Climate change arose on the international agenda in the late 1980s. It was a period of international greening and Canada joined the climate change bandwagon. Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was even lauded as an international leader on the issue. In 2002 Canada, under the leadership of Jean Chretien, ratified the Kyoto protocol, in spite ofthe absence ofthe United States from the agreement and in the face of provincial opposition. While this may have been regarded as a noble gesture, it is crucial to recall that Canada was then and is now nowhere near its Kyoto emissions targets. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged that Canada will not meet its Kyoto target and has crafted policies that do little to help us reach it. In 20 years, Canada has done little to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and from that vantage point one must question whether parties matter in the development and implementation of Canadian climate change policy.This article considers a series of snapshots of Canadian climate change policy: climate change under the Mulroney Conservatives; the Liberals and the Kyoto protocol; the Kyoto ratification debate; the period under Prime Minister Paul Martin; and finally the arrival of the Harper Conservatives. The article finds that in terms of ability or willingness to engage in genuine emissions reductions, party difference matters very little. Similarly, party difference does not really help us understand continuity in terms of Canadian diplomatic behaviour, which has been markedly self-interested over the years. Yet parties do matter in terms of composition and style; and style, when merged with substance, may signal longer-term changes to Canadian foreign policy.CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MULRONEY PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVESIn 1988, the Toronto conference, formally known as the conference on the Changing atmosphere: Implications for global security was held. As hosts of this meeting, Canadian scientists and politicians were front and centre. Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney called for a law of the atmosphere and told delegates, all belong to one human family, and we are all in this together.1 As a result of their efforts, Canada, Mulroney, and the experts housed in Environment Canada were acknowledged as early leaders on the issue of climate change.In spite of the creative leadership of Canadian bureaucrats and scientists in the agenda-setting phase of the climate change issue, political commitment and leadership were tentative at best. Liberal environment critic Paul Martin declared that Progressive Conservative climate change policy was not leading, and in fact lagged behind that of such progressive states as those in Scandinavia. In addition, the conference consensus was dismissed by key Canadian government officials who argued that, given that it was not a ministerial conference, statements by elected Canadian officials, such as the prime minister, were not policy statements but rather the views of individuals.2 Shortly after the Toronto conference, the prime minister announced further subsidies to the Hibernia project - actions that contradicted the concern expressed for climate change. Domestically, the Mulroney government produced the first ever in 1990. The green plan wrapped neoliberal economic tools in a green veneer. Consistent with what would become the standard Canadian policy tools to address climate change, the green plan focused on information provision and encouraging voluntary actions.3 These tools would prove ineffective in achieving Canadian emissions reductions. Finally, Environment Canada became marginalized in the policy process as it was regarded as too concerned with the environment, rather than the effective or pragmatic responses acceptable to government'^ The marginalization of Environment Canada signalled the privileging of economics over the environment - a trend that was apparent throughout the periods under examination. …