Ryan Ritchie
LightNews LightNews
banner
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ryan Ritchie
@ryanritchie.bsky.social
640 followers 440 following 2.4K posts
Leftist, Content Creator/Political Commentary, Former Hockey Expert, Writer/Editor at Puck Prose (FanSided) #cdnpoli

http://ryanritchie.substack.com/
Posts Replies Media Videos
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

Back of house:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

Backyard, back of house:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

Back of house, deck, backyard:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

The front yard + back of house:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

The front yard:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

The front yard:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
#icestorm

The front yard:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario’s Ice Storm turned my yard into a lumberjack’s dream. No power/wifi for six days in one of the hardest hit areas of the province, but at least I have plenty of kindling now. Anyone up for a bonfire?🔥 #icestorm

The driveway:
April 3, 2025 at 10:13 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Ontario #icestorm
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
Six days without power/wifi in one of the hardest hit areas from the Ontario #icestorm

Here are some pictures of the scene from where I was:
April 3, 2025 at 6:43 PM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
10/ June 2019 - Bill C-58 (42-1)

"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.” Rachel Blaney, NDP

Exactly. 💪🍁

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. GP (Elizabeth May) Speech on Bill C-58 On Canada's lack of real freedom of information: "Canada does not so much have freedom of information legislation as it has freedom from information legislation." On the government’s broken promise: "What was promised was that access to information legislation would apply to a Prime Minister's Office and to a ministerial office so that, for instance, when an issue arose, a member of the public or the media could ask how that happened and do an access request. That will not be permitted under this legislation." On the limitations of proactive disclosure: "Proactive disclosure of some things, like briefing documents, spending, contracts, and so on, is a good thing, but here is the rub: giving that control solely to the agency itself and not allowing it to be reviewable may actually be a step backward." On the troubling nature of 'vexatious' requests: "‘Vexatious’ is far too subjective and far too restrictive a term to be allowed in government legislation. It certainly is a shock to find it in legislation that is supposed to take us to the promise of open and accessible government." On the need for stronger oversight and accountability: "The decision as to whether the information is releasable or not needs to reside with the Information Commissioner or members of that agency. It is up to those officials to decide whether it is vexatious or not." On the disparity between federal and provincial access to information laws: "The Government of British Columbia has been living with a far more robust freedom of information regime, which has not been extended into our federal law with respect to the access to information that we certainly expected to come forward from the government." On the broken promises and missed opportunities: "This failure in this legislation is substantial. I sincerely hope that when the bill gets to committee, the Liberals will be This text image is 8556 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I share the Conservative member's disappointment that the campaign commitment made by the Liberal government to close the loophole for access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices was not done even though that was in the Liberal mandate letters and in the campaign promise. I agree that Bill C-58 fails on that. However, we have a bit more prehistory. In 2006, the Harper Conservatives campaigned on a promise that they would update access to information legislation, but they did not. The New Democrats introduced private members bills based on the recommendations by successive information commissioners. My colleague, Pat Martin, brought a private member's bill forward in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, and the Conservatives voted against every one of them. Why the change of heart now? Hon. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, when we are giving our speeches or asking questions or making comments here, we all focus on elements of our own past. I quoted the Information Commissioner and how she responded to how the government had responded to her recommendations. She said, “I am very please that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.” I know that the member was not in the previous Parliament. However, she can refer to Madam Legault's comments. Did the Conservative government do all of what was in Bill C-613, or in Pat Martin's private member's bill? No, it did not. I remember debating Pat Martin about one of his versions of the bill and suggesting that he bring the same disclosure he aspired to in government to his legal defence fund. Members might remember that from the last Parliament. He actually had unions contribute in a roundabout way, which I felt went around the rules for fundraising, to pay some of the bills for a libel action he had. I remember that debate. To his This text image is 10018 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion is for a highly imperfect piece of proposed legislation that deserves much greater debate and consideration by the Liberal government. It has been condemned by Canadians across the spectrum, by those who would demand the right to know how they are governed through access to information. It has been dismissed by the Information Commissioner herself as a regressive piece of legislation. She indicated quite clearly that the status quo would be preferable to the proposed law, which is being debated at third reading today. The President of the Treasury Board has made excuses, and he urged Canadians, with a slight Churchillian twist, not to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. Well, there is very little good in Bill C-58, which came through committee with some significant, but very few, amendments to correct a poorly written piece of legislation. This piece of proposed legislation is beyond redemption. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board why he does not simply withdraw Bill C-58 and go back to the drawing board. Hon. Scott Brison (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Thornhill, who was a minister in the previous Harper government, is in fact very consistent. He is effectively advocating that we do nothing to update the Access to Information Act, which is consistent what the Conservatives did in the past, because for nine years they did absolutely nothing to strengthen the act, despite the fact their platform committed in 2006 to modernizing that act. They passed 250 pieces of legislation over the subsequent nine years, but not one of them touched access to information. We are the first government in 34 years to act to significantly modernize, improve, and strengthen the access to information regime. For the first time ever, we would be providing order-making... This text image is 19632 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
9/ June 2019 - Bill C-58 (42-1)

