his answer, nor “hydrocarbons” nor “climate change”.

So Ms Leslie asked the question again.

“Does the minister understand and agree that hydrocarbons cause climate change, yes or no?”

Minister Oliver referred to government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that the oil sands had reduced emissions by 30%.   As it turned out this response was as close as he got to the subject of Ms. Leslie’s question.

Ms. Leslie tried again.  She asked the Minister to clarify: “does he believe in the science of climate change or is he a denier?”

Minister Oliver replied:

“There are some radicals who oppose all hydrocarbon development. There are some who think that one one-thousandth of one per cent addition to global warming will somehow destroy the planet. These are people who are not backed by science.”

And he added: “We are going to continue to support job-creating projects that are important to build this country”.

We never did discover what Minister Oliver believes is the connection between hydrocarbons and climate change. If a witness gave these sorts of answers to questions before a judge, a trial lawyer would label them “non-responsive” and request the judge to direct the witness to answer and not make speeches.  As there is no judge in the House of Commons Ministers know that they can get away with these word games.

Perhaps this question should be asked of the Environment Minister, Peter Kent.  He is on record as having stated to Marti Tyndall, the Moderator of the United Church, at Durban that climate change is a serious issue facing the world.  Still the Moderator noted the difference between this recognition and the lack of Government action.

My advice to the opposition members:  don’t bother!  However the question about climate change is framed, Kent has a stock answer:

“I think it’s the balance between developing, in a responsible way, the energy resources, the God-given energy resources that the country has been blessed with in a way that both encourages jobs, prosperity, and a great future in stewardship of the environment. So it’s a balance. The line that I use in question period over and over again is that in this government, and certainly for me in this ministry, our challenge is to protect the economy and jobs, together with the environment.”

Read Peter Kent’s answer and more

5 thoughts on “Questions in the House of Commons”

  1. Dear Klem,

    You ask if grandpas don’t have better things to do than worry about climate change and an out of control, waste-making consumer society.

    I really worry about people who think there is nothing to worry about.

    Peter Jones

  2. Yes our waste-making consumer society is out of control, and that’s just the way I like it. I don’t want to control any of it, only the socialists have that particular urge. The urge to control others.

    As a grandpa, how do you get along each day worrying about things like this?

    Haven’t you got better things to do?

  3. Climate change is a serious problem, but it is only a symptom of a much bigger problem. We won’t harness climate change until we admit that we cannot continue an economy based on growth – while we live on a finite planet.

    Many of us grandparents remember the 1940’s when there was virtually no growth. Our waste-making consumer society began in the 1950’s, after World War II, and today it is out of control. Our civilization will be much happier and healthier once we curb the over-consumption which feeds the totally unnecessary growth. This excessive ‘growth’ in turn creates the Greenhouse Gases which cause climate change.

  4. “Peter Kent. He is on record as having stated to Marti Tyndall,… that climate change is a serious issue facing the world.”

    You don’t understand. His comment easily fits with those of the climate deniers as well. Deniers also look at climate change as a serious issue facing the world. We look at it as the path the socialists are following to rob independent sovereign nations of their self-determination, by turning the UN into the world central government. Anthropogenic climate change is the excuse to begin global taxation, once the UN begins collecting taxes from independent nations, the UN will control how it is spent. The UN will also attach strings to the spending, this is government. So Kent is correct, climate change is a serious issue facing the world.

    I know, I sound like a lunatic conspiracy type, but I read the Copenhagen Treaty in 2009. The treaty said clearly that 1% of GDP would be drawn from developed nations and given to developing nations. The treaty stated the UN would use some of the money to build offices and buildings in developing nations to control how the carbon money would be spent. This is government. My guess is you didn’t read the treaty even though it was posted online. Journalists didn’t either. You’ll notice that they don’t post the treaty anymore. They’ve learned that lesson.

    Climate change is truly a serious issue facing the world. And most of the world hasn’t got a clue.

Comments are closed.