The department’s new deputy minister, Bob Hamilton, ran into trouble last Monday at a parliamentary committee when he was asked to explain what causes climate change.
“Wow. Umm. They didn’t tell me I’d have to answer questions like that when I took this job. I think that it’s – I don’t know the total answer to that –,” said Hamilton, before Conservative MPs interrupted to prevent him from continuing.
Hamilton made the remarks as the committee of MPs reviewed his recent nomination along with the appointment of Parks Canada’s new chief executive officer, Alan Latourelle.
After this story was posted online, Environment Canada emailed Postmedia News a statement on Hamilton’s behalf in which he said his job was to produce the best advice based on a full range of considerations, including scientific information produced internationally, nationally and within the department.
“In the case of climate change, the science clearly supports the conclusion that it is occurring, and that human activities are mostly responsible,” Hamilton said in the statement, sent more than 11 hours after Postmedia News had asked the deputy minister to explain his comments from Monday and also to explain whether he believed the scientific evidence.
“I am proud that EC is at the leading edge of scientific knowledge and contributes to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
But a few days earlier, as NDP deputy leader and environment critic Megan Leslie attempted to get answers from Hamilton, Tory MPs at the parliamentary committee argued that the bureaucrat’s knowledge of climate change was not relevant.
“It doesn’t seem to me, unless there’s something I’m missing, that that would relate at all to resumes or CVs or work experience of Mr. Latourelle and Mr. Hamilton,” said Stella Ambler, a Conservative MP representing the riding of Mississauga South, near Toronto.
Leslie fired back that the issue was indeed relevant.
“The government may not think that the cause of climate change is important to the environment committee or the deputy minister of environment,” Leslie said. “But I happen to think that it’s pivotal if we have a deputy minister who’s creating climate change policy that he – first of all – believes that there is an existence of man-made climate change and secondly, know a little bit about it. I think it’s perfectly on point.”
Stephen Woodworth, another Ontario Conservative MP who recently made headlines over a motion he introduced in Parliament to reopen the debate about abortion, also chimed in, suggesting the NDP didn’t need to hear about Hamilton’s views.
“I don’t think his personal knowledge of what one might have to go to school to learn about climate change is relevant to what this committee is doing here today,” said Woodworth, who represents the riding of Kitchener Centre.
“I say that as someone who does believe that climate change is an important feature of our world today and I don’t mean to minimize the subject of climate change, but I do think that we have to keep on track with what this gentleman is hired to do and I don’t think it’s to work in a lab to determine the cause of climate change or look at modeling or other computer simulations. His job is to manage the department.”
Leslie later rephrased her question, asking whether Hamilton believed scientific evidence that shows how human activity contributes to climate change.
The questions come a few weeks after Environment Canada released an internal presentation on climate change that was sent to its minister, Peter Kent, by Hamilton’s predecessor, Paul Boothe, outlining the billions of dollars in economic damage and thousands of job losses that could result in the country from impacts of global warming.
Boothe’s presentation was accompanied with a memo to Kent that recommended the minister use the facts in speeches and public comments to make “useful” remarks about climate change.
But Hamilton declined to answer Leslie’s question directly at the committee, noting instead that he would be relying on the expertise within his department, while explaining that his previous experience in developing tax policy would help him handle the new job at Environment Canada.
“At the end of the day, one can observe whether the climate is changing or not,” Hamilton said. “One can construct models about where it might be going or not and different predictions can have different probabilities associated with them. But I do feel that we have the people within Environment Canada, in addition to a number of other people around the world, to enable us to provide sound advice on policies of adaptation to climate change, how we might mitigate climate change. So at the end, I view that as my job, whatever my personal belief might be. I will endeavour to provide advice to the minister and to the government on what I believe is our best evidence on what’s going on and what our best policy is going forward.”
The federal government has cut millions of dollars in scientific research within Environment Canada and other departments, affecting programs that contributed to enforcement of Canada’s environmental laws by identifying the impact of industrial activities on water, air and wildlife.
The government has also made dramatic changes to existing environmental laws in recent months that reduce federal oversight and powers to assess impacts of new and ongoing industrial activity, eliminating thousands of environmental reviews.
The last federal budget was also accompanied by a 400-page piece of legislation that dedicated one-third of its measures toward giving the government new tools to authorize water pollution, investigate environmental groups, weaken protection of endangered species and limit public participation in consultations and reviews of proposed industrial projects.
Environment Canada’s former deputy minister, Boothe, left the department last July after all these changes were adopted to accept a senior position as director of the University of Western Ontario’s business school.
Meantime, a group of Canadian environmental advocates, led by a coalition of young Canadians have invited the minister, Peter Kent, to discuss the government’s agenda with them at an Ottawa conference next week.
Kent had declined an earlier request to debate them about climate change issues, following the release of an internal government briefing note that suggested Canadian youth were misinformed about climate change negotiations on the international stage.
“Based on discussions I have had with several representatives of youth organizations, including at the latest climate change conference in Durban, my personal impression is that this country’s youth climate activists are in fact very well informed on the issue of climate change,” Kent wrote in an Oct. 2 letter to Amara Possian and other youth representatives that sent him the invitation. “I therefore see no benefit in publicly debating a matter I believe we already agree on, and respectfully decline your invitation.”
Kent added that he had not authored the document in question.
“That document was aimed at providing Canada’s new chief climate change negotiator with succinct information on a vast array of subjects, including Environment Canada’s experience in engaging with various groups comprising civil society and possible avenues for improving the consultation process with these stakeholders.”
Kent has not yet responded to the latest invitation that he attend the conference to participate in a public discussion about the “dire consequences of climate change” and how to “transition to a clean and just energy economy.”
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Mike De Souza
No comments:
Post a Comment