See Thirty? The Clean Air Act Two, Scene One.

I apologize for my inactivity, I have been busy trying to save our economy. It would seem that I have failed.

I am trying to figure out what makes a successful environmental lobbyist. I know what makes a successful lobbyist - and it is to have the ideas and policies that you care about enshrined into legislation and passed into the laws of Canada. It would seem that they have a different standard for success than most professionals in the game. It would appear to me that most environmentalists are only interested in having their issues talked about, not actually achieved.

It was a pitiful display to watch the three opposition parties gut the government's Clean Air Act. I am not going to pretend for a second that the bill as introduced was perfect - far from it. I can say without any hesitation at all, that the bill which emerged from committee is monumentally worse.

I have analyzed every clause of the new bill and other than ensure that industry has less capital to invest into our economy, it all but assures that every chattel that you and I want to use in the future will be more expensive, with no appreciable environmental impact or implementation plan. Bravo. I would rave on madly about each individual defect, but I have spent 99% of my time doing so in my professional life - and frankly, I am bored of it.

More to the point, is that this procedure proved that the three opposition parties have no interest whatsoever in making good policy. C-30 was an exercise devoted entirely to making the government bill unworkable - and taking pot-shots at each industrial sector along the way. All the more embarrassing for the three opposition parties was that each time they tried to propose an amendment they would all look to the ENGOs sitting in the corner for approval.

Yes, you heard me - Approval. As if Daddy would be happier with them for doing what he wanted. It was grotesque. The irony is that when opposition members turned to me for guidance or other facets of the bill, the environmentalists had the stones to complain that industry was shaping the bill.

But this exercise in environmental masturbation is all moot, and all of the language that the environmentalists lobbied hard to get into the bill is doomed to failure. They could have worked with the government to improve the existing legislation - but NOOOOO, that would make too much sense. There is no universe where the government will allow this bill to go forward in its current form and the ENGOs will complain that the only appropriate action was that which was proposed by the three opposition parties. I am going to have to give the ENGOs a seminar on a) understanding polls and b) understanding ministerial responsibility. It seems they are far more interested in yelling at the wind.

That said, there are four likely options for this bill. I have laid them out in order of likelihood:

1) The Government sits on its thumbs and never calls the question again. Unlike private members' legislation, the opposition can't use House procedure to call a Government bill. The Government plans on releasing its own climate change plan (take three) in the coming two weeks, and that will trump all the crap in the act. The Government can blame the opposition for not allowing it the regulatory authority it needs to do the job, and then use existing regulatory authority to make it much worse.

2) As Prime Minister Chretien did in 1999, when the bill is reintroduced to the house from report stage, the government will reverse every single change made by the committee and invite the opposition parties to vote against the Act - The bloq might actually support the act as originally written because of the very strong "equivalency" provisions for provincial regulatory authority - combined with the fact that they already got their Kyoto legislation in Rodriguez (below).

3) The Government will simply vote against its own bill. While there is no such thing as a reverse onus on confidence, the PM will then trot across the street and tell the Governor General that he is incapable of working with the opposition parties.

4) The Government will pass the bill, and let the Senate deal with it. Oh, the irony. The previous piece of Kyoto verbiage to emanate from the House is currently being dealt with by the Senate- it was referred to TWO committees of the Liberal dominated Senate: the Banking committee and the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. They are due to report back by December 31st. Not the sexiest way to dispose of legislation, but it does an excellent job of proving TWO points simultaneously: That the opposition parties refuse to work with the Government and that the Senate perverts the will of the masses - for better or for worse.