From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Gerry Bowler

Well, they’re at it again. A year after a Canadian Human Rights Commission position paper labeled Christmas “discriminatory” and an example of “colonialist religious intolerance”, an Alberta public school has cancelled a winter concert because marking Christmas isn’t inclusive enough. The principal of Whitecourt’s Pat Hardy Elementary stated, “Not all students celebrate Christmas, and their families may or may not choose to have them participate in the Christmas concert. Other families celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but do not want children engaging in the non-religious parts such as Santa, Christmas trees, etc.” It was suggested that a spring concert might be more inclusive, presumably on the theory that no one gets too worked up about the vernal equinox.

The principal’s actions are scarcely news; for years schools and public officials have been reluctant to stage any activity around the celebration of the Nativity. “Christmas concerts” have been relabelled or cancelled; “Christmas trees” have been termed the “Holiday Tree.” Or a “Care Tree.” A “Multicultural Tree.” A “Tree of Lights.” A “Community Tree.” A “Winter Solstice Tree.” A “Grand Tree.” A “Special Tree.” A “Family Tree.” The “Annual Tree.” A “Festive Bush.” A “Unity Tree.” A “Culture Tree.” Activists in Saskatoon objected to city buses displaying a “Merry Christmas” wish; a Toronto judge ordered a Christmas tree removed from the courthouse lest it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome; inspired by the American school that mandated that the lyrics to “Silent Night” be changed to “Silent Night, mmm, mmm, mmm, / All is calm, all is bright, mmm, mmm, mmm”, a principal at an Ottawa school excised the C-word from the ditty “Silver Bells”. Thus: “Ring-a-ling, hear them sing; Soon it will be a festive day.”

There are several ways of dealing with this perennial issue. One is to remove religion from the public square altogether – that would certainly suit the secular fundamentalists – another is to play the majoritarian card and insist that since Christians outnumber other faith communities their will should hold sway. Some might want to dilute any mention of Christianity from the season while others might wish to include every other religion’s holy days on the school calendar.

I have a solution to this seasonal dilemma. It is to adopt the attitude taken by leaders of racial and religious minorities in Canada when asked if they are offended by mentions of Christmas. Their invariable answer is, of course not, Christmas is an integral part of Canadian culture.

Christmas is indeed Canadian, as native to our land as Hockey Night in Canada, Stompin’ Tom Connors, or pineapple on pizza. It has been Canadian longer than poutine, mediocre socialized healthcare, or the last time Toronto won the Stanley Cup. The Vikings who found a home in Newfoundland a thousand years ago likely celebrated Christmas, and there’s no doubt that the holiday has been observed for half a millennium by later European settlers.

Though a current American politician may regard Canada as the 51^st state and a current Canadian politician may opine that we are a post-national entity with no core identity, Canada, over the centuries, has developed a unique Christmas culture. We have beautiful carols of our own – “D’où Viens-Tu Bergère?”, the “Huron Carol” (“Jesus Ahatonia”), the first ever written in a North American indigenous language, and J.P. Clarke’s 1853 “A Canadian Christmas Carol”– not to mention secular seasonal music such as “Voici Le Père Noël Qui Nous Arrive” by the legendary Mary Bolduc, the melancholy “River” by Joni Mitchell, Bob and Doug Mackenzie’s take on “The Twelve Days of Christmas” and the immortal “Honky the Christmas Goose,” as sung by Johnny Bower (the last Leaf goalie to win a Stanley Cup).

We have unique Christmas foods – the taffy pull on St Catherine’s day, the tourtière of the revéillon, rapee pie, cipâte, butter tarts, Nanaimo bars, ragoût de pattes, “chicken bones,” and “barley toys.”

Though Santa Claus has his own Canadian postal code (H0H 0H0), we do not count him as a citizen, but we do have our own native Gift-Bringer in the form of Mother Goody (also known as Aunt Nancy or Mother New Year).

Canada can boast the first Christmas tree in North America, the custom introduced by Baroness Frederika von Riedesel whose husband Baron Friedrich Adolphus von Riedesel had brought 4,000 German Brunswicker soldiers in 1776 to protect Canada from American invasion. The first department store Santa was employed in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in 1869. Our post office issued the world’s first Christmas stamp in 1898. Eaton’s department store in Toronto staged the first Santa Claus parade in 1905.

Only in Canada can we see mummers of all sorts at Christmas – Janneys, Ownshooks, Fools, Belsnicklers, and Naluyuks; only in Canada do door to-door canvassers under the guise of “la guignolée” solicit donations to charity while singing a song threatening to torture the oldest daughter of the house.

So the next time objections are raised to the appearance of Christmas in the public square, simply state that it’s a long-standing Canadian custom, sanctified by time and universal practice, as deeply embedded in our culture as the red maple leaf. It’s what we do. Canadians do Christmas.

