iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

10/ June 2019 - Bill C-58 (42-1) "It’s time for daringness. Instead of repeating the same lines, we need honesty, openness, and an authentic touch. When we fail to open these doors, we let cynicism grow, and that kills democracy.” Rachel Blaney, NDP Exactly. 💪🍁 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Rachel Blaney (“Highlight Reel”)

Access to Information & Government Accountability: “We are talking about something that is fundamentally important... how that information can be accessed by journalists and reporters... How do Canadians trust us if that information is not released?”

Crisis of Trust in Government: “When people feel that they cannot trust the government, that is a dangerous thing for our democracy. How do we build that relationship when information is hidden, when things seem unfair, and we cannot explain why they happened?”

Lack of Transparency & Broken Promises: “It’s time for daringness. Instead of repeating the same lines, we need honesty, openness, and an authentic touch. When we fail to open these doors, we let cynicism grow, and that kills democracy.”

Incrementalism Isn't Enough: “A little bit better is not good enough... It is not good enough for democracy, and it certainly is not good enough for indigenous children in this country who are struggling in profound ways every single day.”

Root Reform vs. Surface-Level Fixes: “The proposed reforms are just not good enough. We need root and branch reform, not incremental tinkering... This government promised transparency but is still blocking access at the highest levels.”

Call for Stronger Democracy & Accountability: “When everyday Canadians cannot get access, what are we telling them? We are telling them that their voice does not belong in those places. But they do belong in those places... We are here to represent those very voices.”

Indigenous Struggles & Accountability: “Indigenous communities had great systems in place. We need to do better, be more accountable to the people we serve. That’s what a leader does. A leader serves from behind.”

A Better Vision for Canada: “I do not like our country to be in the middle. I want Canada to be at the top... We need to be brave enough to have these painful conversations

This text image is 9877 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

GP (Elizabeth May) Speech on Bill C-58

On Canada's lack of real freedom of information: "Canada does not so much have freedom of information legislation as it has freedom from information legislation."

On the government’s broken promise: "What was promised was that access to information legislation would apply to a Prime Minister's Office and to a ministerial office so that, for instance, when an issue arose, a member of the public or the media could ask how that happened and do an access request. That will not be permitted under this legislation."

On the limitations of proactive disclosure: "Proactive disclosure of some things, like briefing documents, spending, contracts, and so on, is a good thing, but here is the rub: giving that control solely to the agency itself and not allowing it to be reviewable may actually be a step backward."

On the troubling nature of 'vexatious' requests: "‘Vexatious’ is far too subjective and far too restrictive a term to be allowed in government legislation. It certainly is a shock to find it in legislation that is supposed to take us to the promise of open and accessible government."

On the need for stronger oversight and accountability: "The decision as to whether the information is releasable or not needs to reside with the Information Commissioner or members of that agency. It is up to those officials to decide whether it is vexatious or not."

On the disparity between federal and provincial access to information laws: "The Government of British Columbia has been living with a far more robust freedom of information regime, which has not been extended into our federal law with respect to the access to information that we certainly expected to come forward from the government."

On the broken promises and missed opportunities: "This failure in this legislation is substantial. I sincerely hope that when the bill gets to committee, the Liberals will be

This text image is 8556 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I share the Conservative member's disappointment that the campaign commitment made by the Liberal government to close the loophole for access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices was not done even though that was in the Liberal mandate letters and in the campaign promise. I agree that Bill C-58 fails on that. However, we have a bit more prehistory. In 2006, the Harper Conservatives campaigned on a promise that they would update access to information legislation, but they did not. The New Democrats introduced private members bills based on the recommendations by successive information commissioners. My colleague, Pat Martin, brought a private member's bill forward in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, and the Conservatives voted against every one of them. Why the change of heart now?

Hon. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, when we are giving our speeches or asking questions or making comments here, we all focus on elements of our own past. I quoted the Information Commissioner and how she responded to how the government had responded to her recommendations. She said, “I am very please that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.” I know that the member was not in the previous Parliament. However, she can refer to Madam Legault's comments. Did the Conservative government do all of what was in Bill C-613, or in Pat Martin's private member's bill? No, it did not. I remember debating Pat Martin about one of his versions of the bill and suggesting that he bring the same disclosure he aspired to in government to his legal defence fund. Members might remember that from the last Parliament. He actually had unions contribute in a roundabout way, which I felt went around the rules for fundraising, to pay some of the bills for a libel action he had. I remember that debate. To his

This text image is 10018 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion is for a highly imperfect piece of proposed legislation that deserves much greater debate and consideration by the Liberal government. It has been condemned by Canadians across the spectrum, by those who would demand the right to know how they are governed through access to information. It has been dismissed by the Information Commissioner herself as a regressive piece of legislation. She indicated quite clearly that the status quo would be preferable to the proposed law, which is being debated at third reading today. The President of the Treasury Board has made excuses, and he urged Canadians, with a slight Churchillian twist, not to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. Well, there is very little good in Bill C-58, which came through committee with some significant, but very few, amendments to correct a poorly written piece of legislation. This piece of proposed legislation is beyond redemption. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board why he does not simply withdraw Bill C-58 and go back to the drawing board.

Hon. Scott Brison (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Thornhill, who was a minister in the previous Harper government, is in fact very consistent. He is effectively advocating that we do nothing to update the Access to Information Act, which is consistent what the Conservatives did in the past, because for nine years they did absolutely nothing to strengthen the act, despite the fact their platform committed in 2006 to modernizing that act. They passed 250 pieces of legislation over the subsequent nine years, but not one of them touched access to information. We are the first government in 34 years to act to significantly modernize, improve, and strengthen the access to information regime. For the first time ever, we would be providing order-making...

This text image is 19632 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

010

9/ June 2019 - Bill C-58 (42-1) "The PM promised an end to omnibus legislation... instead, the Liberals have doubled down & created some of the most monstrous pieces of omnibus legislation that the House has ever seen in a century & a half." Peter Julian, NDP TRUE✅ #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Charlie Angus (“Highlight Reel”)

On the importance of access to information: "Access to information is one of the fundamental principles of an accountable democracy. In order to hold government to account, we need to know who is involved when the decisions in the backroom are made."

On the government's failure to live up to promises: "When the Prime Minister makes a promise on access to information and then undermines it in such a cynical manner, Canadians have a right to know how this happens and how it affects them."

On the inadequacy of Bill C-58: "What we do not have is the ability for the Access to Information Commissioner to ensure that all documents are posted... If we allow government to release what it wants, it will not release what is embarrassing. However, we need accountability."

On the suppression of justice for residential school survivors: "The justice department knew the truth, had the evidence, but lied in hearings, suppressed that evidence, and had cases thrown out... How could this have happened in 2015, 2016, and 2017 in Canada?"

On the betrayal of survivors of St. Anne’s Residential School: "The justice department continues to take the brass knuckles approach to deny them basic levels of justice."

On the government's lack of accountability: "For what purpose in a nation like ours would the Government of Canada opt to protect pedophiles, rapists, and sadists by hiding their names? For what possible reason would justice department lawyers, the people who are charged with presenting the law for the people of Canada, go into hearings and challenge survivors who suffered horrific levels of abuse?"

On the role of the Information Commissioner: "The Information Commissioner and her office are one of the great institutions of our country. She understood the seriousness of this. It was not a vexatious request; it was about justice."

On the government's obstruction of...

This text image is 7396 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Madam Speaker, the story that my colleague for Timmins—James Bay has told is a terrible story. It illustrates exactly why, to get to the bottom of some of the most terrible crimes, whether they are human, ethical, or environmental, we need to know what is happening at the place of decision-makers and not leave this in the hands of the bureaucrats. Given the Prime Minister's very solemn promise that the Access to Information Act would be extended to cover the offices of the Prime Minister and ministers so that we can see as Canadians and as members of Parliament how decisions were made, what is the impact for people such as those the member represents, the indigenous people, who are fighting the legacy of residential schools and St. Anne's repeated court cases? When we see this promise so completely broken, what does that do to their faith in government?

Mr. Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, there are many tools a government has to limit access to information. There are cabinet confidences and a whole series of tools that the government already has. However, the question my hon. colleague has raised about the promise that was made by the Prime Minister to open up the key ministerial offices to access to information is really fundamental, because Canada has been called a black hole of accountability when it comes to the fact that any minister can put something under the ministerial office and lo and behold, it cannot be accessed. This is where the decisions are made. The Prime Minister made a specific promise about opening that up, and yet he did not follow through, and these are key issues, particularly with the issue of St. Anne's Residential School. What we need to know as politicians and the public are the decisions that went into the political decisions, not into the legal issues, and not into the individual cases. Those are already covered and

This text image is 7843 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed that my colleague ran out of time. I would like to ask him, is there anything else he would like to say?

Mr. Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the best questions I have ever had. I do not even know where to start. Let me add this, because I do not think we got to it. With regard to the notion of vexatious and bad faith, who determines it? The department holding the information gets to determine if a request coming from a Canadian is in bad faith. The department can deem that a request asking for information from its department is in bad faith or vexatious. It is not defined in the law. No, it is interpreted by the government that is holding the information. On normal day-to-day information, this is not going to be a serious issue. However, when it is sensitive information, embarrassing information, information that the government does not want out, all it has to do is take out a big stamp in the department and slam down “vexatious” or “bad faith”, and then it is rejected. The only power that the Information Commissioner has is to take the whole thing to court if Canadians complain. The government is already applying this bill, even though it has not passed Parliament. The Information Commissioner's office is already filing complaints on behalf of Canadians because they are not getting information already, and the bill has not passed. Let us imagine when this bill becomes law, which the Liberals, by the way and ironically, have shut down debate on. There is no truer sense of irony from the Liberals that they are closing off, suffocating debate in Parliament—more than Stephen Harper did—on a bill that is talking about the need to provide access to information to Canadians. My goodness, the hubris on that side. When Canadians hear these stories and they go through the experience, time will tell for the

This text image is 5710 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly a model of constancy. He will say on Wednesday the exact same thing he said on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday. It is as if his criticisms of this bill are in a time warp. When the bill was introduced, there was a lot of commentary on that. The hon. member's party made a number of amendments. A number of those amendments were accepted when the bill went to committee. It was improved on the House side. It was further improved on the Senate side. The government has accepted many of the amendments that were introduced by the Senate. Indeed, the current Information Commissioner said that a lot of the issues that were raised by the former information commissioner were addressed in this bill. The Information Commissioner said that this bill should pass and that it is an important improvement on the existing legislation, which, I might add, has not been changed since the 1980s. Would the member at least do us a favour and recognize the number of improvements that have been made to this legislation, and also the comments of the current Information Commissioner, who called upon Parliament to pass this bill into law because it is an improvement over the existing situation?

Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member in the finance committee, and I like the member very much. It is clear to Canadians that when he says that he thinks there is support from the Information Commissioner, he is hedging his bets. He knows full well why. The reality is that this simply does not pass the test. The member also mentioned that the Liberals did accept an amendment or two. The reality is that the NDP, as the member well knows, gave notice of three dozen amendments. These are carefully considered. We took the bill and said...

This text image is 7088 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

8/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend..” Bill C-58 (42-1) "The Civil Liberties Association has said... first nations have said... trade unions have said... journalists have said, all of which has been to pan this effort as an appalling waste of time." Murray Rankin, NDP 👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am puzzled by the discussion of the member for Cariboo—Prince George and that of his colleagues on the opposition benches today about bad legislation. We are here today to talk about great legislation. We are tabling great legislation that is wonderful for all Canadians. However, while we are on the topic of bad legislation, perhaps my friend could tell us why the Conservative Party was able to pass over 250 pieces of legislation in a 10-year period, but somehow never got around to its 2006 campaign promise to address deficiencies in the Access to Information Act. Did the Conservatives run out of time perhaps or was it number 300 on their list of priorities? Maybe the member could explain his displeasure with the fact that we are finally getting around to a Conservative campaign promise.

Mr. Todd Doherty: Madam Speaker, that is what I love about Liberals. The arrogance gets the best of them. What did I say in my speech? I said that the Liberals' argument was that the Conservatives did not get around to it, that the Conservatives did this or did not do that. That is exactly what they are doing now. We are not here to talk about what we did and did not do. We are here to talk about the current government. The Liberals lied to Canadians during their election campaign. At the time, the member for Papineau campaigned on day 10 and said that his government would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. He lied.

This interaction exemplifies the Liberals' typical shift of blame towards the Conservatives for not delivering on their promises when they were in power. Parliamentary Secretary Andy Fillmore seems to be trying to deflect the conversation away from the current government's failures by attacking the previous Conservative government. This is a classic move..

This text image is 7056 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

NDP Speeches

Former MP Murray Rankin Delivers Trio of Powerful Speeches on Bill C-58 (“Highlight Reel”)

1st Speech:

On the failure of the bill: "This bill is far more conspicuous for what it fails to do... It fails to expand the scope of the Act, and it fails to bring ministers' offices within the ambit of transparency. The promise of openness is nothing more than a hollow slogan."

On the importance of transparency: "We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Transparency is vital to ensuring that the people of Canada know what their government is doing behind closed doors. The Access to Information Act is not just a tool—it is a cornerstone of a free society."

On the Liberal government's broken promises: "The Liberals promised openness and transparency, but what we have here is a watered-down version of what was promised. This bill is more about protecting the government's secrets than serving the public’s right to know."

On the delay of information: "Information delayed is information denied. Journalists and everyday Canadians alike are left in the dark because of the government's constant stonewalling. This bill does nothing to change that reality."

On the failure to address exemptions: "The exemptions in this bill are vague, overly discretionary, and—most importantly—do not require the government to prove harm in withholding information. This bill continues to allow the government to hide behind excuses and opaque language."

On the issue of "cabinet confidences": "This bill perpetuates the 'cabinet laundering' loophole—a black hole where important documents disappear simply because they are labeled as 'cabinet confidences.' This was the big opportunity to close that loophole. Instead, it remains wide open."

On the unworkable order-making process: "The so-called order-making powers in this bill are a chimera. It creates a convoluted, costly, and unnecessary system that ultimately

This text image is 6505 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the member at the very least recognize that the legislation would improve our system significantly? It would appear that he does somewhat indirectly. The government has been fairly clear. When we go into the committee process, we look forward to hearing potential amendments from NDP members. They might want to share some of those amendments sooner as opposed to later if they are so confident in them. Let us wait and see what happens at committee. This legislation would make a significant improvement to transparency and open government. We should all be supporting it.

Mr. Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. We cannot support something that will do so little to deal with the fundamental problems that, after 34 years, governments on both sides of the aisle have created. The amendments from the NDP that the government can anticipate will be very much like the amendments from the committee that studied this. They will be very much like the amendments from the Information Commissioner. They will be very much like the amendments that were proposed over years. They may even be like the amendments the Prime Minister sought to make to the legislation when he was in opposition, which I would suggest are very different than what we see before us today in the legislation.

Rankin sharply rejects Kevin Lamoureux’s assertion that the legislation would bring about significant improvements. His response cuts to the heart of the matter: the proposed legislation is insufficient to address the deep-rooted problems in Canada’s access-to-information system. Rankin’s refusal to support the bill unless it addresses these systemic failures is rooted in the populist idea that real change requires more than token gestures. He critiques

This text image is 2605 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

3rd Speech:

On the government's failure to deliver transparency: “It is a very disturbing situation we find ourselves in. During the election campaign, the government committed to transparency… it was the result of a considered effort by the government to deliver on an election promise on transparency. It was a total disappointment when it came forward.”

On the Information Commissioner's criticism: “When the former commissioner says that the bill is regressive and is a step backwards, despite the bold promises of transparency the Prime Minister made… we can imagine the disappointment of Canadians.”

On the need for access to information reform: “Canada got an access to information act... it is old. It was passed in the eighties. It is from horse-and-buggy days, yet some of those old features have not been corrected in the bill before us.”

On the importance of access to information: “I care deeply about the issue. I think it is central to a democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada has called the right to know, freedom of information and access to information a ‘quasi-constitutional right’ Canadians have.”

On the government's broken promises: “One thing the Liberals talked about constantly in the last election was that the bill would be extended to the Prime Minister’s Office and ministers’ offices... That was a black and white election promise that has now been broken by the current government.”

On proactive disclosure: “What the government likes to talk about is what it calls proactive disclosure, which is a good thing… However, as much as I like that, the fact is that it is not what people want… ministers' offices are not subject to the law. It is a bizarre aberration.”

On the Senate's proposed amendments: “The Senate has brought forward improvements, and for the government to say it cannot even go there is frankly shocking… We are going to just put them all aside. That is quite...

This text image is 6049 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

7/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the..” Bill C-58 (42-1) "I hate to say I enjoy this phenomenon that happens in the House when the Liberals & the Conservatives stand & accuse each other of being worse at things." Randall Garrison, NDP🫣 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Dan Albas (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

Faux-Populist Rhetoric & Neoliberal Buzzwords:

What He Says: "It is often said that image is everything. I share that observation because never before in modern day Canadian history have we witnessed a prime minister who is as image conscious as the member for Papineau is."

What He Means: Trudeau is vain and obsessed with branding. Ignore the fact that every modern political leader engages in branding, including the Conservatives, who have spent decades using American-style image politics to sell themselves as “populists” while serving corporate elites. This is an attempt to make Trudeau look uniquely dishonest while distracting from the CPC's own marketing-driven politics.

What He Says: "As some will know, during the last election the Liberals again made many of the same open government style promises, similar to what was in the Prime Minister's earlier private member's bill. As usual, these promises used many of the correct buzzwords. They looked good. They sounded good. There was only one problem: the Liberals got elected and now those promises have to be fulfilled."

