- A Canadian lawmaker introduced Bill C-372, aiming to criminalize "false advertising" by the fossil fuel industry, including positive statements about fossil fuels.
- The bill could impose fines up to $500,000 or two years in prison for promoting fossil fuels, even for factual statements like "natural gas is cleaner than coal."
- Critics argue the bill’s broad language could criminalize casual expressions of support, such as bumper stickers or social media posts, threatening free speech.
- The bill is unlikely to pass due to the NDP’s limited seats in Parliament, but its introduction raises concerns about government overreach and stifling debate.
- Critics warn the bill sets a dangerous precedent by demonizing fossil fuels and potentially silencing discussions on other controversial topics.
A Canadian lawmaker has introduced a bill that could send people to jail for making favorable statements about fossil fuels in a move that has ignited fierce debate over free speech and government overreach.
The bill, tabled by New Democratic Party (NDP) Member of Parliament Charlie Angus last week, seeks to criminalize what it deems “false advertising” by the oil and gas industry. However, critics argue the legislation is so broadly written that it could apply to everyday expressions of support, such as bumper stickers or social media posts.
The proposed Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, or Bill C-372, would impose fines of up to $500,000 or two years in prison for individuals who “promote” fossil fuels, including statements of fact like “natural gas has lower emissions than coal.” The bill’s sweeping language has raised alarms among free speech advocates, who warn it could set a dangerous precedent for policing public discourse.
Bill tries to police free expression
At its core, Bill C-372 aims to restrict the promotion of fossil fuels, which Angus likened to the “big tobacco moment” in a statement to the House of Commons. He accused the oil and gas industry of spreading “disinformation” and claimed fossil fuels are “killing people.” However, the bill’s definition of “promotion” is so expansive that it could criminalize even casual expressions of support for the industry.
For example, the bill prohibits any representation that “is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours” about fossil fuels. This could include anything from a Facebook post praising Canadian oil to a bumper sticker declaring “I Love Canadian Oil and Gas.” Even scientifically accurate statements, such as arguing that natural gas is cleaner than coal, would be outlawed under the bill.
Critics argue that such restrictions are not only draconian but also counterproductive. Fossil fuels remain a cornerstone of the global economy, powering industries, transportation, and countless consumer goods. To criminalize discussions about their benefits—or even their comparative advantages—is to stifle honest debate and ignore the realities of modern life.
Bill may not pass, but its introduction sets a troubling precedent
Despite its sweeping ambitions, Bill C-372 is unlikely to become law. As a private member’s bill introduced by an NDP MP, it faces significant hurdles in Canada’s House of Commons, where the NDP holds only 25 of 338 seats. Nevertheless, the bill’s introduction has sparked concern about the growing trend of demonizing fossil fuels and the industries that produce them.
The bill’s preamble blames fossil fuels for everything from extreme weather events to public health crises, framing them as an “existential threat” akin to tobacco. Yet this comparison overlooks the critical role fossil fuels have played in driving economic growth and improving quality of life. Over the past century, as global fossil fuel consumption has soared, life expectancy has doubled and billions have been lifted out of poverty.
While the bill’s chances of passing are slim, its very existence raises troubling questions about the limits of free speech in a democratic society. By criminalizing certain viewpoints, even those grounded in fact, the government risks setting a precedent that could be used to silence dissent on a wide range of issues.
The demonization of fossil fuels is not just an attack on an industry; it is an attack on the principles of free expression and open debate. If Canadians cannot discuss the benefits of fossil fuels without fear of prosecution, what other topics might soon be off-limits?
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
