Canadians are not buying the ‘climate change’ narrative: government poll

In-house Privy Council research shows that Canadians are not concerned with ‘climate change,’ despite the constant fear-mongering by the ruling Liberal Party

Government polling reveals that most Canadians are not alarmed over “climate change” and will continue to eat meat.

According to in-house Privy Council research obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, over one third of Canadians think “climate change” could benefit Canada while almost half believe that “adapting to the impacts of climate change is cheaper than preventing it.”

“The purpose of this study is to provide the Privy Council, Department of Environment and Department of Natural Resources with high quality data and information on Canadians’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviour relating to climate change,” the report said. “This includes support for existing and proposed climate policy and programs.”

The research, which questioned 13,700 Canadians, discovered that climate change is not at the forefront of Canadians’ minds, with many pointing out that prediction models are not accurate, and Canada could actually benefit from climate change.

The poll found that 35% of Canadians felt that “the impacts of climate change in Canada will be overwhelmingly positive because it is a cold country.”

Similarly, nearly half of those polled believe that “adapting to the impacts of climate change is cheaper than preventing it.”

At the same time, 24% believed that most climate models are not accurate in their predictions.

According to the poll, 27% revealed that they have “never” discussed “climate change or its impacts,” with family or friends. 23% reported that they discussed it “once in the last two months.”

Similarly, the poll showed Canadians are very much attached to their current diet and are not interested in changing it in the name of “climate change.”

“How frequently or infrequently have you made efforts to eat a more plant-based diet?” the survey questioned, to which 30% said “never,” 25% said “occasionally,” and 19% said “rarely.”

In Canada, the dubious”climate change” narrative has been routinely used by the Trudeau government to levy taxes against citizens.

Since taking office in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.”

When it comes to so-called man-caused “climate change,” which leftists have been preaching about for years, a June 2017 peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician found that most of the recent global warming data have been “fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening.”

Meanwhile, Western Canadians involved in oil, gas and manufacturing are routinely attacked by the federal government. However, two court rulings have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws, after provinces Alberta and Saskatchewan took on the federal government over laws impacting important industries.

The most recent was when the Federal Court of Canada last November overturned the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”

The second ruling comes after Canada’s Supreme Court sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court ruled that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over resource pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.

Up Next

Time to finally privatize Canada Post

Don't Miss

Conservatives say Federal Government cancelled ‘prescribed burn’ which may have saved Jasper

Todayville

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

US Halts Construction of Five Offshore Wind Projects Due To National Security

International / 8 hours ago

No peace on earth for ISIS: Trump orders Christmas strikes after Christian massacres

Daily Caller / 8 hours ago

While Western Nations Cling to Energy Transition, Pragmatic Nations Produce Energy and Wealth

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls for less Ottawa—and it could pay off

Published on December 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Last Friday, less than a week before Christmas, the Smith government quietly released the final report from its Alberta Next Panel, which assessed Alberta’s role in Canada. Among other things, the panel recommends that the federal government transfer some of its tax revenue to provincial governments so they can assume more control over the delivery of provincial services. Based on Canada’s experience in the 1990s, this plan could deliver real benefits for Albertans and all Canadians.

Federations such as Canada typically work best when governments stick to their constitutional lanes. Indeed, one of the benefits of being a federalist country is that different levels of government assume responsibility for programs they’re best suited to deliver. For example, it’s logical that the federal government handle national defence, while provincial governments are typically best positioned to understand and address the unique health-care and education needs of their citizens.

But there’s currently a mismatch between the share of taxes the provinces collect and the cost of delivering provincial responsibilities (e.g. health care, education, childcare, and social services). As such, Ottawa uses transfers—including the Canada Health Transfer (CHT)—to financially support the provinces in their areas of responsibility. But these funds come with conditions.

Consider health care. To receive CHT payments from Ottawa, provinces must abide by the Canada Health Act, which effectively prevents the provinces from experimenting with new ways of delivering and financing health care—including policies that are successful in other universal health-care countries. Given Canada’s health-care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal systems, yet Canadians face some of the longest wait times for physicians and worst access to medical technology (e.g. MRIs) and hospital beds, these restrictions limit badly needed innovation and hurt patients.