"The PM promised an end to omnibus legislation... instead, the Liberals have doubled down & created some of the most monstrous pieces of omnibus legislation that the House has ever seen in a century & a half." Peter Julian, NDP

TRUE✅

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Madam Speaker, the story that my colleague for Timmins—James Bay has told is a terrible story. It illustrates exactly why, to get to the bottom of some of the most terrible crimes, whether they are human, ethical, or environmental, we need to know what is happening at the place of decision-makers and not leave this in the hands of the bureaucrats. Given the Prime Minister's very solemn promise that the Access to Information Act would be extended to cover the offices of the Prime Minister and ministers so that we can see as Canadians and as members of Parliament how decisions were made, what is the impact for people such as those the member represents, the indigenous people, who are fighting the legacy of residential schools and St. Anne's repeated court cases? When we see this promise so completely broken, what does that do to their faith in government? Mr. Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, there are many tools a government has to limit access to information. There are cabinet confidences and a whole series of tools that the government already has. However, the question my hon. colleague has raised about the promise that was made by the Prime Minister to open up the key ministerial offices to access to information is really fundamental, because Canada has been called a black hole of accountability when it comes to the fact that any minister can put something under the ministerial office and lo and behold, it cannot be accessed. This is where the decisions are made. The Prime Minister made a specific promise about opening that up, and yet he did not follow through, and these are key issues, particularly with the issue of St. Anne's Residential School. What we need to know as politicians and the public are the decisions that went into the political decisions, not into the legal issues, and not into the individual cases. Those are already covered and This text image is 7843 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed that my colleague ran out of time. I would like to ask him, is there anything else he would like to say? Mr. Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the best questions I have ever had. I do not even know where to start. Let me add this, because I do not think we got to it. With regard to the notion of vexatious and bad faith, who determines it? The department holding the information gets to determine if a request coming from a Canadian is in bad faith. The department can deem that a request asking for information from its department is in bad faith or vexatious. It is not defined in the law. No, it is interpreted by the government that is holding the information. On normal day-to-day information, this is not going to be a serious issue. However, when it is sensitive information, embarrassing information, information that the government does not want out, all it has to do is take out a big stamp in the department and slam down “vexatious” or “bad faith”, and then it is rejected. The only power that the Information Commissioner has is to take the whole thing to court if Canadians complain. The government is already applying this bill, even though it has not passed Parliament. The Information Commissioner's office is already filing complaints on behalf of Canadians because they are not getting information already, and the bill has not passed. Let us imagine when this bill becomes law, which the Liberals, by the way and ironically, have shut down debate on. There is no truer sense of irony from the Liberals that they are closing off, suffocating debate in Parliament—more than Stephen Harper did—on a bill that is talking about the need to provide access to information to Canadians. My goodness, the hubris on that side. When Canadians hear these stories and they go through the experience, time will tell for the This text image is 5710 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly a model of constancy. He will say on Wednesday the exact same thing he said on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday. It is as if his criticisms of this bill are in a time warp. When the bill was introduced, there was a lot of commentary on that. The hon. member's party made a number of amendments. A number of those amendments were accepted when the bill went to committee. It was improved on the House side. It was further improved on the Senate side. The government has accepted many of the amendments that were introduced by the Senate. Indeed, the current Information Commissioner said that a lot of the issues that were raised by the former information commissioner were addressed in this bill. The Information Commissioner said that this bill should pass and that it is an important improvement on the existing legislation, which, I might add, has not been changed since the 1980s. Would the member at least do us a favour and recognize the number of improvements that have been made to this legislation, and also the comments of the current Information Commissioner, who called upon Parliament to pass this bill into law because it is an improvement over the existing situation? Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member in the finance committee, and I like the member very much. It is clear to Canadians that when he says that he thinks there is support from the Information Commissioner, he is hedging his bets. He knows full well why. The reality is that this simply does not pass the test. The member also mentioned that the Liberals did accept an amendment or two. The reality is that the NDP, as the member well knows, gave notice of three dozen amendments. These are carefully considered. We took the bill and said... This text image is 7088 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
8/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend..” Bill C-58 (42-1)

"The Civil Liberties Association has said... first nations have said... trade unions have said... journalists have said, all of which has been to pan this effort as an appalling waste of time." Murray Rankin, NDP 👀

