In Québec, he’s faced with declining polls and a worsening fiscal situation. And Jean Charest is under broad-based attack for refusing to call an inquiry into corruption in the construction industry – amidst intriguing hints about links to party financing.
Across the country, for the first time in his career the man once known as Captain Canada is getting negative press thanks to his performance at Copenhagen. Unlike BC premier Gordon Campbell, Mr. Charest’s words damaged national unity and made enemies among his fellow premiers. Not to speak of having effectively doomed any ambitions he may have once have harboured to succeed Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Today, in his lash-back at the Prime Minister for suggesting that Québec can do as much as it wants and more to curb carbon emissions regardless of federal targets, you have to wonder at his judgment in bringing up the spat that took place in Copenhagen between Mr. Harper’s press secretary and Steven Guilbeault.
Mr. Guilbeault is just about the only environmental activist you can find these days who defended China after its performance in Copenhagen, described in a remarkable first-hand report in today’s Guardian. He does have one thing going for him, however: he’s a darling of the Québec media. And, for Mr. Charest, that’s all that counts because this is about politics. For, as André Pratte writes in a La Presse editorial, on the issue of climate change, the emperor–and his people–stand stark naked: “In Copenhagen, the government of Québec demonstrated a detestable arrogance. Prime Minister Jean Charest used every occasion to vaunt the record of his government on climate change. He was even indulged by environmental groups who gave him a prize.
The government and many Québécois in turn are proud of Québec’s relatively good record in reducing carbon emissions. But what credit are we due? None. What sacrifices have we made. Nada.
Our record is essentially the result of our electricity. We were given this resource, water, by fate. We did not choose hydro power for environmental reasons, because it was the source of abundant energy that we had. If Alberta had the same hydro potential, they would done the same.
In one area, we could have acted concretely to do our part in reducing emissions–road transportation. How have we demonstrated our ecological concerns?
Today, there are 390 000 more passenger vehicles than there were five years ago. Since 1990, emissions from road transportation have increased by 37 per cent.
The Charest government can boast about having imposed a carbon tax, except that it has had no significant effect on the price of gas or diesel. If M. Charest had the courage that he demands of his federal counterpart, he would significantly increase the level of this green tax so that it would reduce consumption. What’s he waiting for?
Québec is pressing Ottawa to adopt more stringent targets. Concretely, this means requiring the producing provinces to put a brake on their production. But what is Québec doing right now? It’s closely examining the possibility of developing potential oil and gas supplies on its territory. What would M. Charest say if Stephen Harper ordered him to cease this work in the name of the future of the planet. Certainly, Alberta must do more to encourage clean development of its oil. Also, the government of Canada must show leadership in this task, something the Conservatives seem incapable of doing. For its part, the government of Québec must ensure that federal policy does not damage Quebec’s economy. Aside from that, it should stop giving lessons to others and deal with our own significant environmental problems.”