What He Means: We know that politicians lie, but we only care when Liberals do it. Never mind that the Conservative Party has also made countless empty promises about accountability, transparency, and open government—only to turn around and engage in secrecy, lobbying, and corporate cronyism once in power. This is about painting the Liberals as uniquely corrupt while pretending the Conservatives are fundamentally different (they aren’t).

Red Scare & Anti-Government Rhetoric:

What He Says: "That is a growing problem with how the Prime Minister and his small, elite inner circle does things. Many of our constituents are becoming tired of it."

What He Means: Dog-whistle rhetoric about “elites” being in charge—without ever acknowledging that Conservatives are just as deeply...

This text image is 3213 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): Madam Speaker, I hate to say I enjoy this phenomenon that happens in the House when the Liberals and the Conservatives stand and accuse each other of being worse at things. Here again, the Conservatives say Liberals are worse than them and the Liberals say they were terrible, but we do not get to a solution that serves Canadians. Why is it that, no matter what political stripe, Liberal or Conservative, governments have found it so easy not to adopt the very obvious recommendations that we need so Canadians can get access to information in a timely manner?

Mr. Bob Zimmer: Madam Speaker, the member from the other party likes to watch us debate this issue, but everyone on our side says if there is something that needs to be exposed, we should absolutely expose it. We are sent here to be a democracy in this place. As the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, we want to have truth exposed in this place so the taxpayers can see what we are doing. We have done that. As the member to my right has said, we are the ones who brought in disclosure of our finances as members of Parliament. That is something the Conservatives have brought to shine the light on what we do in this place and some of the Senate reforms that have come in as a result, when we were in government previously from 2011-15. There is a lot of talk about what we did not do. I know the NDP and Liberals like to talk about that because it is popular to bash Conservatives, but when we were in government we did exactly that. We did cause greater scrutiny for ourselves and exposed to the outside what we do on a regular basis. That is what we really did.

In this post-speech exchange, we see a classic example of political deflection designed to dodge real accountability. The back-and-forth between Mr. Garrison and Mr. Zimmer is a perfect illustration of the deep...

This text image is 3068 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Todd Doherty (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

Lobbying Rhetoric / Conservative Jargon:

What He Says: "Bill C-58 is not really about opening up and being more open and transparent. As a matter of fact, it is a step backward."

What He Means: This is an attempt to frame the bill as a direct threat to democratic transparency. The statement aligns with a common conservative tactic of portraying government actions that limit transparency or restrict accountability (such as reforms to freedom of information) as anti-democratic. By calling the bill a "step backward," he taps into the fear that the current government is moving away from openness, implying that it is hiding or restricting information from the public.

Red Scare / Red-Baiting Rhetoric:

What He Says: "If Bill C-58 had been in place, would Canadians have found out what the costs had been, or that our Prime Minister perhaps had some bad advice along the way? He blames others, of course. It is not ever his mistake or problem, it is others who are giving him bad advice."

What He Means: This statement tries to incite distrust in the Prime Minister by implying that any governmental mistakes are covered up and hidden through limited access to information. The rhetoric of "perhaps some bad advice" suggests a broader narrative where every misstep by the government is portrayed as a conspiracy or intentional mismanagement, which plays into broader anxieties about governmental overreach and secrecy. This touches on the moral panic of a government allegedly being deceptive.

Faux-Populist Rhetoric:

What He Says: "We are here to deliver their voices to Ottawa, not the other way around."

What He Means: Doherty is framing himself and his party as the true representatives of "the people" who are being oppressed by a government that he portrays as elitist and disconnected from ordinary citizens. This is a populist appeal where he uses language

This text image is 4873 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

100

6/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendment” Bill C-58 (42-1) www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en... So much of the CPC debate commentary was full of staggering hypocrisy as if ppl forget the Harper years.🤔 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Luc Berthold (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

Faux-Populist Rhetoric:

What He Says: "It is absolutely unbelievable to hear such things in this place. We are being told that Canadians ask too many questions and so decisions have to be made as to which requests are going to be processed and which are not."

What He Means: He’s framing this as an attack on everyday Canadians’ right to transparency, when in reality, the Conservative Party has consistently opposed real transparency measures when they were in power. This is selective outrage, meant to present the Conservatives as champions of democracy—despite their long history of gutting access to information laws.

Red-Baiting / "Feeding the Beast" Dog Whistle:

What He Says: "In other words, they have been feeding the beast rather than investing in regional infrastructure, which would have stimulated the economy."

What He Means: This is classic conservative fearmongering, where government spending on social programs or anything that isn’t corporate-friendly is painted as wasteful, while infrastructure spending (which often benefits private contractors and developers) is framed as the only legitimate investment. “Feeding the beast” is a thinly veiled dog whistle, echoing Reagan-era rhetoric that government itself is the problem.

GOP/American-Style "Deficit Panic" Rhetoric:

What He Says: "However, it will not be the case in two years, 10 years, or any number of years, when our children and grandchildren will have to pay off this huge deficit that the Liberals are going to leave us with."

What He Means: This is the standard conservative obsession with deficits—conveniently ignoring that Conservatives themselves have run up massive deficits while in government. The idea that public investment today is a "burden on future generations" is a false choice that ignores how austerity policies create greater economic hardship down the line...

This text image is 2776 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Joël Godin (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

Historical Revisionism & Red-Baiting:

What He Says: “Think back to 1983. Does anyone here remember who was in power? No, it was not Mr. Mulroney, it was Mr. Trudeau, Trudeau senior. Trudeau senior was in power, he tabled this act in 1983, and today, his son is going to fix a past mistake.”

What He Means: He’s invoking Pierre Trudeau to frame this as a generational failure of the "Trudeau dynasty," playing into conservative paranoia about liberal elitism. The implication is that the Trudeaus have always been incompetent, untrustworthy, or too controlling—echoing the old Cold War-era attacks on Pierre Trudeau’s policies. The fact that he’s smiling while saying this suggests he’s relying on dog-whistle rhetoric that Conservative supporters would recognize: the idea that Liberal governance is inherently authoritarian.

Faux-Populism & "Government Waste" Dog Whistle:

What He Says: “This reform does not even fulfill the promise that the Liberals made during the 2015 election campaign. They said that they were going to extend the act so that it applied to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices.”

What He Means: He’s not actually upset about transparency—Conservatives thrive in secrecy when in power (Harper’s muzzling of scientists, SNC-Lavalin under Scheer). Instead, he’s co-opting a left-populist argument (government accountability) to undermine a Liberal bill, despite the CPC’s own track record of secrecy and anti-democratic behavior. This is a classic example of faux-populism: pretending to advocate for transparency when the real goal is attacking opponents.

Conservative Moral Panic & Manufactured Outrage:

What He Says: “I hope that the people watching at home will question the transparency of the Liberals’ fundraising activities.”

What He Means: He’s deliberately shifting focus from the actual bill to vague accusations of corruption...

This text image is 6709 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

John Brassard (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "We have seen broken promise after broken promise. If members do not believe me, just look at what some of those who are looking closely at Bill C-58 are saying."

What He Means: He's posturing as if he's concerned about government transparency, but this is a typical conservative bait-and-switch. The Conservatives have no actual interest in making government more transparent; they're just using this as a weapon to attack the Liberals. If Brassard truly cared about transparency, he would advocate for stronger corporate accountability, tax transparency, and lobbying reform—things the Conservatives have historically opposed.

What He Says: "I would be remiss if I did not go back a couple of hours, back to the future, and the egregious display of contempt for parliamentary democracy."

What He Means: Moral panic rhetoric. He’s inflating a procedural complaint into an existential crisis about democracy. This is performative outrage designed to make the Liberals look like authoritarian overlords while ignoring the fact that the Conservatives themselves have a history of limiting debate and stonewalling transparency when they’re in power.

What He Says: "The Minister of Finance was asked a minimum of 14 times today in question period whether in fact he had sold his shares in Morneau Shepell in advance of his tax reform policies being announced, and each time he skirted the question."

What He Means: This is faux-populist rhetoric. Brassard is framing this as an anti-corruption crusade, but the Conservatives have no problem with wealthy elites influencing government—unless they’re Liberal-aligned elites. They’re not against finance ministers with conflicts of interest; they’re against this finance minister. This selective outrage is a standard right-wing tactic to create an illusion of fighting for the working class while actually...

This text image is 4089 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must say I am disappointed. The member clearly does not have the intention of raising the quality of debate in the House. First, he barely spoke about Bill C-58. I am proud that we are the first government in 34 years to make major reforms to the Access to Information Act. Second, he was wrong in the few comments he made about the bill. He said it would deny access to information requests that are frivolous or made in bad faith. In fact, the amendments would give the commissioner up-front approval power over any department's request to decline to act on a request because the department believed it was vexatious or in bad faith. The member clearly did not even read the committee's changes and is not up to date on the bill. That is disappointing. It is not a priority for him, clearly. I also want to note that in its 2006 platform, the Conservative Party made a clear commitment to update the access to information law, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 10 years. Did they never intend to actually deliver on that promise, or did they just not care enough to do a thing about it in 10 years?

Mr. John Brassard: Madam Speaker, if the member wants to go down the rabbit hole of not intending to keep promises, I would need a little more than 10 minutes to respond. What is more important in the context of my speech is the faith of Canadians and how little faith they have in the ability of the government to implement any of its agenda. Over the course of the last two years, we have seen backtracking on electoral reform, and the list of promises the Liberals made is long, which they are not keeping. I read some of the comments from those stakeholders who have a say in this legislation. Is the hon. member saying they are wrong? These are their concerns. In the context of openness and...

This text image is 4617 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

5/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy..” Bill C-58 (42-1) 🚨"We need to bring back law & order, toughen up sentences, & stop the woke policies that let criminals walk free." Tom Kmiec, CPC 🚨 1st "woke" reference I've come across. #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Kelly McCauley (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "This bill demonstrates once again that the lofty rhetoric of the 2015 campaign on openness, transparency, and accountability was just that: rhetoric."

What He Means: This is an attempt to frame the Liberal government as insincere, positioning them as "fake progressives" who only use idealistic language to win elections without delivering on their promises. The use of "rhetoric" is designed to evoke skepticism and distrust, suggesting that government efforts are superficial at best.

What He Says: "That is pretty much what we have here with this bill."

What He Means: This is typical conservative rhetoric, aimed at discrediting government reform efforts by casting them as "more of the same," reinforcing a narrative that progressive governance is ineffectual and unreliable. This subtle undermining of democratic processes is akin to the strategies used by populist figures to dismiss policy initiatives that don’t align with their conservative values.

What He Says: "This legislation does not prevent requests from taking months or years to be completed, but, amazingly enough, enables the process to take even longer. That is unacceptable."

What He Means: This is an example of neoliberal-conservative jargon designed to cast the government as inept and as responsible for further bureaucratic inefficiency. It plays into populist dissatisfaction with government institutions, even if the changes to the bill are meant to streamline and modernize processes. This argument follows the GOP-style American strategies, which are often rooted in the belief that government is inherently dysfunctional and should be minimized.

What He Says: "What has been the government's response to this? It wants to give heads of government institutions the ability to decline requests on the basis that they are vexatious or made in bad faith."

What He Means:

This text image is 2727 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

What He Says: "John Ivison summed up his thoughts decisively when he stated: It’s a farce, and...[the minister] has been around long enough to know the changes he’s just unveiled will not make the slightest difference to helping citizens understand the government for which they pay so richly."

What He Means: This is a final blow to the bill’s credibility, amplifying the reactionary viewpoint that progressive efforts at reform are ultimately futile. By citing Costa Rica’s John Ivison, McCauley seeks to align himself with an influential conservative voice, reinforcing the Red Scare narrative that government transparency is merely a cover for maintaining control, with no real benefit to the public.

McCauley's C-58 speech is filled with neoliberal-conservative jargon, faux-populist rhetoric, and moral panic rhetoric, designed to discredit any efforts at progressive reform in Bill C-58. His strategic use of lobbying rhetoric and Red-Baiting is meant to rally a populist conservative base that feels alienated from the political establishment. Through GOP-style American tactics, McCauley taps into a fear of government overreach, portraying any reform as ultimately ineffective or insincere. He also uses reactionary voices like Costa Rica-based John Ivison to lend legitimacy to his position, thus reinforcing the conservative narrative that progressive governance is ineffective and untrustworthy.

Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the member opposite complained about the length of time it takes to receive the information requests that have been put in. With all due respect, I would like to remind the member that it was his party that was in power over the last 10 years and did nothing about it. However, parts of this legislation go to the very concern the member has about the time it takes to access the information. We know that proactive

This text image is 5099 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Neoliberal Jargon & Misdirection:

What He Says: “Since it was founded, our party has been relentless in its efforts to make the government more accountable to Canadians. When our party was in office, it was not a scandal-ridden government like the previous Liberal governments and particularly the government that has been in office for the past two years.”

What He Means: This is a blatant rewrite of history. The Harper government—of which most of today’s Conservative leadership were key figures—was one of the most secretive in modern Canadian history. From the Senate expenses scandal to the Robocall voter suppression scheme, conservatives have no credibility when it comes to accountability. But by rewriting the past, they hope to manufacture an illusion of trustworthiness.

What He Says: “A government that chooses what information to publish and when not to be accountable to Canadians is dishonest.”

What He Means: This plays into the broader conservative strategy of undermining trust in public institutions—not to improve them, but to justify gutting them. By portraying any Liberal policy as “dishonest” and “unaccountable,” they are laying the groundwork to strip government watchdogs of power when they return to office. This is straight out of the Republican playbook: delegitimize institutions so they can be dismantled in favour of corporate rule.

What He Says: “Yes, another promise has been broken. Let me review some of the other broken election promises.”

What He Means: This is a calculated ploy to stoke cynicism about government itself, rather than offering alternative solutions. The Conservative Party doesn’t actually care about Liberal promises like electoral reform or Indigenous rights—if they did, they wouldn’t oppose them when in power. This is a deliberate strategy to weaponize progressive disappointment against any possibility of leftist reform. The goal is not to fix these...

This text image is 2620 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

What He Says: "If the journalists who defend the democracy that these MPs serve each and every day here in the House cannot have access to the information that is relevant to Canadians, how can they do their jobs properly?"

What He Means: We’re suddenly pretending to care about press freedom, even though Conservative governments in Canada and abroad routinely attack journalists, limit access to information, and consolidate media power into the hands of corporate allies.

What He Says: "Most of [these watchdog groups] are non-profit organizations and are totally independent from any government, like Democracy Watch, for example."

What He Means: We selectively cite watchdog groups when they criticize the Liberals, but ignore them when they criticize us or our corporate donors. We don’t actually want real transparency; we just want political ammunition.

What He Says: "A government does not introduce legislation for no reason. A government introduces legislation because it really wants to keep a promise."

What He Means: Except when we do it. When Conservatives break promises, we justify it as necessary pragmatism or claim we had no choice. When Liberals do it, we call it deception. It’s all about manufacturing outrage to serve our political goals.

Rhetorical Strategies Deployed:
Faux-populism: Pretending to be on the side of the people while serving corporate and elite interests.
Weaponized Cynicism: Using voter distrust not to propose solutions, but to delegitimize political opponents.
GOP-style Media Strategy: Selectively caring about press freedom and democracy when it suits their partisan agenda.
Red Scare/Anti-Reform Fearmongering: Framing any Liberal electoral reform as a scheme for power while ignoring their own history of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Moral Panic: Implying that Liberal secrecy is uniquely dangerous, despite supporting similar or worse policies when in power.

This text image is 2166 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

4/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendments..” Bill C-58 (42-1) 🚨"Canada is broken. Crime is rampant, the cost of living is crushing Canadians, & we need to take back our country." Tom Kmiec, CPC #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

CPC Speeches

Tom Kmiec (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

Opening Statements & Framing

What He Says: "Canada is broken. Crime is rampant, the cost of living is crushing Canadians, and we need to take back our country."

What He Means: Kmiec sets up a "declinist" narrative, a staple of right-wing populism, implying that everything was better before (though he never specifies when). This primes listeners to accept drastic changes and positions the CPC as a "saviour" figure.

Neoliberal Jargon: The idea that the economy needs "freedom" rather than government intervention.
Moral Panic: Exaggerating crime rates to justify punitive policies.
Eco’s Ur-Fascism: The theme of a once-great nation in decline, needing strong leadership.

On Crime & Public Safety

What He Says: "We need to bring back law and order, toughen up sentences, and stop the woke policies that let criminals walk free."

What He Means: Dog-whistling to a reactionary base, using "law and order" rhetoric that ignores the systemic causes of crime (poverty, lack of social services).

Red-Baiting: "Woke policies" as a vague enemy that justifies more carceral policies.
Faux-Populism: Pretending to speak for the working class while advocating policies that hurt them (e.g., over-policing instead of investment in social programs).
Lobbying Language: Echoing private prison and policing interests, who benefit from increased incarceration.

On Economic Policy

What He Says: "We will cut taxes, reduce red tape, and let Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. The government has been spending recklessly, causing inflation."

What He Means: Classic neoliberal policy that benefits the wealthy while dismantling public services. The "cut taxes" rhetoric ignores how tax cuts for the rich starve public programs.

Neoliberal Jargon: "Red tape" often refers to worker protections, environmental regulations, or consumer protections.
Moral Panic

This text image is 1702 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Gérard Deltell (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Fundamentally, our party is in no way opposed to carefully scrutinizing any act, statute, or procedure in order to enhance or improve it."

What He Means: We want to pretend we support transparency, but only when it serves our political interests. When transparency threatens corporate or conservative elite interests, we’ll claim the government is "overreaching."

What He Says: "Some of the exchanges and debates that take place within cabinet are crucial and healthy for a democracy, but they need to remain behind the closed doors of cabinet."

What He Means: Government secrecy is fine when conservatives are in power, but when Liberals do it, it’s a scandal. This sets up faux-outrage against the Liberal bill without addressing how Conservative governments have historically been worse on transparency.

