Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

McTEAGUE -- Supreme Extremism will leave Canadians hurting


Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Government of Canada is fully within its jurisdiction to impose a carbon tax on provinces, even if the duly elected governments of those provinces oppose the imposition of such a tax.


Their rationale? The wisdom of Greta Thunberg. 

Judges aren’t scientists. They aren’t climate experts. Yet in this case the judges have acted like they are both. I’m surprised they didn’t quote Greta directly with a “how dare you” statement. In effect that is what they have given us.

What the court did was declare that global warming – a term even environmentalists weren’t using this winter in the Northern hemisphere because we kept having cold snaps – causes harm beyond provincial boundaries. The Court rules that global warming is therefore a matter of national concern that allows the federal government to rely on its residual constitutional power, found in the “peace order and good government” clause of the constitution, to impose a tax on the provinces (or oblige them to have a comparable one of their own).  

Now of course, sounding like Liberal Party propagandists, the justices said the carbon tax is not a tax. They in fact said the federal carbon tax has nothing to do with taxation, as understood constitutionally. 

We’ve heard this one before. It might feel like a tax, look like a tax, and stink like a tax, but it isn’t a tax, it is a regulatory charge. Doesn’t that make you feel better as you watch the carbon tax climb (starting next week, in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) by big increments until it reaches $170/tonne?

As if that wasn’t enough, the Court felt compelled to go further. The majority noted that all the parties in the dispute – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia – agreed that climate change was real. And in a dramatic step into the world of policy, the court went so far as to say climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity and it poses a grave threat to the future of humanity.  (hello Greta!!). 

It’s along the lines of former US President Barack Obama’s famous tweet that ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. That tweet, like the rhetoric of Greta, like the rationale for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, is, for the most part, without foundation.

For the most part. As I have said before, no one disputes that climate change is real. It is happening all the time.

What people do dispute (myself included) is the jump that is made from saying climate change is real, to saying that humankind is the overwhelming cause of it. And people (millions in fact) also dispute the claim that those causal human actions are very dangerous.  

Today, daring to raise such disputes is tantamount to treason. It prompts the ‘how dare you?’ rhetoric of Greta Thunberg and her well-funded environmentalist supporters.

It prompts the derisive criticisms of self-righteous ministers like federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson that opponents of their radical green agenda are flat earth advocates. It prompts the monstrous use of language of “denier” to anyone who asks why we don’t embrace traditional scientific self-doubt.

And now it will prompt the established interests to say “The Court says so”.

Any Canadian daring to dispute the conventional thinking have been cowed into submission by the shrieks of the alarmists. And now those shrieks have been taken up as truth by the Supreme Court of Canada.

A majority of justices:

  • Don’t acknowledge that the science is in dispute.
  • Don’t acknowledge that there may be a series of approaches other than imposition of taxes (sorry, regulatory charges) to address any environmental concerns.
  • Don’t acknowledge that provincial jurisdiction may in fact be legitimate to address such concerns (because, apparently, climate change is real and that demands something more).
  • Have no reservation about stepping into matters of public policy dispute.

What these justices do is:

  • Embrace an extreme position on an issue in dispute, 
  • Endorse the concentration of power in the federal government, and 
  • Signal that the continued imposition of aggressive tax (sorry, regulatory) regimes by elected government now has the sanction of the unelected judiciary.

What a world.

The Trudeau government has committed to a budget 25 months after the last one, is spending money at an unprecedented rate, is imposing a radical energy and environmental agenda of unprecedented scope and scale, compromising our sovereignty with ridiculous commitments to the Paris Accord and Net Zero by 2050.

And now Trudeau and co. have the sanction of the unelected judiciary.

Canadians will pay the price for all of this over time. Eventually, people will realize how bad a track we are on, how unnecessary and expensive it is, and how much it hurts the prospects for our children and grandchildren.

A change of government would offer an opportunity to reverse the impact here – if indeed such a change would elect a government opposed to carbon taxes. Time will tell.

Dan McTeague, President, Canadians For Affordable Energy

An 18-year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.

Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.


  1. ‘Bad For Democracy’ (Supreme Court):
    “This great lawmaking power — which most Canadians think is the sole prerogative of our elected Parliament — flows directly from the Court’s post-Charter position as sole arbiter of the constitution...”


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It seems the call for blood donors is being responded to, however ... “This effort is a marathon, not a sprint” says Canadian Blood Services

A week and a half ago I wrote the commentary ... “ While the national inventory is currently strong, an increase in blood donor cancellations is a warning sign of potential challenges to maintaining a health inventory of blood ” It was written as a result of talk about a potential blood shortage that would occur if people stopped donating due to the COVID-19 virus. It seems the call to Canadians was responded to, however, as I was told this afternoon ... “ T his effort is a marathon, not a sprint ”. As it now stands now, donors are able to attend clinics which are held in Vancouver (2), Victoria, Surrey, and in Kelowna, so I asked if there any plans to re-establish traveling clinics to others communities - for example in Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke or Cranbrook, and perhaps further north at perhaps Ft. St. John? According to Communications Lead Regional Public Affairs Specialist Marcelo Dominguez, Canadian Blood Services is still on

FEDLSTED -- Rules will have to relax-- the question is how and when

The media has created a fervour over the mathematical models that allegedly help governments predict the future of Coronavirus infections in the general population. Mathematical modelling has limited use and value. We need to understand is that the data available on Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections in Canada is far too small for statistical reliability. The data available for the whole world is useless due to variables in how nations responded to Coronavirus infections. There is no commonality in steps taken to combat virus spread and no similarity in the age demographics of world nations, so the numbers you see on the daily tracking of world infections are not useful in developing a model of infection rates that can be relied on. Mathematical models of the future spread of Coronavirus are better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.  Mathematical models must include assumptions on virus spreads, and various factors involved. As they are used in projections, a small erro

WUN FEATHER -- can we just put those two names to bed for a while? You can call me an ‘Indian’ and I won't mind. And let's not call the farmers and ranchers ‘Settlers’ anymore

Hey there # TeamCanada !   I can't take it any more! Well, I guess I can, but I don't want to. I want to talk about the names we call each other. My very best friends, and all my Elderly Aunts and Uncles call me an Indian. I have walked into the most magnificent dining hall at the Air Liquide Head office, Quai D'orsay in Paris, France, surrounded by the worlds top producing Cryogenics team, and Patrick Jozon, the President of Air Liquide, has seen me enter the room, and yelled: " Bonjour! There is Warren! He is my Indian friend from Canada! He and I chased Beavers together in Northern BC!" And over 400 people turned to look at me and then they all smiled, and nodded. To most European people, an Indian is an absolute ICON!   The ultimate symbol of North America. They love us. And then, one time I had just gotten married and took vacation days off to take my new wife to meet my Grandmother; I was so proud. But as soon a


Show more