Sign in

Ryan Ritchie

@ryanritchie.bsky.social
662 followers 440 following 2.4K posts

Leftist, Content Creator/Political Commentary, Former Hockey Expert, Writer/Editor at Puck Prose (FanSided) #cdnpoli ryanritchie.substack.com

PostsRepliesMedia
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
We’re two CPC majorities away from the CAF dusting off the Diefenbaker-era “gaydar” machine. This isn’t balance. It’s rot. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45 ✳️Free to subscribe: ryanritchie.substack.com Full piece on the transphobic debacle at the French Leaders' debate: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
Two Genders, One Cowardly Answer, and the Collapse of Liberal Courage
While Liberals Watch, the Overton Window Is Ripped Off Its Hinges and Hauled Right
020
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Was Poilievre's closing statement just him reading a script from one of his ads/commercials? Did that seriously just happen?! 😕🤣 Well, that was an extremely boring debate. 2 hours of my life I won't get back. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
010
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Singh and the NDP have given an underwhelming performance worthy of criticism in this debate (along w/ their platform), but please Liberals, the whole "he's interrupting". Give it a break. Your boy Carney & Poilievre are eating up the clock. He's just trying to be heard. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
021
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Poilievre on Gaza: "We must condemn Hamas & Iran & go after the terrorists". Cool, you can start with Israel, the IDF, & Netanyahu with his ICC warrant. What a pathetic response, he quite literally has no knowledge of the deep history on this topic. Embarrassing stuff.😬 #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
062
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Every Poilievre response during this debate: blah blah blah taxes How do you solve a cost-of-living/housing crisis by tinkering around the edges with taxes, while giving corporate welfare to the O&G industry, Bay Street, and ultra-wealthy? Sounds like a moron to me.🤔🤷 #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
040
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
WTF was that "tough on crime" nonsense from Poilievre?! Does he not realize many of us have followed US politics closely for a decade? Those were literal GOP talking points, verbatim. Still with the unconstitutional "three-strike policy". F that Friedrich Hayek lovin' loon. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
292
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Poilievre's housing plan is gobbledygook. No mention of REITs, investors, etc. Look at my pinned thread to see the CPC housing record: Bill C-285 (39-1), Bill C-304 (40-2), Bill C-400 (41-1), Bill C-241 (41-2), Bill C-264 (42-1), Bill C-265 (42-1), Bill C-245 (42-1) #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
223
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Poilievre is just talking out of both sides of his mouth here. Trying to be tough on Trump/America, while also bowing to him. He's telling Canadians he's much more comfortable trampling over Canadian sovereignty (Indigenous rights) than confronting daddy Trump. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
033
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 18/04/2025
Poilievre has spoken three times early in the debate. I'm listening for who the winners/losers are in this debate, and each comment, PP has one clear pattern: Winners - Private-Sector, Ultra-wealthy, O&G Sector. Losers - Working-class Canadians. Indigenous communities. #CDNPoli #CDNelxn #elxn45
122
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 17/04/2025
Part 3 is up. The NDP walks into the battle for Canada’s soul with a pillow & pamphlet.😶‍🌫️📃 Liberal Party & Conservatives bring knives🔪, swords⚔️, Bay Street🧑‍💼& the ultra-wealthy.💸 #CDNelxn #elxn45 ✳️Free to subscribe: ryanritchie.substack.com Full piece: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
Bringing a Pillow to a Knife Fight: The NDP’s Fantasies in a Neoliberal Deathmatch (Part 3, Six-Part Series)
The New Democrats once marched with working people. Now they shuffle into a battle arena rigged by corporate elites, armed with promises they can't enforce and partners who don't respect them.
010
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 16/04/2025
Campaign Grades (six-part series): The Liberal Party of Canada dropped “too left” Trudeau and replaced him with a banker. A deep dive into their 2025 campaign promises starts here. #CDNpoli #CDNelxn #elxn45 ✳️Free to subscribe: ryanritchie.substack.com Full piece: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
Sleepwalking with Bay Street: Grading the Liberal Campaign Pitch
The Liberal Party of Canada: Frozen, Thawed, and Tilting Right (Six-Part Series Looking at Party Campaign Promises)
000
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 15/04/2025
He ditched the glasses, cozied up to crypto bros, & parrots Trump slogans. But what’s really behind Pierre Poilievre’s platform? A six-part series starts here with the CPC. 🧐🔍 #CDNpoli #CDNelxn #elxn45 ✳️Free to subscribe: ryanritchie.substack.com Full piece: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
Pierre Poilievre’s Promises: Style, Scams, and Soft Authoritarianism
The first in a six-part series examining what each party is offering, and who really benefits.
002
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/04/2025
They say we’re “splitting the vote.” But who split the movement? Who sold out our future to chase centrists? Stop blaming voters. Start blaming power. Strategic voting is a trap. #CDNpoli #CDNelxn #elxn45 Subscribe:✅ ryanritchie.substack.com Full piece: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
The Vote-Splitting Hoax
How the Political Class Lied to You and Blamed You for Their Own Failure
000
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 12/04/2025
Unconstitutional campaign promises: Liberal overreach = “visionary” CPC overreach = “bold”, "tough on crime" NDP ambition = “lol they don’t understand jurisdiction” Same playbook. Different judgment. Guess it’s only a crisis when poor people benefit. #CdnPoli open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
The Three Stooges Election: Constitutionality for Thee, But Not for Me
Why It’s Only “Unrealistic” When the Left Tries to Help People
010
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 12/04/2025
Mark Carney isn’t a comeback story — he’s a warning. Liberals are fear-mongering their way into another term, hoping you won’t look too closely at their record. But how did we really end up here? New post: a populist breakdown of the rot. #CdnPoli 📬 Read here: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
“Polls Are for Dogs to Pee On” — And Other Wisdom We Forgot
A Populist Primer on How Canada Got Stuck Between a Faux-Populist and a Blue-Tie Banker
020
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 12/04/2025
🚨 First post is up. 🚨 This isn’t “both sides” punditry or centrist vibes. It’s for folks who see through the system’s lies — from rising rents to rebranded fascists. Politics, power, & maybe some hockey references, but no bullshit. 📬 Read + subscribe: open.substack.com/pub/ryanritc...
open.substack.com
Off the Bench, Into the Fight: Welcome to Offside Chirps
A no-frills space for political truth-telling and unapologetic class-first commentary — because polite politics won’t save us.
000
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 12/04/2025
Welcome to Offside Chirps — which, might seem like a hockey substack, and in some ways, it is. It’s gritty. It’s loud. It plays the boards. But really, it’s where I come to talk about the political mess we’re in — from the left, unapologetically. #CdnPoli ryanritchie.substack.com?r=5h7ri5&utm...
ryanritchie.substack.com
Offside Chirps with Ryan Ritchie | Substack
Offside Chirps with Ryan Ritchie – Because sometimes the truth isn’t polite or "on brand.". Click to read Offside Chirps with Ryan Ritchie, a Substack publication. Launched 8 hours ago.
100
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 12/04/2025
Some major announcements: Before we get to the new Substack, a major update on the Canadian federal legislation thread/project: - Thread/bill analysis will continue with weekly updates until we're caught up to present day, with a discontinuation of infographics. #CdnPoli bsky.app/profile/ryan...
100
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 03/04/2025
Ontario’s Ice Storm turned my yard into a lumberjack’s dream. No power/wifi for six days in one of the hardest hit areas of the province, but at least I have plenty of kindling now. Anyone up for a bonfire?🔥 #icestorm The driveway:
100
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 03/04/2025
Six days without power/wifi in one of the hardest hit areas from the Ontario #icestorm Here are some pictures of the scene from where I was:
100
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 24/03/2025
188/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendments to other Acts” Bill C-58 (42-1) www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en... Another short sub-thread for Bill C-58. You can find it below.👇 bsky.app/profile/ryan... #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
001
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 24/03/2025
💥 Bill C-58 was a direct attack on free speech and independent media. 💥 Trudeau’s Liberals & Poilievre’s Conservatives both talk a big game about protecting democracy, but behind closed doors, they’re working overtime to shield corporate media and silence dissent. 🔇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
201
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 24/03/2025
💥 Bill C-58 was a direct attack on free speech and independent media. 💥 Trudeau’s Liberals & Poilievre’s Conservatives both talk a big game about protecting democracy, but behind closed doors, they’re working overtime to shield corporate media and silence dissent. 🔇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
201
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 19/03/2025
187/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... With so few environmental bills, coupled with plenty of debate from active MPs, thought it was worth a short sub-thread to dig into this legislation.👇 bsky.app/profile/ryan... #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
101
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 19/03/2025
A short sub-thread for this next bill. We don't get a ton of environmental legislation so I wanted to give it the proper attention it deserved. C-48, the "Oil Tanker Moratorium" wound up being a watered-down version of previous NDP bills. Let's break it down: 🧵👇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
102
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 19/03/2025
A short sub-thread for this next bill. We don't get a ton of environmental legislation so I wanted to give it the proper attention it deserved. C-48, the "Oil Tanker Moratorium" wound up being a watered-down version of previous NDP bills. Let's break it down: 🧵👇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
102
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
186/ cont'd May 2019 - “Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act” Bill C-415 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement." - Michael Cooper, 1 of 11 CPC MPs who voted "yea". 👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will keep my remarks relatively brief. At first blush it is quite understandable why my colleague has brought forward Bill C-415. When he talked about the difficulties of some being able to express themselves on a pardon as opposed to an expungement, I was intrigued. In principle, there are many different sorts of criminal activities that take place where a pardon has been issued. I suspect that the same challenges in principle would be there for those other individuals who have a pardon that is already in place. If one wanted to be somewhat consistent, one could ultimately argue what would be the value of having pardons. I believe there is value to pardons. The minister has talked about issues such as pardons being quick and free with no waiting times. This is a commitment the government has made with respect to pardons. Pardons are, for all intents and purposes, packaged away, put in a box, never again to be reopened unless there is another criminal activity that takes place by the individual in question. At least that is my understanding of the situation. That is why I was somewhat intrigued by his comments when he talked about the individuals who would find it difficult and he used the example of an application for a job. I am very sympathetic to that argument, unfortunately there were not enough questions and answers. I would have liked the member to provide an answer to me on that point. It is more the principle of the matter. We have gone a long way in recognizing how far we have come in the last number of years. We have a Prime Minister who saw a significant social issue that affected millions of Canadians. In a very responsible fashion, working through the ministers and most members of the House, we were able to bring forward the legalization of cannabis..