What He Says: "No one is against better access to information."

What He Means: Standard neoliberal vagueness. It’s like saying, “I support good things.” This avoids taking a concrete stance while leaving room to oppose specific transparency measures that hold conservatives or corporations accountable.

What He Says: "We will show that the commitment made during the campaign, the very reason why Canadians elected this government, was once again, unfortunately, not upheld by the Liberals."

What He Means: Standard moral panic rhetoric. The Conservatives want to exploit cynicism around Liberal broken promises, not to push for real transparency, but to erode trust in government itself. This is classic right-wing strategy: frame all government action as corrupt so that deregulation and corporate power seem like the only alternatives.

What He Says: "The real novelty of the bill is that the government is imposing a system of proactive publication, which is not so bad."

What He Means: Softening the critique slightly to appear...

This text image is 3281 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it would have been encouraging if the member's party had moved on the kinds of amendments that he is now calling for. Canadians have waited for more than three decades to finally have a strong Access to Information Act so we would have a better reputation internationally. The member is bright and I always appreciate his comments, so I think he might agree with me. We all recall another promise, and that was that this would be the last election of first past the post. The government then decided it would not deliver on that promise, and what did it do. It simply switched ministers and changed the mandate letter. The Liberals have failed to deliver on the vast majority of recommendations by the commissioner or the committee, or most legal experts. Does the member think that the next action we will see is that they can now just amend the mandate letters to the ministers and remove the higher bar for openness and transparency in government?

Mr. Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to be clear. It is quite normal to review a bill that was tabled 35 years ago. That is fine. However, there is a thin line to define exactly where there is openness and also the reality of the power. The government must run the country, and it is very delicate to know exactly where to draw the line between what it wants to be published and having strong and important debate among the executive branch. Second, the member talked about electoral reform. A year ago, I was in the member's riding in Edmonton. We had consultations there, and I was part of the committee. It was another broken promise. I said earlier that the list of broken promises is so long that I forgot to talk about that. I could talk about broken promises until tomorrow afternoon, and I would not be finished. Yes, that was another broken promise. At the end of the day, with every...

This text image is 5787 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

200

3/ 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... Heather Scoffield (CP) slammed C-58 for gutting transparency & undermining accountability.🤦 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Heather Scoffield (The Canadian Press)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-72/evidence#Int-9726553

Heather Scoffield, Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Canadian Press, testified before the committee with a sharp critique of Bill C-58 and its potential to undermine transparency and public accountability. Scoffield underscored the vital role of the Access to Information (ATI) Act in their journalistic work, noting that it is essential for reporting on government policy, uncovering scandals, and holding the powerful to account. She highlighted the successes of using the ATI Act to break major stories, such as the RCMP's use of tasers, the missing and murdered Indigenous women crisis, and the sponsorship scandal. These stories, she argued, reshaped public understanding and provoked national debate.

However, Scoffield raised significant concerns about Bill C-58. She warned that the proposed changes would create more barriers for citizens and journalists to access information. Specifically, the requirement to meet rigid criteria for every request—narrowing down the type of record, subject matter, and time frame—would hinder the ability to conduct broad, investigative reporting. She argued that this would turn the ATI Act into an ineffective tool for discovering what is truly happening inside government. Scoffield also expressed alarm over the move toward more "proactive disclosure," where the government determines what is released, but citizens lose the right to request information based on their own interests.

While she supported more disclosure, she emphasized that without accountability measures to ensure compliance, this would be little more than a token gesture. Additionally, she noted that the bill still does not apply to ministers, MPs, senators, or the courts—critical areas of government where transparency is urgently needed. On the whole, Scoffield cautioned that..

This text image is 3531 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Neoliberal Jargon & Bureaucratic Speak:

“This is a process that would take place across literally hundreds of offices and departments of the government. It would allow our citizens a greater understanding of government and would demonstrate effective stewardship of public funds.”

The Liberals love to frame transparency as a bureaucratic process rather than a right, reinforcing the idea that the government controls what information the public gets access to, rather than making real accountability the priority.

“Having just spoken about the proactive publication that is key to our commitment to openness by default, I also want to mention a few other things we are doing in the bill.”

"Openness by default" sounds nice, but in reality, this bill makes it easier for government agencies to refuse access requests while pretending to be transparent.

“We will develop a new plain language guide that will provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions.”

Instead of removing barriers to access, we’ll just make it easier for people to understand why they’re being denied information.

Political Doublespeak & Gaslighting:

“For the very first time, the Information Commissioner would have order-making power.”

Yes, but with so many loopholes and exceptions, this power is functionally useless in many cases.

“The legislation would require a review of the act every five years, and as I pointed out earlier in the debate, the first review would start no later than one year after royal assent, so this is really an ongoing improvement process.”

Kicking the can down the road instead of actually making access to information easier now.

“Today, I am proud to be part of the first government to bring significant change to the Access to Information Act since it was first introduced over 30 years ago.”

"Significant change" doesn’t mean good change. This is a classic example of politicians

This text image is 3112 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Randy Boissonnault

Boissonnault’s speech is a masterclass in neoliberal jargon, political doublespeak, and self-congratulatory spin.

Self-Congratulatory Victory Lap:

"After 34 years, the Access to Information Act is undergoing significant revitalization. These reforms affect the whole of government, including areas never before touched by the legislation."

The bill doesn’t touch the core problems—like cabinet secrecy—so calling this a "significant revitalization" is pure spin.

"These are innovative improvements to our access to information regime that will build trust between citizens and their government."

We made minor tweaks, but we’ll package them as groundbreaking so you don’t notice what’s missing.

Neoliberal Jargon & Bureaucratic Speak:

"The rise of the Internet since 1983 puts information at the fingertips of most Canadians. People who care about how our government provides services to Canadians are keenly seeking that information."

We acknowledge that digital technology exists, but we won’t actually use it to give you meaningful access to government secrets.

"The amendments also require a review of the act every five years to ensure that it never again becomes outdated."

Instead of fixing systemic transparency issues now, we’ll just keep ‘reviewing’ them indefinitely.

Political Doublespeak & Misdirection:

"We recognize that although the access to information system is not perfect, overall, it has had a positive impact on government transparency and accountability."

The system is broken, but we’re going to pretend it’s fine while making minor tweaks.

"Unsurprisingly, the cost of administering the act has gone up, with federal institutions spending more than $64 million to cover direct costs in 2015-16 alone."

We’re subtly framing transparency as an expensive burden, laying the groundwork to justify keeping government secrecy intact.

"Government institutions would...

This text image is 3222 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Darrell Samson

Self-Congratulatory Victory Lap

“I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for his excellent leadership, not only in government but also as the cabinet minister for the province of Nova Scotia.”

The Liberals love patting themselves on the back, turning every discussion into a celebration of their own greatness, as if governing competently is some extraordinary feat.

“To show that we are a government that is very progressive, we have accepted up to 10 amendments, which have been integrated into the bill.”

Accepting amendments isn’t progressive; it’s a basic function of a democratic process. But when you’re a neoliberal party that governs like a closed-door corporate boardroom, allowing even minor input from others is treated as a bold reform.

Neoliberal Jargon & Corporate-Speak

“We know that we have to be more accountable and more transparent. We, as a government, ran on that issue, but also, things have changed.”

The classic neoliberal strategy: admit there's a problem in vague, abstract terms while avoiding any accountability for perpetuating it.

“We have been putting all kinds of documents on paper and storing them on shelves and in cabinets, and we have not been in a position to quickly respond in an efficient way. That has been a major issue.”

The obsession with “efficiency” often translates to cost-cutting, outsourcing, and reducing public oversight. Here, it's a justification for weakening accountability by shifting to a system where government decides what to proactively disclose rather than responding to public requests.

Political Doublespeak & Gaslighting

“Why do we have to make changes? We know that we have to be more accountable and more transparent.”

If you know you need to be more transparent, why did it take public pressure to act? And why does the bill still weaken the Access to Information Act?

“Not only would we be going to all 240

This text image is 2441 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

100

2/ 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... 🔴 Half the briefs (9 of 18) came from Indigenous voices: "Scrap C-58. Consult us—properly." #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Submitted Briefs to Committee (total of 18)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9676619

The People vs. Bill C-58: A United Front Against a Bad Law

When analyzing federal legislation, it’s rare to see unanimous opposition in committee submissions. Even during the Harper years—when the government was ramming through omnibus bills designed to gut environmental protections and erode civil liberties—there was usually some corporate backing, a neoliberal think tank spinning it as "fiscally responsible," or a government-aligned stakeholder putting their stamp of approval on the bill. But Bill C-58 (42-1), the Liberals’ so-called “modernization” of the Access to Information Act, managed to do what no legislation in recent memory has: unite every single brief submitted to committee against it. Not a single organization, advocacy group, or independent expert defended the bill. Instead, a broad range of groups—including journalists, transparency advocates, legal experts, and Indigenous nations—warned that this legislation was a major step backward for government accountability, further entrenching secrecy in a system already riddled with obfuscation and bureaucratic stonewalling.

But the most striking opposition came from Indigenous communities. Of the 18 briefs submitted, nine came from First Nations (councils, bands, groups, orgs), all echoing the exact same demand: scrap the bill and engage in real consultation. These nations—ranging from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba to the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations—argued that Bill C-58 actively undermines Canada’s commitment to reconciliation, violates the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and makes it even harder for Indigenous communities to access critical information when pursuing claims against the Crown. And they're absolutely right.

This text image is 5057 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

National Security Oversight Institute
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9200025/br-external/NationalSecurityOversightInstitute-e.pdf

The National Security Oversight Institute’s submission on Bill C-58 highlights serious concerns about government secrecy, particularly when it comes to national security institutions abusing confidentiality claims to shield themselves from public scrutiny. They argue that the government’s decision to ignore the Information Commissioner’s recommendations undermines democracy by making it harder for Canadians to access information that should be public. The Institute calls out national security agencies for routinely over-classifying information under vague claims of "threats," effectively blocking transparency. They highlight that courts frequently reject these claims, yet the practice continues unchecked. Their solution? A deep audit of at least one national security institution to expose these abuses and identify patterns of excessive secrecy.

Another major issue is the lack of enforcement for government wrongdoing. The Institute points out that the RCMP has been caught destroying records and even faced a criminal complaint under the Access to Information Act—only to have the Harper government retroactively legalize the wrongdoing. They argue that the Information Commissioner should have the power to both investigate and prosecute violations to ensure real accountability. Finally, they raise concerns about how intelligence agencies use access-to-information requests to secretly launch national security investigations against citizens, effectively turning transparency laws into a surveillance tool. They warn that this kind of abuse further erodes trust in government institutions and democratic accountability. In short, the Institute’s message is clear: Bill C-58 is a missed opportunity that does more to protect government secrecy...

This text image is 5276 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Canadian Bar Association
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9206000/br-external/CanadianBarAssociation-e.pdf

The CBA, representing thousands of legal professionals, saw Bill C-58 as a weak attempt at modernization that actually made it harder for everyday people to access government information. They criticized the bill for imposing excessive bureaucratic hurdles, allowing officials too much discretion to reject requests, and even reintroducing fees that serve no real purpose other than to deter working-class Canadians from demanding transparency. They called out the bill for limiting access rights by requiring requesters to provide overly specific details—effectively making it easier for the government to deny information. They also flagged dangerous loopholes that would let bureaucrats reject requests on vague grounds like being “too broad” or “available elsewhere,” which opens the door to abuse.

The CBA also pushed back against allowing the government to unilaterally dismiss access complaints without independent oversight—arguing that real transparency requires giving the Information Commissioner stronger enforcement powers. They warned that the bill’s reliance on a costly and time-consuming court process favors the wealthy and well-connected, while leaving ordinary Canadians locked out.
In short, the CBA recognized that real government accountability doesn’t come from half-measures and red tape—it comes from giving the public genuine power to hold officials to account. Bill C-58, in their view, did the opposite.

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9205886/br-external/CanadianUnionOfPublicEmployees-e.pdf

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) strongly opposes the proposed Bill C-58, arguing that it deepens the barriers to meaningful access to information, especially in relation to public

This text image is 5352 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Kathleen Walsh & Katie Gibbs (Evidence for Democracy)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-73/evidence#Int-9732706
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-73/evidence#Int-9732976

Kathleen Walsh and Katie Gibbs from Evidence for Democracy gave powerful testimony before the committee, bringing a much-needed critique of Bill C-58. Their concerns reflect a genuine commitment to transparency and democratic accountability, speaking directly to the people’s right to access government information, especially scientific and evidence-based data used in policy-making. Walsh opened by highlighting the crucial role of transparent scientific evidence in holding the government accountable. While she acknowledged the government's recent efforts to make some information more accessible, she firmly argued that Bill C-58 falls short. She emphasized the need for broader proactive disclosure—especially from ministers’ offices and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)—and voiced concern over the bill's failure to include these offices in the reform. She also stressed that the Information Commissioner must oversee proactive disclosure to ensure accountability and called for stricter timelines for accessing information.

Gibbs followed up by raising specific concerns about the bill's provisions on "vexatious" requests. She argued that allowing government departments to label requests as vexatious could be used as a tool to block public access to vital information, a concern that disproportionately impacts civil society groups and NGOs. Additionally, she criticized the bill's requirements for requesters to be overly specific, which could make it even more difficult for the public to obtain the information they need. Both testified that while Bill C-58 does introduce some positive changes, it is not sufficient as it stands. They advocated for more resources for the...

This text image is 4440 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

1/ 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... 📢 Every submitted brief (all 18!) opposed Bill C-58. The government ignored them all. 🚨 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts” Bill C-58 (42-1)

Bill Sponsor: Scott Brison (Liberals)

Yea: Liberals (155/155), IND (2/2)
Nay: Conservatives (87/87), NDP (32/32), BQ (6/6), GP (1/1)

Notable Yea’s: Liberals - Omar Alghabra, Gary Anandasangaree, Rene Arseneault, Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Terry Beech, Marie-Claude Bibeau, Chris Bittle, Bill Blair, Randy Boissonnault, Sean Casey, Serge Cormier, 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, Peter Fonseca, Mona Fortier, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Hedy Fry, Mark Gerretsen, Karina Gould, Patty Hajdu, Ken Hardie, Mark Holland, Anthony Housefather, Ahmed Hussen, Gudie Hutchings, Angelo Iacono, Melanie Joly, Yvonne Jones, Majid Jowhari, Iqra Khalid, Kamal Khera, Kevin Lamoureux, Stéphane Lauzon, Dominic LeBlanc, Diane Lebouthillier, Joël Lightbound, Wayne Long, Lloyd Longfield, Lawrence MacAulay, Steven MacKinnon, James Maloney, Bryan May, Ken McDonald, David McGuinty, John McKay, Ron McKinnon, Michael McLeod, Marco Mendicino, Marc Miller, Robert Morrissey, Joyce Murray, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert Oliphant, Seamus O'Regan, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Carla Qualtrough, Yves Robillard, Pablo Rodriguez (now IND), Sherry Romanado, Anthony Rota, 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, Salma Zahid

Notable Nay’s: Conservatives - Zaid Aboultaif, Dan Albas, Dean Allison, Mel Arnold, John Barlow, Candice Bergen, Maxime Bernier, Luc Berthold, James...

This text image is 905 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Bill Summary

This enactment amends the Access to Information Act to, among other things, (a) authorize the head of a government institution, with the approval of the Information Commissioner, to decline to act on a request for access to a record for various reasons;(b) authorize the Information Commissioner to refuse to investigate or cease to investigate a complaint that is, in the Commissioner’s opinion, trivial, frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith;(c) clarify the powers of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner to examine documents containing information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries or to litigation privilege in the course of their investigations and clarify that the disclosure by the head of a government institution to either of those Commissioners of such documents does not constitute a waiver of those privileges or that professional secrecy;(d) authorize the Information Commissioner to make orders for the release of records or with respect to other matters relating to requesting or obtaining records and to publish any reports that he or she makes, including those that contain any orders he or she makes, and give parties the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review of the matter;(e) create a new Part providing for the proactive publication of information or materials related to the Senate, the House of Commons, parliamentary entities, ministers’ offices, government institutions and institutions that support superior courts;(f) require the designated Minister to undertake a review of the Act within one year after the day on which this enactment receives royal assent and every five years afterward;(g) authorize government institutions to provide to other government institutions services related to requests for access to records; and (h) expand the Governor in Council’s power to amend

This text image is 6882 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Who Benefits from Bill C-58?

Bill C-58 was marketed as a way to modernize access-to-information laws, but in reality, it cements the government's ability to delay and obstruct transparency. The changes offer some additional powers to the Information Commissioner, but these are undermined by the numerous procedural escape hatches that allow government institutions and private actors to block information requests. This is classic Liberal governance: superficially progressive reforms that maintain the status quo. Instead of meaningfully expanding public access to government documents, Bill C-58 reinforces the idea that transparency is a privilege granted at the discretion of those in power—not a fundamental right of the people. The Liberals could have designed a system where information is proactively disclosed and denials are subject to strict scrutiny. Instead, they created a legal maze that keeps the public in the dark while protecting government insiders and corporate interests.

If the Liberals were serious about transparency, they would:
Ensure the Information Commissioner's orders are binding without automatic stays from legal challenges.
Expand proactive disclosure so that key government documents (especially those related to corporate lobbying and public spending) are released without requiring formal requests.
Limit the ability of third parties and government institutions to delay disclosure through endless legal appeals.

Instead, what we got was a bill that masquerades as reform while reinforcing the power imbalance between the government and the public. A real access-to-information system should work for the people—not just for politicians and corporate elites who benefit from secrecy.

What’s in This Section (71.01-73)?

