It’s not every day that Canada’s ruling elite embraces good sense and rejects ideas that will cripple our economy and pulverize national unity. But we’ve just now had such a day in Ottawa.
The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the Trudeau Liberals’ bullying Impact Assessment Act, a law that essentially sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism many thousands of jobs and billions in private investment in Canadian industry.
The court’s decision is a colossal win for Canadians who hope for better days and a thriving economy, in large part because the court’s decision is part of a trend where world leaders in business, politics and the law, credible climate scientists and regular citizens are rejecting the darkest and dumbest excesses of climate policy.
It’s evident that the majority of judges in last Friday’s 5-2 decision were concerned about just how far the Trudeau Liberals had gone in bulldozing provincial constitutional rights, including in the name of the Liberals’ preferred climate policy.
In the court’s previous ruling upholding the carbon tax, Chief Justice Richard Wagner had focused on climate being an existential threat to humanity. Not this time. Only the two dissenting judges brought up that notion.
In this ruling Wagner focused on how the federal government had “plainly overstepped the mark” in terms of invading provincial jurisdiction, including on emissions.
Exhibit A, as I see it, were two threatening federal letters sent to Canadian companies. Wagner pointed to two of Trudeau’s cabinet ministers, Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault, who had recently sent the letters to mining company Coalspur and to Suncor Energy with warnings about “unacceptable environmental effects” of proposed projects, such as greenhouse gas emissions.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
In being so aggressive on climate regulation, Wagner accused the Trudeau Liberals of “attempting to do an end run around this court’s recent national concern jurisprudence.”
Wagner talked repeatedly about the “overbreadth” of the federal government’s regulations, noting the federal Impact Assessment Act included something known as “interprovincial effects,” essentially how a project in one province would in any way impact any other province.
In his most exclamatory moment of the lengthy and nuanced decision, Wagner said, “the breadth of this ‘interprovincial effects’ clause is astonishing.”
The interprovincial effects to consider include every component of life on Earth, including land, water, air, all layers of the atmosphere, all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and their interaction with natural systems.
Of course, some of you will think the federal government’s policy is wise, that it’s excellent to have such complete and total oversight of a project.
But for what public good?
Putting the entire weight of any and all impacts in the world on any one project is a sure recipe for no major project (save for a federally-subsidized battery plant) to get built. Yet we could shut down the Alberta oilsands and its annual 100 million metric tonnes of carbon emissions and China will still emit 11.5 billion metric tonnes next year. This fact never seems to register with Guilbeault and other alarmists. But it’s starting to register with prudent Canadians.
In fact, common sense is now breaking out all over the place when it comes to rejecting climate alarm, even in climate science circles where researchers who fail to toe the line can face dire career consequences. Attacking the stifling orthodoxy of the climate establishment are a group of credible climate scientists, such as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen and Obama’s former climate adviser Steve Koonin. They point out the climate has heated up one degree and will likely heat up one more degree by the end of this century, not exactly an End Times scenario.
In the face of their sound arguments, multi-billionaire Bill Gates, the world’s largest private funder of climate change research, recently shot down the alarmist narrative. “There’s a lot of climate exaggeration. The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine.”
People are also taking note that nuclear power represents a brilliant solution to slash emissions and build human prosperity, but that nuclear power is opposed by groups like Greenpeace. What’s that all about? Could it be alarmists are more interested in stirring up fear and donations rather than solutions?
There’s also the ongoing hypocrisy of the climate alarm establishment, who have yet to refuse an airline flight to their next fancy conference in some swish world destination.
Canadians are now rejecting what the Trudeau Liberals are selling. The Supreme Court just did so as well.
Perhaps, after all, there is hope for a smarter and richer Canada, one with effective and non-alarmist climate policy.