Frontier Centre for Public Policy
How Canadians lost the rule of law
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Universal problems are evident in the rejection of Jordan Peterson’s appeal against Ontario’s College of Psychologists (CPO) in Divisional Court. They had sought to re-educate him as a condition for retaining his license—because he openly ridiculed public figures. But as Dr. Peterson related in the National Post, October 11, they’ve failed to find a brainwasher for him.
Precedent now confirms that unaccountable tribunals may override apparent Charter rights. That may declare as unacceptable anyone’s contrary opinion or peaceful protest. Dr. Peterson’s case follows the way the courts clobbered supporters of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest on Parliament Hill. Now members of all regulated professions are especially at risk, including doctors, lawyers and teachers. Instead of protecting citizens from overreach, the courts have become the instrument for enforcing tyranny.
As the Toronto Star reported on the first press conference by Chief Justice Richard Wagner in 2018, he said his court was “the most progressive in the world.” Today, progressive is synonymous with the absurdities that Dr. Peterson ridiculed. Wanjiru Njoya, a legal scholar at the University of Exeter has been quoted as saying that the courts automatically define as unreasonable any perspectives falling outside progressive boundaries.
A further foundational problem is that judges now routinely preside over cases where they have an obvious bias or personal connection, and then defer to those interests. Canadian judges should follow this admonition in the American Judicial Code? “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Paul Schabas wrote the Decision for Dr. Peterson’s appeal before Divisional Court. However, he had previously been involved, personally, on the side of the argument opposite that of Dr. Peterson. In June 2018, as head of the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), he oversaw the imposition on lawyers of their controversial Statement of Principles (SOP). As a condition of licensing, it required a commitment to Equity, Social and (Corporate) Governance (ESG). Later, the LSO withdrew it following protests like African-Canadian Elias Munshya’s in Canadian Lawyer: “Lawyers play an essential role in our society; that role, however, does not include becoming state agents that parrot state-sponsored speech.”
Chief Justice Wagner recently confirmed that courts may now freely override common law precedent. He said that: “Apart from considering [historic] decisions as part of our legal cultural heritage, no one today will refer to a decision from 1892 to support his claim.” He added that “sometimes a decision from five years ago is an old decision ….”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court had simply disregarded century-old precedents when declaring Marc Nadon ineligible to join their club. My book Justice on Trial explains that many earlier appointments did not meet their newfound qualifications.
The subjective word “reasonable” supports much of Canada’s problematic jurisprudence. Absent objective criteria, judges reward friends and crush others as they may.
Justice Schabas said several comments similar to this one were unacceptable: “Dr. Peterson posted a tweet in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, saying: ‘Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.’”
Dr. Peterson objected that the CPO’s Code of Ethics should not constrain such “off duty opinions.” The Code says “[p]ersonal behaviour becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist’s ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist.” So which magazines’ cover pictures are not of public interest?
Justice Schabas continued, “The [CPO’s investigating] Panel also noted Dr. Peterson’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640, a defamation case which held at para. 42, that “freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy … all Canadian laws must conform to it.” Why did Justice Schabas override this settled law?
Europe’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” So how can a right be fundamental in other free and democratic countries but not in Canada?
And why did the court of Chief Justice Wagner decline to hear Dr. Peterson’s appeal and allow Justice Schabas’ decision to stand? No prize for your answer!
As long advocated by The Globe & Mail and The Toronto Star, Dr. Peterson’s case shows the need to end self-regulation and in-house discipline for lawyers and judges. That happened for lawyers for England and Wales in 2007. So why not in Canada?
Ottawa resident Colin Alexander’s latest books are Justice on Trial: Jordan Peterson’s case shows the need to fix a broken system; and Ballad of Sunny Ways: Popular traditional verse about living, loving and money.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Alberta moves to remove books after disturbing content, too graphic for media to view, was found in schools
Should elementary school children be given books to read with harsh insults against minorities, depictions of oral sex, and other disturbingly graphic and explicit content?
Such books have been in some Alberta elementary schools for a while, and in many school libraries across Canada.
In late May, the Alberta government announced it would establish new guidelines regarding age-appropriate materials in its schools. A government press release included quotes with disturbing content, but at a press conference, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides said some book illustrations could not be shown.
“I would show these images to all of you here and to the media, but they are too graphic for a live-stream media event. These examples … illustrate the kind of content that raises concerns amongst parents,” Nicolaides said.
You don’t say? This seems like the sort of stuff no one, except a pervert in a park, would dream of showing to a child. Ironically, the inability to publicize such graphic materials is part of the reason they have been shown to children with little public awareness.
Citizens’ group Action4Canada (A4C) has claimed its activism played a pivotal role in the Alberta decision. The organization has compiled a 36-page document online with examples of objectionable content in Canadian schools. Among the worst is Identical by Ellen Hopkins, which includes graphic descriptions of a little girl being molested by her father.
A4C founder Tanya Gaw has repeatedly tried to raise concerns about objectionable books with school boards, often without success. In some cases, she isn’t even allowed on the agenda if she states her topic upfront. When she is permitted to speak, she’s frequently cut off as soon as she begins quoting from the books, preventing the content from entering the public record.
In January 2023, Gaw made an online presentation to a school board in Mission, B.C. regarding materials in their schools. As she began to screenshare what was there, some board members objected, saying such permission had not been given in advance.