This section focuses on proactive disclosure—forcing Senators, MPs, and parliamentary entities to publish details about their travel, hospitality expenses, and..

This text image is 5421 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

What’s in Part 3?

Part 3 of Bill C-58 is the catch-all administrative section—the fine print that sets up how the Access to Information Act is supposed to be run and reviewed. But buried within it are provisions that quietly consolidate control, limit transparency, and even shield government institutions from accountability.

Who Watches the Watchmen? (Spoiler: Themselves.)
The bill forces a review every five years by the government itself (Section 93). Instead of empowering an independent body to hold power accountable, the very institutions that benefit from secrecy get to review their own performance. This is the classic move of a political class that wants to appear transparent while keeping a firm grip on what gets exposed.
Ministers Holding the Keys to the Vault
The “designated minister” (Section 92) has the power to control how information access is handled. This is a top-down approach that centralizes power instead of distributing it. The government is saying: “We’ll decide how much sunlight gets in.”
Bureaucratic Shell Games
Sections 95-97 allow government institutions to shuffle responsibilities and records around. One department can offload information-handling duties to another (even across ministries), making it harder to track who’s responsible for what.
Section 97 even removes accountability for documents that get transferred between institutions. It’s a loophole that can be used to dodge access-to-information requests by shifting records into an institution that isn’t subject to them.
Paywalls on Public Information?
Section 96(4) allows government institutions to charge fees for providing information services. This effectively monetizes access to public records, putting a price tag on transparency. If you're rich, you get the information. If you're not, too bad.
Legal Immunity: A Free Pass for Secrecy
Sections 98(1) and (2) protect government officials from legal consequences

This text image is 4970 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

100

15/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... “The bill does nothing to prevent refined oil spills, like the Nathan E. Stewart disaster, from threatening our coast.” Richard Cannings, NDP 😬🤦 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

NDP Speeches on Bill C-48

Richard Cannings (“Highlight Reel”)

On Why This Matters
“A north coast tanker ban has been a legislative priority of the NDP for many years, and we welcome the fact that the Liberals are finally taking action on this issue.”
“The northern B.C. coast is one of the richest in the world. There are great rivers, like the Stikine and the Skeena, that carry nutrients from the interior to the coast, where they mix in rich estuaries with marine waters… The result is a natural diversity that is truly unbelievable.”

On the Dangers of Oil Transport
“The Exxon Valdez disaster killed 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 seals, and 250 eagles. The Alaska coast has never been the same.”
“The Nestucca spilled less than one-tenth of the amount of the limit that we are talking about here today in this bill… That oil spread over 1,000 kilometres of coast.”

On What’s Missing in the Bill
“The bill does nothing to prevent refined oil spills, like the Nathan E. Stewart disaster, from threatening our coast.”
“Bill C-48 also gives the minister broad arbitrary powers to exempt vessels from the ban, and define what fuels are covered by the act.”
“The vessels that supply these communities are now well under 1,000 tonnes in size, so it is unclear why such a high limit (12,500 tonnes) was put in place. We would like to see that lowered significantly.”

On the Importance of Action
“The tourism industry there is worth more than $780 million a year and creates more than 40,000 jobs. Fishery is also key for the local economy, with $100 million input into the economy.”
“For millennia, first nation cultures have relied on this diversity, this richness, and the local economy today continues to rely heavily on fisheries and tourism.”

The Bottom Line
“We will continue to support the bill, as it is a step in the right direction that protects the British Columbia coast.”

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that the NDP as a whole is fairly supportive of the legislation. We believe it is long overdue. It is a commitment we made in the last election campaign. Fulfilling this particular commitment in this legislation is a positive step forward. One of the issues that has come to light over the last while is with regard to the transportation of oil and getting oil to tidewater. A great deal of consultation has been done in appreciating that we have to take into consideration the environment, indigenous people taking part in the consultations, and doing our homework, and at times there is a need for opposition parties to state what their opinions really are. I am curious about the member's concerns regarding Trans Mountain and getting oil to tidewater. Does he know where the national New Democratic Party stands on that particular issue? Would there be a situation in which the New Democratic Party would support it?

Mr. Richard Cannings: Mr. Speaker, the federal NDP has some real concerns with the Kinder Morgan project. One is the tanker traffic increasing sevenfold on the south coast. There is a concern about first nations consultation. I believe there are seven court cases going ahead on first nations consultation. A lot of groups think it was a total sham. We saw what happened with the northern gateway pipeline. That court case was decided in favour of the first nations who thought that consultation was a sham. There are concerns about the pipeline going through the British Columbia Interior. There are concerns that if we build that pipeline, we would never even come close to meeting our climate targets. There are a lot of concerns. Some of them are related to the reasons New Democrats support this tanker ban, which I just talked about. We are very...

This text image is 4172 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Gord Johns (“Highlight Reel”)

"We rely on clean oceans for our food, our economy, and our culture. It is precious, and we must do everything we can to mitigate any chance that we could destroy these ecosystems forever."

"When I hear the Prime Minister say that tankers do not belong on the north coast, I have a hard time understanding why he thinks they belong on the south coast and wants to increase tanker traffic sevenfold."

"The government is saying that we are going to get two tugboats and that is going to save us. I’m sorry. British Columbians do not feel safe about two tugboats saving us from an oil spill."

"It’s not that a spill might happen; it’s that it will happen at some point."

"We hear that jobs will be lost and that this will allow more foreign oil to come to Canada. This is misleading. These pipelines are not designed to replace foreign oil. They will not replace oil from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia. This is made for export."

"No conversations are happening about a transition, about energy security, about refining more oil, and how we do that while we are in the midst of a transition."

"We have seen what Norway has done. It put a trillion dollars in the bank, while Canada put $11 billion in the bank. Where is the trust from the Canadian people that we are investing in assets for future generations?"

"The world cannot wait. We have to protect our pristine coastlines and ecosystems. They are sensitive. They cannot afford an oil spill of raw bitumen."

GP (Elizabeth May) Speech on Bill C-48

Key Quotes from Elizabeth May’s Speech:

On the historical precedent of the tanker ban:
“It is important for Canadians to know that we are now legislating a tanker ban that was honoured and in effect from 1972 until Stephen Harper chose to imagine it away.”

On why the tanker ban was established:
“That tanker ban was put in place in 1972 by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau… as a result of an immediate threat to the B.C. north coast, primarily from a proposed expansion of oil tanker traffic from Alaska to the Juan de Fuca Strait.”

On the unique risks to the B.C. coast:
“It is all about the specifics of an extremely turbulent, active ocean in those places and the presence offshore of a land mass… Any spill that occurred along the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound would not only not float out to sea but would go back and forth, between striking the coasts of Haida Gwaii… and backing up to hit the coast of British Columbia.”

On the importance of the Haida Nation’s role:
“The Haida Nation particularly, which has the most at stake… has been consistent for decades that it does not want tankers in its territorial waters.”

On the Liberal government fulfilling a promise:
“I want to thank them and approve and applaud when the Liberals keep a promise. This is an important promise. It is a legislated tanker ban that meets the goals of decades of commitments to protect those northern waters.”

On weaknesses in the bill and room for improvement:
“It could be better… We have had spills that were devastating from much smaller vessels that would still be allowed under this ban… I would really prefer to see a 2,000-metric-ton threshold.”
On the dangers of bitumen transport:
“Bitumen mixed with diluent cannot be cleaned up. That is the best scientific advice we have in Canada from numerous studies that have been peer-reviewed.”

On...

This text image is 4091 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

010

14/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "The gov't will create a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping & protects Canada's waters." Julie Dzerowicz, LP Liability limits are laughable.💲 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Peter Fonseca (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "We have taken a fair and balanced approach to this."

What He Means: This is a typical piece of neoliberal rhetoric designed to avoid taking responsibility for any potential imbalances. In practice, "fair and balanced" often means a compromise that placates both environmental concerns and industry interests—appeasing the status quo without making any real systemic changes. It signals a lack of bold action or true commitment to environmental justice.

What He Says: "We firmly believe it is essential to maintain and enhance our relationships with the provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, as well as with indigenous groups, in order to bring about concrete positive changes."

What He Means: This is classic neoliberal jargon. The claim of "concrete positive changes" is vague and fails to clarify what real transformative actions are being taken. Instead, it suggests that relationships with existing power structures (governments and corporations) are paramount, even if it means compromising meaningful change. Indigenous consultation here could be framed as "token" or "performative" if not coupled with genuine systemic shifts.

What He Says: "We are doing the people's work."

What He Means: A statement like this is designed to deflect criticism and paint the government's actions as altruistic and democratic. In reality, this often serves as a convenient rhetorical shield while maintaining policies that cater more to corporate and neoliberal interests rather than challenging the underlying structures that perpetuate harm to the environment and marginalized groups.

What He Says: "A moratorium has been in place since 1972. We have consulted extensively. We have heard from all groups."

What He Means: This is another instance of political doublespeak, as "consultation" can often be a form of tokenism, where decisions are...

This text image is 757 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this is not about safety; it is only about killing northern gateway and Alberta jobs. From Kitimat to open sea, the very narrowest channel is 1,480 metres, which we say is not safe. However, bringing ships under the Second Narrows Bridge in North Vancouver to Westridge where they load up on fuel is 140 metres. This is an area where we are going to bring in more ships, thankfully for Kinder Morgan. Why is it safe to bring ships through a 140-metre narrow passage, but not through 1,480 metres?

Mr. Peter Fonseca: Madam Speaker, the member should look at history and understand that this moratorium has been in place since 1972. There is a reason for that. We believe in science. We believe in an evidence-based approach on this side of the aisle, which is why we have done our homework. The member and the member's party should do their homework, look at history, and understand the reasons for this decision.

CPC’s Cynical Defence of Big Oil vs. Liberal Deflection

Kelly McCauley’s argument is a classic Conservative sleight of hand—pretending to care about inconsistencies in environmental policy while really just shilling for the oil industry. His concern isn’t about logical inconsistencies in tanker safety regulations; it’s about framing any restriction on oil exports as an attack on Alberta jobs. The CPC’s playbook is simple: weaponize regionalism to stoke resentment, painting environmental protections as anti-Western rather than a necessary response to a global climate crisis. But Peter Fonseca’s response? It’s a masterclass in Liberal smugness without substance. Instead of engaging with the question, he just waves the banner of science and history like a magic spell that absolves the government of hypocrisy.

Yes, there has been a de facto moratorium on tankers in northern B.C. since 1972. But what Fonseca doesn't...

This text image is 4020 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Terry Beech (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Bill C-48 would provide an unprecedented level of environmental protection for the northern coast of British Columbia and the adjoining Great Bear Rainforest..."

What He Means: This statement frames the bill as a heroic environmental gesture while obscuring the fact that this protection could be seen as a way to placate public concern while still facilitating oil industry interests, particularly by balancing conservation with development. The language of "unprecedented protection" masks any potential compromises or long-term environmental risks tied to other policies that could benefit the oil industry.

What He Says: "Bill C-48 would help protect existing industries, including fisheries, aquaculture and ecotourism."

What He Means: The inclusion of "existing industries" subtly aligns the bill with a neoliberal logic, suggesting that the primary goal is not to challenge the current economic structures (like the oil and gas industry), but to preserve the status quo. By framing the protection of industries as a key feature, the bill's broader goal of protecting ecosystems takes a backseat to economic interests.

What He Says: "Bill C-48 would continue to allow for the shipment of non-persistent oils. What this means is that communities along the north coast of British Columbia would continue to be open to economic development opportunities..."

What He Means: The statement hides the contradictions between the environmental protection narrative and continued support for fossil fuel industries. By allowing "non-persistent oils," the bill provides a backdoor for future oil-related activity, softening opposition by suggesting economic development will still occur. This is a neoliberal balancing act: protect the environment, but don't disrupt the market.

What He Says: "The Senate is proposing to modify Bill C-48 in a number of ways

This text image is 1321 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

13/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Liberal Party MP Joyce Murray delivered a pair of speeches on C-48. Her self-congratulatory speeches were called out by NDP MPs as being half-measures that miss the mark. 🤔👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Liberal Party Speeches on Bill C-48

Joyce Murray Delivered A Pair of Speeches (“What She Says” vs. “What She Means”)

1st Speech:

What She Says: "Why was it so important and why is it so important for a government that is committed to protecting the environment, a particularly sensitive environment in this case, while also protecting and developing a strong economy?"

What She Means: This is classic neoliberal jargon designed to appeal to both environmentalists and corporate interests. The phrase "strong economy" is often used to justify pro-business policies that prioritize capital interests over broader environmental concerns. The implication is that economic growth, particularly in sectors like oil and gas, cannot be sacrificed for environmental protection. In left-populist terms, this represents a false dichotomy that fails to recognize the systemic conflicts between unregulated capitalism and environmental sustainability.

What She Says: "This initiative is widely supported by British Columbians in all parts of the province."

What She Means: This is a classic use of populist rhetoric, trying to paint the initiative as a democratic decision by invoking "the people." However, such broad claims often mask the realities of the underlying interests driving the policies. By invoking "support" without offering specifics, Murray may be using this statement as a way to shield the policy from critical examination—particularly from indigenous groups or working-class communities who might be negatively affected by the broader liberal policies of the government.

What She Says: "An oil spill would hurt our communities, our environment, our businesses, and our way of life. This is not a risk British Columbians can afford to take."

What She Means: The appeal to risk here is a rhetorical device used to align environmental protection with the language of financial prudence and public safety. While..

This text image is 1375 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby South, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I agree with her that this moratorium is a good idea. However, all the facts she is reading out actually apply to the south coast as well. If we have a bitumen spill in the waters right off her riding, there will be devastation to all kinds of recreational areas and areas that are worked by local first nations. How does the member square the circle? How can she and all her colleagues from British Columbia stand with the Prime Minister while he approves the Kinder Morgan pipeline, while there are 19 court cases now pending, many from first nations that do not want this, while tens of thousands of British Columbians say that they do not want the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and while the British Columbia government says that it will use every tool in the tool box to stop this pipeline? How can she square the circle? How can she say the facts in her speech about this northern gateway pipeline, agree with the moratorium, and then turn around, with her B.C. colleagues, and support the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

Ms. Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague across the way will support this bill, as all the NDP members agreed to support my bill, Bill C-606, because of the importance of protecting coastal rainforest that is untouched. A pipeline would have had to go through the Coast Mountains, days' worth of wilderness, which have no roads and no human activities. This particular bill would protect an area that is remote and that the Coast Guard probably could not even get to, even with the additional resources and funds our government is putting into the Coast Guard. There is no capacity to deal with an oil spill in these remote waters. I am very proud that we will not be facing that horrible possibility on our Pacific north coast, and I hope the member will support the bill.

This exchange is a...

This text image is 1824 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

2nd Speech:

What She Says: "This bill responds to the clear voices of British Columbians, [the majority]...of whom support a permanent tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast."

What She Means: By focusing on "majority" support, this framing makes the bill seem like a populist victory, but it's being used as a shield to protect the status quo of oil exports that don't disrupt key trade routes. The bill isn’t about challenging neoliberal market expansion but mitigating some of its risks.

What She Says: "It will protect our oceans and communities from the risk of a major oil spill and promote a sustainable economy – one that supports B.C.’s growing fisheries and tourism sectors."

What She Means: This is classic greenwashing. The "sustainable economy" referenced is still largely dependent on market-driven growth in industries like fisheries and tourism. The bill does not challenge fossil fuel dependency or curtail export ambitions; it just presents a "safer" route for the continuation of these industries.

What She Says: "This tanker moratorium does not tell the whole story of our protection of the coast and the precautionary approach that we are building in to help safeguard the marine environment in this region."

What She Means: The "precautionary approach" is a form of damage control, designed to appear environmentally responsible without addressing the core issue of the continued expansion of oil and gas exports. It reassures corporate interests that their operations won’t be disrupted, while portraying the bill as a significant step toward environmental stewardship.

What She Says: "The jobs that would have been created, I would point out, were not an enormous number. The building of the pipeline would have created some jobs for sure, but once it was built, the number of ongoing jobs would have been far less."

What She Means: This statement shifts the focus from the broader economic interests

This text image is 951 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra for her long-time advocacy for a ban on the north coast. I want to commend her for that, but I also want to thank her for her description of the sensitive ecosystems that we have in coastal British Columbia and the importance of that for jobs and our economy. The member also cited the spill of the Exxon Valdez in the north coast and how some of the ecosystems still have not survived. In fact, the Prime Minister said, “Crude oil supertankers just have no place on B.C.'s north coast.” The member talked about that being a promise that the Liberals made, and that they have followed through with that promise. She said that it is a promise made and a promise kept. Where I have concerns is that with the same ecosystems we have on the south coast, the member supports a pipeline project, Kinder Morgan, that is going to increase supertanker traffic by sevenfold. This was a promise made—the Liberals were going to have a renewed process—and it is a promise broken. Maybe the member can square with people at home how she can support this project, in light of the fact that we have southern resident killer whales and we have the same ecosystem that will be affected by this project, and what is at stake.

Ms. Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the NDP members opposite just cannot take yes to heart as a solution to an important challenge and say that they appreciate it. They need to tie it into other things they would like. Let us recall the incredible outpouring of concern about the ecosystems of our north coast area with the possibility of having a greenfield pipeline, which means a pipeline that crosses areas that are almost unnavigable or impossible to hike, they are so mountainous, treed, and full of important species that have a refuge in that area. That is just the pipeline...

This text image is 5135 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

120

12/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... CPC speeches by Randy Hoback/Kevin Waugh produced more of the same faux-populism, tokenization, deflection, etc. Cons seem to suggest they want us to be more like Saudi Arabia.🤨 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

CPC Speeches: Randy Hoback (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: “Let us not fool ourselves. This is not a tanker ban. This is to stop development in the resource sector and to stop shipping products to the west coast. It is nothing more than that. It is what the Liberals really planned to do from day one, and this bill is how they are going to achieve it.”

