Canadian Bill Makes it a Crime to Speak Nice About Fossil Fuels

C-372 says if you, as an individual, speak well of the oil industry, doing so would carry a summary conviction and a fine of up to $500,000.

Canadian Bill Makes it a Crime to Speak Nice About Fossil Fuels

ANTI-DRILLING/FOSSIL FUEL | INDUSTRYWIDE ISSUES

February 29, 2024

+
Bookmark

Charlie Angus, an MP (Member of Parliament) in Canada, belongs to the country’s radical left NDP, or New Democratic Party. He represents the Timmins—James Bay area in Ontario. Angus recently introduced a bill, C-372, also known as the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act. The bill is as anti-free speech as anything you’ll find in Communist Russia or North Korea. C-372 says if you, as an individual, speak well of the oil industry, doing so would carry a summary conviction and a fine of up to $500,000. If you work for an oil company and stick up for your industry, the punishment could be as strict as two years in jail or a fine of $1,000,000. It’s pure insanity.

Profess your love for oil in a Facebook post or slap an “I Love Canadian Oil and Gas” bumper sticker on your car, and off the clink you go, under C-372.

What’s scary about this is that the radical left is the same the world over. Even here in the U.S., some share this MP’s views and would love to put people in jail for promoting fossil energy. “Impossible in the U.S.,” you say? Don’t be so sure. This is why it is so critical we remain vigilant and why it is 100% critical to elect those who support fossil energy (typically Republicans).

An NDP bill is seeking to criminalize the “promotion” of fossil fuels, and prescribe jail time even for Canadians who say scientifically true things such as how burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal.

C-372, also known as the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, was tabled Monday as a private member’s bill by Charlie Angus, the MP for Timmins-James Bay and a longtime member of the NDP caucus.

“Today, I am proud to rise and introduce a bill that would make illegal false advertising by the oil and gas industry,” Angus announced in the House of Commons.

He added that the oil and gas sector was trafficking in “disinformation” and “killing people.” Angus also twice framed his bill as the dawn of the industry’s “big tobacco moment” — an apparent reference to Canada’s blanket federal ban on tobacco advertising.

But C-372 goes well beyond merely banning advertising by oil and gas companies.

As a private member’s bill introduced by the member of a party with only 25 seats in the House of Commons, Bill C-372 has almost zero chance of passing. But as written, the act would technically apply to any Canadian who is found to be speaking well of the oil industry, or of oil generally.

“It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel,” reads the act.

Violate this as a regular citizen, and the act prescribes summary conviction and a fine of up to $500,000. Violate it as an oil company, and the punishment could be as strict as two years in jail or a fine of $1,000,000.

Angus defines “promotion” so broadly that it could technically apply to something as simple as a Facebook post or even an “I Love Canadian Oil and Gas” bumper sticker.

Promotion, according to Bill C-372, means “?a representation about a product or service by any means … that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service.?”

The act also criminalizes a laundry list of common pro-oil and gas arguments, even ones that have a reliable basis in fact.

Section 8 of the act makes it a crime for “a person” to argue that a fossil fuel is “less harmful than other fossil fuels.”

Natural gas, for instance, generates energy with far fewer emissions or pollutants than diesel, coal, bunker fuel or any number of “dirtier” fuels. This is why the federal government taxes natural gas at a lower benchmark than higher-emission fuels.

Nevertheless, according to C-372, anybody making such an argument should face a jail term of up to two years or a “fine not exceeding $500,000.”

Section 8 also criminalizes any “promotion” which argues that fossil fuels are beneficial to “the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.”

As such, the section could conceivably prescribe jail terms for anybody arguing that the oil and gas sector is a key funder of the Canadian health-care system, or even that oil and gas is needed to operate ambulances and MedEvac flights.

Similarly, Canadians would face sanction for saying that the extraction and selling of oil is a net contributor to the country’s economy — a claim that is actually made quite often by the federal government itself. “Oil and gas extraction is an important contributor to the Canadian economy,” reads a recent report by Statistics Canada.

The bill would also bring the hammer down on the ability of Canadian gas stations to hold contests or issue loyalty cards.

Bill C-372 would make it illegal for a retailer to “provide or offer to provide any consideration for the purchase of a fossil fuel.”

Any contest offering “free gas” would also be criminalized, under the bill’s prohibition on offers to “furnish or offer to furnish a fossil fuel without monetary consideration.”

Although the Trudeau government often uses catastrophic language to refer to the unchecked effects of climate change, Angus’s bill goes beyond the federal government’s usual messaging by claiming in a preamble that warming temperatures are an “existential threat” and that “protection of the environment is a valid use of the federal criminal law power.”

Nevertheless, there are exceptions.

Angus allows that movies, plays and musical performances would be allowed to “use or depict fossil fuels” or even show “the production of fossil fuels” — provided that the creator can prove that they have no links to an entity that “has as one of its purposes to promote fossil fuels.”

Canadians would also be allowed to express an “opinion, commentary or report in respect of fossil fuels” if similar guidelines are followed. (1)

Not only does the demented left want to jail you for speaking out, but if you persist in supporting fossil energy, you may lose your job:

A top European Central Bank official stunned employees by saying people who don’t buy into the institution’s green objectives aren’t welcome to work there.