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. NDP Speeches Former MP Murray Rankin Delivers Trio of Powerful Speeches on Bill C-58 (“Highlight Reel”) 1st Speech: On the failure of the bill: "This bill is far more conspicuous for what it fails to do... It fails to expand the scope of the Act, and it fails to bring ministers' offices within the ambit of transparency. The promise of openness is nothing more than a hollow slogan." On the importance of transparency: "We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Transparency is vital to ensuring that the people of Canada know what their government is doing behind closed doors. The Access to Information Act is not just a tool—it is a cornerstone of a free society." On the Liberal government's broken promises: "The Liberals promised openness and transparency, but what we have here is a watered-down version of what was promised. This bill is more about protecting the government's secrets than serving the public’s right to know." On the delay of information: "Information delayed is information denied. Journalists and everyday Canadians alike are left in the dark because of the government's constant stonewalling. This bill does nothing to change that reality." On the failure to address exemptions: "The exemptions in this bill are vague, overly discretionary, and—most importantly—do not require the government to prove harm in withholding information. This bill continues to allow the government to hide behind excuses and opaque language." On the issue of "cabinet confidences": "This bill perpetuates the 'cabinet laundering' loophole—a black hole where important documents disappear simply because they are labeled as 'cabinet confidences.' This was the big opportunity to close that loophole. Instead, it remains wide open." On the unworkable order-making process: "The so-called order-making powers in this bill are a chimera. It creates a convoluted, costly, and unnecessary system that ultimately This text image is 6505 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.): Mr. Speaker, would the member at the very least recognize that the legislation would improve our system significantly? It would appear that he does somewhat indirectly. The government has been fairly clear. When we go into the committee process, we look forward to hearing potential amendments from NDP members. They might want to share some of those amendments sooner as opposed to later if they are so confident in them. Let us wait and see what happens at committee. This legislation would make a significant improvement to transparency and open government. We should all be supporting it. Mr. Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. We cannot support something that will do so little to deal with the fundamental problems that, after 34 years, governments on both sides of the aisle have created. The amendments from the NDP that the government can anticipate will be very much like the amendments from the committee that studied this. They will be very much like the amendments from the Information Commissioner. They will be very much like the amendments that were proposed over years. They may even be like the amendments the Prime Minister sought to make to the legislation when he was in opposition, which I would suggest are very different than what we see before us today in the legislation. Rankin sharply rejects Kevin Lamoureux’s assertion that the legislation would bring about significant improvements. His response cuts to the heart of the matter: the proposed legislation is insufficient to address the deep-rooted problems in Canada’s access-to-information system. Rankin’s refusal to support the bill unless it addresses these systemic failures is rooted in the populist idea that real change requires more than token gestures. He critiques This text image is 2605 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc 3rd Speech: On the government's failure to deliver transparency: “It is a very disturbing situation we find ourselves in. During the election campaign, the government committed to transparency… it was the result of a considered effort by the government to deliver on an election promise on transparency. It was a total disappointment when it came forward.” On the Information Commissioner's criticism: “When the former commissioner says that the bill is regressive and is a step backwards, despite the bold promises of transparency the Prime Minister made… we can imagine the disappointment of Canadians.” On the need for access to information reform: “Canada got an access to information act... it is old. It was passed in the eighties. It is from horse-and-buggy days, yet some of those old features have not been corrected in the bill before us.” On the importance of access to information: “I care deeply about the issue. I think it is central to a democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada has called the right to know, freedom of information and access to information a ‘quasi-constitutional right’ Canadians have.” On the government's broken promises: “One thing the Liberals talked about constantly in the last election was that the bill would be extended to the Prime Minister’s Office and ministers’ offices... That was a black and white election promise that has now been broken by the current government.” On proactive disclosure: “What the government likes to talk about is what it calls proactive disclosure, which is a good thing… However, as much as I like that, the fact is that it is not what people want… ministers' offices are not subject to the law. It is a bizarre aberration.” On the Senate's proposed amendments: “The Senate has brought forward improvements, and for the government to say it cannot even go there is frankly shocking… We are going to just put them all aside. That is quite... This text image is 6049 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
7/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the..” Bill C-58 (42-1)

"I hate to say I enjoy this phenomenon that happens in the House when the Liberals & the Conservatives stand & accuse each other of being worse at things." Randall Garrison, NDP🫣