What He Means: Classic faux-populist, industry-lobbyist rhetoric—framing environmental regulation as an attack on “working people” rather than what it actually is: a measure to protect coastal communities, Indigenous rights, and ecosystems from oil spills. The idea that this is part of a sinister Liberal master plan is pure moral panic—a fearmongering tactic meant to radicalize opposition against basic environmental protections.

What He Says: “As we speak, tankers around the world are shipping oil out of places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They do this every day and we hear nothing about it.”

What He Means: Neoliberal deflection and Red Scare-adjacent rhetoric. This is the tired “whataboutism” argument, trying to shift focus away from Canada’s regulatory responsibilities by invoking scary foreign actors—especially Venezuela, because nothing gets Canadian conservatives frothing like an opportunity to name-drop a socialist government. He’s also pretending that just because a bad thing happens elsewhere, Canada should do it too—a weak argument for an industry that already enjoys massive state subsidies.

What He Says: “A farmer cannot pass a carbon tax on. He cannot take the cost of fuel for his tractors, his combines, and his machinery and put it in the price of a commodity that is traded on the world market. However, he is still forced to compete against Americans who do not have a carbon tax.”

What He Means: This is a GOP-style distortion of how carbon pricing works. First, carbon taxes don’t magically kill business

This text image is 2031 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the Enbridge line through northern B.C. would have gone through territory that had not seen pipelines. It is a highly ecologically sensitive area. That was the first concern. It was a concern of our party. It was a concern of the Supreme Court of Canada when it overturned the process the previous government had used to try to get that pipeline built. There are alternatives. I wonder if the member would like to comment on the advent of processes to render bitumen into, basically, hockey pucks that could be shipped in bulk, so we we would not be dealing with what they call a persistent oil. These are oils that will not evaporate if they hit the water. These hockey pucks float, and they can be easily recovered. Has the member examined the option of refining the product more on the Canadian side, in Alberta, before it gets to the west coast? Then if it becomes a non-persistent oil, if it is something that would evaporate if it hits the water, as I understand it, that would be allowed under this tanker moratorium. Perhaps he would like to comment on what the options may look like.

Mr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's openness in saying we should look at technology to see if we can do this better and more safely. That is a wise approach. However, the Liberals are not doing that here. They are not doing that with coal, for example. They are just getting rid of it. They are saying that there is no technology, so get rid of it and do not allow anyone to use it. That is wrong. If there are new technologies that should be embraced, let us embrace them. If there are things that will make it safer, let us embrace them too. However, to impose a moratorium right across the west coast and say no is wrong. That is what this bill is doing. They have not talked about the consultations. They have not talked about the impact...

This text image is 4750 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

CPC Speeches: Kevin Waugh (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "The name of the bill is actually quite curious, because when we look at the facts, we see that this piece of legislation has very little to do with banning oil tankers from the B.C. north coast and everything to do with continuing the government's hurtful campaign against pipeline and oil development throughout this country, and in particular in western Canada."

What He Means: This is classic corporate lobbying rhetoric disguised as faux-populism. He frames environmental protection efforts as an "attack" on Western Canada rather than as legitimate policy. By portraying the government as the aggressor, he sidesteps the actual issue—oil spills and environmental degradation—while dog-whistling to the "West vs. East" grievance that conservatives often use to stoke regional resentment.

What He Says: "Why are the Liberals targeting the B.C. north coast for a ban on oil tankers while they apparently ignore the presence of oil tankers along many other of our coasts in this country?"

What He Means: This is a bad-faith argument meant to create a false equivalence. He conveniently ignores that the northern B.C. coast is uniquely sensitive—home to fragile marine ecosystems and Indigenous communities that have vocally opposed oil tanker traffic. The real goal here is deflection—if every regulation must be applied universally or not at all, then no regulation can ever be justified. That’s straight out of the neoliberal deregulation playbook.

What He Says: "The bill can most accurately be described as a moratorium on any and all pipeline development along the coastline of northern B.C., and as a result, this legislation would kill any economic opportunities communities in this region would otherwise have due to the increased energy investment in that area."

What He Means: This is a classic corporate-friendly lie pretending

This text image is 2333 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.): Mr. Speaker, listening to some of the members, particularly from the Prairies, talk about our great coastlines and waterways and then ask what the difference is between the St. Lawrence Seaway and the coast of northern B.C. is a little like saying I have a backyard garden and I know about agriculture. There is a very big difference between the St. Lawrence Seaway and the northern coast of B.C. For example, the St. Lawrence Seaway is man-made. That is one of the critical differences. Does the member and the party opposite really think that the St. Lawrence Seaway should be governed with exactly the same rules as the most sensitive marine environments in our country, regardless of where they are, regardless of whether there is access, regardless of whether there is even a city or a real port on the site? Is that really what the Conservatives say, that all coastlines are equal and should be treated as such?

Mr. Kevin Waugh: Mr. Speaker, it is a direct attack on the northern coastline of British Columbia. We have talked about it in our speech here. There are no regulations to bring in Venezuelan oil or Saudi Arabian oil. The Liberals seem to think that it is very good to bring it into New Brunswick. We do not even talk about southern B.C. The bill talks about northern B.C. I just talked about the opportunities of first nations that want to join the economy in this country, and they want to shut it down. We have heard from many groups in northern B.C. that want an opportunity of employment, an opportunity of prosperity, only to be shut down by this bill and the Liberals.

Vaughan lands a solid point—there's a vast difference between the St. Lawrence Seaway and B.C.'s northern coast, particularly when it comes to ecological sensitivity. Waugh’s response? A...

This text image is 4417 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

11/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "The gov't.. agenda is dictated by radical activists & the foreign donors.. These people want Canada to be nothing more than a giant nature preserve." Martin Shields, CPC 🧐🤔 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

CPC Speeches: Martin Shields (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "It is quite remarkable that this legislation makes such a radical departure from Canadian history. In Canada we have some of the most lucrative trading goods in the history of humanity at our disposal, namely oil and gas, but we cannot trade them, because we cannot access the market to do it. It seems a betrayal of Canada's historical legacy as a trading nation."

What He Means: Oil and gas are not just any trading goods—they are corporate interests wrapped in a flag. By calling this a radical departure from history, Shields is falsely implying that fossil fuel exports are Canada’s only path forward. This is classic faux-populism, painting the oil lobby as some kind of underdog instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that has dictated Canadian policy for decades. The real historical betrayal is selling out Canada’s future to corporate profits at the cost of environmental destruction.

What He Says: "The government has increasingly demonstrated that its agenda is dictated by radical activists and the foreign donors who support them. These people want Canada to be nothing more than a giant nature preserve."

What He Means: This is textbook Red Scare/Red-Baiting rhetoric combined with moral panic. The suggestion that foreign-funded “radicals” are controlling Canada’s environmental policy is straight from the GOP playbook—think of the “George Soros” conspiracy theories. He paints environmentalists as anti-human extremists rather than people fighting to prevent climate catastrophe. The real foreign influence is the oil lobby itself, which floods Canada with industry propaganda while pushing the government to subsidize oil and gas.

What He Says: "The Prime Minister was just in Europe, in France and Paris, and he apologized about being so slow to phase out the energy sector. It might have shocked his audience to

This text image is 2242 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member spoke about diversifying markets for oil and natural gas. I would like to ask him the following question: instead, why not work on diversifying clean energy sources and the jobs that go with them, especially since we know that oil is a non-renewable, finite resource?

Mr. Martin Shields: Mr. Speaker, just after 2000, I read a book that talked about the declining numbers with respect to gas and oil in the world, that it was very limited, and that within 20 years it would be gone. Thanks to technology and innovation, and tremendous people in the oil and gas sector, those numbers in that book are total garbage now because we continue to find more. When members talk about finite resources, what exists today as far as gas and oil is concerned is twice what it was in 2000. Therefore, I am not sure about the prediction that it is limited, because we have proven that wrong in the last 15 years, because of great guys with innovation skills in the oil and gas sector who keep finding more resources in our globe.

The Fossil Fuel Delusion

Martin Shields’ response is a perfect encapsulation of conservative magical thinking—if we just believe hard enough, fossil fuels will be infinite. It’s the political equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for an industry in terminal decline. The reality is that oil is a finite resource, and technological advancements don’t change that. What they do change is the rate at which we can extract and burn it, accelerating the climate crisis. Instead of investing in a just transition and securing long-term, sustainable jobs for workers, conservatives would rather keep pushing a short-term extraction economy that leaves workers stranded when the bust inevitably comes.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points in my friend from Bow

This text image is 2712 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

CPC Speeches: Earl Dreeshen (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "It has been said that it is not the puppet that we fear; it is Butts, the puppeteer. It is now obvious that both the puppeteer and the puppet are things Canadians need to fear."

What He Means: This is classic conservative boogeyman rhetoric—painting Gerald Butts, a former Trudeau advisor, as some kind of shadowy mastermind pulling the strings behind Trudeau. This kind of language—"puppeteer"—leans into conspiracy-adjacent thinking, implying some hidden, unelected power is truly running the country. It’s meant to invoke fear and distrust, positioning Trudeau as weak and controlled by sinister forces. The irony? Conservatives have no issue with oil lobbyists, think tanks, or corporate backers pulling their own strings.

What He Says: "These groups do not care about the well-being of Canadians. They do not care about our first nation entrepreneurs. They do not care about our commitment to humanitarian causes around the world. They just want to see Canada's natural resources stay in the ground so that their global partners can reap the benefits from such actions."

What He Means: Here, Dreeshen is trying to do three things at once:
Faux-populism – Acting like he speaks for working-class Canadians while actually defending the oil industry, which is dominated by multinational corporations and billionaire investors.
Red Scare-adjacent rhetoric – Suggesting that environmental activists are really foreign-backed saboteurs trying to keep Canada weak for the benefit of other countries (which sounds eerily like old Cold War fear-mongering about communist infiltration).
Weaponizing Indigenous voices selectively – Using "First Nation entrepreneurs" as a rhetorical shield, even though many Indigenous groups oppose oil projects due to environmental and sovereignty concerns. Conservatives don’t generally support Indigenous...

This text image is 2620 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's efforts in standing up for Albertans and jobs. I share that view, as much as he may not agree with my perspective. I have family there. We want our brothers and sisters there to thrive and do well. The member touched on a few things. He certainly touched on Kinder Morgan and this project replacing foreign oil. However, it is my understanding that this oil is for export. It will not be replacing any foreign oil, or dirty oil, if one wants to call it that. Frankly, we have not had a good, robust conversation about a refinery and the value added, creating more jobs in Canada and more energy security in Canada while we fund transition, like Norway did. We have not had a conversation about whether we have been responsible or not. When we look at Norway, it has $1 trillion in its prosperity fund. When we look at Alberta, it has $11 billion. Maybe the member, who is from Alberta, can explain how that gap is happening and how the leadership of Norway is funding transition, a healthy economy, and protection of the environment at the same time as funding oil extraction.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen: Mr. Speaker, it does grate on me somewhat when I hear someone talk about dirty oil coming from Canada. It is so frustrating to hear that. The rhetoric is part of the frustration and reasons why we have a B.C. government tag-teaming with the Quebec government to slow down energy east, and then the reverse happening. I see those kinds of issues. The member spoke about exporting and that this oil would go onto the world market. The point is to get it onto the world market and get world prices for these products. Right now we are captive to to the U.S. market and we are taking a terrible discount on every bit of oil that we sell. These are the sorts of things about which we have to be concerned. An article from a guy from Seattle thanks...

This text image is 4441 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

10/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "We are clear about the benefit of Canada being an energy superpower.. we seek to create jobs.. by promoting the development & export of energy resources." Garnett Genuis, CPC 🚨 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague speak about how the Harper Conservatives were committed to the highest environmental standards. I arrived here in 2008, and I remember, because I actually read that in 2007, the Conservatives came out with their sectorial approach. Those of us who have been here a while know about this famous sectorial approach. It promised, sector by sector, to really handle climate change and take care of the environment. Seven years later, in 2015, nothing had happened. They engaged two of the six sectors they talked about. I would like to know how they think Canadians are going to believe them on environmental issues, when in the 10 years they were here, they were totally unable to take care of their environmental commitments.

Hon. Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that question. Under the Harper government, we actually found the right balance between the environment and the economy. We did not see $87 billion worth of capital fleeing Canada because of ill-thought-out policies. It is time we pointed the finger back at our Liberal friends. Do they remember when the City of Montreal officials said to the Prime Minister that they wanted to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. Of course, we all expected that our wonderful green Prime Minister would step up and say no. Guess what. He approved it. Tonnes and tonnes of raw sewage went into the St. Lawrence, and these Liberals are standing here claiming that they have the high ground on the environment. That is pathetic.

This is a textbook case of Liberal vs. Conservative climate theatre—both parties trying to dunk on each other while conveniently ignoring their shared legacy of environmental destruction in service of corporate profits. Garneau rightly points out that the Harper-era “sectoral approach” was a sham, designed to look like climate

This text image is 4367 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

CPC Speeches: Garnett Genuis (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Such remarks, which are very disparaging towards Alberta, also indicate opposition to energy development and the desire to landlock our energy resources, and are sometimes deemed blunders or gaffes."

What He Means: This is classic faux-populist rhetoric, portraying the federal government as deliberately trying to sabotage Alberta. The term “landlock” is fear-mongering, meant to frame the government's environmental concerns as a deliberate attack on Albertans rather than a response to climate realities. He’s trying to manufacture regional resentment while ignoring the fact that oil markets are shifting away from reliance on fossil fuels, not because of Trudeau, but because of global economic trends.

What He Says: "We have a government here that is attacking our energy sector, and people in my constituency and across the country realize that."

What He Means: This is GOP-style “war on [X]” rhetoric, borrowed straight from American Republicans who claim Democrats are waging a “war on coal” or a “war on gas.” The goal is to create a false victim narrative, portraying Big Oil as under attack by an out-of-touch liberal elite. In reality, fossil fuel corporations are among the most powerful and subsidized industries in Canada. They’re not victims; they’re just upset that regulations might slightly limit their unchecked profits.

What He Says: "For the minister to say that more could have been built, well it beggars the imagination how Conservatives could have approved pipeline projects which at that time had not even been proposed."

What He Means: This is neoliberal jargon and corporate lobbying rhetoric. He’s trying to rewrite history to make it seem as though pipelines were the inevitable and only economic path forward under the Harper government. He’s also subtly implying that the Liberals are incompetent for not

This text image is 2034 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

CPC Speeches: Kelly McCauley (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "Do not let anyone be fooled. It is not about banning tankers; it is about killing the northern gateway pipeline once and for all and killing Alberta jobs."

What He Means: This is classic faux-populist rhetoric, pretending to stand up for "Alberta jobs" while actually defending corporate oil interests. He frames any regulation on fossil fuels as an attack on workers, but conveniently ignores that oil companies are the ones slashing jobs while making record profits. The real issue isn't that Alberta workers are under attack—it's that Big Oil has spent decades automating jobs, gutting wages, and lobbying against green energy projects that could provide sustainable employment.

What He Says: "The Liberals like to talk a lot about human rights, but they blocked Alberta oil, the cleanest, most ethically produced oil in the world, to bring in oil from some of the worst human rights-abusing countries in the world."

What He Means: This is a Red Scare/Red-Baiting adjacent moral panic about "ethical oil," a right-wing propaganda tactic designed to mask environmental destruction behind a thin veil of human rights concerns. The idea is to weaponize oppression in other countries to justify continued fossil fuel extraction at home. It’s a false choice—the solution isn’t to pick between Alberta oil or Saudi oil, but to move towards a post-fossil fuel economy altogether. McCauley doesn’t actually care about human rights abuses; he just wants to keep the oil flowing.

What He Says: "The government will consult with every U.S.-financed radical environmentalist group on pipelines in the industry. It will even take taxpayers' money to give to these radical environmentalist groups, saying, 'Here, take some taxpayers' money from Alberta, from all across Canada, and go out and work against the Canadian interest.’"

What He Means:...

This text image is 6953 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

CPC Speeches: Dane Lloyd (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: “This legislation is yet another blatant attack on Canada's energy sector, along with all the high-paying and high-quality jobs that go with it.”

What He Means: This is classic faux-populism—framing corporate profits as "high-paying jobs" while ignoring the reality that oil profits overwhelmingly benefit executives and shareholders, not workers. The real concern here isn’t working-class livelihoods but ensuring continued fossil fuel extraction, even when it endangers the environment. The term “blatant attack” is used to stoke moral panic, portraying any attempt at environmental protection as an assault on the economy.

What He Says: “Industry leaders are already beginning to move their operations to Texas, taking jobs with them. Where will the wealth creation and tax revenues that are needed to finance our transition go? They will go straight south of the border.”

What He Means: This is a thinly veiled corporate blackmail tactic—the idea that if Canada enacts regulations, companies will flee, and it will be our fault. It mirrors GOP-style rhetoric, particularly the "job-killer" narrative used in the U.S. to justify tax cuts and deregulation. In reality, these companies relocate to maximize profits, not because of marginal regulatory changes. Additionally, he’s using false scarcity rhetoric—implying Canada must allow environmental destruction or else suffer economic collapse.

What He Says: “They are not content to just cancel Northern Gateway; they are legislating for future generations to ensure that no pipeline will even be considered for the northwest coast.”

What He Means: This fearmongering about the future is a common tactic of neoliberal and conservative politicians when defending corporate interests. It suggests that even mild regulations are a slippery slope to a total ban on all energy projects. In...

