Right wing troll farms are arguing that Bill C-372 would have people jailed for being “pro-oil”. No surprise that’s not the case.
There are numerous threats to freedom of expression in Canada right now. Whether it is through the Online News Act, the Online Streaming Act, or Bill S-210, the threats are not only numerous, but come from across the political spectrum.
Recently, I was alerted to a recently tabled bill that is known as Bill C-372. The conspiracy theory is that simply being “pro-oil” will get you thrown in jail under Bill C-372. Normally, I would link to the source of these theories, but in this case, it comes from right wing troll farms that are set up to intentionally lie to readers. So, in this case, they don’t deserve the added attention.
The legislation in question, however, can be found here and, from the outset, the conspiracy theories being spread are already on the ropes. Why is this? Simply put, the legislation has only passed first reading. This is important because it tells you a lot about the odds of this legislation passing. The next Canadian election is expected to be held on or before October 20, 2025. So, we are, in the grand scheme of things, starting to get close to the next federal election.
When we hit the next Federal election, any bill that hasn’t passed dies on the orderpaper. If lawmakers want to push this bill again, the bill has to be re-introduced and start the process all over again.
Additionally, legislation takes a LOT of time to pass for the most part. Some bills, of course, take a lot longer than others to make it through the regulatory process. One of the fastest moving bills was, depressingly, the Online Streaming Act. If you look at that bills history, it cleared first reading on February 2, 2022. On April 27, 2023, it completed the “Concurrence in the motion respecting House of Commons Amendments”. So, it took a year and two months on a massive anti-internet and anti-innovation campaign with MPs having a burning hatred towards digital first creators, wanting nothing more than to destroy their careers in the process. In short, it was rammed through the process at breakneck speeds.
If this bill gets the same treatment (which is unlikely), then the earliest date you could expect something like this to pass is April of 2025. That gives the bill a mere 5 month window extra under the absolute best case scenario.
So, even if the bill does everything the conspiracy theorists says it does, the chances of it becoming law is extremely negligible.
This leads us to the text of the legislation itself which can be read here. Right away, in my reading, I already see problems with the conspiracy theory. This comes from Section 7 which reads as follows:
False promotion
7 (1) It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive with respect to or that is likely to create an erroneous impression about the characteristics, health or environmental effects or health or environmental hazards of the fossil fuel, its production or the emissions that result from its production or use.
So, in other words, if you happen to post a picture online saying “I heart oil”, you are fine under this provision. If, however, you post something along the lines of “oil is great for the environment and polluting the environment is really protecting the environment”, yeah, not so much. This leads to this related provision:
False promotion
16 (1) Every producer who contravenes subsection 7(1) is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding $1,500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $750,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
False promotion offences — other persons
(2) Every person, other than a producer, who contravenes section 7(1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $750,000.
An important thing to note here is that there is no floor for these offences. There are only ceilings. This, naturally, gives a judge in this scenario plenty of leeway to determine what is an appropriate punishment. If someone was to theoretically be hauled into court over a stupid tweet, and was ultimately found guilty, a judge could very easily come up with a fine of $20 and no time in prison. That would be a permissible thing under this law.
When you get into sections 8 and 9, you start to get additional hints at what this law is really targeting:
8 It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel
(a) in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions;
(b) in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy; or
(c ) by using terms, expressions, logos, symbols or illustrations that are prohibited by the regulations.
Sales promotions
9 (1) It is prohibited for a producer or retailer to
(a) provide or offer to provide any consideration for the purchase of a fossil fuel, including a gift to a purchaser or a third party, bonus, premium, cash rebate or right to participate in a game, draw, lottery or contest; or
(b) furnish or offer to furnish a fossil fuel without monetary consideration or in consideration of the purchase of a product or service or the performance of a service.
There is a general term for what this is targeting: greenwashing. Greenwashing is the act of using promotional materials or other messaging that says that an activity that is otherwise harmful to the environment is actually environmentally friendly or less harmful than it really is. This is a major problem as Big Oil has long been pushing promotional materials and funding fake studies saying that their activities are not really harmful for the environment at all. There have even been instances where there has been suggestions that polluting the environment by burning fossil fuels is actually protecting humanity from the very disasters scientists have been warning people about. That is clearly what the bill is going after.
Now, do I think this bill is perfect? Not really. For instance, Section 7 is generally unnecessary given that, and I loath that forthcoming legislation, the online harms bill would already cover something like that in the first place. It’s a very redundant provision in this bill and I think it should just be removed entirely for that reason. Further, if you are going after greenwashing which this bill suggests that it is about, then why not just simplify things and go after the commercial operations instead? It would ease the bills ability to pass in the first place without adding the complications of Section 7.
Ultimately, though, this was a giant nothingburger. The chances of this legislation passing is pretty much non-existent. Additionally, the original claim of simply being “pro oil” is enough to land you in jail under this bill is a gross exaggeration and misreads what the bill actually does. You can say, “oil companies create jobs.” That is permissible under this legislation. What’s more, even if you take the position that being “pro oil” means you automatically run afoul of this legislation, the punishments (even if things went that far) have no floor. Only a ceiling. If anything, you are much more likely to get told “don’t do that again” by a judge more than anything else. In terms of the threats to freedom of expression, this bill is extremely mild compared to what I’ve seen in other pieces of legislation.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
