Connect with us

Energy

Welcome to “Oil & Gas Silencing” Bill C-59: Where Trudeau’s Science Court Rules, Not Real People With Real Science

Published

1 year ago

15 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Jim Warren

Follow those who seek the truth. Run from the man who says he’s found it.
-Václav Havel, first president of Czechoslovakia after the 1989 Velvet Revolution.

In addition to its threat to the right of free expression, Bill C-59, stands as a threat to the free spirit of inquiry that sustains modern science. Many of the efforts undertaken today to reduce the environmental footprint of the gas and petroleum industries are based on scientific research conducted by professionals whose efforts are guided by a set of well-established philosophical and methodological principles. The efforts of climate change scientists who attempt to more accurately assess the causes, pace and intensity of anthropogenic global warming operate under similar guidelines.

Science regulates adherence to its philosophical and methodological standards through a system whereby research methods and the findings of research are published and reviewed by panels of experienced practitioners in its various disciplines – the famous scientific peer review process. In this way the quality of findings can be assessed. Findings that are based on flawed methodology can be outright rejected or researchers can be asked to adjust their methods and try again. Even if a statistical study or experiment has made it through peer review once, ongoing efforts are made to check the work against new information and experiments are subjected to replication efforts.

Rejections of flawed research can happen quickly, but, unfortunately, can sometimes take years. For example, it took the leading medical journal, The Lancet, 12 years to debunk a fraudulent 1998 study it had published linking vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) to colitis which was in turn linked to autism.

Bill C-59 proposes to establish a government appointed agency with the capacity to launch prosecutions which will presumably be adjudicated by a quasi-judicial panel or tribunal with the ability to impose jaw-dropping penalties in the millions. The tribunal will assess claims made by conventional energy companies about improvements regarding things such as emissions levels. Judgments will similarly be made regarding the claims of journalists and individuals who publish the claims of those companies. This is a process that will lead to dividing the findings of science into a government approved body of work and heretical unapproved science.

The Soviet Union adopted the practice of recognizing only politically-correct government-approved science. One of the many reasons Soviet agriculture was so backward was because the approved method for improving crop genetics to develop varieties with greater tolerance to drought and early frosts was based on the “Party-approved” theory, Lamarckism. This was the idea that a trait that developed due to use or disuse during an organism’s lifetime could be transmitted to its offspring.  If you grew a plant during a drought, its offspring would be drought tolerant.

Prosecutions under the Bill C-59 legislation will place a reverse onus condition on the accused. Those charged will not be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They will be required to prove what they said was true.

Willy Pickton and Paul Bernardo obtained the benefit of a right not available under Bill C-59. Those two outstanding citizens were presumed innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What comes next, reviving the evidentiary tests used in medieval witchcraft trials?

There is a mismatch between the philosophy of science and a quasi-judicial process that demands true or false certainty for scientific claims. The philosopher Karl Popper famously argued that the findings of scientific investigation can never be assumed to represent some sort of absolute immutable truth, in part because we can never know the future with absolute certainty. We are blind to whether new, not yet imagined, developments will arise in the future that falsify a scientific claim made today. According to Popper, researchers can refute or falsify a pre-existing claim but cannot claim that a new finding is absolutely true now and forever.

New research results always have a conditional status. Even after they have survived one or more tests and efforts to replicate their experimental results, they remain valid only until such a time as the next attempt proves them incorrect. This is why one of the principal tasks of good science is to critically assess the theories and findings of what is sometimes erroneously referred to as “decided science.” We often hear the claim that some science is so widely accepted it can be considered decided. The claim is false though it is made by people who should know better like the celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. He claims the science on climate change is decided science.

Claiming that many or most scientists believe in the science around climate change does not make it correct. First of all which parts of climate science do they believe? It is a large and complex field with many streams of investigation. Furthermore, that huge body of work itself includes numerous contradictory research findings.