This text image is 9794 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.CPC Speeches on Bill C-415

CPC Speeches: Michael Cooper (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Given a record like that, is it any wonder that when it comes to dealing with the more than half a million Canadians who have criminal records for minor possession, the government has no plan. Again, it has dropped the ball."

What He Means: Cooper is attempting to frame the Liberal government's failure to address expunging marijuana-related convictions as a failure of leadership. The choice of the term "dropped the ball" is a classic conservative tactic to evoke a sense of incompetence or ineffectiveness in government action. The rhetoric here is designed to create an image of the Liberal government as detached, negligent, and incapable of following through on its promises—characteristics that are common in neoliberal and right-wing populist criticism of more progressive policies. The invocation of "half a million Canadians" plays into a moral panic and attempts to frame the government's delay as morally wrong or unjust without acknowledging the nuanced complexities of implementing a new system for record expungement or the political dynamics at play. It's designed to evoke outrage among voters who feel marginalized or unheard.

What He Says: "There are serious health risks associated with the consumption of marijuana, particularly for young Canadians, those 25 and under, in terms of brain development impairment among other issues."

What He Means: This is an example of moral panic rhetoric, which often plays into public fear over new or controversial social changes. By emphasizing "serious health risks" and targeting young people, Cooper is amplifying the risks without offering any context or nuance. The specific age "25 and under" is a classic use of fear-based, generational rhetoric designed to create a moral divide between responsible adults and "dangerous" behaviours of youth.

This text image is 4176 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.CPC Speeches: Scott Reid (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than in abstract terms."

What He Means: Reid is positioning himself as a pragmatist, suggesting that his arguments are grounded in reality, not lofty ideals. This tactic often appeals to a broad audience, signalling that his views are sensible and actionable. However, this could also be a subtle dismissal of others who argue on moral or ethical grounds, subtly suggesting that such arguments are too "abstract" or disconnected from what he sees as practical.

What He Says: "It is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the said use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any person other than the user himself or herself."

What He Means: This is a classic libertarian stance, framing the issue as one of personal freedom and responsibility. By using moral language ("morally wrong"), Reid is framing cannabis criminalization as a violation of individual rights. This could be seen as an attempt to appeal to both classical liberal values and conservatives who view personal freedom as a key tenet. However, it could also be a rhetorical oversimplification, ignoring potential broader societal harms (e.g., impaired driving, workplace safety).

What He Says: "The principle that victimless acts should never be punishable would be true even if it were not true that some people suffer from trauma that causes them to make impulsive choices..."

What He Means: Reid introduces the concept of trauma, briefly acknowledging the social context in which drug use occurs. By saying that the principle still holds "even if it were not true" that trauma affects behaviour, he's downplaying the systemic factors that contribute to substance abuse. This rhetorical strategy subtly shifts the focus away from societal issues like poverty, mental health...

This text image is 4083 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.What He Says: "If records are expunged, but not if pardons are issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they do not have a criminal record for this former offence."

What He Means: Reid frames expungement as a pragmatic solution to practical problems, such as the difficulty Canadians face when crossing the U.S. border due to past cannabis convictions. This could be seen as an appeal to a broad, everyday populist concern—making life easier for ordinary people. This is a classic conservative tactic of offering a simple, tangible solution to a complex issue, which might resonate more with voters focused on "fixing problems" rather than engaging in a deeper debate about the roots of criminal justice issues.

What He Says: "I congratulate the sponsor of the bill and I plan to vote in favour of his excellent proposal."

What He Means: While this seems like a neutral, respectful comment, it can also be interpreted as a subtle attempt to align himself with a popular cause (expunging cannabis records) while maintaining a veneer of bipartisan cooperation. By supporting the bill, Reid is positioning himself as a moderate voice on cannabis issues, likely to appeal to both conservative and libertarian-leaning voters, but avoiding more radical left-wing solutions that might question the broader legal and social issues surrounding cannabis.

Reid’s speech is filled with neoliberal, faux-populist, and libertarian rhetoric designed to appear pragmatic and sensible. While advocating for expungement, he consistently avoids addressing the deeper systemic issues behind criminalization and its disproportionate effects on marginalized groups. His focus is on making technical fixes rather than enacting broader social change, which aligns with the conservative tendency to address symptoms rather than root causes. The use of emotional appeals (victim...

This text image is 5942 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
185/ cont'd May 2019 - “Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act” Bill C-415 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "The approach proposed in Bill C-415 is flawed.." Peter Schiefke (LP) You can decide for yourself which is flawed when we look at C-93. 🧐🤔 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
NDP Speeches: Alistair MacGregor (Highlight Reel)

"We acknowledge that that has far-reaching consequences. We know that it has affected marginalized and racialized populations disproportionately more than average Caucasian Canadians."

MacGregor emphasizes how criminal records for cannabis possession disproportionately harm marginalized and racialized communities, underlining the systemic nature of this injustice. This serves as an appeal to the moral conscience of lawmakers, urging them to recognize and address historical wrongs.

"The public has realized that the continued criminalized approach to cannabis possession is wrong. Far too many people suffered under it and, in fact, the continuation of a criminalized approach would actually cause more harm than the use of the drug itself."

MacGregor echoes a populist critique of outdated criminal justice practices, framing the shift in public opinion as a fundamental change in how society views cannabis and its criminalization. His rhetoric calls for a reformist approach, positioning the status quo as harmful and unjust.

"Expungement allows an individual to truthfully answer the question of whether the individual has a criminal record that he or she does not have one, because expungement makes it as if it never happened in the first place."

Here, MacGregor clarifies the distinction between a record suspension and an expungement, emphasizing the permanence and fairness of expungement. His argument frames it as an essential remedy for individuals wronged by an unjust system, with expungement symbolizing true justice and renewal for affected individuals.

"We can look at the statistics, specifically with reference to indigenous people in Canada. In Vancouver, indigenous people were seven times more likely than white people to be arrested. In Regina, it was as high as nine times."

MacGregor uses statistical evidence to underscore the racial...

This text image is 2686 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.NDP Speeches: Murray Rankin’s Final Contribution (Highlight Reel)

On the distinction between expungement and pardon: “...I am grateful to him for the clarity and for demonstrating the very obvious distinction that the government seems to wish to gloss over between what are now called record suspensions or pardons, and the notion of expungement, which, of course, is at the heart of my bill.”

On the government’s conflation of expungement and pardon: “What troubles me is that the government is trying to conflate expungement and pardon as if there were no difference, and to make an argument, frankly a legally baseless argument, that expungement is somehow to be reserved, as the Liberals have chosen to do with Bill C-66, for activities that violate the charter.”

On the disproportionate impact of cannabis prohibition: “This law, which has been around since 1922, the prohibition on cannabis, has had a disproportionate impact on indigenous people and black people in particular. The government admits that, yet the Liberals are content to stand here six months after they brought in the law that made cannabis legal, in essentially the dying days of Parliament, to bring forward a half measure...”

On the need for real action to fix the harm caused by criminal records: “...let us talk about what it means to that black person in Toronto who cannot get his or her foot on the social ladder and has to perhaps be on social assistance, or that indigenous person who cannot rent an apartment because they have a criminal record.”

On the government's insufficient action: “...the welcome that it is waiving the fees and making it faster, I would characterize it as a good first step. However, it is too little and it is certainly too late. It is disappointing that we here on this, and it is disappointing that the government has not done the full measure.”