This text image is 5525 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

311

9/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "Some First Nation communities fully support resource development.. they recognize the opportunity. They see how jobs & employment can help transform a community." Dan Albas, CPC #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Mr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker, a challenge with pipelines is to find a balance. As we have seen in the debate so far, some people are very upset that any pipeline could be built and some people want every single pipeline to be built. Our government is looking to find the right balance, as well as balancing that with the needs of the people, the economy, and the environment. We have approved the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are also putting in a moratorium on tankers in ecologically sensitive areas. Is there any area where the member would see a need for balance, not that this is right or wrong, but in a general sense, a balance of issues, where there could be good and bad, something we want to promote and something we do not want to promote? Does the member want us to promote every pipeline under every circumstance?

Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, maybe the member heard my Yiddish proverb that heaven and hell can both be had in this world. I think we are experiencing the other side of that proverb, which is that government has repeatedly gotten it wrong. Trans Mountain is the only line going through. With the length of time it has taken, from the first moment the company thought it up and went through the approval process, and it is not even built yet, it has been almost as long as World War II, quite literally. That is how long. It has taken six years to get to this point. Northern gateway was cancelled. Pacific NorthWest LNG was cancelled. Energy east was cancelled. We weep for those thousands of energy jobs that are gone. How many companies or young entrepreneurs were thinking they had new interesting projects they would like to proceed with? How many teams of young professionals out there were thinking they would propose projects but just shelved them instead? Who weeps for the jobs that were never even created?

Here, Kmiec is working overtime to play on the

This text image is 4983 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Kmiec 2nd Speech:

What He Says: "If we look at the contents of the bill, we see that a blanket exemption could be provided by cabinet for anyone at any time to ship through those lanes. American tankers will still be able to go through this area, as long as they do not stop at a Canadian port. It simply shifts some of the tanker traffic further west off of the coast. It does not apply to where 95% of the tanker traffic is, which is on the southern part of the coast."

What He Means: Kmiec is using distraction rhetoric to deflect from the actual environmental and social concerns about oil tankers. This is a classic conservative technique to create moral panic by focusing on irrelevant or misleading details. By pointing out that "American tankers" would still be allowed to pass, Kmiec appeals to nationalist sentiments, positioning the bill as a betrayal of Canadian interests. This is neoliberal rhetoric meant to protect corporate interests at the expense of the environment, while also stirring up fear about government intervention in the market. It's an attempt to make environmental regulation seem ineffective and ineffective without acknowledging that the bill aims to reduce environmental harm in the first place.

What He Says: "I have a lot of constituents who ask me what is wrong with the British Columbian government. They want to know why it is harassing oil and gas companies and pipeline companies."

What He Means: Kmiec is engaging in faux-populist rhetoric by speaking on behalf of “ordinary people” (his constituents) who supposedly resent the British Columbian government's actions against oil and gas companies. This is a classic tactic of right-wing populism, portraying government regulation as something that harms regular workers and families. It’s an effort to tap into the frustrations of the working class—particularly those in industries tied to oil and gas—while deflecting from the

This text image is 3009 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

What He Says: "Some first nation communities fully support resource development, because they recognize the opportunity. They see how jobs and employment can help transform a community."

What He Means: This is weaponized identity politics. When Indigenous communities oppose oil and gas development, Conservatives dismiss them as radical environmentalists. But when a handful of First Nations back extraction projects, suddenly, their voices are sacred. This divide-and-conquer strategy erases the fact that many Indigenous communities oppose fossil fuel expansion because they know it leads to long-term environmental destruction and health crises in their territories. He conveniently ignores the long history of coerced economic dependency, where Indigenous communities are forced into extractive industries due to systemic underfunding and lack of alternative opportunities—largely thanks to the same neoliberal policies his party supports.

What He Says: "We cannot allow just a few to make decisions on behalf of others in these rural and remote areas."

What He Means: Ironically, this is the exact argument that environmental activists, Indigenous land defenders, and local communities make against corporate oil and gas expansion. Yet, when oil lobbyists and pro-pipeline governments impose their projects without consent, he’s silent. What he’s doing here is flipping the language of democracy to suggest that opposition to fossil fuel expansion is undemocratic, when in reality, corporate lobbying and government collusion are the real threats to democratic decision-making. This is also classic anti-protest rhetoric, setting up a justification for government crackdowns on environmental activists and Indigenous land defenders.

What He Says: "The bill represents a political decision by the Prime Minister. By putting in place a ban in this one particular area, it is actually only going to exacerbate the..

This text image is 5285 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

CPC Speeches: Ed Fast (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

What He Says: "By imposing a moratorium, we are preventing Canada from getting its oil and gas products to foreign markets where they fetch the best price. What is the motive? Well, we could just follow the Prime Minister around the world on his global travels from costume to costume, leader to leader. Guess what? We found him in France, where he thought he was safe and he started badmouthing Canada's resource sector."

What He Means: Fast is using faux-populist and culture-war rhetoric to frame Trudeau as an out-of-touch elitist—mocking his travels and “costume” changes to discredit him. This is a classic dog whistle to conservative voters who already see Trudeau as performative and disconnected from working-class Canadians. The phrase "badmouthing Canada's resource sector" suggests that even acknowledging environmental concerns is a betrayal of the nation, weaponizing patriotism to shield the fossil fuel industry from criticism.

What He Says: "We have a Liberal government that wants to phase out our oil industry. It wants to put all kinds of impediments in the way of our resource sector to make sure Canadians do not get the maximum dollar that they should for their products."

What He Means: This is straight-up lobbying rhetoric and fear-mongering. He’s portraying a transition away from oil as a deliberate attack on Canadian workers rather than an inevitable shift in global energy markets. The phrase “maximum dollar” is neoliberal jargon, focusing on corporate profits rather than long-term sustainability or worker protections. He ignores that fossil fuels are already in decline worldwide, making it sound like Canada could just keep drilling indefinitely if not for Liberal interference.

What He Says: "The government would impose criteria, conditions, upon our own oil and gas producers that we do not impose on those who ship gas..

This text image is 1754 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

121

8/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... “The government is funding protesters against the Trans Mountain pipeline.” Block gave a trio of speeches, each one crazier than the last. Conspiratorial red-baiting here. 🛑❌ #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

2nd Speech:

What She Says: “There are no restrictions on tankers carrying crude and persistent oils from stopping, loading and unloading at ports along any of Canada’s other coastlines…”

What She Means: This is a typical attempt at neoliberal rhetoric, designed to create a false equivalence between different parts of the country, emphasizing that it’s not just about environmental protection but an unfair political decision. This creates a moral panic that the government’s actions are divisive, protecting some at the expense of others. She’s arguing that the bill’s restrictions are economically punitive, particularly for Alberta and Saskatchewan, while painting the Liberal stance as inconsistent and biased. This is a "divide and conquer" tactic used to turn regional grievances into political ammunition, painting the government as out of touch with the economic needs of western provinces.

What She Says: “The Conservatives will not participate in the fantasy that the bill has anything to do with transportation…”

What She Means: This statement is designed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the bill, positioning it as a "symbolic" move that doesn’t address real issues like transportation or pipeline access. This is a faux-populist move, implying that the government is more interested in ideological posturing for progressive political points rather than solving practical problems. It reflects GOP-style rhetoric, where any government measure that interferes with corporate or resource exploitation is often painted as a politically motivated charade, signaling to voters that their practical concerns are being ignored.

What She Says: “This is precisely why my colleague for Lakeland, who is our shadow minister for natural resources, has taken point and led the discussion surrounding the bill before us.”

What She Means: This is a strategic rhetorical move designed to reinforce the Conservative...

This text image is 2566 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, of course, my government is implementing a promise we made in the 2015 election. Our Prime Minister made it very, very clear that one of the promises we would be making in that election was that we would impose a moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia, and we are keeping that promise. In fact, we were elected and that is part of our commitment. I find my colleague's comments a bit disingenuous in the sense that, first of all, northern gateway, by the way, in consultation with the previous government, did not sufficiently address indigenous peoples. That is why it was blocked. That is very, very clear, and yet she talks a lot about indigenous peoples. The member failed to mention the many first nations that wholeheartedly support the moratorium. Why did she not mention any of them?

Mrs. Kelly Block: Madam Speaker, I would put back to the minister that it is a bit rich for him to talk about consultation when we heard in committee that regardless of whether a first nation's community supported the moratorium or not, none of them had been consulted. This was an initiative written into that minister's mandate letter without any consultation with first nations in British Columbia. To talk about the Liberals' 2015 election platform where they promised to do this, their platform is basically a list of broken promises. We have seen considerable flexibility on the part of the government to break many of the promises made in its 2015 platform. To say that this particular platform commitment is binding would be the height of hypocrisy from the government.

In this exchange, we see the deep hypocrisy at play within the Liberal government's rhetoric on environmental protection and Indigenous rights. Minister Garneau tries to paint a picture of the Liberals as champions of Indigenous consultation and...

This text image is 5218 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

3rd Speech:

What She Says: "This legislation is an open, sneering attack on our oil and gas sector, an anti-pipeline bill poorly masquerading as an environment bill."

What She Means: Block is playing into the fossil fuel industry’s lobbyist-driven narrative that any restriction or regulatory measure on the oil and gas industry is an ideological attack on working-class Canadians. This is an attempt to stoke fear among oil workers by portraying environmental regulations as an attack on their livelihoods, even though a transition to renewable energy could provide more sustainable, well-paying jobs in the future. This rhetoric tries to make a clear division between "pro-worker" and "anti-worker" forces, while conveniently ignoring the workers who suffer under environmental destruction caused by the very industries she defends.

What She Says: "Environmental legislation is supposed to be based on science. Bill C-48 is not. It is not science but rather politics and ideology that inform this legislation: Liberal ideology that is as damaging to national unity as it is cynical."

What She Means: This is a classic example of Red-Baiting rhetoric. By attacking the bill as driven by "Liberal ideology," Block is trying to align environmental protection with partisan politics, suggesting that only "real Canadians" (i.e., those who reject progressive, science-based policies) should care about economic growth. It’s an effort to delegitimize climate action by framing it as politically motivated, and it directly appeals to conservative fear of progressive or left-wing policies (in this case, the Green New Deal-style rhetoric).

What She Says: "Six premiers, including Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister outlining their legitimate concerns about the anti-oil, anti-energy legislation pushed by the Liberal government here in Ottawa."

What She Means:..

This text image is 2852 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Tom Kmiec Delivers Pair of Speeches on Bill C-48 (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”)

1st Speech:

What He Says: "It is not about cancelling the ability of tankers to move through a certain region of northern British Columbia. In fact, they will be able to move 100 kilometres off the coast, as they have been doing all along."

What He Means: Kmiec is trying to diminish the importance of environmental protections in the bill by framing it as an inconsequential change. This is an attempt to frame the legislation as an overreaction without real impact. This kind of rhetoric is often used in neoliberal strategies to devalue progressive environmental measures, reducing public resistance to corporate interests and underplaying genuine environmental concerns.

What He Says: "This is what the B.C. NDP is doing to try to kill off Kinder Morgan by harassing it through legal and regulatory means to try to put an end to that project."

What He Means: This is a thinly-veiled attack on the left, specifically environmentalists and political opponents, with the implication that they are obstructing economic progress through illegitimate means. This kind of rhetoric can feed into the Red Scare-like fear of progressives as obstructionists who are harming the country’s economic well-being, attempting to create a false dichotomy between economic growth and environmentalism. This taps into the moral panic of leftist interference in what is framed as a natural, capitalist process.

What He Says: "This bill would kill off any future pipeline projects. It sends another chilling signal to the business community in Canada that we are not open for business."

What He Means: This is an appeal to neoliberal economic values, emphasizing that any regulation seen as an obstacle to business is an existential threat to the economy. The use of “chilling signal” is a typical tactic in conservative rhetoric to create a sense..

This text image is 2527 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

7/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "Perhaps if some of the money from northern gateway went to building sheds to store canoes, the Prime Minister would have supported it." Kelly Block, CPC Racist tokenization. 🚨👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

3rd Speech:

What She Says: "Bill C-48 is one part of the Liberals' plan to phase out Canada's oil and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend both directly and indirectly on Canadian energy."

What She Means: This is a classic example of faux-populist rhetoric mixed with fearmongering. Stubbs is framing environmental regulation as an attack on workers, attempting to position the oil industry as the lifeblood of Canada while ignoring the reality that market forces, global energy shifts, and corporate decision-making—not just government policy—are driving changes in the sector. This also conveniently ignores that the transition away from fossil fuels could provide new jobs in green energy, which the CPC actively opposes.

What She Says: "Canada has long been the world's most environmentally and socially responsible oil and gas producer."

What She Means: This is corporate greenwashing and a bald-faced lie. Canada’s tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive sources of oil in the world. The idea that Canadian oil is somehow more “ethical” is a neoliberal marketing strategy, often used by industry-aligned politicians like Stubbs to justify continued extraction. If she actually cared about environmental and social responsibility, she wouldn’t be advocating for unlimited fossil fuel expansion.

What She Says: "Stopping Canadian oil cedes market share to countries where standards, enforcement, and outcomes do not measure up to Canada's performance, to many corrupt regimes with abysmal environmental and human rights records."

What She Means: This is Red Scare-style rhetoric repackaged as economic policy. It’s the same logic used by American Republicans when they claim that any regulation on fossil fuels is a win for “hostile” foreign powers. This tactic shifts focus away from the environmental destruction caused by Canada’s own fossil fuel industry and instead..

This text image is 2539 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's passion, her intervention, and the knowledge that she brings to this debate. The member talked about what has been done to improve efficiency in technology in the oil sands, but right now the world faces the fact that we are burning carbon at an alarming rate, and it is a huge problem. Global scientists have told us that one of the largest problems, if not the largest problem, that humanity faces on the planet is to reverse this trend. We are at over 400 parts per million and are quickly approaching a two-degree rise in global average temperature. What is the Conservative plan to deal with and reverse this trend while they are still promoting the use of fossil fuels?

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, Canadian energy remains the most affordable, abundant, and available source of energy for our domestic use and for the world. Stopping Canada from being able to export its crude oil does not protect the environment globally. In fact, all it does is cede the market to other oil and gas-producing jurisdictions that are ramping up aggressively and have nowhere near the same standards as Canada. This debate about the oil tanker ban should concern members of the NDP, the Greens, and the left-wing voters that the Liberals are trying to pander to in order to secure their vote. The hypocrisy and emptiness of this proposed legislation is shocking, since it would not enforce the voluntary exclusion zone already in the area. With this proposed bill, the Liberals create a scenario in which they would stop pipelines and stop the oil sands and stop Canadian oil tankers from being in the area while American and foreign tankers of all kinds, all sizes, and with all products would still be the area. Therefore, the NDP should be opposing this proposed legislation, since it would not do anything that the Liberals are...

This text image is 4657 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Kelly Block Also Delivers Trio of Speeches on Bill C-48 (“What She Says vs. “What She Means”)

1st Speech:

What She Says: "Once again the Liberals are playing games with Canadian jobs... Bill C-48 is a jobs bill or rather a job-killing bill singling out one specific sector of our economy, the oil sector, and punishing that sector irrationally."

What She Means: This is faux-populist rhetoric designed to paint corporate fossil fuel interests as synonymous with “Canadian jobs” while ignoring the reality that oil is a volatile industry with boom-and-bust cycles that don’t provide stable, long-term employment. The phrase "punishing that sector irrationally" frames environmental regulation as an unjust attack rather than necessary policy to transition away from fossil fuels. This mirrors GOP-style "job-killing regulation" talking points in the U.S., where corporate interests are falsely equated with working-class concerns.

What She Says: "Instead of basing their decision on these facts, the Liberals prioritize their anti-oil bias over science, over evidence and, most importantly, over people."

What She Means: She is weaponizing anti-intellectualism by pretending that fossil fuel expansion is supported by "science and evidence," when in reality, climate science overwhelmingly calls for a reduction in oil production. The phrase "over people" attempts to frame corporate oil profits as being in the best interest of workers, when in reality, the same industry has lobbied against higher wages, labour protections, and unionization. This is an example of neoliberal jargon, where the economic interests of the elite are falsely conflated with the general public.

What She Says: "If I did not know better, I might think the Liberal government is intentionally sabotaging Canadian jobs."

What She Means: This is an example of conspiracy-adjacent rhetoric, which suggests that environmental policy isn’t based

This text image is 1983 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was just reading in The Globe and Mail some excellent news out of British Columbia, which is the economy there is going to grow by about 3% this year, exceeding expectations and second only to the province of Alberta. It is interesting. The hon. member is saying that we have disdain for the oil industry, but because of this government's policy, thousands of jobs are being created in the oil industry. If the hon. member is going to criticize us for the economic problems in Alberta, will she give us some credit when things are going really good, like they are right now?

Mrs. Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange the member would ask that question when in fact the Minister of Natural Resources stood in the House just a few hours earlier and told us that it was not the government's job to build pipelines. Therefore, why do the Liberals want to take credit for the jobs that building a pipeline creates?

Chris Bittle's smug attempt to take credit for Alberta's oil jobs is a perfect example of Liberal opportunism—claiming victory when things go well, dodging responsibility when they don’t. This is the same government that spent years stalling on pipeline decisions, imposing half-baked regulations that satisfied neither environmentalists nor industry, and now suddenly wants applause when global market forces deliver a temporary boost to oil revenues.

And Kelly Block’s response? Equally disingenuous. The Conservatives love to attack Liberals for failing Alberta’s oil industry, yet when Trudeau hands them a talking point by admitting the government “isn’t in the business of building pipelines,” they refuse to admit their real frustration—that he didn’t do enough corporate handouts and deregulation to satisfy them. Neither party wants to address the bigger issue: that working-class Albertans are left clinging to boom-and-bust cycles...