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. 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. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): Madam Speaker, I hate to say I enjoy this phenomenon that happens in the House when the Liberals and the Conservatives stand and accuse each other of being worse at things. Here again, the Conservatives say Liberals are worse than them and the Liberals say they were terrible, but we do not get to a solution that serves Canadians. Why is it that, no matter what political stripe, Liberal or Conservative, governments have found it so easy not to adopt the very obvious recommendations that we need so Canadians can get access to information in a timely manner? Mr. Bob Zimmer: Madam Speaker, the member from the other party likes to watch us debate this issue, but everyone on our side says if there is something that needs to be exposed, we should absolutely expose it. We are sent here to be a democracy in this place. As the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, we want to have truth exposed in this place so the taxpayers can see what we are doing. We have done that. As the member to my right has said, we are the ones who brought in disclosure of our finances as members of Parliament. That is something the Conservatives have brought to shine the light on what we do in this place and some of the Senate reforms that have come in as a result, when we were in government previously from 2011-15. There is a lot of talk about what we did not do. I know the NDP and Liberals like to talk about that because it is popular to bash Conservatives, but when we were in government we did exactly that. We did cause greater scrutiny for ourselves and exposed to the outside what we do on a regular basis. That is what we really did. In this post-speech exchange, we see a classic example of political deflection designed to dodge real accountability. The back-and-forth between Mr. Garrison and Mr. Zimmer is a perfect illustration of the deep... This text image is 3068 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Todd Doherty (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”) Lobbying Rhetoric / Conservative Jargon: What He Says: "Bill C-58 is not really about opening up and being more open and transparent. As a matter of fact, it is a step backward." What He Means: This is an attempt to frame the bill as a direct threat to democratic transparency. The statement aligns with a common conservative tactic of portraying government actions that limit transparency or restrict accountability (such as reforms to freedom of information) as anti-democratic. By calling the bill a "step backward," he taps into the fear that the current government is moving away from openness, implying that it is hiding or restricting information from the public. Red Scare / Red-Baiting Rhetoric: What He Says: "If Bill C-58 had been in place, would Canadians have found out what the costs had been, or that our Prime Minister perhaps had some bad advice along the way? He blames others, of course. It is not ever his mistake or problem, it is others who are giving him bad advice." What He Means: This statement tries to incite distrust in the Prime Minister by implying that any governmental mistakes are covered up and hidden through limited access to information. The rhetoric of "perhaps some bad advice" suggests a broader narrative where every misstep by the government is portrayed as a conspiracy or intentional mismanagement, which plays into broader anxieties about governmental overreach and secrecy. This touches on the moral panic of a government allegedly being deceptive. Faux-Populist Rhetoric: What He Says: "We are here to deliver their voices to Ottawa, not the other way around." What He Means: Doherty is framing himself and his party as the true representatives of "the people" who are being oppressed by a government that he portrays as elitist and disconnected from ordinary citizens. This is a populist appeal where he uses language This text image is 4873 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
6/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendment” Bill C-58 (42-1)
www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en...

So much of the CPC debate commentary was full of staggering hypocrisy as if ppl forget the Harper years.🤔

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. Joël Godin (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”) Historical Revisionism & Red-Baiting: What He Says: “Think back to 1983. Does anyone here remember who was in power? No, it was not Mr. Mulroney, it was Mr. Trudeau, Trudeau senior. Trudeau senior was in power, he tabled this act in 1983, and today, his son is going to fix a past mistake.” What He Means: He’s invoking Pierre Trudeau to frame this as a generational failure of the "Trudeau dynasty," playing into conservative paranoia about liberal elitism. The implication is that the Trudeaus have always been incompetent, untrustworthy, or too controlling—echoing the old Cold War-era attacks on Pierre Trudeau’s policies. The fact that he’s smiling while saying this suggests he’s relying on dog-whistle rhetoric that Conservative supporters would recognize: the idea that Liberal governance is inherently authoritarian. Faux-Populism & "Government Waste" Dog Whistle: What He Says: “This reform does not even fulfill the promise that the Liberals made during the 2015 election campaign. They said that they were going to extend the act so that it applied to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices.” What He Means: He’s not actually upset about transparency—Conservatives thrive in secrecy when in power (Harper’s muzzling of scientists, SNC-Lavalin under Scheer). Instead, he’s co-opting a left-populist argument (government accountability) to undermine a Liberal bill, despite the CPC’s own track record of secrecy and anti-democratic behavior. This is a classic example of faux-populism: pretending to advocate for transparency when the real goal is attacking opponents. Conservative Moral Panic & Manufactured Outrage: What He Says: “I hope that the people watching at home will question the transparency of the Liberals’ fundraising activities.” What He Means: He’s deliberately shifting focus from the actual bill to vague accusations of corruption... This text image is 6709 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. John Brassard (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”) What He Says: "We have seen broken promise after broken promise. If members do not believe me, just look at what some of those who are looking closely at Bill C-58 are saying." What He Means: He's posturing as if he's concerned about government transparency, but this is a typical conservative bait-and-switch. The Conservatives have no actual interest in making government more transparent; they're just using this as a weapon to attack the Liberals. If Brassard truly cared about transparency, he would advocate for stronger corporate accountability, tax transparency, and lobbying reform—things the Conservatives have historically opposed. What He Says: "I would be remiss if I did not go back a couple of hours, back to the future, and the egregious display of contempt for parliamentary democracy." What He Means: Moral panic rhetoric. He’s inflating a procedural complaint into an existential crisis about democracy. This is performative outrage designed to make the Liberals look like authoritarian overlords while ignoring the fact that the Conservatives themselves have a history of limiting debate and stonewalling transparency when they’re in power. What He Says: "The Minister of Finance was asked a minimum of 14 times today in question period whether in fact he had sold his shares in Morneau Shepell in advance of his tax reform policies being announced, and each time he skirted the question." What He Means: This is faux-populist rhetoric. Brassard is framing this as an anti-corruption crusade, but the Conservatives have no problem with wealthy elites influencing government—unless they’re Liberal-aligned elites. They’re not against finance ministers with conflicts of interest; they’re against this finance minister. This selective outrage is a standard right-wing tactic to create an illusion of fighting for the working class while actually... This text image is 4089 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must say I am disappointed. The member clearly does not have the intention of raising the quality of debate in the House. First, he barely spoke about Bill C-58. I am proud that we are the first government in 34 years to make major reforms to the Access to Information Act. Second, he was wrong in the few comments he made about the bill. He said it would deny access to information requests that are frivolous or made in bad faith. In fact, the amendments would give the commissioner up-front approval power over any department's request to decline to act on a request because the department believed it was vexatious or in bad faith. The member clearly did not even read the committee's changes and is not up to date on the bill. That is disappointing. It is not a priority for him, clearly. I also want to note that in its 2006 platform, the Conservative Party made a clear commitment to update the access to information law, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 10 years. Did they never intend to actually deliver on that promise, or did they just not care enough to do a thing about it in 10 years? Mr. John Brassard: Madam Speaker, if the member wants to go down the rabbit hole of not intending to keep promises, I would need a little more than 10 minutes to respond. What is more important in the context of my speech is the faith of Canadians and how little faith they have in the ability of the government to implement any of its agenda. Over the course of the last two years, we have seen backtracking on electoral reform, and the list of promises the Liberals made is long, which they are not keeping. I read some of the comments from those stakeholders who have a say in this legislation. Is the hon. member saying they are wrong? These are their concerns. In the context of openness and... This text image is 4617 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
5/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy..” Bill C-58 (42-1)

