Ryan Ritchie

@ryanritchie.bsky.social

660 Followers 440 Following

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Julie Dzerowicz (“What She Says” vs. “What She Means”) What She Says: "We are very pleased with the two changes this bill would put in place." What She Means: This framing hides the reality that these “changes” are incremental rather than transformative. It’s an example of the neoliberal tendency to celebrate modest, slow-moving progress as a win, even when the broader environmental or systemic issues remain unaddressed. This is typical of political language that presents reforms as grand victories while sidestepping the deeper need for structural changes. What She Says: "The other thing I want to mention is that the tanker moratorium act would complement the $1.5 billion comprehensive national oceans protection plan." What She Means: The word “complement” is a classic neoliberal move to suggest that multiple disconnected initiatives somehow work together, even if the actual outcomes may be minimal or diluted. By focusing on a large sum of money, she attempts to mask the lack of bold action, while implying that the government is effectively addressing marine safety without delving into the specifics of how this money is actually spent or its long-term efficacy. What She Says: "The government will create a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping and protects Canada's waters." What She Means: “World-leading” is neoliberal jargon meant to convey action and progress, but it often lacks substance. It’s a phrase used to boost the government's image without clearly explaining how these systems will function on the ground. This claim is a form of rhetorical overstatement that prioritizes optics over actual transformative change, focusing on high-profile “leadership” rather than deeper, systemic investments in sustainable industries or Indigenous rights. What She Says: "We firmly believe it is essential to maintain and enhance our relationships with provincial,... This text image is 5714 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This is exactly the kind of faux-populist, neoliberal drivel that Poilievre has mastered. He frames himself as a champion of “the little guy” while defending policies that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and corporate elites. “What He Says” vs. “What He Means” What He Says: "First, there is the insult. Second, there is the tax increase itself. Third, there is the high-tax hypocrisy." What He Means: This is classic right-wing framing. Poilievre wants to set up a narrative where Liberals (or any government that imposes progressive taxation) are “attacking” Canadians. By establishing the idea that taxation is inherently an insult, he primes his audience to react emotionally, rather than rationally, to any policy that asks the wealthy or corporations to contribute more. This is straight from the Reagan-Thatcher playbook—demonize taxation as theft rather than a necessary function of a fair society. What He Says: "The Prime Minister started his campaign to raise taxes by calling people 'too rich' and therefore claiming they needed to pay more." What He Means: This is a blatant strawman. The Liberals' tax plan focused on raising taxes on the wealthiest, not on middle-class families. Poilievre deliberately twists this to make it seem like average Canadians were the primary target, which feeds into a persecution complex among voters. This is GOP-style rhetoric, where even the mildest progressive taxation is framed as an attack on regular people rather than a necessary step to balance wealth inequality. What He Says: "Students paid more for the cost of their education, because they could no longer claim their expensive textbooks as an education expense and the education tax credit itself was eliminated." What He Means: This is a sleight of hand. The Liberal government replaced tax credits with upfront grants, which actually benefited lower-income students more. Poilievre leaves that out... This text image is 5058 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here we are under time allocation, debating the budget implementation bill, Bill C-86. We have been waiting three years in this Parliament for pay equity legislation to be tabled. Canadian women have been waiting 42 years since the first Trudeau prime minister promised to implement pay equity legislation. Having spent three years ostensibly consulting with employers, the labour movement and the lawyers who have been litigating pay equity in the absence of federal legislation, the government finally jams it into this 800-page bill. We thought it would really reflect the advice the consultations had gathered. Instead, under extremely tight timelines, the NGOs, the labour movement, teamsters, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition all proposed extremely detailed amendments. They said the pay equity parts of this legislation would not work, and that women would not get equal pay. I proposed dozens of amendments at finance committee that were written by the lawyers who have been litigating this all this time. Liberal members voted every single one of them down. Why did the government not take the advice of the people closest to pay equity and get this right after waiting 42 years? Mr. Joël Lightbound (Liberals): Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that we debated Bill C-86 in the House for 15 hours. Four committees also studied the bill for more than 20 hours and heard from 45 witnesses. Indeed, it has taken far too long, 42 years, to bring in proactive pay equity legislation in this country. After a decade of inaction on this file by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, I am very proud that the current government has decided to take action and inspiration from what is being done elsewhere. Quebec, for example, has proactive pay equity legislation that is working very well and served as a