Will questioning climate change become illegal in Canada?

“There are ever increasing calls to jail those who hold dissenting views on climate science.” – Friends of Science Society


“It’s bad enough that climate alarmists have actively sought to keep those who disagree with the “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis from publishing or speaking on the subject, or having a role in public policy decisions, it’s far worse when they seek to prosecute climate chaos skeptics,” says Paul Driessen. “Many organizations have been targeted in recent years by US state attorneys general and their environmentalist group allies.”

“Now, as Tom Harris writes, perversely named Ecojustice is trying to have a Canadian law enforcement agency prosecute the International Climate Science Coalition and other US and Canadian organizations for “misrepresenting the science” on climate change. This truly Orwellian “thoughtcrime” persecution and prosecution bodes ill for the most basic freedoms on which Canada and the United States were founded.”


Will questioning climate change become illegal in Canada?

Ecojustice wants government “cops” to investigate, punish and silence dissent

By Tom Harris


This slogan appeared on posters of the Party leader in the dystopian society of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was a constant reminder of omnipresent government surveillance for “thoughtcrime” – independent thinking.

In Orwell’s book, Ministry of Truth ‘history re-writer’ Winston Smith quietly rebelled against this oppression, starting a diary expressing forbidden thoughts. But government telescreens were everywhere. Watched constantly, Smith’s every move was monitored. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the consequences of being caught were dire; the stress on individuals enormous.

As head of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), I have been feeling a bit like Smith these days. That’s because ICSC has been under investigation by Canada’s Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency that “has a legislated mandate to ensure Canadian consumers and businesses prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace.”

Here’s what happened.

In December 2015, while in Paris attending counter conferences to the United Nations’ climate meetings, I learned that the environmental organization Ecojustice had registered a complaint with the Competition Bureau on behalf of six prominent Canadians against the ICSC, Friends of Science, and the Heartland Institute.

Ecojustice claimed we presented “climate science misrepresentations” which “promote the denier groups’ own business interests,” and “promote the business interests of deep-pocketed individuals and corporations that appear to fund the denier groups.”

Our own core principles – which summarize our position on climate science and which we provide on our website – were actually presented as evidence against us.

Two of our allies assembled a 37-page response to the attack in which they presented peer-reviewed research in support of our positions. They suggested I counterattack with this impressive rebuttal.

Others cautioned me to keep my powder dry since the complaint made no sense. We were simply exercising our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to express our opinions. That is what science is all about – opinions of experts based on their interpretations of observations. And, especially in climate science, different experts have different opinions.

Further, the complainants had no idea who helps the ICSC financially. With the exception of the late Dr. Gerry G. Hatch, an Order of Canada recipient who openly supported us, the identities of our donors have been confidential since 2008. Some of our scientists have been harassed and even had death threats for contesting climate alarmism. We do not want to risk exposing our donors to such abuse.

So I did nothing, hoping the Competition Bureau would dismiss the complaint as unfounded.

Yet, five months later, it did launch an investigation, referencing a complaint that we make “representations to the public in promotion of a business interest that are false or misleading in a material respect regarding climate change.”

The Bureau warned us, “If the results of an investigation disclose evidence that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, provides the basis for a criminal prosecution, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General of Canada, who determines whether a prosecution should be undertaken.”

Although I asked the Bureau where they suspected the ICSC may have made false or misleading statements, it refused to say, citing Competition Act Subsection 10(3), which requires that inquiries be conducted privately.

Aside from a letter in November 2016 informing me that the investigation was “ongoing,” I heard essentially nothing until the beginning of July 2017 when I received a letter from the Bureau informing me:

“While the Commissioner has discontinued the inquiry, and no further steps are contemplated at this time, be advised that no binding determination has been made respecting the conduct of International Climate Science Coalition. The Commissioner continues to have discretion to investigate and take enforcement action in respect of matters previously inquired into, including where additional information is discovered following the discontinuance of an inquiry.”

The National Observer reported that they received an e-mail from a bureau spokesperson concerning this investigation, stating, “We invite Canadians who believe they may have additional information to contact the Competition Bureau.”

So, after nearly 14 months, the investigation is “discontinued” but revivable at the “discretion” of the Commissioner. Ecojustice criticized the Bureau for “walking away without finishing the job, and asserted: “Now is the time we need our cops on the climate beat to be stepping up.”

In their September 19th press release concerning the affair, Friends of Science stated, “democracy is at stake as there are ever increasing calls to jail those who hold dissenting views on climate science.”

Is this the Canada my father and grandfathers defended against tyranny?

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.


20 thoughts on “Will questioning climate change become illegal in Canada?”