On the potential for a more complete solution: “I was...

This text image is 2422 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Liberal Party Position on Bill C-415

Liberal Party Speeches: Peter Schiefke (Rhetoric Watch)

Neoliberal Jargon and Performative Progressivism:

"It is clear that the member shares our conviction that some changes need to be made with a new cannabis control regime in place."

This statement uses the language of consensus to frame the Liberal stance as progressive and solution-oriented, but fails to acknowledge the real extent of the problem (such as disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities) or to offer significant solutions.

"For nearly a century, the criminal prohibition of cannabis failed to protect youth and led to the highest rates of cannabis use in the world amongst our kids."

A classic example of neoliberal framing—shifting blame to past policies without addressing current systemic inequalities or the failures of the ongoing approach.

"While there are no turnkey solutions to righting the wrongs that resulted from that regime, there are now steps we can take to address them."

This "no turnkey solutions" phrase suggests that the situation is too complicated for quick fixes, which plays into the idea of gradualism, often used to justify small, insufficient reforms that don’t disrupt the status quo.

Political Doublespeak and Shifting the Blame:

"That is why we replaced the criminal prohibition with a far more effective and proportional system of comprehensive cannabis control."

This statement spins the legalization as a "far more effective" system without addressing the ongoing inequities or the fact that the government’s cannabis control regime still leaves many communities disadvantaged.

"The government passed that law so that expungement could be available as a tool to correct a profound historical injustice..."

While presenting the expungement of convictions as a corrective measure, the government's emphasis on its "intent to introduce" record suspension...

This text image is 3884 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Liberal Party Speeches: Karen McCrimmon (Rhetoric Watch)

"We committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis as part of our platform for the last election. We upheld that commitment, and last October the new system took effect."

Neoliberal Jargon / Political Performance: This statement is a textbook example of neoliberal political language—highlighting "commitments" and "platforms" that serve to frame the government's actions as a form of progress. This is a performative act, meant to signal responsibility and active governance without necessarily addressing the root issue of why these changes were necessary in the first place (e.g., the disproportionate harm to marginalized communities under prohibition). The focus on "upholding commitments" without further depth is typical of neoliberal narratives which focus on maintaining the image of competence without engaging deeply with the structural issues at hand.

"We have upheld that commitment too with Bill C-93, which was debated earlier this week."

Political Doublespeak: Here, McCrimmon is using a form of doublespeak, where she conflates the new expedited pardon process with the NDP's bill on expungement. She suggests that the Liberal government has already solved the problem with Bill C-93, obfuscating the fact that the NDP’s proposal (which was actually more progressive in its goals) was not given fair consideration. The focus here is on maintaining the narrative that the Liberals have already taken decisive action, even if the action was a compromise rather than a bold move.

"Instead of adding to their financial burden, we have proposed legislation that will eliminate the fee to the Parole Board to apply for a pardon, which is normally $631."

Neoliberal Jargon / Performative Progressivism: This line attempts to position the government as compassionate, eliminating a "financial burden" in a way that seems progressive on the surface...

This text image is 6124 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
184/ May 2019 - “Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act” Bill C-415 (42-1) docs.google.com/document/d/1... Expungement vs. Pardon. Bill C-415 would have wiped records clean.📄✅ Liberals killed it & replaced it with a weak, bureaucratic mess.😕🤦 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
May 2019 - “Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act” Bill C-415 (42-1)

Bill Sponsor: Murray Rankin (NDP)

Yea: NDP (34/34), CPC (11/80), BQ (9/9), LP (4/157), IND (1/4), GP (1/1), CCF (1/1)
Nay: Liberals (153/157), Conservatives (69/80), IND (3/4)

Notable Yea’s: NDP - Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton, Rachel Blaney, Alexandre Boulerice, Richard Cannings, Don Davies, Randall Garrison, Carol Hughes, Peter Julian, Jenny Kwan, Alistair MacGregor, Brian Masse

CPC - Michael Cooper, Kerry Diotte, Tom Kmiec, Dane Lloyd, Scott Reid, Jamie Schmale, Kevin Waugh, Len Webber

BQ - Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Mario Beaulieu, Rhéal Fortin, Mariléne Gill, Monique Pauzé, Louis Plamondon, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Luc Thériault

LP - Julie Dabrusin, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

GP - Elizabeth May

Notable Nay’s: Liberals - Omar Alghabra, Rene Arseneault, Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Terry Beech, Rachel Bendayan, Marie-Claude Bibeau, Chris Bittle, Bill Blair, Randy Boissonnault, Bardish Chagger, François-Philippe Champagne, Shaun Chen, Serge Cormier, Pam Damoff, Sukh Dhaliwal, Anju Dhillon, Francis Drouin, Emmanuel Dubourg, Jean-Yves Duclos, Terry Duguid, Kirsty Duncan, Julie Dzerowicz, Ali Ehsassi, Fayçal El-Khoury, Greg Fergus, Darren Fisher, Peter Fonseca, Mona Fortier, Sean Fraser, Hedy Fry, Mark Gerretsen, Karina Gould, Patty Hajdu, Mark Holland, Anthony Housefather, Gudie Hutchings, Angelo Iacono, Melanie Joly, Yvonne Jones, Majid Jowhari, Iqra Khalid, Kamal Khera, Kevin Lamoureux, Stéphane Lauzon, Diane Lebouthillier, Joël Lightbound, Wayne Long, Lloyd Longfield, Lawrence MacAulay, Steven MacKinnon, James Maloney, Bryan May, Ken McDonald, David McGuinty, Ron McKinnon, Michael McLeod, Alexandra Mendés, Marco Mendicino, Marc Miller, Robert Morrissey, Joyce Murray, Mary Ng, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert Oliphant, Seamus O'Regan, Carla Qualtrough, Yves Robillard, Pablo Rodriguez (now IND), Churence Rogers, Sherry

This text image is 1023 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Bill Summary

“This enactment establishes a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of the judicial records of those convictions that are in federal repositories and systems.”
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-415/first-reading

Bill C-415: The Fight for Cannabis Conviction Expungement and the Liberal Betrayal

In May 2018, NDP MP Murray Rankin introduced Bill C-415, the Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act, which sought to erase criminal records for individuals convicted of cannabis possession prior to legalization. The bill was designed to correct a historical injustice that disproportionately affected racialized and marginalized communities, acknowledging that their criminalization was rooted in discriminatory policing rather than any legitimate public safety concern.

What Did Bill C-415 Aim to Do?

The bill would have allowed individuals with past cannabis possession convictions to apply to the Parole Board of Canada for an expungement order, ensuring that their records were completely wiped, as if the conviction had never happened. This was distinct from the record suspension (pardon) approach, which still requires individuals to disclose their past convictions in certain circumstances and does not erase them from existence. Key provisions included:
No application fee for expungement, ensuring accessibility for those affected.
Automatic destruction of records upon expungement, including in RCMP and court databases.
Recognition that past cannabis convictions negatively impacted employment, housing, and mental health.

This approach was especially important given that many of those criminalized were disproportionately Black and Indigenous Canadians, victims of over-policing and systemic discrimination. With cannabis now legal, allowing these convictions to stand was both an economic and...

This text image is 5986 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.NDP Position on Bill C-415

Murray Rankin’s Sponsor Speech (Highlight Reel)

Expungement as Fundamental Justice: 

"This is a matter of fundamental justice and I urge all members to support this initiative."

Rankin frames the bill as a moral imperative, emphasizing the need for complete and unequivocal justice for those impacted by cannabis convictions.
The Liberal Party's Support for Expungement

 "I am pleased that the Liberal Party agrees with me that expungement and not merely record suspension is what is required in this circumstance."

Rankin points out the inconsistency in the Liberal Party's stance, noting that while they’ve previously supported expungement, they are not acting on it now.
Public and Expert Support

 "According to a report commissioned by the Department of Public Safety, fully 86% of those surveyed agreed that completely erasing criminal records for minor offences, particularly cannabis possession, was the right thing to do."

Rankin leverages public opinion and expert support, illustrating the widespread backing for this initiative.

Discrimination and Historical Injustice:

"It is a fact... that black and indigenous people across this country have been disproportionately burdened with criminal records for possessing small quantities of cannabis."

Rankin underscores the racialized impact of cannabis laws, arguing that expunging records is a critical step to address this historic injustice.

The Difference Between Expungement and Record Suspension:

 "An expunged record is erased; it is completely destroyed. Under my bill, the offences would be deemed in law to have never happened."

This clarifies Rankin's central argument: record suspension is not sufficient to eliminate the lifelong barriers that a criminal record creates.