To give the provinces more flexibility, the Alberta Next Panel suggests the federal government shift tax points (and transfer GST) to the provinces to better align provincial revenues with provincial responsibilities while eliminating “strings” attached to such federal transfers. In other words, Ottawa would transfer a portion of its tax revenues from the federal income tax and federal sales tax to the provincial government so they have funds to experiment with what works best for their citizens, without conditions on how that money can be used.

According to the Alberta Next Panel poll, at least in Alberta, a majority of citizens support this type of provincial autonomy in delivering provincial programs—and again, it’s paid off before.

In the 1990s, amid a fiscal crisis (greater in scale, but not dissimilar to the one Ottawa faces today), the federal government reduced welfare and social assistance transfers to the provinces while simultaneously removing most of the “strings” attached to these dollars. These reforms allowed the provinces to introduce work incentives, for example, which would have previously triggered a reduction in federal transfers. The change to federal transfers sparked a wave of reforms as the provinces experimented with new ways to improve their welfare programs, and ultimately led to significant innovation that reduced welfare dependency from a high of 3.1 million in 1994 to a low of 1.6 million in 2008, while also reducing government spending on social assistance.

The Smith government’s Alberta Next Panel wants the federal government to transfer some of its tax revenues to the provinces and reduce restrictions on provincial program delivery. As Canada’s experience in the 1990s shows, this could spur real innovation that ultimately improves services for Albertans and all Canadians.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Fraser Institute

Carney government sowing seeds for corruption in Ottawa

Published on December 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Niels Veldhuis

A number of pundits and commentators have observed the self-confidence and near-unilateralist approach of our prime minister, Mark Carney. The seemingly boundless self-assurance of the prime minister in his own abilities to do the right thing has produced legislation that sets the foundation for corruption.

Consider the Carney government’s signature legislation, known as the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5), which among other things established the Major Projects Office (MPO). The stated purpose of the MPO and the act is to create a process whereby the government—in practical terms, the prime minister and his cabinet—identify projects in the “national interest” and fast-track their approval by overriding existing laws and regulations.

Put differently, a small group of politicians are now able to circumvent the laws and regulations that apply to every other entrepreneur, businessowner and investor to expedite projects they deem will benefit the country. According to several reports, senators openly referred to the bill as the “trust me” act because it lacked details and guardrails, which meant “trusting” that the prime minister and cabinet would use these new powers reasonably and responsibly.

Rather than fix the actual policies causing problems, which include a litany of laws and regulations from the Trudeau era such as Bill C-69 (which added vague criteria to the approval process for large infrastructure projects including pipelines) and Bill C-48 (which bans oil tankers from docking in British Columbia ports), the Carney government chose to create a new bureaucracy and political process to get around these rules.

And that’s the problem. By granting itself power to get around rules that everyone else has to play by, the government created the opportunity for corruption. Entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors interested in infrastructure projects, particularly energy projects, now need to consider how to convince a handful of politicians of the merits of their project. This lays the groundwork for potentially corrosive and damaging corruption now and into the future. While this prime minister may have an infinite amount of confidence in his abilities to do the right thing, what about the next prime minister, or the next one? These rules will outlive Prime Minister Carney and his government.

And it’s not just the Carney government’s signature Build Canada Act. The more recent Bill C-15, which implements certain aspects of the federal budget, contains provisions similar to the Build Canada Act that would also allow cabinet ministers to circumvent existing laws and regulations. A number of commentators have raised red flags about how the legislation would empower any minister to exempt any entity (i.e. person or firm) from any law or regulation—except the Criminal Code—under the minister’s responsibility for up to six years in order to foster innovation. The underlying rationale is that we have laws and regulations on the books that impede experimentation and innovation.

Again, rather than undertake the difficult work of updating and modernizing existing laws and regulations to empower entrepreneurs, businessowners, workers, and investors, and ensure they all play by the same rules, the Carney government instead wants to create a new mechanism for a select few to be able to sidestep existing laws and regulations.

A different way to think about both legislative initiatives is that the prime minister and his ministers are now able to provide specific companies with enormous advantages over their competitors through the political system. Those advantages have enormous value, and that value creates the opportunity for corruption now and in the future.

The Carney government recognizes that our regulatory system is badly broken, otherwise it wouldn’t create these work-around laws. It should do the hard work, which it was elected to do, and actually fix the laws and regulations that impede economic development and progress for all entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors. Otherwise, we risk a future littered with stories of advantage and corruption for political insiders.