model for This text image is 6257 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Mr. Alexander Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC): Mr. Speaker, further to the member's speech, specifically regarding poverty and some of the barriers that exist, I think it is important to remember that poverty knows no skin colour. It reaches into all aspects of our society and is something that we all probably face in every single one of our ridings across the country. Having said that, some demographics are more stricken by poverty than others. When we are talking about poverty, we are also talking about the cost of living. We are talking about which costs are increasing for those who have the least in society and how that affects them the most. In his speech, the member pushed for a carbon tax, which has also been called a price on carbon or a mechanism, or any of seven different terms, while at the same time speaking about poverty. This tax is having the greatest effect on those with the least means to be able to live, so my question for the member is this. How can the government be proposing this tax at the same time it is trying to defeat poverty? This tax is going to further increase poverty in this country. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Liberals): Mr. Speaker, poverty is absolutely an important issue. My friend opposite is correct that it affects all of us in all of our ridings. Particular communities are affected much more deeply than others, such as those in northern and rural areas across the country. That is an important issue we need to address. I know that in the past decades, we have failed to address the root causes of poverty. That is what we are really getting into here, particularly the shortage of housing, the lack of investments in public infrastructure and in transportation. It is those very important investments that are critical to uplifting people out of poverty. At the same time, we cannot ignore the environment. It is critical and the way that our pricing This text image is 6373 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is aware of my concerns regarding the important role we must play to reduce poverty in Canada. Despite the Canada child benefit, we still have 1.2 million poor children in Canada, and 38% of indigenous children are living in poverty. These statistics have not changed in 10 years. Campaign 2000, which represents 100 national, provincial, and territorial organizations, finds that the government's objectives are not ambitious enough. The government wants to fix the situation by 2030, but these children are living in poverty right now. In 2030, they will no longer be children. Unfortunately, we do not see any tangible measures in the budget implementation bill that would allow us to do more. The groups are saying that the bill falls short on ambition when it comes to meaningful action to reduce child poverty. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Mr. Darrell Samson (Liberal): Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important question, and I am glad my colleague asked. Our government has taken a number of steps to reduce poverty. We have not eliminated poverty yet, so we are open to suggestions. However, the Canada child benefit is one important way we are investing in young families. We are also investing in building housing for low-income and struggling families. Another important investment in this budget is the Canada workers benefit, which will help 300,000 Canadians join the middle class. This measure will very likely help reduce child poverty too. Ms. Sansoucy rightly highlights a brutal reality—millions of children in Canada remain trapped in poverty, and Indigenous children suffer at disproportionately higher rates. The Liberal response? A familiar neoliberal lullaby: We’ve done some things, we’ll keep doing some things, and if you wait long enough—until 2030, maybe!—the problem will be... This text image is 5200 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the very disturbing fictions that is being perpetuated by the Liberals every time they stand to speak, specifically about this bill, is how incredible the child tax benefit is, how many children are being helped and brought out of poverty by this government. I do not know what it is like in my hon. colleague's riding, but I deal almost daily with single mothers who are suffering a staggering level of harassment from CRA. They have had their benefits cut off at Christmastime. We have had to get food baskets for children in my region because their right to the child tax benefit has been denied by the CRA. The minister sits here day after day defending the indefensible, the $1 billion clawed back from ordinary working class people, while Liberals ignore friends like the Bronfmans and friends of the Prime Minister, who keep their money in offshore havens. In light of this level of scrutiny and the hoops the Liberals force single mothers and young working class families to go through so that the government can claw back money and show a surplus from benefit reviews at the end of the year, does she not think that is a really unconscionable way of raising money and taxes when the Liberals are leaving the super rich protected in these offshore tax havens? Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hear the same thing from my constituents, especially families who have been decimated by the job losses and loss of investment in the energy sector, and indigenous communities and families throughout Lakeland who are also involved in oil and gas development and have suffered job losses in the same way as others across the riding. I heard similar things from families in my riding about their dealings with the CRA, particularly around the disability tax credit that they, and sometimes their children, are dependent on. It is the Liberal way.. This text image is 3160 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Julian’s Report Stage Speech On Liberal hypocrisy: "Hopes were high in 2015 that things would change... Instead of putting back in place a Parliament that would function well, one where there was consultation with opposition parties, what we have seen from the Prime Minister has been a doubling down." On Liberal betrayal of workers and women: "The Liberals say they have brought forward pay equity legislation. The fact that it is full of flaws, that witnesses identified the flaws, that the NDP systematically brought forward amendments that would fix the flaws—are all tossed aside." On Liberal arrogance: "The traditional Liberal sense of entitlement and arrogance seems to have re-established itself after three brief years in power... This budget bill, Bill C-86, has planted the seeds of what could well be, in the coming 11 months, a strong reaction from Canadians that the government does not deserve another mandate." On Trudeau’s betrayal of democracy: "The offence we took at the Harper government's use of 200-page budget omnibus bills... seems almost quaint now. Instead of 200 or 300 pages, we now have almost 900 pages, and only one or two days of parliamentary scrutiny before the bulldozer is brought in." On Liberal crony capitalism: "In just the last few months, we’ve seen a cascade of money for corporate CEOs... $4.5 billion for an old leaky pipeline, $14 billion in corporate tax giveaways—including plush private jets and stretch limousines—all while working Canadians struggle with the highest household debt in our history." On tax havens and economic injustice: "Small business owners, trades people, and single mothers pay their taxes because they believe in supporting their communities... Meanwhile, the wealthiest Canadians and most profitable corporations squirrel away upwards of $20 billion offshore every year." The Liberal Party’s Empty Promises Have Caught Up With This text image is 1184 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Bill C-86 Debate Commentary Index: - Full Speeches - Debate Interactions - Pierre Poilievre Contributions Liberal Party at 2nd Reading (Joël Lightbound) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-347/hansard Joël Lightbound’s opening speech on Bill C-86 is a perfect example of the Liberal Party’s favourite game: wrapping Bay Street-friendly policy in the language of progressivism while ensuring the economic status quo remains intact. This is the same tired playbook—talk a big game about “helping the middle class” and “lifting Canadians out of poverty” while stuffing an omnibus bill with goodies for the corporate elite. The Great “Middle-Class” Illusion Lightbound’s speech is littered with references to “strengthening the middle class” and “helping those working hard to join it.” This phrase has become a Liberal Party cliché, deliberately vague and never defined. Who exactly is in this “middle class”? Are we talking about young workers drowning in student debt? Gig workers struggling with precarious jobs and no benefits? The growing number of Canadians who can’t afford rent, let alone homeownership? Lightbound’s “middle class” seems to be a rhetorical prop, not an actual demographic with concrete policy solutions tailored to their struggles. Austerity in Disguise Lightbound boldly claims that the Liberals “rejected austerity” in favour of “targeted investments.” But let’s be clear—Liberal austerity doesn’t look like blunt budget slashing; it looks like prioritizing corporate tax cuts and subsidies while providing just enough social spending to avoid public outrage. The Canada Child Benefit? It’s a good measure, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that the Liberals have done nothing to tackle systemic poverty, housing affordability, or stagnant wages. And let’s talk about those “investments.” Investment in what, exactly? Infrastructure? Sure, but under Trudeau... This text image is 2106 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Phil Benson (Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada) Mr. Phil Benson (Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada): Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you on Bill C-86. My name is Phil Benson, lobbyist, Teamsters Canada. With me is Stéphane Lacoste, general counsel, Teamsters Canada. Teamsters Canada is the largest private sector union representing workers in air, rail, road, bus, couriers and more, in the federal jurisdiction. I will be briefly addressing the proposed amendments to part III of the Canada Labour Code and Mr. Lacoste will discuss the pay equity act. Teamsters Canada supports the Canadian Labour Congress presentation and our written submission will follow. The proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code were a long time coming and we congratulate the government on moving forward. It is a step in the right direction. The most important change for Teamsters Canada is dealing with contract flipping. The new section 189 will reduce the ability of companies presenting low bids on federal contracts, based on reducing workers' benefits and entitlements under the code, rather than bringing their managerial expertise to improve efficiencies. The proposed changes will not fully address the problems faced by unionized workers at airports, where contract flipping affects bargaining rights, compensation and terms and conditions of employment. Teamsters Canada was very pleased when Minister Hajdu announced the government will move forward with regulations, under part I of the code, to address this problem. Teamsters Canada will participate in all consultations on the regulations and we encourage the government to move quickly in bringing them forward. Misclassification of employees by employers removes workers from the protection of the code and also creates an uneven playing field for companies. The prohibition and reverse onus on employers provided by proposed section 167.1 will enhance... This text image is 4989 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
