Connect with us

Energy

Proposed legislation seeks to suppress speech about climate change and fossil fuels

Published

5 minute read

NDP MP Charlie Angus

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada is a constitutional parliamentary democracy where differences of opinion are to be resolved through elections, which people are persuaded by words and ideas, not threats of violence. Stripping people of the right to express themselves freely will introduce violence into the democratic process, disenfranchising some people and disenchanting others.

It’s rare, in today’s political world, for someone in power to whip off the velvet glove and show the iron fist beneath. It’s a bit gauche for our times. But that’s what happened recently when federal NDP natural resources critic Charlie Angus tabled a member’s bill that would clap anyone who says negative things about the government’s fossil-fuel-phobia into the pokey—and rob them on the way to jail. We’re not talking about a slap on the wrist, but about million-dollar fines and years in jail for simply expressing a positive thought about fossil fuels. So much for the fundamental freedom of expression in Canada.

Angus’ Bill C-372 would fine and jail people for the most innocuous of speech relating to climate change or fossil fuels. Even daring to speak the obvious truths such as ā€œnatural gas is less polluting than coalā€ could land you in jail for one year and cost you $750,000. If you produce fossil fuels and are found guilty of ā€œfalse promotion,ā€ you’d face two years in jail and a $1.5 million fine.

Enacting such speech restrictions would be destructive of the fabric of Canadian society, and even though this member’s bill (like most) will go nowhere, it should trouble Canadians that we’ve reached a level of political discourse where members of Parliament feel they can blatantly propose stripping Canadians of their freedom of expression, obviously convinced they’ll not pay a price it.

Specifically, Bill-372 and its pernicious idea of speech control would cause harm to two major elements of Canadian civilization—our democracy, which depends on the free exchange of ideas as Canada elects its leaders, and our mixed-market economic system where actors in the market require a free flow of information to make informed decisions that can produce positive economic outcomes and economic growth.

Let’s start with that democracy thing. Canada is a constitutional parliamentary democracy where differences of opinion are to be resolved through elections, which people are persuaded by words and ideas, not threats of violence. Stripping people of the right to express themselves freely will introduce violence into the democratic process, disenfranchising some people and disenchanting others. Canada already has to work hard to promote engagement by the public in the political process. Things like Bill C-372 would not make this easier. A less politically engaged public cedes ever more power to entrenched politicians and political activists, and leaves power in the hands of smaller minorities with extreme enough views who think opposing ideas must be suppressed with force.

Regarding free speech, consider this. Without a robust mixed-market economy, the voluntary exchange which leads to economic activity does not happen. Productivity declines and scarcity, the eternal scourge of humanity, resurges and people suffer. Freedom of expression is central to the operation of market economies. People must be free to share information about the value of things (or lack thereof) for decisions to be made, for prices to manifest, and for markets to function effectively. Without open communication in markets, diversity of goods and services will diminish as some goods and services won’t be promoted or defended while others are freely to advertised.

Bill C-372 should and likely will die an ignominious death in Parliament, but all politicians of all parties should denounce it for what it is—an attempt by government to suppress speech. Unlikely to happen, but one can always hope for sanity to prevail.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources

Published on

From Energy Now

At COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks ā€œwe have both far far too many fossil fuels in the worldā€ and ā€œas much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the groundā€ climate goals.

Mark Carney claims that he supports Canada’s oil and gas industry and wants to see Canada export more of our natural resources. But Carney is yet again lying.

If Carney was sincere, he would immediately commit to the full repeal of the Liberals’ C-69, the ā€˜No More Pipelines’ Act, C-48, the West Coast Tanker Ban, and the productionĀ cap. Instead he doubled down on capping Canadian energy production.

But it’s not just that,Ā Mark Carney has a clear history of opposing Canadian energy and infrastructure projects in favour of his radical anti-energy ideology and his goal of shutting down Canadian energy production.

However, while deliberatelyĀ fighting against Canadian energy, this high flying hypocrite was having his company, Brookfield Asset Management, invest in some of the largest global pipeline projectsĀ in BrazilĀ and theĀ United Arab Emirates.

When asked by Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre at anĀ Industry Committee meeting, if he supported Justin Trudeau’s decision to veto the NorthernĀ GatewayĀ pipeline, Mark Carney said ā€œgiven both environmental and commercial reasons … I think it’s the right decision.ā€

Then, just six months laterĀ at COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks ā€œwe have both far far too many fossil fuels in the worldā€ and ā€œas much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the groundā€ climate goals.

If this wasn’t enough Mark Carney has now teamed up with Trudeau’s radical anti-energy ministers to finish off Canada’s energy sector, a goal that he has outlined while attending aĀ World Economic Forum event inĀ Davos.

Starting with the radical, self-proclaimed socialist, Steven Guilbeault, who’s history of anti-energy and infrastructure policies is all too familiar to Canadians.