Publication and peer review are the principal means that allow scientific knowledge to change and hopefully improve over time. That is why the testing of theories and research findings is an ongoing, potentially never-ending scientific process. Why not allow the process to unfold as usual rather than giving the government the authority to own the unvarnished scientific “truth?”

Einstein shared many of Popper’s views. And he also had a few things to say about so-called “decided science.” The Nazis were always uncomfortable with the fact that although Einstein was German-born he was also a Jew. They were embarrassed that Einstein’s scientific achievements were overshadowing the work of “Aryan” scientists. In 1931, a group of scientists sympathetic to the Nazis published the book, 100 Authors against Einstein. Einstein was not impressed with the fact they had found so many critics. He had several criticisms of the book including his assertion that science is not done by taking a poll.

Clearly it would not be possible to state you can prove your scientific claim is true as a defense in climate court and remain consistent with Popper and his fundamental principles of science.  All you can do is show that you followed a suitable methodology and logically assessed the evidence you found. But what assurance do we have the Trudeau court of science will be satisfied with this sort of assertion. A lot will hang on who the Liberals appoint to the bench.

Another reason reviewing the work of other researchers is considered critical to the scientific process is because even when studies and experiments are conducted with the utmost integrity they can generate erroneous findings. People are fallible, a decimal point winds up in the wrong place; lab equipment fails, and so on. And, unfortunately, as is the case in many fields of human endeavor, there are fraudsters and incompetents working in science. Nonetheless, while it may be imperfect in many ways, the process of scientific inquiry is the best system we have yet devised for coming as close to approximating objective truth as is possible.

In these enlightened days, when honest errors are made, we expect them to be corrected. For the past two centuries the task of reviewing and correcting scientific errors has been done by the scientific community. There are exceptions. There are authoritarian states like the former Soviet Union that have “official science” and “illegal science.” It goes back to Galileo and the Inquisition.

Under the peer review process developed by scientists, lab-coated lynch mobs are not dispatched to hang, draw and quarter scrupulous scientists whose results are rejected. Lying and cheating are another matter entirely and sanctions are imposed on those caught doing it. That is why even Dr. Fauci is said to be looking over his shoulder these days.

It hardly serves the public good to stifle the spirit of free scientific inquiry. If scientists become worried that conducting an experiment and publishing the findings could result in large fines and possible imprisonment if their results are subsequently falsified, science as we know it would cease. Conceivably, every physicist prior to Einstein had imperfect ideas about light and gravity. They weren’t rounded up and fined or imprisoned after Einstein came up with specific and general relativity. If any of Einstein’s scientific work is one day found wanting, the Nobel Prize committee won’t ask for the return of his prize.

We might reasonably expect a similar reaction from publishers and journalists who currently inform the public about developments in science.  If they can be punished because the scientific developments they report are later claimed to be in error or have simply been improved upon, they are apt to quit telling the public about new science. Why assume the risk? This would no doubt be a particularly worrisome possibility if the new science involved innovations in petroleum production that are found to reduce emissions.

There is no single “accepted,” version of our climate future claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – only a pile of speculations and probabilities based on hopefully accurate climate models and many assumptions about social and economic conditions in the future. And, as mentioned previously, claiming anything is “decided science” is ridiculous – science by definition is never fully decided, it is an ongoing process that does not presume to arrive at final absolute truths.

What if one of the predictions about the pace of climate change and its impacts made by the IPCC, or journalists from the alarmist camp is proven incorrect, shouldn’t the same rules apply? Should they not be subject to prosecution by the science inquisition?  That’s not likely going to happen. It appears the intention of the Trudeau-Angus rules is that the only science subject to punishment will be the science that produces results they don’t like.

Who decides?

It is unclear exactly who will be passing judgment in the Trudeau court of science. Will Charlie Angus be appointed to the bench? Will experts in the philosophy and methodology of science be appointed to the review tribunal?

Or will the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion guide appointments? Sure, that will fix everything. Science could be adjudicated by a PhD in gender studies who claims science was designed by the patriarchy, and therefore oppresses women and should be replaced by science as understood by oppressed identity groups. Justin will love it.