  1. Yes, they will have to arrest and burn at the stake anybody who questions the New Religions of the West.

    This is common. In the Middle East, if you question Islam, they simply kill you. Nobody complains about that. You Gay in Egypt? You are simple thrown from a building, while Hollywood in America supports you……………………………………small price to pay for diversity……………………

    Back in the 15-16th Century, if you questioned the Dominant Religion at the time, they arrested you and killed you. That is what they are supposed to do.

    Think they are awful? Try questioning the Religion of Racial Equality. Or the Religion of Diversity or even better, the Religion of Tolerance.

    Your life, career, will be over. Maybe, the host of the blog where you write such a comment will only delete your “racist” comment……even though it be true….but then the blog has to worry about their own “death”.

    So, yes. If you are a Globalist Warming Surpremacist, you should be in favor of killing those who don’t believe in your Religion.

  2. In Canada that which ought to be illegal is legal and damned near everything else is either too expensive or illegal in some way. Too many laws and lawyers for the good of the country.

  3. hi Tom, interesting article. Canada seems to be going off the PC rails in recent decades. I hope you continue to stand up for real science. Thank you.

    (PS: I am curious the tyranny that threatened Canada in the past, say 100 years. Seems to have been a peaceful country, except for the Indians, maybe.)

  4. Not long before he died my late uncle, who won the Distinguished Flying Cross in the Royal Canadian Air Force during WW ll, said: “When I see what has become of my country I question who won the Second World War.”

    • Gordon only the Jews, Freemasons and leftists won the world wars. The white European christian peoples on both sides lost it all.
      Most of them just have not figured it out yet.

  5. Apart from the fact that this complaint appears to be nothing but a disguised political attempt to stymie analysis and finding of pertinent fact, IMHO, it should have been dismissed immediately by the Competition Bureau on the basis of the rights enshrined by the Charter.
    Ecojustice and many other “charitable” organisations ought to have their tax-exempt status reviewed by the Revenue Agency in that respect.

  6. Saw where George Soros has gone all in and dumped $15 BILLION into the Open Society org..
    That is a lot of buying power to crack down on freedom votes and speech as was recently witnessed from Spain sending federal police to Catalonia to put down a referendum for secession from the EU.

    These hateful monsters are in pure panic mode as their reign on the populous is diminishing. Hopefully Canada will not join the ranks of these lying, deceitful and fanatical globalist!

  7. don’t forget that climate change is a one trillion dollar question. governments worldwide are already suppressing everyone by using tax to stimulate sustainable economy whatever that means. By using tax, people are forced to choose the side of environmental politicians. That is mainstream now. If your critical, no job is reserved for you in society. Green energy? What is that?

  8. Non-believer! Stone him!! The end. This discussion was brought to you by the post-enlightenment mono-theocratic church of the meteorological mind.

  9. It is interesting that the warmists want to risk having to provide evidence in court to back up their claims, something they have studiously avoided in the past. An exception being the idiot Mann who runs off to court when his eggshell thin ego is bruised but it was noticeable that none of his warmist pals supported him against Mark Steyn.

    The court case lodged against oil companies is more of the same. Are they so sure of themselves now that they think they can withstand scrutiny or is a desperate last attempt to win before the onset of the mini iceage nails them?

  10. The investigation realized that GW is mostly a charade but they could never totally dismiss the complaint because it would say that the complaint was totally without merit.

    Maybe a complaint against the activists that they are making people buy Tesla’s instead of V8’s or support windmills instead of gas turbines with outright lies, which is the same thing they are complaining about…

  11. So, when the snow does not melt across Canada one summer, in the not too distant future, whatever you do, don’t say it’s cold. It may be ice or snow, but it certainly isn’t cold. It’s a very warm 32*.

  12. Just like Americans really were going to be persecuted by Obama and the left for denying climate change this is a product of Canadians voting in Justin Trudeau. Canadians voted in an ogliarch and didn’t learn a lesson from America when we elected Bush (not something we repeated with Clinton). These “ruling families” are cancerous to the nation-state and have really just one goal in mind and that’s globalism. Globalism is designed to steal what little wealth the middle class has and move the rest of it to the elites like Trudeau. When the elites control just about everything we are reduced to nothing more than slavery this isn’t just a North America problem it’s a global problem. The astronomically high utility bills and the coming food price hikes are all designed to rob you blind. They want to have you convert to a “green energy” that is inefficient so you’d have to pay the high utility bill or go back in the stone age and in Canada probably freeze to death. We must support initiatives like Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies which are designed to be decentralized and support blockchain technologies, things that give the average person back control and rips it from the state. Support decentralization where ever possible if you love freedom

  13. Question; Could greater atmospheric mixing in areas between the Tropics and the poles quite easily, or at least potentially, mask an underlying solar driven global warming trend?

    Key question could be … are the Tropics and the poles warming, at the same time; i.e., over the same period, of time?

Comments are closed.