Connect with us

Opinion

The dangerous slippery slope of activist-driven climate lawsuits

Published

4 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel 

Canadians should be concerned climate activists are pushing climate change litigation – or climate change tort cases – at the U.S. state and local levels.

We should all be prepared if this bizarre new legal trend introduced by climate change alarmists comes to Canada.

Canadians have noticed most extreme climate change-inspired ideas – like banning natural gas furnaces – originate from liberal parts of the United States and eventually find their way northwards to our provincial legislatures or city halls.

Lawyers – supported by climate change alarmist organizations – are inventing new legal theories to allow state governments to sue energy companies for alleged contributions to global climate change. Lawyers even attempt to link oil companies to specific extreme weather events.

American observers became alarmed when the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in that state allowing oil companies to be sued in state courts for their alleged contribution to climate change.  U.S. Legal critics were concerned how this climate change litigation could turn state courts into regulators of global climate change. They argued this was improper given that inter-state and foreign energy policy and commerce is federally regulated.

Canadian judges will have to deal with similar federalism/jurisdictional issues if these nuisance lawsuits come to our courts. Green activists on both sides of the border are determined to handicap the energy sector through the courts and lower levels of government.

Lawyers are basing their legal theories on unjustified certitude regarding climate change.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the most prominent so-called “authority” on climate science – actually presents a nuanced and cautious view of this topic. Politicians and journalists often blame specific weather patterns or events on climate change with little evidence.

Canadian author Joanne Marcotte, in her book Inconvenient Doubts: Climate Change Apocalypse: Really? reminds us that so-called experts miss three key points about IPCC reports: 1) They include varying degrees of confidence and probabilities, rarely mentioned by the media; 2) Some statements refer to specific regions but are often generalized globally; and 3) An extreme weather event becomes a disaster only if a region cannot respond effectively.

Lawyers pushing these anti-oil lawsuits are really saying courts can determine with certitude these oil companies are causing climate change or they can be blamed for specific weather events.

Activists are pushing their anti-energy agenda in the courts because they are losing the war of ideas in democratically elected legislatures. Canadian voters are rejecting these unnecessary and costly green policies because they are being economically crushed by spurious and environmentally pointless carbon taxes that unnecessarily inflate all basics including food and gasoline prices . Activists realize this and want unelected and unaware judges to become arbiters on an incredibly complex and nuanced issue like global climate change.

Drivers should be wary because once courts allow provinces to attack oil companies they may come after them.  Activists know transportation is the second biggest contributor to carbon emissions after the energy sector.

Canadian litigants raised climate change at the Supreme Court of Canada when several provincial premiers challenged the constitutionality of the carbon tax – a clever way to bypass democratic legislatures and impose their anti-energy policies on courts and lower levels of government.

Canadian consumers should be able to choose energy sources best for them.  We should not allow activists to use courts – as they have in the United States – to impoverish everybody through by imposing extreme and unscientific anti-energy climate policies through the backdoor.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

espionage

Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Move follows aggressive PRC disinformation against Joe Tay, RCMP security warnings, and raises pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney after White House meeting

In a striking escalation of Beijing’s interference in Canada’s Parliament and its global campaign to silence dissent, Hong Kong police have reportedly detained and questioned relatives of former Conservative election candidate Joe Tay—who was targeted by aggressive Chinese cyber and ground operations during the recent federal campaign, according to The Bureau’s intelligence sources.

The move to detain and question Tay’s cousin and the man’s wife in Hong Kong—reported by multiple sources, including Hong Kong Free Press—appears aimed at ramping up pressure on Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose campaign plausibly benefited from Beijing’s interference and the Liberal pledge to fight President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime.

Tay, who lost by roughly 5,000 votes to his Liberal opponent in Don Valley North, has yet to comment on the detentions. As The Bureau previously reported, the RCMP advised Tay to suspend in-person campaigning during the final week of the election due to credible threats tied to foreign interference.

The reported detentions occurred Thursday morning in the Fo Tan district of Hong Kong, where Tay’s relatives were taken to a police station for questioning. While Hong Kong police have not publicly confirmed the operation, the tactic aligns with the Chinese Communist Party’s growing use of family-based intimidation to suppress overseas dissent—a strategy documented across multiple countries by rights monitors and Western intelligence agencies.

Thursday’s detentions came just 48 hours after Carney’s closed-door meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in Washington. Carney has not publicly commented on the content of the meeting, but according to a U.S. intelligence community source, the agenda likely included PRC political interference, trade, espionage, fentanyl trafficking, money laundering, and Chinese national security threats across North America.

Tay, 62, became a top target of Chinese interference networks during the 2025 campaign. Federal intelligence officials and The Bureau identified a coordinated foreign interference operation that promoted disinformation against Tay and other Conservative candidates across PRC-linked channels, particularly on WeChat, with the goal of depressing Chinese-Canadian voter turnout for the Conservative Party.