Legal Opinions on Expungement:

 "There is nothing in Canadian law that prohibits our government from issuing expungements for offences that,

This text image is 2381 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I agree with virtually every point the member opposite has made, in particular, the impact on racialized youth and on the black and indigenous communities of this country. They have been policed in a different way and incarceration records prove it, without a shadow of a doubt. I am considering supporting this private member's motion because this is a significant issue in many of the communities I represent, but the issue is that not every one of the charges is equal. They have definitely been policed differently, convicted differently and managed by the courts differently, but in some cases, the charges are part of a larger criminal process and criminal set of charges, where expunging the record could have an impact on sentencing and public safety. I would ask the member opposite to consider that if we start pulling out some of the convictions on very serious charges, possession charges being incidental, we may shorten criminal sentences and certain sentencing provisions and that may create complications around public safety. How would they handle that?

Mr. Murray Rankin: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member opposite for keeping an open mind in considering support of my bill. I appreciate that very much. His recognition of the historical injustice and the disproportionate impact on indigenous and black Canadians is something on which we both have to work harder, as does the House. This is an opportunity to take a step in that direction. It is true that often records for small quantities of cannabis go hand in hand with other convictions and the like. There have been such things as plea bargains and all of that, which we need to acknowledge exist in the real world. In California and other places, the expungement is...

This text image is 7190 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
183/ cont'd April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1) docs.google.com/document/d/1... (google doc) The NDP fought for a justice system based on facts, compassion, and real solutions—not empty tough-on-crime rhetoric. 💪🍁 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
NDP Speeches on Bill C-375

NDP Speeches: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Highlight Reel)

“The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works. We want to ensure that compassion and rehabilitation are at the heart of our policies.”

“People with mental illnesses are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system.”

“The objective of this measure is not to disclose the mental health condition of the individual or to perpetuate the stigma or false perception that people with mental health disorders are dangerous.”

“This bill would create a national standard for all jurisdictions to consider mental health during sentencing.”

“The fact that people with mental health problems are being sent to prison and not being given the appropriate care is a real problem.”

“From arrest to prosecution, conviction, sentencing, use of segregation, all stages of our criminal justice system are now consistently overrepresented by people who are suffering from psychosis, mania, mood disorders, depression, alcoholism and addiction, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders.” — Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Appeal

“Instead of spouting tough-on-crime rhetoric, the New Democratic Party has long been looking for ways to make our justice system work.”

“We need to continue focusing on compassionate care to help people with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible.”

“If we can improve our ability to assess the needs of those being sentenced, our justice system will be able to direct them to the appropriate rehabilitation resources and so reduce the risk of recidivism—even eliminate recidivism entirely, in an ideal world.”

“We believe it is important to provide more support services and resources to people with mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system.”

Boutin-Sweet's speech is a powerful call for...

This text image is 892 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.NDP Speeches: Brigitte Sansoucy (Highlight Reel)

"The NDP is committed to building a criminal justice system that works for everyone. We want compassion and rehabilitation to be central to our policy."

"The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction because it ensures that the judge will have all the information needed to hand down a fair and equitable ruling."

"At present, nearly 36% of federal offenders need some form of psychiatric or psychological follow-up."

"This is despite the fact that people with mental illness are currently overrepresented in our criminal justice system."

"Adding information on offenders' mental health represents a real opportunity to modernize our justice system and adapt it to reflect the current reality."

"If we really want to bring about change, we need meaningful action on the accessibility of mental health care."

"The NDP believes that mental health care should be just as readily available and accessible as any other health care service in our communities."

"We must continue to focus on compassionate care in order to help Canadians with mental illness rejoin society after incarceration and avoid over-criminalization wherever possible."

"The NDP prefers to focus on real solutions... helping convicts who have a mental disorder get access to resources and support so that they can rehabilitate and reintegrate as productive members of society."

"We must do everything to reintegrate former inmates into society and to make sure they have the tools to do so."

"We need to take care of these people and ensure that they get the treatment they need instead of completely abandoning them as is currently far too often the case.""Solitary confinement and other such measures meant to enhance prison security are never appropriate solutions for people with mental illness."

"The work that these organizations do is invaluable and a source of hope for thousands of people across Canada who are struggling with mental illness."

"I repeat that the NDP will support this bill. However, my colleagues and I believe that the government needs to do more to deal with the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system."

"In conclusion, however, this move falls well short of what is needed to make a real difference for the thousands of people suffering from mental health issues who need real support from the federal government."

Brigitte Sansoucy’s speech is a strong left-populist call for justice reform rooted in compassion and rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. She emphasizes the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system and makes a compelling argument for integrating mental health information into pre-sentence reports as a way to ensure fairer outcomes. 

While acknowledging Bill C-375 as a step forward, Sansoucy critiques its limited ambition, asserting that it falls short of addressing the real, systemic problems that people with mental health issues face. Her critique is sharp—calling for broader, more comprehensive mental health support services and meaningful government action, especially in the face of underfunded community organizations. 

In a broader sense, the speech embodies the NDP’s focus on social justice, human dignity, and a commitment to long-term solutions over short-term, punitive fixes.NDP Speeches: Alistair MacGregor (Highlight Reel)

"What the member for Richmond Hill is attempting to do is amend a very specific section of the Criminal Code. That is well within the rights of the federal level of government. It is very separate from victims services."

"This is not putting the rights of offenders over the rights of victims. Those are completely separate issues."

"A judge is the expert of the case and has heard all of the facts. This is about giving that person, who is in a decision-making stage, even more facts to make the correct and appropriate decision."

"It is important to hold up facts, to back up our deliberations with those facts, and not to go down some rabbit hole talking about support for offenders over the rights of victims."

"Pre-sentence reports already require that, '[an] offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends' be included."

"We do not want to house with the general population someone who has an obvious mental health issue. That would not serve the general population well, and it certainly would not serve that particular person well."

"It is simply designed to assist the individual to obtain care and receive an appropriate sentence."

"We know that people with mental illness are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and there are statistics on that."

"To conclude, we should be giving a judge as much information as possible to make an appropriate sentence for someone who has already been found guilty."

Alistair MacGregor’s speech underscores a commitment to justice that’s rooted in facts, care, and evidence-based decision-making. He firmly separates the rights of victims and offenders, challenging the narrative that reform measures for offenders necessarily detract from victim’s rights. 

By advocating for the inclusion of mental health information in pre-sentence reports, he highlights the...

This text image is 586 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
122
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
182/ cont'd April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Kelly Block, CPC: "Trudeau pledged to use taxpayer money to de-radicalize terrorists through Canadian poetry." Sounds Trumpian/GOP-like.🚨😬 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
CPC Speeches: Dane Lloyd (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe from high-risk individuals, and we need a policy that strikes a balance between the need to protect society from those who pose a danger and to treat with compassion those with mental illness and mental disorders."

What He Means: He frames mental illness as a public safety threat, setting the stage for a tough-on-crime approach. This is classic conservative fearmongering—equating mental health issues with criminality to justify a more punitive justice system rather than addressing the root causes of crime. It also plays into the neoliberal tendency to prioritize "public safety" over actual rehabilitation.

What He Says: "In practice, this would create some unfairness and inconsistencies in the application of laws and justice. Not all mental health disorders are the same. In fact, even the same mental health disorders can have a great deal of variance in how they impact individuals."

What He Means: This is a smokescreen argument. Courts already deal with varying levels of mental illness in sentencing considerations. His concern about “unfairness” is an excuse to avoid acknowledging the role mental health plays in criminal behaviour. This is faux-populism—it pretends to be about fairness while actually maintaining the status quo of a punitive system that disproportionately punishes the mentally ill and marginalized.

What He Says: "These changes are also a concern because they could add considerable delays to our court system, which is already overburdened."

What He Means: A classic conservative argument: bureaucracy is bad, government is inefficient, and therefore we shouldn’t add more requirements to a system that already struggles. This is a neoliberal excuse to do nothing, prioritizing administrative efficiency over justice. He conveniently ignores that

This text image is 1881 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.CPC Speeches: Erin O’Toole (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: “The trouble with the bill is that because it is vague, maybe intentionally so, it seems like mental health might be an aspect of every sentencing decision that a judge looks at in a criminal court context.”

What He Means: O'Toole is implying that the bill could be a slippery slope, leading to a scenario where mental health is factored into every criminal case, no matter the severity of the crime. He is positioning the bill as potentially overreaching, creating a sense of fear that the law will allow offenders, particularly those who commit violent crimes, to evade responsibility by invoking mental health issues. This is a classic example of neoliberal/conservative jargon that paints a potential reform as something that will lead to excessive leniency, creating a moral panic around the idea that criminals will exploit this system. O'Toole is playing on public fears that the legal system could be too "soft" on crime and allow individuals to escape justice because of mental health issues, a faux-populist tactic aimed at stoking fear.

What He Says: "What often is the difference in the House of Commons is that the Liberals or the NDP put rehabilitation of the offender always first, and in some cases, it is the only consideration with respect to sentencing and incarceration, whereas I find the Conservatives look at all aspects of the principles of sentencing an offender."

What He Means: O'Toole is positioning the Conservative Party as more “balanced” and “reasonable” in their approach to criminal justice, suggesting that the Liberals and NDP focus too much on rehabilitation while neglecting other important aspects like punishment and deterrence. This is a GOP-style American strategy that plays into the Red Scare mentality by framing the left as "soft on crime" and overly compassionate, a tactic often used by...