Frank Elderson, one of six members of the ECB’s executive board, told an internal meeting: “I don’t want these people anymore.”

His comments, verified by POLITICO, have sparked outrage among ECB staff, who described them as “authoritarian” and said they showed a free and open discussion about climate change ? and the role the bank should play in tackling it ? was no longer possible at the Frankfurt-based organization.

At the meeting earlier this month, Elderson asked employees ? some in person, some online ? “Why would we want to hire people who we have to reprogram? Because they came from the best universities, but they still don’t know how to spell the word ‘climate.’”

Anyone already working at the ECB should be retrained, Elderson added. He insisted he was “not threatening anyone,” and did not expand on what he meant by being able to “spell” climate.

The Dutchman’s remarks have broader significance because the ECB is embroiled in a debate ? internally and among Europe’s politicians ? over how much its policies should steer toward making the economy “greener,” or whether it should just stick to its main goal of keeping eurozone prices stable.

Diversity and inclusion

The comments drew an angry reaction from employees who took to a private chatroom for bank staff. Their responses were also seen by POLITICO.

Elderson, who is the bank’s climate czar and vice-chair of its supervisory arm, “killed the ideal of diversity and inclusion in one sentence,” said one member of staff. “I thought these underpinned the culture of this institution.” They described the Dutchman’s comments as “authoritarian.”

Others warned his comments risked fostering “groupthink,” which would impair the ECB’s decision-making.

‘I stand by Frank’

Christine Lagarde, the ECB president, was asked about the issue at the European Parliament on Thursday morning after this article was originally published on POLITICO Pro on Wednesday evening.

“I stand by my colleague, Frank, but equally, and probably more importantly, I and others value diversity in the institution that I lead,” she said.

“Across the board, all the usual definitions of what diversity means, but also diversity of thinking, diversity of background, and I think that we will l improve our work as a result of that.”

Anti-climate

Many have argued that “diversity” hasn’t always extended to differences of opinion on central banking’s green agenda.

“The discussion about greening central banking has become so polarized that a critical debate has become difficult,” said Daniel Gros, director at the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University in Milan. “If you voice criticism, you are quickly accused of being anti-climate. I have personally had that experience more than once.”

Gros sees this problem as especially pronounced in the central bank world, where top officials generally avoid outright conflict.

When contacted by POLITICO about the implications of Elderson’s remarks for hiring and training strategies, the ECB said: “Climate and nature risks affect our monetary policy and banking supervision mandates, and all colleagues should understand what it means for their work.”

Cultural purge

A recent survey showed that most ECB staff support the central bank’s increased efforts to fight global warming. Discussion among staff following Elderson’s remarks show some are wary of turning the bank’s green revolution into a cultural one, with staff who don’t support the battle being purged.

The ECB has argued it is legally obliged to contribute to battling climate change, citing a formal secondary task requiring that it support the EU’s broader economic policies as long as they don’t conflict with keeping prices steady.

One former ECB policymaker, granted anonymity to speak freely, expressed concern over the ECB’s recent focus on tackling climate change, especially in light of its failure to keep inflation in check.

“The ECB has a primary objective of price stability and then supports the economic policies of the EU,” he said. “These include climate but also other objectives like employment and growth, which entail tradeoffs. Talking only about climate at the expense of all others increasingly creates a problem for the ECB’s legitimacy.”

‘We should be more candid’

As if to illustrate the conflict, ECB Governing Council member Pierre Wunsch, the head of Belgium’s central bank, last year had an experience similar to that mentioned by Gros. After he expressed reservations about adjusting certain ECB operations to take the climate into account, 20 environmental groups wrote to Belgian King Philippe late last year, urging him to block a second term for Wunsch.

Undeterred, Wunsch, who has never questioned the reality of climate change, spelled out some trade-offs associated with the green transition at the European Parliament only this week.

“This transition is not going to make us collectively richer,” he said. “We should be more candid and [not] lure people into thinking that greening carries positive opportunities that could augment GDP and create millions of well-paid jobs.”

It is not for unelected central bankers to choose the winners and losers in the process ? that’s the role of elected governments, say those wanting to limit the role of central banks in the green battle. Both Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Swiss National Bank President Thomas Jordan, for example, have vowed to limit the role of their banks to protect their independence.

Gros cautioned that the failure to have a constructive, open debate on fighting climate change and the role central banks can play could return to haunt the ECB.

“Some policymakers have a very ideological stance, and they are not doing the institution a favor,” he said. “This is not tenable in the long run.” (2)

So-called “diversity” on the left now means that unless you say what they want you to say, you’re shunned. You’re out. You lose your job. You may even go to jail. This is the death of free speech right before our very eyes. PLEASE don’t let it happen here!

(1) Toronto (ON) National Post/Tristin Hopper (Feb 7, 2024) – NDP bill would prescribe jail terms for speaking well of fossil fuels

(2) POLITICO/Johanna Treeck (Feb 14, 2024) – ECB tells staff: If you’re not green, you’re not wanted