The SITE Task Force assessed that Tay was subject to a broader transnational repression campaign. PRC-linked accounts circulated narratives portraying Canada as a refuge for fugitives if Tay were elected—rhetoric that was echoed publicly by Liberal MP Paul Chiang, who was supported by Prime Minister Carney after those comments were publicized. Chiang’s campaign collapsed under international pressure after the RCMP announced it would review the matter.

That Beijing appears resolved to continue persecuting Tay and his family—even after his electoral defeat—points to a broader and deeper strategic objective behind this singular, confirmed case of interference. It also presents an early and consequential test for Prime Minister Carney, who campaigned on defending Canadian sovereignty while opposing Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The timing of the escalation—detaining relatives of a defeated Canadian dissident just days after Carney’s May 6 White House meeting—suggests the PRC may be actively probing Ottawa’s resolve under new leadership.

The Bureau has extensively documented this repressive strategy. On April 10, 2025, The Bureau confirmed that Hong Kong activist Frances Hui’s parents were detained by Hong Kong national security police, following Hui’s testimony before Canada’s Parliament. Hui, now based in Washington, had previously revealed she was allegedly stalked and threatened by a suspected PRC agent.

Tay’s case fits an increasingly global pattern. The Bureau has learned that a report reviewed by Toronto police during the campaign involved a suspected stalking threat against members of Tay’s team. And now, even after democratic outcomes, the Chinese state appears determined to punish political critics through surveillance, coercion, and intimidation directed at family members—sending a clear message to diaspora communities and foreign governments alike.

The formal charges against Tay were issued by Hong Kong police in December 2024. According to official documents reviewed by The Bureau, Tay—born 12 December 1962—was charged with:

  1. Incitement to secession
  2. Collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security

Authorities allege that between July 2020 and June 2024, Tay operated a platform called HongKonger Station, through which he published “numerous videos inciting secession” and “repeatedly urged foreign countries to impose sanctions” on officials in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The SITE Task Force confirmed that these charges were disseminated and amplified by Chinese intelligence-linked networks during Canada’s 2025 campaign, as part of a broader information warfare effort to delegitimize Tay and portray his candidacy as a national security threat to China.

At the time the charges were announced, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly condemned them, warning that Beijing’s extraterritorial use of its National Security Law undermined international norms and democratic principles. Since Tay’s defeat—and her party’s electoral victory—Joly has not made any further public comment.

The Bureau will seek comment from Carney and his government today and update this story.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Global trade reorder begins in Trump deal with United Kingdom

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Seeking to reorder global trade with America at the center, President Donald Trump announced the framework of a trade deal with the United Kingdom on Thursday.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, since 2024 leader of a nation that maintains a special relationship with the U.S. including a more even trade balance than with other countries, spoke with the president by phone during an Oval Office meeting Thursday morning.

“This is turning out to be a great deal for both countries,” Trump said.

The 78-year-old second-term Republican president said the deal would improve market access for U.S. products in the United Kingdom, and improve the relationship between the two countries. Trump said it was the first of many deals from his trade team.

The 62-year-old leader of the Labour Party said the deal would create new jobs in both nations.

“We can finishing ironing out some of the details, but there’s a fantastic platform here,” Starmer said, calling the deal “historic.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the U.S. has balanced trade with the United Kingdom. Lutnick said it would add $5 billion in market access to the U.S. Lutnick said the United Kingdom would get a 10% tariff on 100,000 automobile imports to the U.S., lower than the 25% tariff on foreign autos for other nations.

Lutnick said the lower tariff would protect jobs in the UK.

On social media, Trump wrote, “Today is an incredible day for America as we deliver our first Fair, Open, and Reciprocal Trade Deal – Something our past Presidents never cared about. Together with our strong Ally, the United Kingdom, we have reached the first, historic Trade Deal since Liberation Day. As part of this Deal, America will raise $6 BILLION DOLLARS in External Revenue from 10% Tariffs, $5 BILLION DOLLARS in new Export Opportunities for our Great Ranchers, Farmers, and Producers, and enhance the National Security of both the U.S. and the UK through the creation of an Aluminum and Steel Trading Zone, and a secure Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. This Deal shows that if you respect America, and bring serious proposals to the table, America is OPEN FOR BUSINESS. Many more to come — STAY TUNED!”

Trump announced a slate of higher tariffs on foreign nations on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” for American trade. On April 9, Trump paused those higher rates for 90 days to give his trade team time to make deals with other countries.

When Trump temporarily suspended the higher tariffs on April 9, he kept a 10% baseline tariff in place along with a 25% import duty on foreign autos and auto parts. He also kept 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.

Trump also imposed 145% tariffs on China, which retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. Those tariffs remain in place, although the two nations are set to begin talks this weekend.

Economists, businesses and many publicly-traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from American families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods. The importer pays the tax and can either absorb the loss or pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices

Continue Reading

Trending

X