This text image is 3728 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.CPC Speeches: Kelly Block (“What She Says” vs. “What She Means”)

What She Says: "This bill, when taken together with other legislation introduced and passed by the current Liberal government, continues a long and disturbing pattern of favouring the protection of criminals over the protection of the victims of crime."

What She Means: This is classic fear-mongering that taps into moral panic rhetoric. By framing the Liberals as protecting criminals at the expense of victims, Block uses a “tough on crime” narrative to rally support for policies that favour punitive measures. She paints a binary picture of "victims" vs. "criminals," which oversimplifies complex justice issues. This is an attempt to shift the focus away from systemic problems within the justice system, pushing for harsh, punitive responses rather than addressing underlying causes of crime.

What She Says: "This is the government that willingly gave a $10.5 million payout to unrepentant convicted terrorist Omar Khadr, who killed American medic Sergeant Christopher Speer in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002."

What She Means: This statement uses the "terrorist" label to evoke a sense of fear and outrage, a common tactic in conservative rhetoric to galvanize base support. The intention is to paint the Liberal government as weak or even treasonous for negotiating a settlement with Omar Khadr, ignoring the legal and human rights dimensions of the case. This is a form of red-baiting, linking the government's actions to treasonous or unpatriotic behaviour. This rhetoric plays into the idea of "unpatriotic liberals" who prioritize the rights of criminals over the interests of the nation.

What She Says: "The Prime Minister pledged to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to de-radicalize terrorists through such tried and tested means as reading Canadian poetry."

What She Means: This is an attempt to mock the idea of rehabilitation,...

This text image is 3825 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Block’s rhetoric is full of moral panic, fear-mongering, and populist strategies that paint the Liberal government as weak, unpatriotic, and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Canadians. She engages in red-baiting and uses inflammatory language to create a stark "us vs. them" divide. This approach taps into conservative anxieties about crime, security, and national values, while simultaneously undermining progressive, rehabilitative justice measures. It is a classic example of neoliberal/conservative rhetoric that relies on exaggeration, false dichotomies, and emotional appeals to shape public opinion and bolster support for punitive policies.

Speech interruptions:

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, I am trying to keep up here and I wondered what relevance this speech has had so far to private member's bill, Bill C-375. With all due respect to my friend, I see none.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I want to remind members that there is a bit of latitude when delivering speeches. However, I do want to remind those who are speaking that their speeches have to be related to the motion or bill at hand. I am sure the hon. member will reference the bill that is before the House right now. The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Liberals): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I have to say I am a little confused as to how this ties in. We are talking about another bill here entirely. I am a little confused.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Once again, I will remind the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek that the wording of the bill deals specifically with “any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes, as well as any mental health...

This text image is 2795 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
181/ cont'd April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... CPC's Michael Cooper deployed the austerity playbook. Instead of funding the system to function properly, they’d rather keep it broken. 👀🤔 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
Jowhari Speeches at 2nd, 3rd Reading

"Governments of today and tomorrow navigate that dynamic relationship."
 
This vague phrasing suggests an ongoing process but avoids any commitment to specific actions. "Navigate" implies incrementalism rather than structural reform.

"Mental health is an ongoing project, a frontier of medical and social science."

This academic framing depersonalizes the issue, turning real human suffering into a policy "project" rather than a crisis requiring systemic action.

"I trust our judiciary. I consider them credible decision-makers."
 
This absolves lawmakers of responsibility, shifting the burden onto judges rather than pushing for legislative guarantees of fair sentencing practices.

"Compassion and common sense priorities of my constituents in Richmond Hill."
 
The phrase "common sense" is often used as a rhetorical shield for minimal reforms while sidestepping calls for structural change.

"We co-hosted many events around mental health at Parliament."

Performative activism—hosting events rather than pushing for concrete policy changes.

"Advancing the progressive ideals I was elected to uphold and fight for, namely, the advancement of equality for all Canadians and, in particular, those who are marginalized."

This broad statement frames the bill as part of a larger progressive mission, but the legislation itself is a minor procedural tweak, not a transformative policy.

"Bill C-375 is one small step forward in addressing the invisible cost society bears fiscally and socially..."

Framing reform in terms of costs to society rather than moral imperatives is a classic neoliberal tactic to justify policies based on economic efficiency rather than justice.

Jowhari’s next pair of speeches reflect classic neoliberal governance—symbolic, incremental reform framed as bold progress. He acknowledges systemic failures, yet offers a "pragmatic" solution that codifies

This text image is 5943 characters over limit. Please refer to google docLiberal Party Speeches (Lloyd Longfield)

“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”

This quote is used to frame the Liberal Party as deeply concerned about justice reform, yet it conveniently ignores their ongoing commitment to the carceral state, their unwillingness to address the root causes of incarceration, and their failure to meaningfully invest in alternatives to imprisonment.

“Our government is seized with addressing this inequity.”

"Seized with" is a classic bureaucratic phrase that implies urgency without any guarantee of concrete action. If the government were truly prioritizing this issue, systemic change—like decarceration efforts or an overhaul of mental health services—would already be happening.

“Bill C-375 identifies an important gap in our justice system.”

A seemingly progressive statement, but it subtly downplays the systemic issues of criminalizing mental illness. This framing suggests the bill is a significant reform, when in reality, it's a minimal procedural change.

“The stated goals of the bill are consistent with the mandate given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice, which asks her to address gaps in services to those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.”

This is performative alignment with Trudeau’s supposed progressive justice reforms. By tying the bill to the Prime Minister’s mandate, Longfield is signalling party loyalty rather than engaging with the actual policy shortcomings.

“A number of factors have been cited as contributing to the increasing numbers of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Some of these include a lack of sufficient community resources, including housing, income and mental health services. They all connect.”

This acknowledges systemic factors but carefully avoids blaming Liberal policies for worsening inequality. Instead of proposing

This text image is 5800 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Liberal Party Speeches (Sherry Romanado)

"I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their hard work in studying the bill."

"The bill, as amended by committee, has now been concurred in at report stage."

This type of language is a standard Liberal Party maneuver—offering praise and procedural updates that sound like progress but mean nothing in practical terms. There is no indication of urgency, impact, or the actual significance of the bill in addressing systemic issues. Instead, it reads as if the system is functioning properly, despite the reality that meaningful reforms are often stalled or watered down.

"Essentially, Bill C-375 would codify this standard practice..."

This phrase is telling. The bill does not introduce anything transformative but rather legitimizes what probation officers already do. It subtly signals that the system is already handling mental health considerations, making it seem like reform is happening when, in reality, nothing substantial changes.

"The first change to the language replaced the term ‘mental disorder’ with ‘mental condition’."

While this may seem like a compassionate revision, it also reflects a neoliberal tendency to rebrand systemic problems with softer, less confrontational terminology. The real issue—how the criminal justice system fails those with mental health issues—remains unaddressed.

"The second change to the language will ensure that only the information about mental health with a direct relationship to the proceedings will be provided to protect the offender's privacy."

This is a classic example of a "balanced approach" that ultimately weakens reform. While protecting privacy is important, this framing suggests that mental health history should only be considered in a narrow, case-by-case manner rather than recognizing the broader systemic failures that lead

This text image is 2625 characters over limit. Please refer to google docCPC Speeches on Bill C-375

CPC Speeches: Michael Cooper (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "While I appreciate that Bill C-375 is a well-intentioned bill and I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill has been a strong and passionate advocate on issues concerning mental health, vulnerable persons, and Canadian society, I believe the bill is unnecessary."

What He Means: This is a classic example of faux-populist rhetoric and neoliberal jargon. Cooper uses performative praise ("well-intentioned," "strong and passionate advocate") as a cushion before dismissing the bill outright. By calling it "unnecessary," he signals that addressing mental health in the justice system is not a legislative priority. This is a standard conservative deflection strategy—acknowledge the problem superficially while refusing to take action.

What He Says: "Moreover, in addition to being unnecessary, I believe that Bill C-375 has the potential to create confusion and result in unfairness and inconsistencies in the administration of justice."

What He Means: This is a neoliberal bureaucratic argument—claiming that progressive reforms will somehow make things "confusing" or "inconsistent." This is the same rhetoric used against everything from universal healthcare to workers' rights—suggesting that any reform to an already broken system will somehow break it further. In reality, requiring mental health considerations in pre-sentence reports would create more consistency, not less, by ensuring all offenders receive a fair assessment.

What He Says: "The fact is that not all mental illnesses and disorders are the same. Even within some disorders, the degree of impact can vary considerably."