One month later, the board banned Action4Canada from making any further presentations. In later media interviews, the board chair justified the decision by saying Gaw’s PowerPoint contained some graphic and “inappropriate images.”
Exactly, and that is the problem. A recent check showed Mission’s school division only removed four of 15 books A4C objected to. Gaw is just glad “Identical” is one of them.
Pierre Barns, a father from Abbotsford, B.C., made it his mission to notify school boards across Canada what was on their school shelves. An online search was all it took to confirm. A “reply all” from a board member at the Halton School District in Ontario was most ironic.
“I am concerned. This individual has included links to publications and videos which may contain illegal content,” she wrote.
“I’m not sure how to investigate the content of the email safely. Would you please advise us whether or not this person ought to be reported to police? Is there some action we should take?”
There probably was action they should have taken, such as removing the books, but that never happened. Later, they defended a biologically male teacher in their school division who made international headlines by wearing large prosthetic breasts to school.
The Alberta government has committed to conducting public consultations before implementing new policies. It’s a good time for parents and citizens there and in other provinces to speak up. A young mind is a terrible thing to corrupt, but unfortunately, some schools are part of this corrosive effort.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
From the Frontier Institute for Public Policy
Research VP Marco Navarro-Genie warns that Canada’s future hinges on building energy infrastructure, not just expanding pipelines but forging a true North American energy alliance. With global demand rising and authoritarian regimes weaponizing energy, Ottawa’s dithering costs Canada $70 million daily. Sovereignty isn’t secured by speeches but by infrastructure. Until Canada sheds its regulatory paralysis, it will remain a discount supplier in a high stakes geopolitical game. Time to build.
Canada has energy the world is begging for, but ideology and red tape are holding us back
As Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump recently, energy should have been the issue behind every headline, whether mentioned or not. Canada’s future as a sovereign, economically resilient country will depend in no small part on whether the country seizes this moment or stalls out again in a fog of regulatory inertia and political ambivalence. Canada holds an underleveraged strategic card: the potential to be the world’s most reliable democratic energy supplier. Recent trade figures show Chinese imports of Canadian crude hit a record 7.3 million barrels in March, a direct result of newly expanded access to the Pacific via the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), a federally owned pipeline project that now connects Alberta crude to global markets through British Columbia’s coast. But one pipeline does not make a national strategy. Demand in Asia is growing fast. India is among the hungriest, but Canada’s infrastructure is nowhere near meeting that demand.
This matters not just for Canada, but for the United States as well. In a world where energy markets are weaponized and strategic reserves manipulated by authoritarian regimes, the case for a coordinated North American energy alliance is stronger than ever. Such an alliance should not erode national sovereignty. It should reinforce it, allowing Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to insulate themselves collectively from supply shocks and geopolitical blackmail while projecting democratic strength abroad.
But for that alliance to work, Canada must be a credible partner, not merely a junior supplier shackled by Ottawa-induced internal bottlenecks. While the U.S. has leveraged its shale revolution, LNG capacity and permitting reforms to pursue energy dominance, Canada dithers. Projects languish. Investment flees. And meanwhile, Canadian oil continues to flow south at a steep discount, only to be refined and resold, often back to us or our trading partners, at full global prices.
Yes, you read that right. Canada’s oil and gas is sold at a discount to U.S. customers, and that discount costs Canada more than $70 million every single day. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has developed a real-time tracker to monitor these losses. This pricing gap exists because Canada lacks sufficient pipeline infrastructure to access overseas buyers directly, forcing producers to sell to the U.S., often at below-market rates.
Such massive losses should be unacceptable to any government serious about economic growth, geopolitical influence or environmental integrity. Yet Ottawa continues to speak the language of ambition while legislating the mechanics of paralysis. Stephen Guilbault’s statement that Canada already has enough pipelines speaks to more paralysis..
Canada’s energy infrastructure challenges are not just economic; they are matters of national defence. No country can claim to be secure while relying on another’s pipelines to transport its energy across its own territory. No country can afford to leave its wealth-producing regions boxed in by regulatory choke points or political resistance dressed as environmental virtue.
Our energy economy is fragmented. Western hydrocarbons are stuck inland and must pass through the U.S. to reach Eastern Canada or global markets eastward. This weakens national unity and leaves us exposed to foreign leverage. It also creates strategic vulnerabilities for our allies. American industries depend on Canadian crude. So do U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. And while American officials continue to treat energy as a tool of diplomacy and economic leverage, using energy exports to build alliances and reduce reliance on unstable regimes, Canada treats it as a domestic liability.
We need to shift the frame. Infrastructure isn’t just about steel in the ground; it’s the backbone of strategic autonomy. Pipelines, export terminals and utility corridors would allow Canada to claim its place in the emerging geopolitical order. They would also signal to global investors that Canada is open for business and capable of delivering returns without political obstruction.
The U.S. wants a stable, competent partner to help meet global energy needs. Increasingly, so does the rest of the world. But until we address our internal dysfunction and build, we’re stuck. Stuck watching global opportunities pass us by. Stuck selling low while others sell high. Stuck in a conversation about sovereignty we’re not structurally equipped to address, let alone win.
When Carney meets with Trump again, he would do well to remember that economic independence, not rhetorical unity, is the bedrock of sovereignty. Without infrastructure, Canada brings only words to a hard-power conversation.
Paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes, energy covenants without infrastructure are but words. It’s time to stop posturing and start building.
Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