This text image is 4299 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

6/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Shannon Stubbs (CPC) delivered a trio of speeches during debates. She's primed & ready for a gig as an O&G lobbyist whenever her political career fails. That's quite obvious. 😬👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

CPC Speeches

Shannon Stubbs Delivers Trio of Speeches on Bill C-48 (“What She Says vs. “What She Means”)

1st Speech:

What She Says: "This bill, of course, is not really about transport standards, marine traffic, or protecting the safety and ecology of B.C.'s northern shore exclusively for the Liberals. It is really yet another step in limiting Canadian oil development and hindering Canadian oil transportation and the Prime Minister's own explicit goal of phasing out the oil sands."

What She Means: This is classic lobbyist rhetoric disguised as faux-populism. She frames a policy meant to protect Indigenous lands and ecosystems as an "attack" on Canadian oil, implying that restricting one particular pipeline is equivalent to a wholesale dismantling of the industry. By claiming Trudeau has an “explicit goal” of phasing out the oil sands, she fearmongers to oil-dependent workers while ignoring the global economic shifts away from fossil fuels. The real aim here is to equate any environmental protection with an existential crisis for the working class—a well-worn trick to get blue-collar workers to defend corporate profits.

What She Says: "Reaching tidewater in all directions for Canada's oil and gas should be a pressing priority for the Liberals. It makes no sense to delay, hinder, or equivocate on this point from an economic, environmental, or moral perspective in the global context. All that does is take Canada out, ceding market share to oil- and gas-producing countries where standards, enforcement, and outcomes do not measure up to Canada's performance, and to corrupt regimes with abysmal environmental and human rights records."

What She Means: Here we have Red Scare/Red-Baiting rhetoric combined with moral panic. Stubbs is playing the "ethical oil" card—a right-wing talking point that pretends the real issue isn’t oil dependency or environmental destruction, but rather that other...

This text image is 3342 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez had an unfortunate incident. Human failure led to a critical incident that led to tonnes of crude oil being released into the environment, which still impacts the environment to this day. In discussions with the Haida Gwaii, they have indicated they are not in favour of the transportation of crude oil through their traditional territories. I think this is an attempt by the government to come up with a balance between the economy and the environment, allowing crude oil to be shipped from certain areas of the country but not others, depending on where we are and the type of environment involved. This is really based on the idea of using science and data to come up with something that can respect the long-term vision for what we can and cannot do. This does not mean, though, that I do not believe that this moratorium will prevent other types of economic development taking place. What are the member's beliefs or feelings about the idea that we need to strike a balance in what we need to do to protect the environment while also developing the economy?

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, Canada already has a long and successful track record of balancing environmental stewardship with economic development and energy and industrial development, which benefit the entire country. That is one way in which Canada is second to none or to any other jurisdiction on earth. I do not think this legislation is about balancing the environment with economic development. I think it is about the Liberals meeting a commitment, as mentioned in the minister's opening remarks, they made in the election to secure NDP and Green voters in B.C. I think the Liberals have been facing flak for the other two pipeline expansions they approved, so they are doubling down on this tanker ban to try to reinforce their own votes. It would be..

This text image is 4438 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

2nd Speech:

What She Says: "Bill C-48 is not really about the protection of coastlines or marine ecology. It is actually only a ban on Canadian oil development and exports, on the oil sands, and on pipelines. It is an attack on the hundreds of thousands of energy workers across the country, on one industry, and on one product."

What She Means: This is classic faux-populist rhetoric—framing environmental regulation as an attack on “workers” while really advocating for oil executives and corporate interests. Stubbs deliberately ignores the ecological risks of oil spills in favour of a victim narrative where Big Oil is under siege. In reality, protecting coastlines is the point of the bill, but she spins it as a war on "one industry" to stoke resentment.

What She Says: "Its intent is clearly to permanently prevent vital energy infrastructure in the region, denying any potential for oil exports to the Asia-Pacific from there, which could expand market access for Canada and reduce Canada's near complete dependence on the United States as a customer for Canadian oil."

What She Means: This is neoliberal free-market jargon dressed up as nationalism. The argument that Canada must cater to global oil markets ignores the fact that the real winners are oil executives, not ordinary Canadians. The phrase “vital energy infrastructure” is a corporate talking point meant to make pipelines sound like essential national assets rather than profit-driven projects with long-term environmental consequences.

What She Says: "That is because the motivation was actually a political calculation to hold NDP, Green, and left-wing votes for the Liberals in B.C, which helped them win in 2015."

What She Means: This is Red Scare-adjacent rhetoric, lumping together all environmental policy with "left-wing" partisanship. Instead of engaging with the ecological rationale for the ban, Stubbs reduces it to a cynical...

This text image is 1888 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Madam Speaker, a number of people mentioned the wreck of the Nathan E. Stewart, which caused a spill of over 100,000 litres of diesel fuel. It is a disaster. Imagine if a supertanker caused an even worse spill on the coast. Are the Conservatives not worried about the potential dangers of such spills in high-risk areas?

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: We should be discussing the legislation that is actually at hand. I am going to read a statement by the nine tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, which oppose the tanker ban. They say: We have unextinguished Aboriginal rights and title from time immemorial and continuing into the present within the land and ocean of our traditional territories...; We have protected the environment as first-stewards of our traditional territories for over 13,000 years; We have and will always, put the protection of the environment first, but this must be holistically balanced with community, social, employment, business and other priorities; We absolutely do not support big American environmental NGO’s (who make their money from opposing natural resource projects) dictating government policy and resource developments within our traditional territories; When such projects are environmentally acceptable and essential to meeting our non-environmental needs (such as the Eagle Spirit Energy Pipeline project) such foreign interference serves only to perpetuate the rampant poverty and dysfunction encouraged by previous colonial policies; We should listen to these indigenous people, who have been in that area, who support environmental protection, and who have managed their land, ocean, and habitat responsibly. They oppose the tanker ban, and they want the Eagle Spirit pipeline.

The NDP’s Question and CPC Tokenization

Ms. Boutin-Sweet asked a direct and reasonable question—shouldn’t we be concerned about the risks of catastrophic oil spills?

This text image is 3659 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

5/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... "Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives & different opinions are celebrated, not silenced." - Alex Nuttall, CPC (Barrie mayor hates homeless/addicts) 🧐🤡 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister say on the one hand that it is a platform commitment so we barely need any debate, when on the other hand, most of the time he says it is a platform commitment so we are not going to do it. Not only is this an assault on democracy but it is also an assault on economic development. It is clear that the government prefers foreign oil to Canadian oil in every case. Tankers bringing foreign oil from one place to another will be travelling up and down the B.C. coast, yet we will not have the opportunity to export Canadian oil and get it to markets. It is the same principle whereby the government is imposing all sorts of restrictions that limit energy infrastructure from going east while it continues not to apply those restrictions to the export of foreign oil. Why are we seeing this assault on democracy and economic development at the same time? I would particularly like to know from the transport minister why there is a preference in every case for foreign oil over Canadian oil.

Hon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question, because our government approved three pipelines, with conditions. We want to see Canadian oil going to foreign markets and we are definitely doing everything we can to make that happen, so I am not sure what point the hon. member is trying to make. As our Prime Minister has said and as all of us in the Liberal Party have said many times, we are achieving the proper balance between economic development and the environment. We are making a strong statement here, as part of the greater oceans protection plan, that we want to ensure that the coastal area, those 400 kilometres north of Vancouver Island, will remain pristine. This is an area where for millennia coastal nations have lived and worked and brought up their families. We have made a..

This text image is 7443 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Another Day, Another Liberal Betrayal of Democracy

If there’s one thing the Trudeau Liberals have mastered, it’s making a mockery of their own campaign promises. Transparency? Democracy? Open debate? All empty platitudes—casualties of a government that wields power with the same arrogance as the Harper Conservatives they once decried. The Liberals’ use of time allocation on Bill C-48 is just another example of their deep contempt for democracy. With the flick of a wrist, they’ve shut down debate on a bill that directly affects coastal communities, Indigenous rights, and environmental protections. They claim it’s “urgent” and that MPs will have their say in committee—but let’s be honest, we’ve seen this playbook before. The committee process is just another tightly controlled stage-managed performance where Liberal MPs dutifully push the bill through while ignoring legitimate concerns from the opposition. And yet, the Conservatives crying foul here is peak hypocrisy. The same party that used time allocation over 100 times when they were in government is now pretending to be the vanguard of democracy? Spare me. The reality is that both establishment parties—Liberals and Conservatives—treat Parliament like an inconvenience when it suits them.

What’s worse is that the NDP, who actually want to strengthen this bill and give Indigenous communities a real say in protecting their waters, are being silenced just the same. But let’s be real: this is what centrists do. They talk about "working together" while shutting down anyone who threatens their pre-approved, corporate-friendly agenda. They’ll ram through a half-measure, slap themselves on the back for being “progressive,” and then cry crocodile tears when people demand actual change. If the Liberals were serious about governing with integrity, they’d allow full debate, listen to the communities most affected, and pass legislation that actual...

This text image is 6739 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the NDP will support the legislation, which is a positive. This issue has been important to the government. It was raised during the last federal election, and the government is fulfilling that commitment. I am a bit disappointed in the NDP's approach on the national interest and how it is prepared to forgo that based on the position that the environment has to be taken into consideration and there is absolutely no consideration given to the national interest. The member mentioned, for example, that she was disappointed by the federal government's actions with respect to the courts and not being onside with British Columbia. Would the member at least acknowledge that the national interest does take into consideration our environment and the economy? The Trans Mountain pipeline is an excellent example of that. There even is controversy within the NDP. We have an NDP premier in Alberta saying that Albertans want the transcontinental. Does the member believe that the NDP premier has any merit whatsoever to her argument?

Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (NDP): Mr. Speaker, I salute the Alberta New Democrat premier, Rachel Notley. She campaigned on a strong platform of standing up for the existing jobs and industry in her province, and she is continuing to do that. I also salute New Democrat premier, John Horgan, who campaigned against the Kinder Morgan pipeline and said loudly that he would use every measure he could within his limited provincial jurisdiction to protect the coast, and he is doing that. From my perspective, when we hear in Kinder Morgan's filings to the National Energy Board that the permanent jobs in British Columbia are 50, and we recognize the tens of thousands of jobs that are dependent on a clean environment, on sport fishing, on tourism,

This text image is 4202 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Liberals Invoke Closure Motion

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the opportunity to ask these questions of the minister, it bears repeating that it is quite shameful that the government is imposing yet another closure on very important legislation. Currently, there is a voluntary moratorium on tanker traffic in the area that would be affected by this bill. Regardless of whether one philosophically agrees with this voluntary moratorium or not, it has been working for over 30 years. Since Bill C-48 would do nothing to change the current situation in regard to tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast, how is this bill anything more than empty symbolism?

Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that even though there has been a voluntary exclusion zone in place since 1985, the Prime Minister made a promise in June 2015, and again in September 2015, that we would formalize that moratorium. That is precisely what we are doing. In fact, when it went through the House of Commons, it was supported by a vote of 204 to 85. In other words, all the Liberal Party, the Green Party and the Groupe parlementaire québécois at the time agreed with it except, of course, the Conservatives.

Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Madam Speaker, when the minister was on this side of the House, he openly criticized these kinds of closure motions and time allocation motions. The Liberals have used these methods countless times now. I wonder what happened to the democratic spirit of my colleague, who used to find these parliamentary tactics shameful. He just said that dilbit and other types of petroleum products that do not evaporate quickly are dangerous, so why did he approve the Trans Mountain expansion project today, given that it will triple the number of oil tankers on the oceans and in the bay in southern British Columbia?

This text image is 7741 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

4/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Kennedy Stewart, NDP: "I wonder if this minister feels comfortable using army & defence forces to arrest first nations people on reserves just for trying to protect our coast." 👀 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Mr. Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I did mention in my speech that this is a positive step. We welcome this legislation. I did caution about ministerial powers and exemption, and hope that the government listens to those concerns. I hope my comments will be listened to and taken to committee. I agree that there has been a shift, a change. However, it is two years later, and we are still waiting for the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and Navigable Protection Act to be restored, as well as the NEB. We have waited for two years. Canadians are tired of waiting. The Liberals promised two years ago that they would make these changes. Many major energy projects have gone through, including Kinder Morgan, under those same gutted environmental protection laws. While we concede that this is a step in the right direction, the Liberal government has a long way to go before it can say it is moving in terms of true environmental protections, including carrying out the promises it made in the 2015 election.

Mr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague not only for his speech today, but for his many years of championing the resources of Canada's coasts, particularly the west coast. It is sometimes portrayed as just a bunch of environmentalists who care about tankers and tanker traffic off of British Columbia's west coast. However, when I had the pleasure of sitting in for the member at the fisheries and oceans committee, it was very clear that there is widespread concern among many organizations and groups, including commercial fishers and many others. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to share with us some of the people he hears from on a regular basis who are concerned about tanker traffic on the west coast, besides environmentalists.

Mr. Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from the...

This text image is 6349 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Bill Introduction at 2nd Reading (Post-Garneau Speech)

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, legislation has been coming fast and furious from this minister, and I can imagine that he wants to get something done so that the Liberals can say their government actually accomplished some of the things that they promised to do. However, this would be one promise that we ask the government to think very carefully about. As the minister noted, currently there is a voluntary moratorium on tanker traffic. It has been in place since the 1980s and it covers the area that would be affected by this bill. Regardless of whether one philosophically agrees with this voluntary moratorium, it appears to have been working. Since Bill C-48 would do nothing to change the current situation in regard to tanker traffic travelling up and down B.C.'s coast, why is the minister wasting the House's time with this smokescreen of a bill?

Hon. Marc Garneau (Liberals): Mr. Speaker, yes, the exclusion zone has been in place since the 1980s, but we made an election promise to Canadians that we would also exclude specific zones along the coast: Hecate Strait, the Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound. Specifically, we did not want to allow massive amounts of tanker traffic to be operating in those zones going into Canadian ports. That is a new element in this bill, and it would ensure that the moratorium would satisfy the requirement not to have lots of maritime traffic within the exclusion zone.

Kelly Block’s argument is the classic Conservative playbook: dismiss any attempt at progress as a “waste of time” while conveniently ignoring the larger issue. Yes, there was a voluntary moratorium before, but voluntary means it could be undone at any moment by an industry-friendly government (cough CPC cough). What Garneau is doing here—despite the Liberals’ usual half-measures—is locking it into law.

This text image is 6067 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

House of Commons Erupts With Time Allocation Motion at 2nd Reading

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.) moved: That, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this, and we as a party are offended. There was an agreement made two and a half weeks ago when this session started that we would work together with the government and not be obstructionist, but work to help pass bills that we were able to support. The result so far is that the government has passed Bill S-2, C-21, C-47, and Bill C-58 all without time allocation, and progress was being made on three more bills, Bill C-55, C-57, and C-60. There was one bill that we said we had a lot of interest in and would like to have enough time for all of our members to be able to speak, and that was Bill C-48. Now the House leader has broken her word. There is no other way to interpret this. If this is the way she is going to start this session after we have worked in such good faith for the last two and half weeks, all the members know that it will be a case of here we go again: a repeat of the failure

This text image is 5819 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Hon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I find this incredibly rich. I remember over 100 occasions when time allocation was used by the opposition when in government. To hear that kind of manufactured outrage right now is, frankly, a little bit too much.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two thoughts come to mind. First, I do have to second the comment just been made by the government side. The Conservatives, when they were in government, imposed time allocation and closure on debate over 100 times in this place. They had no respect for the rights of parliamentarians to have their say on bills. However, on the other hand, as we learned in grade 4, two wrongs do not make a right, and it is no excuse for the Liberal government to now impose closure and take away the rights of people on this side of the House to have their say. I also had a speaking spot today. I come from Vancouver, a coastal city where our constituents have very important concerns about tankers on the coast. Now I have been robbed of my ability to raise the voice of the people of Vancouver Kingsway in the House, because the Liberal government is imposing time allocation and taking away our right to represent our constituents in the House. It was wrong when the Conservatives did so. It is wrong that the Liberals are doing it now. This is why we need a New Democrat government in 2019 to finally bring back respect for democracy in this chamber and across this country.

Hon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned comments on this, but I do want to reassure him that there are still many stages left before this bill leaves the House of Commons for the Senate. I am optimistic that he will have an opportunity to express himself during the course of the different stages of this legislation through the House of Commons.

Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker,...

This text image is 6855 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

3/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... 🚨 CPC deployed a familiar tactic in their opposition to C-48: tokenizing marginalized groups—this time pretending to be champions of Indigenous Canadians to protect big oil. 🤥🤡 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Witness Testimony (Robert Lewis-Manning, Chamber of Shipping)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/TRAN/meeting-78/evidence#Int-9749983

Corporate Interests vs. Environmental Protection: The Chamber of Shipping’s Veiled Opposition to Bill C-48

The Chamber of Shipping’s testimony before the committee on Bill C-48 attempts to walk a fine line: appearing environmentally conscious while subtly undermining a crucial piece of legislation designed to protect British Columbia’s fragile northern coastline. Beneath the industry jargon and appeals to "evidence-based analysis," the Chamber’s core argument is clear—corporate profits and supply chain "efficiency" should take precedence over Indigenous sovereignty, environmental protection, and Canada’s long-term sustainability.

Framing Profits as Public Good

The Chamber begins by emphasizing its role in facilitating over 60% of Canada’s international trade by ship, framing its members as indispensable to the daily lives of Canadians. While this is a familiar tactic from corporate lobbying groups—tying their financial interests to the well-being of ordinary people—the reality is that the bulk of Canada’s wealth generated from oil and chemical shipments does not trickle down to workers, communities, or Indigenous nations. Instead, it lines the pockets of shipping conglomerates and resource extraction giants that have historically treated Canada’s environment as an expendable asset. The Chamber’s concern that limiting oil shipments could lead to "increased freight charges" or "disruptions in the supply chain" is a thinly veiled attempt to make the public fear rising costs. However, what they fail to mention is that this disruption would primarily impact corporate profits, not everyday Canadians. The vast majority of people in B.C. will not feel the difference in their day-to-day lives if the northern coast is protected from catastrophic oil...