What He Means: This is bad-faith nitpicking to stall reform. Yes, mental illnesses vary—but that’s precisely why pre-sentence reports should include details on them. This argument is designed to paralyze action

This text image is 1422 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
121
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
180/ cont'd April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Liberals talk big on mental health, but their reforms are toothless. Bill C-375 was a baby step, & even that got stopped in its tracks. 🤦🤷 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
Witness Testimony (Dr. Patrick Smith, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association)

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-93/evidence#Int-10086975

Dr. Patrick Smith, the National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association, made a clear and urgent case for why Bill C-375 was a necessary—if modest—step toward justice for Canadians with mental illness. His argument was straightforward: Canada’s underfunded mental health system is failing people, pushing many into the prison system instead of providing the care they need. The bill, which would require pre-sentence reports to include mental health information, was a common-sense measure to ensure that courts consider an offender’s mental health needs before sentencing. Dr. Smith reminded the committee that Canada's failure to invest in mental health services has created a vicious cycle of institutionalization—moving people from psychiatric hospitals to prisons, where they receive even worse treatment. He pointed out that Canada spends less on mental health care than any other G7 country, and the result is that prisons have become de facto psychiatric institutions. 

A quarter of federal inmates have a mental illness, many with concurrent substance use disorders, and yet correctional facilities lack the resources to properly treat them. Instead, incarceration often worsens their conditions, increasing recidivism, homelessness, and social isolation upon release. His testimony was not just a moral appeal but also an economic argument. The cost of incarcerating a single individual—over $100,000 per year for men and $180,000 for women—is far higher than the cost of community-based treatment and support. Countries that have invested in mental health services instead of relying on the criminal justice system have seen improved outcomes, reduced incarceration rates, and lower overall costs. Yet Canada

This text image is 5055 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could perhaps expand on what the government is doing, what steps it is proposing to help people with mental illness stay out of the criminal system, and what steps it might to taking to help them move back into society, providing them with the real supports they need. We need to support people with mental illness, treat it as a health issue, and help them stay out of the criminal courts and get back into society.

Mr. Majid Jowhari: Mr. Speaker, our government has been proactive on this matter. The first step it took was to introduce, in our budget 2017, $5 billion over 10 years. Our government is working very closely with all of the provinces and territories to ensure that those funds are properly allocated and focused on the services needed. Our government is also working collaboratively with provinces and territories to make sure that proper indicators and metrics are developed, and that these could be reported on collaboratively with the provinces and territories. As to what is being done at Correctional Services, as I said in my speech, I had an opportunity, together with some of my colleagues, to visit a number of Correctional Services institutions, specifically the one I mentioned, as well as one for youth sentenced to terms of under two years. I saw firsthand the support given to youth who, in the process of their incarceration, were able to get rehabilitated. Unfortunately, because there is no consistency in our courts during the pre-sentencing report phase, these services are only highlighted and emphasized on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, when I had an opportunity to visit the Correctional Services institutions, most of the individual needs of the youth had been identified and taken into account. With this bill, I am hoping, with the support of my colleagues across the aisle and my..

This text image is 5245 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Liberal Party Speeches (Chris Bittle)

"Before I begin my speech I would like to thank my hon. friend from Richmond Hill, who in caucus and throughout this Parliament has been a tireless advocate for mental health."

Translation: Empty flattery. "Tireless advocate" means nothing when the actual legislative action is minimal, and mental health services remain underfunded and inaccessible.

"This legislation would amend provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with pre-sentence reports to be more responsive to offenders with mental health issues."

Translation: The government is tweaking a bureaucratic process rather than addressing the root issue—how the criminal justice system criminalizes mental illness instead of funding treatment and support.

"The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Richmond Hill, has indicated that his intention in introducing the bill was to ensure that information outlining any mental health disorders as well as any mental health care programs available is before the courts to ensure that those offenders with histories of mental illness are afforded care and compassion."

Translation: Sounds good, but “care and compassion” in the criminal justice system often amounts to lip service. The reality is that prisons in Canada have been repeatedly exposed for poor mental health care, solitary confinement, and lack of support upon release.

"Inroads are being made in recent years to eliminate the stigma around mental illness. People are more willing to talk about their struggles and their lives with a mental illness."

Translation: Classic neoliberal framing—reducing systemic problems to “stigma” rather than structural failures. The issue isn’t just that people don’t “talk about” mental health—it’s that mental health services are chronically underfunded, and those suffering are more likely to end up in jail than in care.

"In this regard I am extremely proud to be part of

This text image is 4771 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Liberal Party Speeches (Marco Mendicino)

"Our government will be supporting Bill C-375, and we commend the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his leadership and collaboration on the important issue of mental health in our criminal justice system."

Performative progressivism: He starts by praising the bill and its sponsor, despite the fact that this is a private member’s bill (PMB), meaning it has little to no guarantee of actual government support or prioritization. The language of “leadership and collaboration” is fluff, especially since they did not introduce this measure themselves.

"What is important for my hon. colleague to appreciate is that... [mental health considerations in sentencing] is a separate and distinct legal concept from the provisions under sections 718 and 721 of the Criminal Code..."

Technocratic over-explanation: This comes across as an attempt to drown out potential criticism by burying it in procedural language. Instead of directly addressing concerns about the bill’s vagueness or impact, he engages in legalistic hairsplitting.

"A pre-sentence report is a written document prepared by a probation officer to help the court learn more about the person to be sentenced."

Stating the obvious: This is basic information, framed as if it’s a revelation. It's meant to give the impression of action and expertise while avoiding deeper discussion on the systemic issues leading to criminalization of mentally ill people.

"The impacts of mental illness are of course not limited to the criminal justice system. They are linked to much broader challenges being faced by our society as a whole."

Broad, vague statements that sidestep responsibility: The government pretends to acknowledge systemic issues but avoids explicitly admitting how the criminalization of mental illness is exacerbated by austerity policies and neoliberal governance.

"The rate of mental illness among federal

This text image is 3009 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
179/ April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Canada's unelected Senate killed a bare-minimum justice reform bill that simply ensured judges consider mental health in sentencing. 🤯🚨 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
April 2019 - “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)” Bill C-375 (42-1)

Bill Sponsor: Majid Jowhari (Liberals)

Yea: Liberals (153/153), NDP (34/34), BQ (7/7), IND (2/2), GP (1/1), CCF (1/1)
Nay: Conservatives (76/76)

Notable Yea’s: Liberals - Gary Anandasangaree, Rene Arseneault, Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Chris Bittle, Bill Blair, Randy Boissonnault, Sean Casey, François-Philippe Champagne, Shaun Chen, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Sukh Dhaliwal, Anju Dhillon, Francis Drouin, Emmanuel Dubourg, Jean-Yves Duclos, Terry Duguid, Kirsty Duncan, Julie Dzerowicz, Ali Ehsassi, Fayçal El-Khoury, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Greg Fergus, Darren Fisher, Peter Fonseca, Mona Fortier, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Chrystia Freeland, Hedy Fry, Mark Gerretsen, Karina Gould, Patty Hajdu, Ken Hardie, Mark Holland, Ahmed Hussen, Gudie Hutchings, Angelo Iacono, Melanie Joly, Yvonne Jones, Majid Jowhari, Kamal Khera, Emmanuela Lambropoulous, Kevin Lamoureux, Stéphane Lauzon, Diane Lebouthillier, Joël Lightbound, Wayne Long, Lloyd Longfield, Steven MacKinnon, James Maloney, Ken McDonald, David McGuinty, John McKay, Ron McKinnon, Michael McLeod, Marco Mendicino, Marc Miller, Robert Morrissey, Mary Ng, Robert Oliphant, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Carla Qualtrough, Yves Robillard, Churence Rogers, Sherry Romanado, Ruby Sahota, Harjit Sajjan, Darrell Samson, Randeep Sarai, Francis Scarpaleggia, Peter Schiefke, Deb Schulte, Marc Serré, Judy Sgro, Brenda Shanahan, Terry Sheehan, Sonia Sidhu, Francesco Sorbara, Filomena Tassi, Dan Vandal, Anita Vandenbeld, Arif Virani, Jonathan Wilkinson, Jean Yip, Salma Zahid

NDP - Niki Ashton, Rachel Blaney, Alexandre Boulerice, Richard Cannings, Don Davies, Randall Garrison, Carol Hughes, Gord Johns, Peter Julian, Jenny Kwan, Alistair MacGregor

BQ - Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Mario Beaulieu, Mariléne Gill, Monique Pauzé, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Luc Thériault

GP - Elizabeth May
This text image is 777 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Exact Bill Language

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1 Subsection 721(3) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.‍1) any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that is relevant for sentencing purposes, as well as any mental health services or support available to the offender;”
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-375/third-reading

Bill C-375: A Bare-Minimum Reform Killed by an Unelected Senate

When we talk about legislative failure in Canada, we often point to governments refusing to take bold action. But sometimes, even the most modest and uncontroversial reforms get needlessly derailed by an institution that no one voted for: the unelected Senate. Bill C-375 is a textbook example of this.

What Was Bill C-375?