Mark Carney has enabled Steven Guilbeault to do even more damage by promoting him to his Quebec Lieutenant, giving himĀ three newĀ ministerial responsibilities so he can continue his climate crusade against Canadian energy and infrastructure projects.

Canadians remember whenĀ Guilbeault saidĀ that ā€œI disagree with the [Trans Mountain] pipelineā€ and that ā€œCanada shouldn’t be investing in new infrastructure for fossil fuels.ā€

They also remember when he proudlyĀ proclaimedĀ that ā€œOur government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.ā€ All from a minister whoĀ shamed CanadiansĀ for owning cars.

Then there is the pipeline hating Jonathan Wilkinson, who Carney appointed as Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Recently, WilkinsonĀ wrote a scathing letterĀ to Canada’s energy leaders for their opposition to the Carney-Trudeau Liberals production cap on Canadian oil and gas.

Despite Canadian industries being subject to unjustified tariffs from the United States, Jonathan Wilkinson recentlyĀ toldĀ reportersĀ thatĀ ā€œEverybody’s sort of running around saying, ā€˜Oh my God, we need a new pipeline, we need a new pipeline.’ The question is, well, why do we need a new pipeline?ā€

Finally, there is Carney’s new Minister of Environment and Climate Change Terry Duguid.Ā  Duguid has doubled down on Mark Carney’s climate radicalism byĀ stating thatĀ ā€œa Mark Carney government will maintain the cap on emissions from the production of oil and gasā€.

From 2015 to 2021 Carney-Trudeau environmental and anti-industryĀ policies have cancelledĀ over $176 billion in Canadian energy projects, with many more being cancelled afterwards. That means $176 billion worth of jobs and powerful paycheques have been blocked from Canadians so Mark Carney and his Ministers can impose their radical net zero ideology.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

ByĀ Deborah Jaremko

ā€œWe’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligationā€

It was not a call he wanted to make.

In October 2017, Kevin O’Donnell, then chief financial officer of Nisku, Alta.-based Banister Pipelines, got final word that the $16-billion Energy East pipeline was cancelled.

It was his job to pass the news down the line to reach workers who were already in the field.

ā€œWe had a crew that was working along the current TC Energy line that was ready for conversion up in Thunder Bay,ā€ said O’Donnell, who is now executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC).

ā€œI took the call, and they said abandon right now. Button up and abandon right now.

ā€œIt was truly surreal. It’s tough to tell your foreman, who then tells their lead hands and then you inform the unions that those three or four or five million man-hours that you expected are not going to come to fruition,ā€ he said.

Workers guide a piece of pipe along the Trans Mountain expansion route. Photograph courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

ā€œThey’ve got to find lesser-paying jobs where they’re not honing their craft in the pipeline sector. You’re not making the money; you’re not getting the health and dental coverage that you were getting before.ā€

O’Donnell estimates that PLCAC represents about 500,000 workers across Canada through the unions it works with.

With the recent completion of the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink pipelines – and no big projects like them coming on the books – many are once again out of a job, he said.

It’s frustrating given that this could be what he called a ā€œgolden ageā€ for building major energy infrastructure in Canada.

Together, more than 62,000 people were hired to build the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink projects, according to company reports.

O’Donnell is particularly interested in a project like Energy East, which would link oil produced in Alberta to consumers in Eastern and Atlantic Canada, then international markets in the offshore beyond.

ā€œI think Energy East or something similar has to happen for millions of reasons,ā€ he said.

ā€œThe world’s demanding it. We’ve got the craft [workers], we’ve got the iron ore and we’ve got the steel. We’re talking about a nation where the workers in every province could benefit. They’re ready to build it.ā€

The ā€œGolden Weldā€ marked mechanical completion of construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project on April 11, 2024. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

That eagerness is shared by the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which represents about 170 construction and maintenance employers across the country.

The PCA’s newly launched ā€œLet’s Get Buildingā€ advocacy campaign urges all parties in the Canadian federal election run to focus on getting major projects built.

ā€œWe’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligation,ā€ said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

ā€œMost of the companies are quite busy irrespective of the pipeline issue right now. But looking at the long term, there’s predictability and long-term strategy that they see missing.ā€

Top of mind is Ottawa’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA), he said, the federal law that assesses major national projects like pipelines and highways.

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the IAA broke the rules of the Canadian constitution.

Construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Photograph courtesy Coastal GasLink

The court found unconstitutional components including federal overreach into the decision of whether a project requires an impact assessment and whether a project gets final approval to proceed.

Ottawa amended the act in the spring of 2024, but Alberta’s government found the changes didn’t fix the issues and in November launched a new legal challenge against it.

ā€œWe’d like to see the next federal administration substantially revisit the Impact Assessment Act,ā€ de Jong said.

ā€œThe sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy.ā€

Continue Reading

Trending

X