Let’s hope the Trudeau science court will include some people with legal backgrounds who believe in due process under the law. Maybe they could come up with a workaround for the reverse onus rules under Bill C-59.

Some of us find it quite difficult to be optimistic about a science court. There is concern that in the woke and virtuous world inhabited by Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault the “truth” about the science of climate change has been decided and can be found on the CBC and  Greenpeace websites. Those who beg to differ can tell it to the judge.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Health / 12 hours ago

BREAKING: CDC quietly rewrites its vaccine–autism guidance

Crime / 12 hours ago

Cocaine, Manhunts, and Murder: Canadian Cartel Kingpin Prosecuted In US

Health / 14 hours ago

CDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative

Business

Climate Climbdown: Sacrificing the Canadian Economy for Net-Zero Goals Others Are Abandoning

Published on November 23, 2025

By

By Gwyn Morgan

Canada has spent the past decade pursuing climate policies that promised environmental transformation but delivered economic decline. Ottawa’s fixation on net-zero targets – first under Justin Trudeau and now under Prime Minister Mark Carney – has meant staggering public expenditures, resource project cancellations and rising energy costs, all while failing to
reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Now, as key international actors reassess the net-zero doctrine, Canada stands increasingly alone in imposing heavy burdens for negligible gains.

The Trudeau government launched its agenda in 2015 by signing the Paris Climate Agreement aimed at limiting the forecast increase in global average temperature to 1.5°C by the end of the century. It followed the next year with the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change that imposed more than 50 measures on the economy, key among them a
carbon “pricing” regime – Liberal-speak for taxes on every Canadian citizen and industry. Then came the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, committing Canada to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and to achieve net-zero by 2050. And then the “On-Farm Climate Action Fund,” the “Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program” and the “Green Municipal Fund.”

It’s a staggering list of nation-impoverishing subsidies, taxes and restrictions, made worse by regulatory measures that hammered the energy industry. The Trudeau government cancelled the fully-permitted Northern Gateway pipeline, killing more than $1 billion in private investment and stranding hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of crude oil in the ground. The
Energy East project collapsed after Ottawa declined to challenge Quebec’s political obstruction, cutting off a route that could have supplied Atlantic refineries and European markets. Natural gas developers fared no better: 11 of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas export terminals were abandoned amid federal regulatory delays and policy uncertainty. Only a single LNG project in Kitimat, B.C., survived.

None of this has had the desired effect. Between Trudeau’s election in 2015 and 2023, fossil fuels’ share of Canada’s energy supply actually increased from 75 to 77 percent. As for saving the world, or even making some contribution towards doing so, Canada contributes just 1.5 percent of global GHG emissions. If our emissions went to zero tomorrow, the emissions
growth from China and India would make that up in just a few weeks.

And this green fixation has been massively expensive. Two newly released studies by the Fraser Institute found that Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have either spent or foregone a mind-numbing $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs – an eye-watering cost of over $2.3 million per job “created”. At that, the green economy’s share of GDP crept up only 0.3
percentage points.

The rest of the world is waking up to this folly. A decade after the Paris Agreement, over 81 percent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels. Environmental statistician and author Bjorn Lomborg points out that achieving global net-zero by 2050 would require removing the equivalent of the combined emissions of China and the United States in each of the next five
years. “This puts us in the realm of science fiction,” he wrote recently.

In July, the U.S. Department of Energy released a major assessment assembled by a team of highly credible climate scientists which asserted that “CO 2 -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and that aggressive mitigation policies might be “more detrimental than beneficial.” The report found no evidence of rising frequency or severity of hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes in U.S. historical data, while noting that U.S. emissions reductions would have “undetectably small impacts” on global temperatures in any case.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright welcomed the findings, noting that improving living standards depends on reliable, affordable energy. The same day, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the 2009 “endangerment finding” that had designated CO₂ and other GHGs as “pollutants.” It had led to sweeping restrictions on oil and gas development and fuelled policies that the current administration estimates cost the U.S. economy at least US$1 trillion in lost growth.