Bill C-375 was a private member’s bill introduced in the 42nd Parliament by Liberal MP Majid Jowhari. It was as simple and non-controversial as legislation gets. The bill sought to amend the Criminal Code to require that presentence reports for offenders include relevant information about their mental health condition and the availability of mental health services or support. Let’s be clear: this was not a radical overhaul of the justice system. It did not mandate treatment, divert offenders from prison, or offer any sweeping reforms to mental health services in Canada. All it did was ensure that judges had access to relevant information about an offender’s mental health during sentencing. That’s it.

What Happened in the House of Commons?

Despite its modest scope, Bill C-375 still faced opposition from the usual suspects: the Conservative Party. While the bill easily passed second reading in March 2018 and third reading in November 2018 with support from the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Greens, the Conservatives—true to form—voted against

This text image is 2316 characters over limit. Please refer to google docSubmitted Briefs (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Brief/BR9875907/br-external/CanadianAssociationOfElizabethFrySocieties-e.pdf

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) doesn’t mince words: Bill C-375, while a small step, fails to address the real crisis at hand—our so-called "justice" system has turned prisons into warehouses for women with mental health issues. Their brief makes it clear that prisons aren’t just failing to provide adequate mental health care; they’re actively harming and punishing women for conditions that should never have been criminalized in the first place. The core issue? Canada treats poverty, systemic racism, and trauma as crimes rather than social failures that require real investments in healthcare, housing, and community support. 

The CAEFS highlights how women—especially Indigenous women—end up behind bars because our society refuses to provide the support they need. And once they’re in the system, the so-called "rehabilitation" is a joke: instead of care, women face segregation, abusive restraint practices, and a security-driven approach that treats mental distress as a behavioural issue rather than a health crisis. Even worse, courts and corrections officials operate under the dangerous delusion that prison itself is a source of mental health treatment. The CAEFS exposes this as a blatant lie. In reality, women are often given longer sentences under the false assumption that federal institutions will provide them with better healthcare. The result? They’re locked away for years, cut off from family and support systems, and subjected to the very conditions that worsen their mental health—solitary confinement, maximum security segregation, and physical restraints. This is not care. It’s state-sanctioned violence.
The CAEFS isn’t here for half-measures like Bill C-375 that..

This text image is 3049 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Witness Testimony (Dean Embry, Defence Counsel, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-94/evidence#Int-10097926

Dean Embry, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers (CCCDL), argued against Bill C-375, not because he’s opposed to considering mental health in sentencing, but because he believes this bill does more harm than good. His central concern? Privacy and agency—two things that the justice system already tramples on when dealing with vulnerable people, especially those with mental illness.

Embry points out that under this bill, an offender’s mental health history wouldn’t just be considered—it would be mandated into pre-sentence reports as a matter of course. That means deeply personal medical information could be made public, even if it has no relevance to the crime. Want to serve a lighter sentence? Well, now your trauma, your struggles, your private medical history—all of it could be exposed to the courts, the state, and potentially anyone who gets their hands on the public record. And who decides what’s relevant? Not the accused. Not their lawyer. But parole officers who aren’t trained in mental health assessment and who might just take whatever information they can get from family members, doctors, or even hospital records.

Embry also makes the crucial point that this bill treats mental health disorders as if they define the person rather than being one of many aspects of their life. He warns that certain diagnoses—especially stigmatized ones like borderline personality disorder—could actually lead to harsher sentences. Meanwhile, plenty of people with undiagnosed conditions, or those who refuse to disclose their struggles due to stigma, could end up being misrepresented entirely. And since we already have a legal precedent that allows mental health to be considered in sentencing..

This text image is 5404 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
101
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
You’d think after back-to-back-to-back-to-back (you get it) omnibus bills—and multiple deep-dive sub-threads—I might sit this one out. But when faced with Bill C-86 (42-1) the largest piece of legislation in Canadian history (850+ pages), my curiosity only grew. So, I tore this monstrosity apart.👇
132
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
178/ Dec 2018 - “Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2” Bill C-86 (42-1) www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en... What is this madness?! Another sub-thread? That's what happens when the Liberal Party drops the largest omnibus bill in Canadian history.👇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli bsky.app/profile/ryan...
101
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 14/03/2025
You’d think after back-to-back-to-back-to-back (you get it) omnibus bills—and multiple deep-dive sub-threads—I might sit this one out. But when faced with Bill C-86 (42-1) the largest piece of legislation in Canadian history (850+ pages), my curiosity only grew. So, I tore this monstrosity apart.👇
132
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan.bsky.social · 10/03/2025
This may be the biggest free speech crisis in living memory. The president now bragging about detaining a lawful permanent resident and smearing him as 'pro Hamas', no outlining any specific crimes he is accused of or charged with. This is what a fascist takeover looks like.
321101763134
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan.bsky.social · 10/03/2025
SCOOP—Emails obtained by Prem Thakker and Zeteo show Mahmoud Khalil reached out for help from the Columbia administration *one day before* ICE detained him. He said he couldn't sleep from threats he was receiving. He even wrote he feared ICE "might come to my home."
zeteo.com
SCOOP: Emails Show Mahmoud Khalil Asked Columbia for Protection a Day Before He Was Detained
"I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm."
13252441573
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 10/03/2025
Thread update: 12 bills left for 1st Trudeau term. Working on 850+pg omnibus budget (almost done). Got 4 or 5 bills close to ready (minus debate commentary). Should be a steady flow of bills up until that 11th bill, another omnibus budget. #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli bsky.app/profile/ryan...
112
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
The Lefty Canadian Radical @tlcr.bsky.social · 10/03/2025
With Conservatives leading the Liberal and Conservative parties, THIS is the moment for the NDP to go far to the left and run on bold left-wing policies, instead of ones that are exciting as Mesothelioma class action lawsuit commercials that air after the Simpsons. Will they drop the ball? Yes.
46112
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 07/03/2025
When governments start quietly overhauling election laws at the 11th hour, you should pay attention. 🚨 Bill C-76 was one of the many rushed, massive bills Trudeau forced through before 2019—because they didn’t want debate. But we’re going to have one anyway. 🧵 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
101
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 07/03/2025
177/ Dec 2018 - "Elections Modernization Act” Bill C-76 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Sub-thread time! LP passed numerous omnibus bills at the 11th hour, this time overhauling elections, repealing some of PP's (un)Fair Elections Act. 👇 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli bsky.app/profile/ryan...
101
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 07/03/2025
When governments start quietly overhauling election laws at the 11th hour, you should pay attention. 🚨 Bill C-76 was one of the many rushed, massive bills Trudeau forced through before 2019—because they didn’t want debate. But we’re going to have one anyway. 🧵 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
101
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 03/03/2025
176/ cont'd Dec 2018 - "An Act to amend the Export & Import Permits Act & the Criminal Code... Arms Trade Treaty & other amendments)" www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... LP had a chance to avoid culpability in Gaza. Extra tools to fight Trump. Chose the status quo instead.🤷 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
Red Hat, Blue Hat: The Liberal Party’s CPC-Style Deflection Tactics on Human Rights Violations

If there’s one thing both the Conservatives and Liberals agree on, it’s that they’d rather avoid an honest discussion about Canada’s complicity in global human rights abuses. While the CPC engages in outright fear-mongering and corporate shilling, the Liberal Party employs a different—but equally dishonest—tactic: deflection and misdirection. During the debates over Bill C-79, the NDP consistently raised legitimate concerns about Canada’s arms sales to regimes known for human rights abuses. The Liberal response? Not to address the concern, but to attack the questioner. Rather than justify their decision to continue selling weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, the Liberals pivoted to old, out-of-context campaign positions and selective outrage.

The Liberal Playbook: When Cornered, Change the Subject

Take this moment from the debate as an example:

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the topic of disingenuousness, it is easy to speak highly of concepts like human rights, but I notice that adherence to these words often goes out the door when money is involved. The Liberal government is talking a good line on human rights, but Canadians know that this country has sent $15 billion worth of light armoured carriers to Saudi Arabia, which is using the vehicles against the civilian population in Yemen. The government knows that and the world knows that, and yet the Liberal government has refused to cancel that contract or to do anything about it, even though Canadian law prohibits Canada from selling arms to countries that use those weapons against civilian populations, which is exactly what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen. Does the hon. member agree with the NDP that the Liberal government should cancel the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia in the clear face of Saudi Arabia's use

This text image is 3585 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.The Liberal Party Turtle-Shell Strategy for Bill C-79

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I agree with some of the things my Conservative colleague just said, but I disagree with others. One of the things we have in common is that neither of us understands why the Liberal members here are so scared. It is your bill. Why are you not talking? Why are you refusing to debate your own bill? Are you trying to hide? Are you ashamed? Is it that you are not proud of it? Why do you not want to talk? Is it that you do not like confrontation, because it makes you uncomfortable? You are making us sit until midnight every night because you are behind—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. Order. I must remind the member to address the Chair, not individuals or the government. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has fallen behind on its legislative agenda. It is forcing parliamentarians to stay late into the night to study its bills because it is incapable of moving its legislative agenda forward. Now it is asking us to debate an important bill that speaks to significant Canadian and, dare I say it, Liberal values, like freedom and respect. However, the Liberals refuse to talk about it. It is utterly baffling. It would be all the more baffling if we were talking about another bill to legalize a certain substance, but that is not the topic of tonight's debate. It is somewhat surreal that only the official opposition, the second opposition party, and the others are interested in debating this major bill governing Canada's arms exports to other countries. I will come back to this, because it speaks to fundamental values we hold. There is a general tendency to puff up with pride when this subject comes up, but when the time..

