All sorts of carbon tax advocates – environmentalists, academics, political insiders – are saying the following: all those annoying little Canadians who are so vulgar and uneducated as to object to carbon taxes should shut up once and for all.
Their assertion is: the Supreme Court has decided that the federal government can tell the provinces what to do, so the subject is settled.
But no, that is not quite true. What is true, is that IF a federal government wants to impose a carbon tax, it can.
The SCC majority decision is written by a most Trudeau-esque Chief Justice Wagner. In the decision the Chief Justice writes – in a dramatic overreach beyond law to the realm of policy – that climate change is “an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world”. He then uses that as the basis for his affirmation of the federal government’s use of the Peace, Order and Good Government clause in the constitution.
Fine. We should all be troubled that the SCC has done this, but so be it. For my part, I thoroughly disagree with this decision, as I wrote in my previous blog post.
But the effect of the decision is not to bury the carbon tax issue, notwithstanding the arrogance and the climate alarmism of 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
What the SCC actually did is kick the carbon tax issue right back onto the front page of national politics.
What?
Yes, thanks to the SCC decision, we are all now once again talking about the carbon tax.
The fact that the Trudeau government has been told it can impose a carbon tax, does not mean that any successor federal government must impose a carbon tax.
Canadians do believe in climate change. I do.
And all of us are told constantly by many – from the likes of Greta Thunberg, and Justin Trudeau (and now) the Chief Justice of the SCC – that climate change is an existential threat. And now we are told that it must be addressed by carbon taxes.
Well … no, actually.
That isn’t a logical sequencing of things. A belief in climate change doesn’t require a belief in it being an existential threat nor does it require an embrace of carbon taxes.
Making that point is hard, in the midst of all the noise.
But politicians with the courage to stand up for Canadians can make this point.
Politicians who care about the issue of affordable energy can, and should, make the case against carbon taxes.
The anti-carbon tax fight requires a pushback against the establishment interests who have a platform in mainstream media and elsewhere. It requires a pushback against the slew of policy wonks who like to say “carbon taxes just make so much sense.” And it requires a pushback against the many people who insult everyday Canadians who are sick and tired of watching their taxes go up.
If politicians of conviction have the courage to mount such a pushback, if they are prepared to listen to Canadians instead of trying to shut them down, they have a shot to articulate an alternative vision that is in the interests of Canadians’ long-term economic well-being.
In an upcoming blog, I will offer some suggestions for that alternative vision.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.
The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:
• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.
• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.
• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.
“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.
“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”
Four Climate Fallacies
This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1:Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2:Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3:Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.
Tariffs, inflation, and falling incomes sound bad, but what if they’re forcing us to finally fix what’s broken?
Canada is facing serious economic headwinds—from falling incomes to rising inflation and U.S. trade hostility—but within this turmoil lies an opportunity. If we respond wisely, this crisis could become a turning point, forcing long-overdue reforms and helping us build a stronger, more independent economy.
Rather than reacting out of frustration, we can use these challenges to reassess what’s holding us back and move forward with practical solutions. From
trade policy to labour shortages and energy development, there are encouraging shifts already underway if we stay focused.
A key principle when under pressure is not to make things worse for ourselves. U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and the chaotic renegotiation of NAFTA/CUSMA, certainly hurt our trade-dependent economy. But retaliatory tariffs don’t work in our favour. Canadian imports make
up a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy, so countermeasures barely register there, while Canadian consumers end up paying more. The federal government’s own countertariffs on items like orange juice and whisky raised costs here without changing American policy.
Fortunately, more Canadians are starting to realize this. Some provinces have reversed bans on U.S. goods. Saskatchewan, for example, recently lifted
restrictions on American alcohol. These decisions reflect a growing recognition that retaliating out of pride often means punishing ourselves.
More constructively, Canada is finally doing what should have happened long ago: diversifying trade. We’ve put too many economic eggs in one
basket, relying on an unpredictable U.S. market. Now, governments and businesses are looking for buyers elsewhere, an essential step toward greater stability.
At the same time, we’re starting to confront domestic barriers that have held us back. For years, it’s been easier for Canadian businesses to trade with the U.S. than to ship goods across provincial borders. These outdated restrictions—whether on wine, trucks or energy—have fractured our internal market. Now, federal and provincial governments are finally taking steps to create a unified national economy.
Labour shortages are another constraint limiting growth. Many Canadian businesses can’t find the skilled workers they need. But here, too, global shifts
are opening doors. The U.S.’s harsh immigration and research policies are pushing talent elsewhere, and Canada is emerging as the preferred alternative.
Scientists, engineers and graduate students, especially in tech and clean energy, are increasingly choosing Canada over the U.S. due to visa uncertainty and political instability. Our universities are already benefiting. If we continue to welcome international students and skilled professionals, we’ll gain a long-term advantage.
Just as global talent is rethinking where to invest their future, Canada has a chance to reassert leadership in one of its foundational industries: energy.
The federal government is now adopting a more balanced climate policy, shifting away from blanket opposition to carbon-based energy and focusing instead on practical innovation. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage are reducing emissions and helping clean up so-called dirty oil. These cleaner energy products are in demand globally.
To seize that opportunity, we need infrastructure: pipelines, refining capacity and delivery systems to get Canadian energy to world markets and across our own country. Projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, along with east-west grid connections and expanded refining, are critical to reducing dependence on U.S. imports and unlocking Canada’s full potential.
Perhaps the most crucial silver lining of all is a renewed awareness of the value of this country. As we approach July 1, more Canadians are recognizing how fortunate we are. Watching the fragility of democracy in the U.S., and confronting the uncomfortable idea of being reduced to a 51st state, has reminded us that Canada matters. Not just to us, but to the world.
Dr. Roslyn Kunin is a respected Canadian economist known for her extensive work in economic forecasting, public policy, and labour market analysis. She has held various prominent roles, including serving as the regional director for the federal government’s Department of Employment and Immigration in British Columbia and Yukon and as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kunin is also recognized for her contributions to economic development, particularly in Western Canada.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
