Tories downgrade 'Made-in-Canada' Green plan

Note: access to this article was blocked in the firewall at work, so I googlenewsed it. There were only two hits, one from the Calgary Sun and one from CTV.ca. The one from Calgary has since been removed. Before CTV is intimidated into removing theirs (too), here it is:

Tories downgrade 'Made-in-Canada' Green plan
Updated Thu. Oct. 5 2006 7:03 AM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- After months of promising a comprehensive "Made-in-Canada" environment plan, word from the federal Conservative government is there won't be a formal plan after all.

A senior official in the office of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the word "plan" is no longer being used. It's now an "approach."

Mark Cooper confirmed the change in terminology, although he slipped into the old language a few times himself.

"The details of the plan - sorry, I shouldn't say plan, the approach - will be coming some time shortly," he said Wednesday.

Since being elected last winter, the Conservatives have deferred most questions about environmental issues by referring to the coming plan.

Environmentalists say they're not surprised at the shift in terminology.

"We've known for month's there's no plan," said Louise Comeau of the Sage Climate Project. "What they're planning is a series of announcements."

Yet the Tory election platform was explicit. It promised a "'Made-in-Canada' plan focused on ensuring future generations enjoy clean water, clean land and clean energy here in Canada."

Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think-tank, said the change in wording raises questions about whether the Conservatives no longer feel they can deliver a comprehensive package.

There had been hopes Ambrose would reveal details of the government's intentions at an appearance before the Commons environment committee Thursday, but Cooper said she would not.

Her purpose in testifying before the committee is to respond to last week's report by Environment Commissioner Johanne Gelinas, he said. That report emphasized the need for a co-ordinated climate plan.

"Looking to the future, the commissioner urges the government to come up with a credible, realistic and clear plan with short-and long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said a statement released by Gelinas's office at the time.

In interviews, critics offered several theories about why the government has changed its strategy. One is that officials have failed to come up with a full-scale plan and need more time to work out problems.

Another theory is that the government thinks it can get more favourable coverage by rolling out announcements one at a time.

Help me understand: are they having problems with their enlightened and deliberate dialogue; bringing the worlds of learning, public affairs and business together; or have they simply revised their position based on political expediency; or committed themselves to merely examining the historical background and long-term implications without wanting to do anything about it?
We seem to be living the exact same situation Bush beat Gore with (Gore had a strong environmental platform, and Dubya said "oh yeah, we do too - and it's betterer" then quickly reverse course once in office). That parallel shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
I just hope the long-term impact of their non-approach will be something Canadians will hold them accountable for come election time.