This text image is 5391 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Madam Speaker, we have been having a great back and forth this evening between the NDP and the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member has any inclination as to what the Liberals thoughts are on this tonight.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am an objective observer, but they obviously must not be too proud of their bill, since they are all staring at their computers, iPads, or notes. They refuse to listen to the opposition's comments, even though the bill is like Gruyère cheese with no teeth. The bill does not comply with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, since it exempts all of our arms exports to the United States. One more thing: the bill has no influence or power over the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC. This is the crown corporation that sold helicopters to the Duterte government in the Philippines, but the Liberal bill would not allow us to do anything about CCC.

During debates on Bill C-79, the Liberals’ behaviour in the House was telling — and not in a good way. 

As the NDP raised critical questions about Canada’s role in global human rights abuses, the Liberals went silent, hiding behind a wall of indifference and deflection. 

It’s almost as if they didn’t want to defend their own bill — or worse, as if they couldn’t. The irony? They’re the ones who introduced it, but when the spotlight was on them, they refused to engage in meaningful debate.

Take, for instance, Alexandre Boulerice’s sharp comments. He pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberals refusing to defend the bill they authored, making us wonder: if this is such a "values-driven" bill, why is no one from the government even speaking up? If they were truly committed to human rights, why were they cowering when it came time to answer tough questions?

But it gets worse. The bill is riddled with loopholes so massive you

This text image is 815 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.A Lost Opportunity That Begs to Ask the Question, How Responsible is the Liberal Party for Situation With the U.S./Donald Trump?

Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation this morning. I have to say that I was more concerned about what went unsaid, so I would like him to comment on the U.S. exemption. What are his thoughts on the fact that Canada will be able to slip things in through the back door that the bill will not allow in through the front door? Mr. 

Francis Drouin (Liberals): Mr. Speaker, Canada has always had a good relationship with the United States. The United States is not a high-risk country. We have a very good relationship with them. I think this treaty will enable Canada to work with the international community. We must take care not to lump the United States in with other high-risk countries. They are two different things. We must not compare apples and oranges. 

Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying the same thing that my Conservative colleague said to my hon. friend from Mount Royal, that yesterday was a historic day with the Holocaust memorial and needs to be recognized as such by all Canadians. New Democrats agree with the member's general position on this bill, but I wonder whether he shares our concern that Canada's exports of military goods to the United States appear to be exempt from regulation and would continue to be so under this bill. Would he agree with me, notwithstanding his point about the interrelationship of our trade with the United States and its importance to our economy, that as Canadians we should stand up and ensure that the Americans are also subject to the rigours of this bill? 

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Liberals): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. colleague from Victoria for his consistent support for Canada's Jewish community. I know it is... 

This text image is 4394 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
111
Reposted by Ryan Ritchie
Ryan Ritchie @ryanritchie.bsky.social · 03/03/2025
175/ cont'd Dec 2018 - "An Act to amend the Export & Import Permits Act & the Criminal Code... Arms Trade Treaty & other amendments)" www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... CPC engaged in extremely divisive fear-mongering, causing a lobbyist to embarrass himself in testimony.🤣 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
Witness Testimony - Canadian Gun Lobby Acting Straight-Up Unhinged & Delusional

Mr. Greg Farrant (Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters): Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, members of the committee. On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our 100,000 members and our 740 member clubs across Ontario, thank you for affording us the opportunity to appear before you today to comment on Bill C-47. Clearly, most reasonable people do not object to increased oversight when it comes to the export of various types of what are referred to as conventional weapons in the Arms Trade Treaty and increased vigilance as to what countries these weapons are being sent to, where they might be used to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or subjugation of their own citizens. In fact, since a large part of the bill deals with the export of these types of weapons and not importation into Canada, we have no major objections in that regard. There are, however, two or three troubling aspects regarding the importation rules and the absence of certainty in the legislation that I want to comment on very briefly today. During second reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated: I would like to make it clear that Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty does not and would not affect domestic ownership of firearms or Canada's domestic firearms laws and policies. The ATT would govern the import and export of conventional arms, not the trade in sporting and hunting firearms owned and used by law-abiding Canadian citizens. This government understands that this treaty will in no way affect domestic ownership of firearms. In response to a question from the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, he responded by saying: Let me make it clear that accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will in no way affect domestic...

This text image is 8830 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.C-47 Debates

"Terrorism." A word that, in theory, should mean something clear and objective. In practice? It means whatever the Canadian government—and its allies—want it to mean. As the debate on Bill C-47 begins, the Liberal Party sets the stage with this polished and self-righteous declaration: "The Arms Trade Treaty is about protecting people... ensuring countries effectively regulate the international trade of arms so that they are not used to support terrorism, international organized crime, gender-based violence, human rights abuses, or violations of international humanitarian law." Sounds great on paper, right? But let’s take a closer look at who Canada considers "terrorists" and who gets a free pass to commit human rights abuses with Canadian-made weapons.

If the Canadian government were actually serious about preventing arms from fueling terrorism, war crimes, and human rights abuses, then surely they’d stop selling weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regimes that have made a sport out of violating international law. After all, bombing hospitals, levelling entire neighbourhoods, and enforcing military occupation sure sound like terrorism—unless, of course, it’s done with Western backing. Then it’s just “self-defence.” Meanwhile, who does Canada slap the “terrorist” label on? Primarily Muslim groups, Palestinian resistance movements, and organizations that dare to challenge Western hegemony. The message is loud and clear: State violence is fine. Resistance is terrorism. So when the government tells us this bill is about stopping arms from reaching terrorists, we have to ask: Whose terrorism are they talking about? Because when it comes to Canada’s foreign policy, the double standard is the policy. And with that, let’s dive into the hypocrisy and contradictions that shaped the debate over Bill C-47.

The Answer to the Question, Why Did Greg Sound Like an Unhinged Loser at..

This text image is 5538 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the member's concern over domestic implications here, we have been firmly assured there would be no such implications to domestic users. Canada has, however, in the past 25 years sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with questionable human rights records. Acceding to this treaty should have a profound effect over reducing such undesirable trade. Would the member opposite not agree that acceding to this treaty would be a good and desirable public outcome?

Mr. Martin Shields (CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always something we would want to do, as I said in my statement. We are absolutely opposed to weapons used by terrorists in areas of the world where destruction is happening. In this country, we have a tremendous number of people who use them appropriately and very lawfully. Those are the rights we are looking to protect, of those people who are lawful, legal gun owners in this country. Those are the rights we want to protect.

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): I will read out some of the parts of what this bill would actually require. This is Bill C-47 for all those in Canada watching. They can see the actual act. I am going to read what it would require of business owners who sell long guns and firearms. It would require them to keep records. It states: Every person or organization that applies for a permit, import allocation, export allocation, certificate or other authorization under this Act shall keep all records that are necessary to determine whether they have complied with this Act. If company X is a company that sells firearms, it might export and sell them to somebody from the U.S. who buys them. This would then apply to that company's database. I might go in and buy a firearm from this particular company, and this is a question that some have asked. What limitations are

This text image is 4041 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have side conversations with other members in the Conservative caucus. To me, it is quite clear that Bill C-47 is entirely about arms trade. It is entirely about export of armaments. It has no application to domestic sale of long guns or guns of any kind. It is unfortunate we are having this conversation in the House, because I think it could unnecessarily alarm people, including people in my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are long-gun owners and gun owners and who do not want these imaginary burdens that the Conservatives imagine are created by the bill. I will try to explain it, if I can, for my friends in the Conservative caucus. When we go through the bill, the structure is clear. Everything in the bill is related to amendments to permit accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. My question for the Liberals, if I had a chance to put it, would be about the huge loopholes that have been left on the sale of arms. However, going back to the concern about legitimate hunters, “broker” is defined only in terms of export and import of armaments. The list that is concerning people, which is found in paragraph 10.3 of the bill, “keeping records”, only applies to those, under the purpose of the bill, keeping records necessary to determine if they have complied with an act which is about the export of armaments that could be used by terrorist organizations around the world. If my hon. colleague were satisfied, as I am satisfied, that there was no way this bill could have any impact on domestic owners, would the member please agree that it would be better for the world to limit the sale of armaments?

The CPC’s “Divisive” Fear-Mongering on Bill C-47: Hypocrisy on Full Display

If there’s one thing the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) excels at, it’s projection. While they cry crocodile tears about...

This text image is 3588 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
101