In House - climate compromises and political head scratchers of 2015

The political stakes are high for the new federal government when it comes to drafting a pan-Canadian plan for tackling climate change. As Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil pointed out in an interview on The House this week, each province has developed their own strategies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions, so how do you get everyone all on board? 

In House panelists Mark Kennedy, parliamentary bureau chief for the Ottawa Citizen, and CBC's Power & Politics host Rosemary Barton, discuss just how complicated that process could be — and then look back on the year that was, and the political head scratchers that defined 2015.

Political challenges post-Paris for the federal government and the provinces: how complicated could this get?

Mark Kennedy: Really complicated. The world has made a huge commitment. How do we get there? We get there by telling every Canadian citizen that there's going to be pain in it, that you can't accomplish what they say we need to accomplish without individual pain, without dipping into our pockets to pay more. I think politicians are going to have to start being up-front about that with the country.

Rosemary Barton: I think it's going to be difficult because as we all know, in every province, the situation is different. They have different ideas and plans about how to tackle this. I think Rachel Notley has put forward a bold plan — I know she has industry on side, but will industry stay on side when oil remains this low? How long can she push that forward? I think it's going to be problematic getting everyone thinking the same way.

Justin Trudeau has made the government's relationship with First Nations his top priority. What are you looking for?

MK: He was criticized by some for instantly acknowledging that he would move on all 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He is taking this seriously, but it's going to cost money and it's going to take a dramatic attitude. He can't do a quarter of this by himself; he's probably going to have to call a First Ministers' conference where they sit down and talk about nothing but First Nations issues.

RB: I think it's worth reminding people that it was Stephen Harper who stood up in the House of Commons and issued the apology to residential school survivors. Everyone thought, this is it, this is a change that's starting. And the government tried to implement some things, and they failed. So I know everyone says this is a new chapter, and it may be that. But once you have to get down to the actual work, it gets very complicated, very quickly. And I think there's going to be a lot of push and pull from both sides about where it needs to go from here.

Is there a danger of raising these kinds of great expectations in the new government?

RB: What astounds me is that Trudeau continues to raise them. He has no interest in lowering the bar for himself, even when he should. I think there's a real danger there. There's an awful lot of goodwill right now to let him get away with bending and flexing on some of the promises he's put forward, and I think he thinks that if he keeps those expectations high, the other thing he can keep high is people's hope that you can actually do it, and that's what he's feeding on.

MK: I think he has a fundamentally different view of what leadership is than the other guy. I think Stephen Harper never did believe a leader out to lead. He was never really out there in front of a crowd, he was a much more cautious politician. Justin Trudeau's going to put his political capital on the line.

Where does that leave the Opposition parties?

RB: I think they're in a tough spot. The Conservatives are doing a very effective job as the Opposition, but when they criticize there is some backlash right now, and they're going to have to manage that in the months ahead.

MK: Those three issues we just talked about - improving the lives of Aboriginals, climate change, bringing in refugees whose lives are in danger - who would argue fundamentally that those are wrong? No one.

What's your political head-scratcher of 2015?

MK: Two cabinet ministers decided to hold a news conference - Chris Alexander and Kellie Leitch - to announce they were establishing a snitch line on culturally barbaric practices. I thought, at that point in the campaign, are you out of your minds? Can you imagine how Canadians are going to react? And sure enough, it backfired.

RB: I have two. One goes all the way back to February, when Justin Trudeau walked into the press theatre with Eve Adams. I understand why Eve Adams did it, she was being squeezed out by the Conservatives and this seemed like an opportunity. But to this day, I don't understand why Justin Trudeau sat up there with her. It could have gone so badly for them if they ended up with her, and all the things that came with her. I'm not sure I'll ever understand what the Liberals were doing strategically.

The one that is the ultimate headscratcher — Jerry Bance, when he peed in the cup, rinsed it out, and put it back. Who does that?!?