One of the lesser-reported stories yesterday was the fact that a group of youths “launched” a lawsuit in Federal Court against the government to claim that their Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person are being violated by the lack of climate change action, and want the courts to mandate the government implement a climate plan “using the best available science.” Well, it wasn’t really the youths themselves, but a group of lawyers and activists who are using a group of children and teens as the face of their campaign, because teen climate prophetesses are so hot right now.

The problem with this tactic, however, is the two-fold – one, that it’s going to be an exceedingly difficult argument that just because these specific youth had contracted ailments that could be climate-related (such as Lyme disease), it’s hard to make a generalized Section 7 argument as it relates to climate change; and two, this is public policy and should not be justiciable in the same way that Criminal Code provisions are where they touch social issues. Why? Because it shouldn’t be up to the courts to determine whether or not the government is living up to their climate change obligations. Are judges also climate scientists, or economists specializing in this area? The whole “best available science” line sounds good, but it’s hugely subjective as to how you reach those goals mandated by “science,” particularly when it comes to not devastating the economy and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. How does a judge determine what the correct public policy should be? They don’t, but that’s what is being asked of them to determine here.

More to the point, this is yet another example of people trying to going to the courts when they lose at politics. Why I’m not surprised by this tactic being used by climate activists is because that Extinction Rebellion group is demanding the suspension of democracy to deal with the climate crisis, which should be alarming to anyone who follows their rhetoric. Trying to get judges to make policy determinations is just as much of a problem, and I eagerly await the Federal Court telling them to go drop on their heads.

Good reads:

• Researchers identified an uptick in Twitter accounts pushing anti-Trudeau messages, most of them from outside Canada and associated with MAGA messages.
• A member of the Canadian Special Forces has pleaded guilty to stealing military equipment and selling it online.
• CBC has another infographic-heavy primer on the makeup of the 43^rd Parliament.
• Trade minister Jim Carr has been diagnosed with blood cancer.
• Ralph Goodale talks about the “carpet bombing” campaign that he was subjected to, fuelled by third-party groups and advertisers pushing false narratives.
• Andrew Scheer says that a prime minister should be able to hold socially conservative views and still govern.
• Anti-abortion groups are calling Scheer out for “abandoning his principles” for not standing up against abortion or same-sex marriage.
• Here’s a look at what Lisa Raitt’s loss means for the profile of women in the Conservative ranks, and how they need to boost them.
• Here’s a group of familiar Conservative faces discussing what went wrong with their campaign, their messaging, and their whole strategy.
• Kevin Carmichael reads the Alberta budget for filth, and it’s well worth the ride.
• Chris Turner looks at what climate change options that Parliament should consider now that the “climate change election” is over, and carbon pricing carried the day.
• Matt Gurney offers a well-reasoned look at why Scheer’s constant evasions on the questions of his personal beliefs didn’t engender the trust he was asking for.
• Andrew Potter describes how the march of progress for rights should be evident to conservatives like Scheer, as they reflect the same values of liberty they espouse.
• Chantal Hébert details how this election’s results have left Scheer and the Conservatives in a much weaker position than they may realize.
• Paul Wells warns the Conservatives (and NDP) that they may want to think twice about dumping their leaders – unless they can’t learn their lessons.
• Gurney’s third interview in his series of post-mortems this time talks to a Liberal campaign worker about what the party got right and wrong this time around.
• Max Fawcett suggests that Chrystia Freeland should be the voice for Alberta at the Cabinet table, given her deep roots in that province.
• Colby Cosh, by contrast, pans some of the suggestions on the Alberta-Saskatchewan problem that have been offered to date.
• My weekend column suggests that the reckoning for Justin Trudeau expelling his Senators arrived early, and that it’s not too late for him to do the right thing.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.