🚨"We need to bring back law & order, toughen up sentences, & stop the woke policies that let criminals walk free." Tom Kmiec, CPC 🚨 1st "woke" reference I've come across.

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. What He Says: "John Ivison summed up his thoughts decisively when he stated: It’s a farce, and...[the minister] has been around long enough to know the changes he’s just unveiled will not make the slightest difference to helping citizens understand the government for which they pay so richly." What He Means: This is a final blow to the bill’s credibility, amplifying the reactionary viewpoint that progressive efforts at reform are ultimately futile. By citing Costa Rica’s John Ivison, McCauley seeks to align himself with an influential conservative voice, reinforcing the Red Scare narrative that government transparency is merely a cover for maintaining control, with no real benefit to the public. McCauley's C-58 speech is filled with neoliberal-conservative jargon, faux-populist rhetoric, and moral panic rhetoric, designed to discredit any efforts at progressive reform in Bill C-58. His strategic use of lobbying rhetoric and Red-Baiting is meant to rally a populist conservative base that feels alienated from the political establishment. Through GOP-style American tactics, McCauley taps into a fear of government overreach, portraying any reform as ultimately ineffective or insincere. He also uses reactionary voices like Costa Rica-based John Ivison to lend legitimacy to his position, thus reinforcing the conservative narrative that progressive governance is ineffective and untrustworthy. Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the member opposite complained about the length of time it takes to receive the information requests that have been put in. With all due respect, I would like to remind the member that it was his party that was in power over the last 10 years and did nothing about it. However, parts of this legislation go to the very concern the member has about the time it takes to access the information. We know that proactive This text image is 5099 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Neoliberal Jargon & Misdirection: What He Says: “Since it was founded, our party has been relentless in its efforts to make the government more accountable to Canadians. When our party was in office, it was not a scandal-ridden government like the previous Liberal governments and particularly the government that has been in office for the past two years.” What He Means: This is a blatant rewrite of history. The Harper government—of which most of today’s Conservative leadership were key figures—was one of the most secretive in modern Canadian history. From the Senate expenses scandal to the Robocall voter suppression scheme, conservatives have no credibility when it comes to accountability. But by rewriting the past, they hope to manufacture an illusion of trustworthiness. What He Says: “A government that chooses what information to publish and when not to be accountable to Canadians is dishonest.” What He Means: This plays into the broader conservative strategy of undermining trust in public institutions—not to improve them, but to justify gutting them. By portraying any Liberal policy as “dishonest” and “unaccountable,” they are laying the groundwork to strip government watchdogs of power when they return to office. This is straight out of the Republican playbook: delegitimize institutions so they can be dismantled in favour of corporate rule. What He Says: “Yes, another promise has been broken. Let me review some of the other broken election promises.” What He Means: This is a calculated ploy to stoke cynicism about government itself, rather than offering alternative solutions. The Conservative Party doesn’t actually care about Liberal promises like electoral reform or Indigenous rights—if they did, they wouldn’t oppose them when in power. This is a deliberate strategy to weaponize progressive disappointment against any possibility of leftist reform. The goal is not to fix these... This text image is 2620 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. What He Says: "If the journalists who defend the democracy that these MPs serve each and every day here in the House cannot have access to the information that is relevant to Canadians, how can they do their jobs properly?" What He Means: We’re suddenly pretending to care about press freedom, even though Conservative governments in Canada and abroad routinely attack journalists, limit access to information, and consolidate media power into the hands of corporate allies. What He Says: "Most of [these watchdog groups] are non-profit organizations and are totally independent from any government, like Democracy Watch, for example." What He Means: We selectively cite watchdog groups when they criticize the Liberals, but ignore them when they criticize us or our corporate donors. We don’t actually want real transparency; we just want political ammunition. What He Says: "A government does not introduce legislation for no reason. A government introduces legislation because it really wants to keep a promise." What He Means: Except when we do it. When Conservatives break promises, we justify it as necessary pragmatism or claim we had no choice. When Liberals do it, we call it deception. It’s all about manufacturing outrage to serve our political goals. Rhetorical Strategies Deployed: Faux-populism: Pretending to be on the side of the people while serving corporate and elite interests. Weaponized Cynicism: Using voter distrust not to propose solutions, but to delegitimize political opponents. GOP-style Media Strategy: Selectively caring about press freedom and democracy when it suits their partisan agenda. Red Scare/Anti-Reform Fearmongering: Framing any Liberal electoral reform as a scheme for power while ignoring their own history of gerrymandering and voter suppression. Moral Panic: Implying that Liberal secrecy is uniquely dangerous, despite supporting similar or worse policies when in power. This text image is 2166 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
4/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendments..” Bill C-58 (42-1)

