Elizabeth May, investigative reporter


The Green MP had the the final question this afternoon and rose with the following.

Elizabeth May. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a genuine concern and I hope the Prime Minister can allay my fears. I have heard, from credible sources within the government, that there is a proposal to eliminate Environment Canada by merging it with Natural Resources Canada. If it had not been from credible sources, I would not be putting this question to him. I would like assurances that no such plan is under consideration.

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet any of these credible sources and correct any misinformation they may be giving the hon. member.

This wasn’t quite a denial, so I followed up with the Prime Minister’s Office: Does the government have any plans to merge Environment Canada with the Department of Natural Resources? The answer, I’m told, is “no.”


Elizabeth May, investigative reporter

  1. actually this is not a bad idea – the sheer amount of duplication probably staggers the imagination and it fits well too !

    • It is a terrible idea.

      • Because lefties and greenies think it’s terrible.

        • I doubt that very much. I’d go so far as to say merging natural resources and environment is an idea that nobody other than right of centre types think is a worthwhile one.

        • No, because anyone who understands the mandate of the two departments knows their missions are often incompatible.

  2. Sure, lets emulate the AB model. Some years the EM is seen more often in photo ops shaking hands with the captains of industry than actually…like..er…defending the right of the environment to exist simply for its own sake.. You could be forgiven for thinking the environment is wholly subservient to the economy.

    • My God, did you just give “the environment” rights? How can a wholy abstract idea have “rights”?!

      • The environment has value in and of itself, it doesn’t need to be validated purely by the need for economic growth or activity.
        I’m not going so far a Susuki in saying it has “rights”, although that would be an interesting way to force responsibile growth on the market. It’s perfectly clear what i meant. The natural world has a right to exist for its own sake. We can’t live without it for one thing. You’re free to prove me wrong of course.

  3. And……..will Ms.May reveal her credible source…………………

    • Her febrile imagination?
      Her imaginary friend?

      • I was thinking someone in a green canoe navigating Canadian waters one last time before getting lost………………

  4. A mandate to manage/develop natural resources and a mandate to serve as stewards of the environment are often incompatible (one of the few people in public service who seems utterly unaware of that conflict is, sadly, the current Minister of the Environment).

    Having said that, I wonder if someone in the PMO deliberately set a cat among the pigeons just set May up in the House and give Harper an opportunity for his “witty” rebuttal.

    • Yup, it’s a massive conspiracy that was set in motion 15 months ago, all to make Lizzy look like a fool. I heard Jack Bauer himself was working on this one.

      • Thanks for confirming yet another example of Con nastiness.

  5. No today, yes in 6 months.

  6. i think it was very nice to set ‘ol Liz up with something to fret about right away !!
    she’s had her “talking point” for the session . now the rest can get down to business and she can sit down and shut the he// up !!!

  7. The idea is prepsterous. Merging the two departments would mean one less cabinet minister and one less parliamentary secretary and countless numbers of political staffers losing their jobs. Won’t happen.

  8. I guess those “credible sources” aren’t so credible after all. Probably a good indication of Lizzy’s ability to judge character.

    • True only if you believe Harper himself is a “credible source”.

Sign in to comment.