Gerry Bowler, historian, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Pierre Gilbert

Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently announced a plan requiring the oil and gas industry to cut CO2 emissions by more than one-third from 2019 levels by 2030. This deadline might seem far off, but it also stipulates that at least 20 percent of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2026, a deadline that’s just around the corner. This is all part of Guilbeault’s strategy to achieve the ambitious net-zero emissions target by 2050.

There are at least ten reasons suggesting that this plan is absurd.

1. CO2 is Not a Pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is, in fact, a fertilizer crucial for the growth of all vegetation. Higher concentrations of CO2 result in increased crop yields and more productive forests. Healthier forests, in turn, absorb more CO2, providing oxygen in exchange which is essential for the survival of all living organisms including humans.

2. CO2 is a Trace Gas

During my extensive career as a university professor, I encountered numerous students eager to support policies that might devastate the livelihoods of thousands of men and women who depend on the oil and gas industry, believing these sacrifices would save the planet. Their near-religious zeal was only matched by their stunning ignorance of basic CO2 facts.

Class surveys I conducted showed that almost one hundred percent of my students were unaware that CO2 is a trace gas, with its atmospheric concentration having varied significantly over centuries and even seasonally. Currently, CO2 represents about 0.04% of the atmospheric gases, or approximately 420 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, nitrogen makes up about 78%, and oxygen around 21%.

The best estimates suggest that human activities contribute roughly 4% of the total annual CO2 emissions (16 ppm). Canada’s share of global emissions is approximately 1.5% (0.24 ppm), essentially a rounding error in the total calculation.

3. Why Alberta and Not China?

It is no secret that Guilbeault harbours a special animosity towards Alberta. His energy regulations appear designed to severely impact Alberta’s economy despite the province being a relatively minor player on the global stage. In contrast, China, by far the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions, builds two new coal-powered (dirty) power plants every week and is the primary beneficiary of Canada’s coal exports. Why doesn’t Guilbeault turn his scornful gaze towards the People’s Republic? Even during his visit to China in August 2023 for climate talks, not only did he overlook that country’s appalling environmental track record, to add insult to injury, while there he critiqued Suncor for recommitting to oil sands development, highlighting a troubling policy double standard.

4. Watch What They Do, not What They Say

The economic and cultural elites, who incessantly warn of an impending climate catastrophe, seem to contradict their own claims by their extravagant lifestyles. Their opulent residences, frequent use of private jets, and other extravagances reveal a significant disconnect between their rhetoric and their behaviour, suggesting either hypocrisy or a lack of belief in the very crisis they promote.

5. Magical Thinking

When they purport to compel the oil and gas industry to adopt new technologies, politicians and policymakers indulge in a particularly delusional form of magical thinking. First, the industry is already one of the most innovative sectors in the economy. Second, these individuals demonstrate a profound ignorance of both climate change and the complex challenges of energy production. As is typical of low-information politicians, they seem to believe that all they need to do to enact change in line with their utopian ideals is to snap their fingers or twitch their collective nose.

6. A Multiplier of Human Misery

All the regulations that politicians like Guilbeault introduce with a regularity that rivals the proverbial cuckoo clock have nothing to do with creating new sources of energy or making energy more accessible and affordable. If they were genuinely concerned about their constituents’ welfare, these politicians would incentivize nuclear energy. But they conspicuously do not. These incessant regulations, taxes, and oppressive energy policies serve one purpose: to inflate energy prices so high that middle-class individuals are forced to drive less, reduce their energy use for heating and cooling their homes, and drastically curbing manufacturing. To the extent that such policies persist, they will impose an increasingly devastating economic burden on the poor and the working class.

7. Extreme Weather Events

A radical reduction in CO2 emissions will not only lead to a weaker economy and increased poverty, but it will also diminish our capacity to respond to extreme weather conditions, which will occur regardless of the taxation governments impose on human activities.

8. The Used-Car Salesman Syndrome

You know you’re being conned when a used car salesperson fails to mention the downsides of the vehicle being considered. The same skepticism and caution should be applied to politicians who tout only the benefits of their proposed policies without discussing the costs. Either they are blissfully unaware of these costs, or they believe they will be insulated from the real-world repercussions of their harmful policies due to their status, wealth, or connections.

9. Anti-Human Perspective

While it’s unwise to gratuitously attribute malicious intent to anyone, the evidence suggests that proponents of radical climate change policies operate from what can only be described as an anti-human perspective. They view human beings as liabilities and parasites rather than, as the Judeo-Christian tradition asserts, the valuable assets they truly are.

10. A Matter of Debate

Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.

In conclusion, Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish political scientist and founder of the prestigious Copenhagen Consensus Center—an organization renowned for producing some of the most authoritative studies on environmental issues—wisely reminds us that while there are environmental concerns needing attention, it’s questionable whether climate change constitutes an existential crisis that warrants dedicating all our resources at the expense of human life and flourishing.

Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University. He writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.