Even long-time climate alarmists are backtracking. Ted Nordhaus, a prominent American critic, recently acknowledged that the dire global warming scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely on implausible combinations of rapid population growth, strong economic expansion and stagnant technology. Economic growth typically reduces population increases and accelerates technological improvement, he pointed out, meaning emissions trends will likely be lower than predicted. Even Bill Gates has tempered his outlook, writing that climate change will not be “cataclysmic,” and that although it will hurt the poor, “it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare.” Poverty and disease pose far greater threats and resources, he wrote, should be focused where they can do the most good now.

Yet Ottawa remains unmoved. Prime Minister Carney’s latest budget raises industrial carbon taxes to as much as $170 per tonne by 2030, increasing the competitive disadvantage of Canadian industries in a time of weak productivity and declining investment. These taxes will not measurably alter global emissions, but they will deepen Canada’s economic malaise and
push production – and emissions – toward jurisdictions with more lax standards. As others retreat from net-zero delusions, Canada moves further offside global energy policy trends – extending our country’s sad decline.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Carney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies

Published on November 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

On the campaign trail and after he became prime minister, Mark Carney has repeatedly promised to make Canada an “energy superpower.” But, as evidenced by its first budget, the Carney government has simply reaffirmed the failed plans of the past decade and embraced the damaging energy policies of the Trudeau government.

First, consider the Trudeau government’s policy legacy. There’s Bill C-69 (the “no pipelines act”), the new electricity regulations (which aim to phase out natural gas as a power source starting this year), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limit Canadian exports to international markets), the cap on emissions only from the oil and gas sector (even though greenhouse gas emissions have the same effect on the environment regardless of the source), stricter regulations for methane emissions (again, impacting the oil and gas sector), and numerous “net-zero” policies.

According to a recent analysis, fully implementing these measures under Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan would result in 164,000 job losses and shrink Canada’s economic output by 6.2 per cent by the end of the decade compared to a scenario where we don’t have these policies in effect. For Canadian workers, this will mean losing $6,700 (annually, on average) by 2030.

Unfortunately, the Carney government’s budget offers no retreat from these damaging policies. While Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, he plans to “strengthen” the carbon tax on industrial emitters and the cost will be passed along to everyday Canadians—so the carbon tax will still cost you, it just won’t be visible.

There’s also been a lot of buzz over the possible removal of the oil and gas emissions cap. But to be clear, the budget reads: “Effective carbon markets, enhanced oil and gas methane regulations, and the deployment at scale of technologies such as carbon capture and storage would create the circumstances whereby the oil and gas emissions cap would no longer be required as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions.” Put simply, the cap remains in place, and based on the budget, the government has no real plans to remove it.

Again, the cap singles out one source (the oil and gas sector) of carbon emissions, even when reducing emissions in other sectors may come at a lower cost. For example, suppose it costs $100 to reduce a tonne of emissions from the oil and gas sector, but in another sector, it costs only $25 a tonne. Why force emissions reductions in a single sector that may come at a higher cost? An emission is an emission regardless of were it comes from. Moreover, like all these policies, the cap will likely shrink the Canadian economy. According to a 2024 Deloitte study, from 2030 to 2040, the cap will shrink the Canadian economy (measured by inflation-adjusted GDP) by $280 billion, and result in lower wages, job losses and a decline in tax revenue.

At the same time, the Carney government plans to continue to throw money at a range of “green” spending and tax initiatives. But since 2014, the combined spending and forgone revenue (due to tax credits, etc.) by Ottawa and provincial governments in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta totals at least $158 billion to promote the so-called “green economy.” Yet despite this massive spending, the green sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy has barely changed, from 3.1 per cent of Canada’s economic output in 2014 to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

In his first budget, Prime Minister Carney largely stuck to the Trudeau government playbook on energy and climate policy. Ottawa will continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to the “green economy” while restricting the oil and gas sector and hamstringing Canada’s economic potential. So much for becoming an energy superpower.

Continue Reading

Trending

X