🚨"Canada is broken. Crime is rampant, the cost of living is crushing Canadians, & we need to take back our country." Tom Kmiec, CPC

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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 Kmiec’s speech follows a classic right-wing populist script: moral panic, faux-populism, red-baiting, and neoliberal doublespeak wrapped in "common sense" rhetoric. The real goal? Deregulation, corporate giveaways, and punitive policies disguised as "freedom." Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the new member's enthusiasm, and I am delighted that a breath of fresh air seems to be blowing over the Conservative Party, but the truth is that his party was all about secrecy. The NDP introduced a whole bunch of bills based on the Information Commissioner's reports, and the Conservatives rejected them all. Can we look forward to a change in tone over there? Mr. Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As he pointed out, I am indeed a new member. There should be more access to information. That is my personal opinion, and I came to that conclusion while I was working for federal and provincial ministers. If we say that we are working for Canadians and the middle class, we have to nurture their economic dreams and help them achieve the goal of getting good jobs, but we also have to ensure their access to information that belongs to the government that is working for them. Those two things go hand in hand. Pierre Nantel's question cuts straight through the Conservative Party’s performative rebranding effort. He asks the simplest and most necessary question: Will there actually be a change in tone?—a question that Tom Kmiec conveniently dodges with a vague, fluffy non-answer. This is classic Conservative bait-and-switch. Kmiec gives a nod to “more access to information” as his personal opinion—which means nothing in a party that thrives on secrecy, backroom deals, and corporate lobbying. Then, instead of addressing the issue of transparency, he pivots to vague economic platitudes about “nurturing economic dreams” and “helping Canadians get This text image is 4561 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Gérard Deltell (“What He Says” vs. “What He Means”) What He Says: "Fundamentally, our party is in no way opposed to carefully scrutinizing any act, statute, or procedure in order to enhance or improve it." What He Means: We want to pretend we support transparency, but only when it serves our political interests. When transparency threatens corporate or conservative elite interests, we’ll claim the government is "overreaching." What He Says: "Some of the exchanges and debates that take place within cabinet are crucial and healthy for a democracy, but they need to remain behind the closed doors of cabinet." What He Means: Government secrecy is fine when conservatives are in power, but when Liberals do it, it’s a scandal. This sets up faux-outrage against the Liberal bill without addressing how Conservative governments have historically been worse on transparency. What He Says: "No one is against better access to information." What He Means: Standard neoliberal vagueness. It’s like saying, “I support good things.” This avoids taking a concrete stance while leaving room to oppose specific transparency measures that hold conservatives or corporations accountable. What He Says: "We will show that the commitment made during the campaign, the very reason why Canadians elected this government, was once again, unfortunately, not upheld by the Liberals." What He Means: Standard moral panic rhetoric. The Conservatives want to exploit cynicism around Liberal broken promises, not to push for real transparency, but to erode trust in government itself. This is classic right-wing strategy: frame all government action as corrupt so that deregulation and corporate power seem like the only alternatives. What He Says: "The real novelty of the bill is that the government is imposing a system of proactive publication, which is not so bad." What He Means: Softening the critique slightly to appear... This text image is 3281 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it would have been encouraging if the member's party had moved on the kinds of amendments that he is now calling for. Canadians have waited for more than three decades to finally have a strong Access to Information Act so we would have a better reputation internationally. The member is bright and I always appreciate his comments, so I think he might agree with me. We all recall another promise, and that was that this would be the last election of first past the post. The government then decided it would not deliver on that promise, and what did it do. It simply switched ministers and changed the mandate letter. The Liberals have failed to deliver on the vast majority of recommendations by the commissioner or the committee, or most legal experts. Does the member think that the next action we will see is that they can now just amend the mandate letters to the ministers and remove the higher bar for openness and transparency in government? Mr. Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to be clear. It is quite normal to review a bill that was tabled 35 years ago. That is fine. However, there is a thin line to define exactly where there is openness and also the reality of the power. The government must run the country, and it is very delicate to know exactly where to draw the line between what it wants to be published and having strong and important debate among the executive branch. Second, the member talked about electoral reform. A year ago, I was in the member's riding in Edmonton. We had consultations there, and I was part of the committee. It was another broken promise. I said earlier that the list of broken promises is so long that I forgot to talk about that. I could talk about broken promises until tomorrow afternoon, and I would not be finished. Yes, that was another broken promise. At the end of the day, with every... This text image is 5787 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
3/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendments to other Acts” Bill C-58 (42-1)
www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en...