This text image is 6091 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Witness Testimony (Chris Bloomer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/TRAN/meeting-77/evidence#Int-9738857

CEPA’s Testimony: Corporate Spin Masquerading as Concern for Canada

Chris Bloomer, the CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), makes it clear in his testimony that the interests of oil and gas executives—not the Canadian people—are his top priority. His argument against Bill C-48 boils down to two predictable talking points: (1) Canada is already a "world leader" in pipeline and marine safety, so regulation isn’t needed, and (2) limiting oil exports will hurt investment and competitiveness. But these claims fall apart when examined from a perspective that prioritizes working people, Indigenous sovereignty, and climate action over corporate profits.

"Canada is already a world leader in marine safety, so why regulate?"

This is a classic move from industry lobbyists: point to their past safety record as a reason to block future safeguards. But CEPA’s assertion that “Canada has not experienced a single major spill from oil tankers” is misleading. It conveniently ignores oil spills from other marine vessels, pipeline ruptures, and the catastrophic risk of even one spill in ecologically sensitive areas. It also assumes that past performance guarantees future safety—something that has been proven false time and time again in the fossil fuel industry. More importantly, Bloomer completely sidesteps the fact that Bill C-48 is about preventing disasters, not cleaning them up after the fact. If the industry were truly committed to environmental stewardship, they wouldn’t oppose proactive measures designed to protect communities and ecosystems. The logic of “we haven’t had a disaster yet, so let’s not plan for one” is reckless at best and deeply dishonest at worst.

"This bill creates uncertainty and hurts investor confidence"

This text image is 3997 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Witness Testimony (Gavin Smith, West Coast Environmental Law Association)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/TRAN/meeting-78/evidence#Int-9749340

The West Coast Environmental Law Association’s testimony is a strong endorsement of Bill C-48, reinforcing the necessity of the oil tanker moratorium to protect Canada’s pristine northern coast. Their concern over clause 6—the exemption provision—exposes a loophole that could gut the bill’s effectiveness if left unchecked. This is the type of regulatory backdoor that corporate interests love to exploit. Let’s be clear: if the government is serious about protecting British Columbia’s coast, the law must be airtight. The argument that exemptions should only apply in emergencies is common sense—yet as written, the bill leaves a wide-open lane for a future pro-oil government to undermine it entirely.

Without stricter limits, exemptions could be granted for so-called "public interest" reasons, which we all know is often just industry-speak for corporate profit. The second recommendation—limiting exemption periods to one year—ensures that even in emergencies, exemptions don’t become a backdoor for permanent tanker traffic. This is crucial because industries with deep pockets and political influence have a history of turning "temporary" measures into long-term policy. The third recommendation, requiring public disclosure of exemptions in the Canada Gazette, is about transparency. The fact that the bill currently removes legal requirements for public notice is a red flag.

If exemptions can be granted behind closed doors, how long before a government sympathetic to Big Oil quietly hands them out to industry lobbyists? Without public oversight, the moratorium could be whittled away without Canadians even realizing it. This testimony exposes a classic neoliberal maneuver: pass environmental protections with one hand while leaving a loophole

This text image is 3404 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

C-48 Debate Environment

As Bill C-48 made its way through Parliament, the battle lines were drawn in a way that should surprise no one familiar with Canadian politics. The New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois, and Greens largely supported the bill, though for the NDP, it was a frustrating half-measure—a stripped-down version of the original proposal championed by former NDP MP Nathan Cullen. The Liberal government, true to form, positioned itself as the responsible middle ground, talking about "striking the right balance between the environment and the economy"—which, translated from Liberal-speak, means making just enough concessions to environmentalists to keep up appearances while ensuring corporate profits remain untouched. But the most egregious, shameless display came from the Conservative Party of Canada. By now, it’s a well-worn CPC strategy to cherry-pick one Indigenous group that aligns with their corporate-friendly agenda and use them as a political shield, acting as though this single entity speaks for all Indigenous nations. In this case, their chosen token was Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd., a pro-oil Indigenous-backed company whose brief reads like it was drafted in an oil and gas boardroom. The CPC clung to this one organization like a life raft, parading them around as evidence that opposing the oil tanker moratorium was somehow an act of Indigenous solidarity—conveniently ignoring the multitude of Indigenous voices that strongly supported the ban.

The hypocrisy of this cannot be overstated. This is the same Conservative Party that, time and time again, has stood in opposition to Indigenous sovereignty whenever it conflicted with corporate or settler-colonial interests. Anyone who has followed this Canadian federal legislation thread remembers where we started, how the CPC rejected the Tlicho Self-Governance Act back in 2006, and their hostility toward Indigenous self...

This text image is 5542 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

2/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... Haida Nation, Heiltsuk First Nation, Sierra Club of BC were cautiously supportive. ✅ ICBABC, Prasad Panda, Patrick Gates, SFOC, CAPP briefs read more like big oil lobbyists. 🤨❌ #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

Submitted Briefs (Council of the Haida Nation)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR9273457/br-external/CouncilOfTheHaidaNation-e.pdf

The Haida Nation’s submission on Bill C-48 offers a clear and principled demand: the federal government must move beyond half-measures and institute a full, uncompromising ban on all fossil fuel exports through Haida Gwaii and North Coast waters. Their position is not just about environmental protection; it is a defence of sovereignty, a rejection of corporate exploitation, and a necessary pushback against the federal government’s historical disregard for Indigenous rights. The Haida Nation’s call for a ban on both persistent and non-persistent oil products is a crucial correction to the federal government’s weak approach to environmental protection. Right now, the bill focuses on crude oil, but refined oil products still pose a catastrophic risk to Haida waters. Canada’s so-called ‘climate leadership’ crumbles when we see how they continue to accommodate industry interests at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty and environmental integrity. The Haida Nation is right to call out this hypocrisy: if the government is serious about protecting coastal ecosystems and the communities that depend on them, they must extend the moratorium to all fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the Haida Nation demands real power over decision-making, not just empty promises of consultation. They highlight a fundamental issue: Canada has long treated Indigenous consultation as a bureaucratic checkbox rather than a meaningful process of shared governance. The Haida Nation’s agreements with Canada and British Columbia already recognize a dual assertion of sovereignty over their land and waters, yet the federal government continues to sideline Indigenous authority in legislative decision-making. Their demand for the ability to set tanker route conditions and exemptions

This text image is 4289 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Submitted Briefs (Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR10597280/br-external/IndependentContractorsAndBusinessesAssociationOfBritishColumbia-e.pdf

Corporate Spin from the ICBA: Prioritizing Profits Over People and the Environment

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia (ICBA) wants you to believe that Bill C-48—the Oil Tanker Moratorium—is a reckless attack on economic growth. In reality, their submission is little more than a corporate lobbyist’s wishlist, prioritizing Big Oil’s ability to rake in profits over the health of coastal communities, Indigenous sovereignty, and the environment.

The ICBA’s Argument in a Nutshell: More Oil, More Money

The ICBA is upfront about its priorities: it wants to expand fossil fuel exports—regardless of the consequences. Their argument boils down to three key points:
They want to increase oil exports to Asia. The brief repeatedly laments that BC and Alberta's oil has been "captive" to the U.S. market, as if Canadian oil producers are victims of some injustice rather than active participants in a capitalist system they champion.
They claim there’s no policy rationale for a tanker ban. In other words, they ignore the climate crisis, downplay environmental risks, and pretend that Indigenous nations along the coast haven't been opposing these projects for decades.
They accuse the federal government of hypocrisy. They argue that if Canada is investing in ocean protection, then we should be shipping more oil rather than restricting it—ignoring the obvious fact that real protection means preventing disasters, not just cleaning them up afterward.

The Convenient Omissions: What the ICBA Won’t Tell You

The ICBA paints itself as the "voice of BC’s construction industry," but make no mistake: their real function is to act as an...

This text image is 6332 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Submitted Briefs (Patrick Gates)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR9277915/br-external/GatesPatrick-e.pdf

Corporate Apologist Arguments Disguised as Expertise: A Response to Patrick Gates' Brief on Bill C-48

Patrick Gates' submission on Bill C-48 is a textbook example of industry-aligned rhetoric masquerading as objective analysis. While he presents his maritime credentials as a shield against criticism, his arguments read less like a reasoned assessment of tanker risks and more like a desperate attempt to justify corporate profiteering at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental protection.

"Evidence-Based" for Whom?

Gates claims there is "no evidence" to support an oil tanker moratorium on BC's northern coast. But "no evidence" for whom? If you’re an oil company executive or a retired mariner whose career was built on industry expansion, then sure, maybe you don't see a problem. But for Indigenous communities who have lived on this coast for millennia—communities whose economies, food security, and ways of life are tied directly to the health of these waters—there’s plenty of "evidence" that a spill would be catastrophic. This isn’t just speculation; we’ve seen the destruction oil spills bring. Gates himself lists disaster after disaster—the Arrow, Exxon Valdez, Sea Empress, Amoco Cadiz, and more—yet somehow comes to the bizarre conclusion that since these disasters forced safety improvements, there’s no reason to be cautious. That’s like saying car crashes led to seatbelts, so we should stop worrying about reckless drivers.

False Equivalencies: BC ≠ The Great Lakes

Gates tries to argue that if BC has a moratorium, then by his logic, all other Canadian coasts should have one too—or none at all. But this is a lazy, bad-faith argument. The Great Bear Rainforest and the Hecate Strait are not the St. Lawrence Seaway. The unique ecological vulnerability

This text image is 6905 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Submitted Briefs (Heiltsuk First Nation)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR9214401/br-external/HeiltsukFirstNation-e.pdf

The Heiltsuk First Nation’s submission on Bill C-48 isn’t just a policy recommendation—it’s a demand for justice. It lays bare the reality of what happens when corporate interests are prioritized over Indigenous rights and environmental protection. The Heiltsuk are not speaking in hypotheticals; they have lived through the nightmare of an oil spill that devastated their waters, their way of life, and their economy. Their experience with the Nathan E. Stewart disaster is proof that Canada's so-called “world-class” spill response is an outright sham. One of the most critical points in their submission is that First Nations bear the brunt of oil spills. It’s their waters, their food sources, and their livelihoods that are destroyed, while industry players escape with minimal financial consequences. The Heiltsuk had to fight for mere reimbursement for environmental assessments—costs that should never have fallen on them in the first place. The government’s failure to enforce a “polluter pays” model forces Indigenous communities to bear the economic, cultural, and environmental costs of corporate negligence. That’s not just bad policy—it’s colonial exploitation in a modern form.

But the real kicker? As the Heiltsuk point out, the Nathan E. Stewart spill wouldn’t even be covered under Bill C-48 in its current form. The bill’s threshold for what counts as an “oil tanker” is so high that disasters like this one slip through the cracks. This isn’t a tanker moratorium—it’s a half-measure that protects corporate shipping routes while leaving Indigenous communities exposed. The Heiltsuk's solution is straightforward: the government must have the power to impose geographic restrictions and conditions on oil tankers of all sizes. What good is a tanker...

This text image is 5020 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

100

1/ June 2019 - "Oil Tanker Moratorium Act" Bill C-48 (42-1) www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en... 🚨 Bill C-48: A REAL oil tanker ban or just another Liberal PR stunt? 🚨 Trudeau/Liberals sold it as a big win for the environment—so why are there so many loopholes? 🧐🤷 #20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli

June 2019 - “Oil Tanker Moratorium Act” Bill C-48 (42-1)

Bill Sponsor: Marc Garneau (Liberals)

Yea: Liberals (159/159), NDP (36/36), GPQ (5/5), IND (3/3), GP (1/1)
Nay: Conservatives (85/85)

Notable Yea’s: Liberals - Omar Alghabra, Gary Anandasangaree, Rene Arseneault, Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Terry Beech, Chris Bittle, Bill Blair, Randy Boissonnault, Sean Casey, Bardish Chagger, François-Philippe Champagne, Shaun Chen, Serge Cormier, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Sukh Dhaliwal, Anju Dhillon, Francis Drouin, 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, Hedy Fry, Mark Gerretsen, Patty Hajdu, Ken Hardie, Mark Holland, Anthony Housefather, Gudie Hutchings, Angelo Iacono, Melanie Joly, Yvonne Jones, Iqra Khalid, Kamal Khera, Emmanuela Lambropoulous, Kevin Lamoureux, Stéphane Lauzon, Diane Lebouthillier, Joël Lightbound, Wayne Long, Lawrence MacAulay, Steven MacKinnon, James Maloney, Bryan May, Ken McDonald, David McGuinty, John McKay, Ron McKinnon, Michael McLeod, Alexandra Mendés, Marc Miller, Robert Morrissey, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert Oliphant, Seamus O'Regan, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Carla Qualtrough, Yves Robillard, Pablo Rodriguez (now IND), Churence Rogers, Sherry Romanado, Anthony Rota, 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, Arif Virani, Jonathan Wilkinson, Jean Yip

NDP - Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton, Rachel Blaney, Alexandre Boulerice, Richard Cannings, Don Davies, Randall Garrison, Carol Hughes, Gord Johns, Jenny Kwan, Brian Masse, Thomas Mulcair

GPQ - Rhéal Fortin, Monique Pauzé, Louis Plamondon, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Luc Thériault

GP - Elizabeth May

This text image is 808 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Bill Summary

“This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo. The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers. Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.”

Bill C-48: The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act – A Real Ban or a PR Stunt?

Back in 2019, the Trudeau Liberals passed Bill C-48, also known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. On the surface, it looks like a strong environmental protection law—banning large oil tankers from transporting crude and persistent oil along the northern British Columbia coast. Sounds great, right? A big win for environmentalists and Indigenous communities that have been fighting to protect their waters. But dig a little deeper, and the cracks in this so-called "ban" start to show.

What Does This Bill Actually Do?

The first sections of the bill (Sections 1-23) set up the definitions, scope, and enforcement of the law. Here's a breakdown of what’s really going on:

1. The "Ban" is Extremely Limited
The bill prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil from stopping at or unloading at ports along the north coast of British Columbia

This text image is 4131 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc

Review Clause (Section 32) – A Built-In Delay Tactic

"A review of the Act must be undertaken in the fifth year after the law comes into force."

This is a classic Liberal move: delay real action by promising a future review. By the time a government committee actually gets around to assessing the impact of this bill, we could already have a new government or a different regulatory environment. It’s a convenient way to push real accountability down the road.

The Schedule – What’s Actually Banned?

This list defines the "persistent oils" that can’t be transported. These are heavy oils that don’t break down easily in water, making them especially dangerous in case of spills.

What’s Included?
Fuel oils (No. 4, 5, and 6) → Common heavy fuels used in shipping and industry.
Synthetic crude & partially upgraded bitumen → The dirtier stuff coming out of Alberta’s oil sands.
Lubricating oils & petroleum pitch → Sticky, tar-like substances.
Condensate → If it meets certain heavy-fuel characteristics.
What’s NOT Included?
Diluted Bitumen (Dilbit) → The main export product from Alberta’s oil sands.
Refined petroleum products → Which still pose risks but aren’t covered under this bill.

This is a strategic exclusion that protects Alberta’s industry while pretending to take strong environmental action.

Final Verdict – A Performative Liberal Bill That Protects Industry

Bill C-48 looks like bold environmental policy but is really just a carefully crafted compromise that:
✅ Creates a regional restriction while allowing oil expansion elsewhere.
✅ Keeps the door open for future corporate lobbying to change the rules.
✅ Puts penalties in place, but with plenty of loopholes for avoidance.
✅ Leaves Alberta’s core oil sands business largely unaffected.

This is a perfect example of how the Liberals play both sides—talking big on climate while quietly protecting fossil fuel profits. It’s not a ban on oil..

This text image is 3802 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

Briefs and Witnesses

C-48 was busy when it came to submitted briefs and witnesses at committee. A total of 21 written briefs were submitted, while 52 witnesses made an appearance to speak with Canadian politicians. The following groups, organizations, or individuals were included in the submitted briefs, and we’ll take a closer look at some of their submissions:

Friends of Wild Salmon, Business Council of British Columbia, Canada West Foundation, Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd., West Coast Environmental Law Association, Council of the Haida Nation, Government of Alberta, Lax Kw'alaams Band, Gitga'at First Nation, Sierra Club of British Columbia, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia, Prasad Panda (Alberta UCP), Steve Cullis, Patrick Gates, Shipping Federation of Canada, Heiltsuk First Nation, Douglas Channel Watch, Pacific Wild, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Submitted Briefs (Canada West Foundation)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR9235923/br-external/CanadaWestFoundation-e.pdf

A Right-Wing Think Tank’s Thinly Veiled Oil Lobbying: A Breakdown of the Canada West Foundation’s Bill C-48 Submission

The Canada West Foundation, which brands itself as an "independent, non-partisan" think tank (as all corporate-friendly right-wing policy shops do), submitted its brief opposing Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Predictably, their arguments read less like a thoughtful policy critique and more like a PR campaign for Big Oil disguised as "regional fairness." Let’s break down their key claims.
“Why single out B.C.’s north coast?” The brief kicks off by framing Bill C-48 as an "unfair" regional policy, suggesting that if oil tankers can operate in the St. Lawrence and off the East Coast, they should be allowed everywhere. This ignores a simple fact: not all coastlines are created equal.

The north coast of British...

This text image is 3790 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 doc

CPC 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

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.

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 doc

Submitted 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.