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

FELDSTED – The issue before the Supreme Court was one of jurisdiction -- it should have been about the arbitrary implementation of taxation laws


I am working my way through the Supreme Court decision on the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) and am dismayed by the Court’s bland acceptance that Canada is facing an existential threat to human life. Four hundred pages take time to read and digest. My initial reaction is below.  


Our federal government is not tasked with configuring Canada to ward off unproven theories on global warming. The threat is not existential; the plan to combat global warming is.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consists of 195 members, of which about 25% are true democracies. The original Kyoto Accord was a blatant attempt to shift large amounts of capital from industrialized nations to have-not nations. For many reasons, the Accord failed.

There is no peer-reviewed, validated science to link industrialized nations and global warming or climate change. The Michael Mann models and projections were discredited, and the IPCC response has been to ignore this embarrassment.

Climate change is not an existential threat. Our climate has been evolving for all of recorded history. We go through long-term heating and cooling cycles. The IPCC took a fragment of that experience, distorted the data and predicted dramatic changes that have not taken place over the past three decades.

There is no analysis of the cost-benefit to Canada and Canadians. No matter what the IPCC holds forth, our federal government is obliged to conduct an ongoing study of the effects of reducing carbon emissions on Canada.

The GGPPA was made law in 2018. COVID-19 has had a highly destructive effect on our economy. Factors in play in 2018 are very different today. Carbon taxing will hurt our economic recovery, which is not acceptable.

The IPCC Paris Accord involves having some industrialized nations reducing carbon emissions for the benefit of all. That is a spurious approach as carbon emissions are not confined to the borders of emitting countries. Emissions from China and India affect Canada’s air, land and water quality, and we are powerless to stop that.

No matter how punishing the federal carbon pricing scheme is, the federal government cannot ensure that Canadians will not suffer the effects of climate change.

The federal government seized the authority to impose carbon taxes on Canadians without first proving that such a tax is needed or that such a tax is in the best long-term interests of Canada and Canadians. That is not democratic governance.

The issue before the Supreme Court was one of jurisdiction. It should have been about the arbitrary implementation of taxation laws without federal accountability, openness and transparency.

We don’t face a threat from carbon because our government says so. Without carbon, there will be no life on this planet.

Government regulation of carbon emissions is a far greater threat to life on our planet than climate change will ever be.

 

John Feldsted … is a political commentator, consultant, and strategist. He makes his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 
Post a Comment
Read more

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more