Heather Scoffield (CP) slammed C-58 for gutting transparency & undermining accountability.🤦

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. Neoliberal Jargon & Bureaucratic Speak: “This is a process that would take place across literally hundreds of offices and departments of the government. It would allow our citizens a greater understanding of government and would demonstrate effective stewardship of public funds.” The Liberals love to frame transparency as a bureaucratic process rather than a right, reinforcing the idea that the government controls what information the public gets access to, rather than making real accountability the priority. “Having just spoken about the proactive publication that is key to our commitment to openness by default, I also want to mention a few other things we are doing in the bill.” "Openness by default" sounds nice, but in reality, this bill makes it easier for government agencies to refuse access requests while pretending to be transparent. “We will develop a new plain language guide that will provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions.” Instead of removing barriers to access, we’ll just make it easier for people to understand why they’re being denied information. Political Doublespeak & Gaslighting: “For the very first time, the Information Commissioner would have order-making power.” Yes, but with so many loopholes and exceptions, this power is functionally useless in many cases. “The legislation would require a review of the act every five years, and as I pointed out earlier in the debate, the first review would start no later than one year after royal assent, so this is really an ongoing improvement process.” Kicking the can down the road instead of actually making access to information easier now. “Today, I am proud to be part of the first government to bring significant change to the Access to Information Act since it was first introduced over 30 years ago.” "Significant change" doesn’t mean good change. This is a classic example of politicians This text image is 3112 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Randy Boissonnault Boissonnault’s speech is a masterclass in neoliberal jargon, political doublespeak, and self-congratulatory spin. Self-Congratulatory Victory Lap: "After 34 years, the Access to Information Act is undergoing significant revitalization. These reforms affect the whole of government, including areas never before touched by the legislation." The bill doesn’t touch the core problems—like cabinet secrecy—so calling this a "significant revitalization" is pure spin. "These are innovative improvements to our access to information regime that will build trust between citizens and their government." We made minor tweaks, but we’ll package them as groundbreaking so you don’t notice what’s missing. Neoliberal Jargon & Bureaucratic Speak: "The rise of the Internet since 1983 puts information at the fingertips of most Canadians. People who care about how our government provides services to Canadians are keenly seeking that information." We acknowledge that digital technology exists, but we won’t actually use it to give you meaningful access to government secrets. "The amendments also require a review of the act every five years to ensure that it never again becomes outdated." Instead of fixing systemic transparency issues now, we’ll just keep ‘reviewing’ them indefinitely. Political Doublespeak & Misdirection: "We recognize that although the access to information system is not perfect, overall, it has had a positive impact on government transparency and accountability." The system is broken, but we’re going to pretend it’s fine while making minor tweaks. "Unsurprisingly, the cost of administering the act has gone up, with federal institutions spending more than $64 million to cover direct costs in 2015-16 alone." We’re subtly framing transparency as an expensive burden, laying the groundwork to justify keeping government secrecy intact. "Government institutions would... This text image is 3222 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Darrell Samson Self-Congratulatory Victory Lap “I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for his excellent leadership, not only in government but also as the cabinet minister for the province of Nova Scotia.” The Liberals love patting themselves on the back, turning every discussion into a celebration of their own greatness, as if governing competently is some extraordinary feat. “To show that we are a government that is very progressive, we have accepted up to 10 amendments, which have been integrated into the bill.” Accepting amendments isn’t progressive; it’s a basic function of a democratic process. But when you’re a neoliberal party that governs like a closed-door corporate boardroom, allowing even minor input from others is treated as a bold reform. Neoliberal Jargon & Corporate-Speak “We know that we have to be more accountable and more transparent. We, as a government, ran on that issue, but also, things have changed.” The classic neoliberal strategy: admit there's a problem in vague, abstract terms while avoiding any accountability for perpetuating it. “We have been putting all kinds of documents on paper and storing them on shelves and in cabinets, and we have not been in a position to quickly respond in an efficient way. That has been a major issue.” The obsession with “efficiency” often translates to cost-cutting, outsourcing, and reducing public oversight. Here, it's a justification for weakening accountability by shifting to a system where government decides what to proactively disclose rather than responding to public requests. Political Doublespeak & Gaslighting “Why do we have to make changes? We know that we have to be more accountable and more transparent.” If you know you need to be more transparent, why did it take public pressure to act? And why does the bill still weaken the Access to Information Act? “Not only would we be going to all 240 This text image is 2441 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM
ryanritchie.bsky.social
2/ June 2019 - “An Act to amend the Access to Information Act & the Privacy Act & to make consequential amendments to other Acts” Bill C-58 (42-1)
www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en...