What Can We Learn from This Pattern? By examining Lee’s testimony across these different bills, a clear ideological blueprint emerges: Restricting Working-Class Power: Whether it’s through voter ID laws that disproportionately disenfranchise marginalized communities or economic policies that weaken consumer protections, Lee’s positions consistently support structures that limit the ability of ordinary Canadians to challenge corporate or institutional power. Prioritizing Institutional Interests Over Public Good: When discussing voter ID laws, Lee weaponized bureaucratic rigour to justify disenfranchisement. When discussing banking regulation, he warned against bureaucratic rigour to protect corporate profits. The underlying theme? Institutional power should remain unchecked when it serves elite interests but should be wielded aggressively when it constrains the working class. Neoliberal Individualism: Across his testimonies, Lee promotes the idea that systemic issues are really just individual failings. If you don’t have voter ID, it’s because you didn’t take personal responsibility to get one. If you’re struggling with predatory banking practices, it’s because you lack financial literacy. This is a convenient way to dismiss structural critiques and shift the burden of fixing systemic problems onto individuals who have the least power to change them. Economic Deregulation Disguised as Pragmatism: His arguments are often dressed up as neutral, data-driven analyses, but they consistently serve the interests of capital. Whether he’s advocating for voter restrictions, opposing consumer protections, or pushing privatization, the goal is always to remove constraints on corporate power while tightening control over the working class. Conclusion: A Mouthpiece for the Neoliberal Order Ian Lee presents himself as an independent expert, but his positions across multiple bills reveal an unwavering... This text image is 4878 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Division 23 (Marine Liability Act, Section 743-744) In Part 4, Division 23 of Bill C-86, we get a glimpse into how the Canadian government is adjusting regulatory frameworks surrounding the shipping industry, particularly in regard to marine oil spills. And, as we dissect sections 743 and 744, it becomes clear that the Trudeau government's approach to marine liability has a lot of room for interpretation—and it’s potentially more about maintaining the status quo than addressing real concerns. At the heart of these amendments is the Marine Liability Act—a framework designed to regulate and manage the environmental risks posed by shipping operations. Section 743, for instance, replaces existing provisions under the act to create a more flexible regulatory environment. This isn’t necessarily about improving safety or mitigating environmental risks; rather, it appears to be about making the system more palatable to industry interests, particularly those involved in shipping oil. The key changes focus on two things: exemptions and oil quantity thresholds. For example, "prescribing classes of persons" (i.e., corporations or entities) who may be exempt from certain oil-related provisions under sections 114.1 and 114.2 of the act. These adjustments could create loopholes that allow industry players to avoid certain obligations—potentially putting the public at risk, all for the benefit of the private sector. Moreover, the amendment to subsection 125 regarding the definition of "receiver" in the legislation could make it harder to track responsibility for oil spills, leaving communities and ecosystems vulnerable. But it doesn’t stop there. The legislation introduces provisions aimed at easing compliance for large-scale exporters of oil. Anyone exporting more than 150,000 metric tons of contributing oil or 20,000 metric tons of non-persistent oil can expect to face fewer regulations—and more... This text image is 2668 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
Division 18: The Department for Women and Gender Equality Act (661-662) At first glance, this looks like a big step forward—officially creating a federal department focused on women and gender equality. But let’s be clear: this is mostly a rebrand. The existing Status of Women Canada office is getting renamed, shuffled around, and given department status. Why does that matter? Because while the Trudeau government gets to pat itself on the back for "establishing" something new, the core function remains largely the same—pushing out research, advising other departments, and maybe handing out some grants if Treasury Board allows it. Real power—over economic redistribution, workplace rights, or Indigenous women’s safety—remains elsewhere. The bill leans hard into international agreements, like the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), but here’s the kicker: Canada has repeatedly dragged its feet on actually implementing these agreements. Referencing them in a new department’s mandate doesn’t guarantee action. There’s also the question of funding. The bill says money already allocated to Status of Women Canada will just roll over to this new department. No new funding guarantees, no increased resources—just a name change and an added layer of bureaucracy. What this means in practice: Trudeau gets to claim he created a "new" department without committing serious money or legislative power. The real fights—like closing the gender wage gap, ensuring universal childcare, or protecting sex workers' rights—are left for another day. Gender equality remains a side project, rather than something integrated into economic and labour policy. Division 19: Addition of Lands to Reserve and Reserve Creation (675-685) Now this section deals with the rules around adding lands to Indigenous reserves—which might sound This text image is 3090 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.