Expansion of the meaning of ‘environment’ and an emotional approach to protecting us from damage to our air, land and water, in isolation from other economic and social factors, is dangerous and foolhardy

Our government seems to be under the illusion that environmental policy can be developed in isolation; and that environmental law can trump every other law barring the constitution itself.

The approach is diametrically opposed to the federal responsibility to govern for the peace, order and good government of Canada.

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government has jurisdiction over environmental law in the case of the Ocean Dumping Control Act (R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401) under its broad residual powers of peace, order and good government.

However, the complex issues surrounding environmental law are not settled, in particular since over recent decades, environmental law has expanded to new areas, and there are now different approaches to those in effect in 1988.

Expansion of the meaning of ‘environment’ and an emotional approach to protecting us from damage to our air, land and water, in isolation from other economic and social factors, is dangerous and foolhardy.

As an example, the federal government claims to be committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a method of reducing or slowing global warming. However, the government has made no effort to verify, with certainty, that airborne carbon dioxide drives global warming. No efforts have been made to establish what factors drive global warming such as solar activity, changes to the attitude of the earth’s axis, volcanic activity and dozens of other factors.

We do not have independent climate change science.

We borrowed a computer model from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) partners complete with the flaws and speculative tweaks that keep results distressingly similar and inaccurate. The IPCC uses a closed mind approach to global warming, insisting that man-made carbon emissions are the only factor to be considered in global warming. That is ridiculous.

The world is gradually awakening to the hoax. See A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science and Most Of Warming Trend Since 1980s Is Naturally Driven, Not CO2-Driven.

Back to Canada.

The government decision to force a reduction in carbon emissions through taxation has onerous repercussions that affect the majority of our citizens. The government has no skin in the game. Individuals are faced with increased costs and tough choices result.

Tens of thousands of Canadian homes are heated by, or heat water with, oil or natural gas. Some homeowners can invest several thousand dollars in conversion to electric heat, but many face high electrical energy costs.

Farmers who use large quantities of diesel, and petroleum-based chemicals for their operations, suddenly face rapidly escalating costs without any income offset. Even worse, environmental bans of chemicals result in less fertilizer and weed control which results in diminished yields of lower quality due to weed contamination. Bringing products up to quality standards involves screening of yields which increases costs and uses carbon taxed power to operate.

Farmers use power hungry grain dryers to salvage crops in poor years, and fruit growers use huge fans with special irrigation to save orchards from frost damage. Market gardeners need irrigation and fertilizers to maximise yields.  

In Canada’s vast rural areas, motor vehicles are not an option. Rural residents often make weekly or monthly trips to urban centres to take advantage of lower prices for clothing, food and household essentials. Escalating carbon taxes make those trips less practical. The bottom line is a rapidly increasing cost of living for over 20% of our population.

Services like home care cannot operate without vehicles so health care is a factor. There is no electric ambulance that an make a 50 to 100 mile run to hospital with a patient. There is no electric fire truck that can stay on station pumping water or rescuing people for an extended period. The power required to employ a ladder truck is beyond electrical vehicle technology.     

And Urban centres are not immune either.

There is very little product available to consumers that has not arrived at the vendor’s by train and/or truck. The costs of municipal services increase. Trash pick-up, snow removal, pumping water and sewage, processing sewage, park maintenance, street sweeping, and street maintenance all cost more and that will impact on municipal taxes.

None of this was thought through by our government prior to implementation of a carbon tax. Writing environmental law without careful consideration of its impact on our economy and society is dangerous and foolhardy. The government must carefully consider downstream effects of its actions. Failure to do so is not in the interests of Canada and her people. This government is incompetent and irresponsible.

Environmental policy cannot be developed in isolation. It is not possible to make protecting the environment primary over economic and social concerns without destroying the nation. We have gone too far down the path of chocking off development and infringing on society to allow for a sustainable economy.

We either learn to balance economic growth with rational environmental risks or face economic collapse and a depression. The path we are on is destructive and irresponsible.

When we shrink our economic potential to eliminate environmental risk, we set the stage for an unsustainable result. The costs of essential services, including education and health care, fire and other emergency services, repair, replacement and upgrades of infrastructure and meeting the increasing energy demands of our urbanizing society are increasing steadily.

Economic development has to keep pace, or we fall off a cliff where services are reduced to what our economy can fund.

We are already on the brink with provincial governments struggling to meet rising education and health care costs. Both systems have grown inefficient as we insist these fundamental services must have priority. Our needs for these services do not produce funding. That comes from taxation, and increased taxation can only flow from a growing economy. 

We are taxed by the federal and provincial governments as well as by our local municipality. More and more Canadians have reached a tax saturation point. Today, June 14^th, is Tax Freedom Day. Our think tanks estimate that taxation in all forms chews up to 44.9% of the average wage or salary.

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government has jurisdiction over environmental law in the case of the Ocean Dumping Control Act (R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401) under its broad residual powers of peace, order and good government.

Although the decision is not clear-cut on all environmental law, it raises many issues. 

We have created an environmental legal nightmare. There are now 5,005 environmental laws on the books in Canada:

Federal ... 660

British Columbia ... 237

Alberta ... 191

Saskatchewan ... 350

Manitoba ... 229

Ontario ... 428

Quebec ... 677

New Brunswick ... 304

Nova Scotia ... 442

PEI ... 185

Newfoundland / Labrador ... 742

Yukon ... 303

North West Territories ... 168

Nunavut ... 89

TOTAL:  5,005

It is probable that at least some of the provincial laws are local in nature, and within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Others are more far-reaching and would be incompatible with federal authority if the Crown Zellerbach decision holds.

In a mad rush to be seen as environmental knights in shining armour, governments have collectively created an environmental monster. There has been no analysis of the fallout of this rush to protect.

The most obvious casualty is petrochemical development including the oil sands. We have shut down a multi-billion-dollar economic resource based on faulty, emotionally driven risk avoidance. It is not possible to grow our economy to enable funding of the services we need without some degree of risk.

Economic growth without minimizing environmental risks is equally unacceptable. We have come off the rails by making environmental protection paramount. We have lost perspective.

The position that we must make large polluters pay penalties is unworkable. These are major industries that employ thousands of people and create materials that are used by manufacturers and processors that employ thousands more, not to mention spin off service businesses. Increased business taxes will drive manufacturers from Canada. Environmental penalties will accomplish the same thing.

Resurrection of oil sands production employs thousands of people. Pipeline construction involves jobs from coast to coast. Steel mills have to produce raw product. Secondary mills have to produce pipe. Others produce controllers, pumps and valves and tens of thousands of bits and pieces that make up oil extraction facilities and operating pipelines.

Forestry and agriculture are also suffering from ill-considered environmental policy and law. There is a balance to be found that allows economic development and minimizes environmental risks. We have developed world-class methods of reducing emissions from petrochemical and manufacturing processes. We can extract and process harmful materials from emission stacks. We must improve those technologies.

We have to deal with economic and environmental issues as closely integrated. At present, we are not even trying. We are risking an economic depression on the altar of unsustainable environmental policies.  

John Feldsted

Political Consultant & Strategist

Winnipeg, Manitoba