🔴 Half the briefs (9 of 18) came from Indigenous voices: "Scrap C-58. Consult us—properly."

#20YearsOfConservatism #CdnPoli
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. National Security Oversight Institute https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9200025/br-external/NationalSecurityOversightInstitute-e.pdf The National Security Oversight Institute’s submission on Bill C-58 highlights serious concerns about government secrecy, particularly when it comes to national security institutions abusing confidentiality claims to shield themselves from public scrutiny. They argue that the government’s decision to ignore the Information Commissioner’s recommendations undermines democracy by making it harder for Canadians to access information that should be public. The Institute calls out national security agencies for routinely over-classifying information under vague claims of "threats," effectively blocking transparency. They highlight that courts frequently reject these claims, yet the practice continues unchecked. Their solution? A deep audit of at least one national security institution to expose these abuses and identify patterns of excessive secrecy. Another major issue is the lack of enforcement for government wrongdoing. The Institute points out that the RCMP has been caught destroying records and even faced a criminal complaint under the Access to Information Act—only to have the Harper government retroactively legalize the wrongdoing. They argue that the Information Commissioner should have the power to both investigate and prosecute violations to ensure real accountability. Finally, they raise concerns about how intelligence agencies use access-to-information requests to secretly launch national security investigations against citizens, effectively turning transparency laws into a surveillance tool. They warn that this kind of abuse further erodes trust in government institutions and democratic accountability. In short, the Institute’s message is clear: Bill C-58 is a missed opportunity that does more to protect government secrecy... This text image is 5276 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc. Canadian Bar Association https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9206000/br-external/CanadianBarAssociation-e.pdf The CBA, representing thousands of legal professionals, saw Bill C-58 as a weak attempt at modernization that actually made it harder for everyday people to access government information. They criticized the bill for imposing excessive bureaucratic hurdles, allowing officials too much discretion to reject requests, and even reintroducing fees that serve no real purpose other than to deter working-class Canadians from demanding transparency. They called out the bill for limiting access rights by requiring requesters to provide overly specific details—effectively making it easier for the government to deny information. They also flagged dangerous loopholes that would let bureaucrats reject requests on vague grounds like being “too broad” or “available elsewhere,” which opens the door to abuse. The CBA also pushed back against allowing the government to unilaterally dismiss access complaints without independent oversight—arguing that real transparency requires giving the Information Commissioner stronger enforcement powers. They warned that the bill’s reliance on a costly and time-consuming court process favors the wealthy and well-connected, while leaving ordinary Canadians locked out. In short, the CBA recognized that real government accountability doesn’t come from half-measures and red tape—it comes from giving the public genuine power to hold officials to account. Bill C-58, in their view, did the opposite. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ETHI/Brief/BR9205886/br-external/CanadianUnionOfPublicEmployees-e.pdf The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) strongly opposes the proposed Bill C-58, arguing that it deepens the barriers to meaningful access to information, especially in relation to public This text image is 5352 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc Kathleen Walsh & Katie Gibbs (Evidence for Democracy) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-73/evidence#Int-9732706 https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-73/evidence#Int-9732976 Kathleen Walsh and Katie Gibbs from Evidence for Democracy gave powerful testimony before the committee, bringing a much-needed critique of Bill C-58. Their concerns reflect a genuine commitment to transparency and democratic accountability, speaking directly to the people’s right to access government information, especially scientific and evidence-based data used in policy-making. Walsh opened by highlighting the crucial role of transparent scientific evidence in holding the government accountable. While she acknowledged the government's recent efforts to make some information more accessible, she firmly argued that Bill C-58 falls short. She emphasized the need for broader proactive disclosure—especially from ministers’ offices and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)—and voiced concern over the bill's failure to include these offices in the reform. She also stressed that the Information Commissioner must oversee proactive disclosure to ensure accountability and called for stricter timelines for accessing information. Gibbs followed up by raising specific concerns about the bill's provisions on "vexatious" requests. She argued that allowing government departments to label requests as vexatious could be used as a tool to block public access to vital information, a concern that disproportionately impacts civil society groups and NGOs. Additionally, she criticized the bill's requirements for requesters to be overly specific, which could make it even more difficult for the public to obtain the information they need. Both testified that while Bill C-58 does introduce some positive changes, it is not sufficient as it stands. They advocated for more resources for the... This text image is 4440 characters over limit. Please refer to google doc.
March 24, 2025 at 10:57 AM