Danielle Smith partnering with Elon Musk’s Starlink to bypass federal internet censorship laws

The Alberta government is working with SpaceX’s Starlink to avoid ‘federal government delays launching projects and allocating funding’ for internet access

The government of Alberta is partnering with Elon Musk’s SpaceX’s Starlink to bring internet to certain areas of the province to test the viability of the technology that Premier Danielle Smith said last year could be used as a firewall to bypass federal internet censorship laws.

Last Thursday, United Conservative Party (UCP) Minister of Technology and Innovation Nate Glubish announced that “advancing satellite internet technology in Alberta is an important milestone and an innovative way to achieve our goal of universal connectivity by 2027.”

Glubish said that connecting rural Albertans via Starlink is another way to “eliminate the connectivity gap.”

As a result, the Alberta government in a limited-time pilot is working with SpaceX’s Starlink to avoid “federal government delays launching projects and allocating funding” for internet access.

In June 2022 while was running for leadership of the UCP, Smith said that she would create a provincial internet firewall to bypass federal internet censorship laws with the possible help of Starlink.

“Hey @elonmusk I’m running to be the Premier of Alberta. We still value free speech here. Could Alberta set up an independent ISP using @starlink to bypass the new @justintrudeau internet censorship law,” Smith wrote.

Smith also included in her tweet last week a reminder of her message last year that said: “Did you know @JustinTrudeau’s new internet censorship law will mean Liberal partisans can pick and choose what Albertans can say and express on the Internet.”

“As Premier, I will protect the right of every Albertan to express their opinion – left, right and everything in between – without fear of Ottawa’s censorship.”

Musk’s Starlink is a satellite-operated internet provider that offers fast service from virtually anywhere in the world and is free from censorship.

As for the Alberta Starlink pilot, it will see the government contribute $1,000 to each eligible household in the County of Forty Mile, County of Warner No. 5 and Cardston County.

The government says that the pilot will provide “feedback” for future programs regarding Alberta’s access to the internet.

Since 2019, SpaceX has launched 12,000 satellites over 60 countries to provide internet access.

As for the Trudeau government’s Bill C-11, it was passed last year. It mandates that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) oversee regulating online content on platforms such as YouTube and Netflix to ensure that such platforms are promoting content in accordance with a variety of its guidelines.

This bill has been panned by critics, Smith, and even Musk.

In October, after the CRTC said that certain podcasters must “register” with the government by November 28. In response, Musk said that “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”

Another Trudeau internet censorship law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, became law in June despite warnings that it will end free speech in Canada. This new law forces social media companies to pay Canadian legacy media for news content shared on their platforms.

Smith has been in a prolonged battle with the Trudeau government over its extreme green energy policies that target Alberta, and no doubt should the Starlink trial go well, the government might look at ways to further shield Albertans from federal government overreach.

Smith’s political style leans toward libertarianism. She strongly opposed COVID mandates of all kinds, and after winning Alberta’s provincial election earlier this year, she promised to stand up for parental rights as well as to cut government bloat by taking away powers from unelected health officials.

Related Topics:#AlbertaSpaceX #AnthonyMurdoch #LifeSiteNews #NateGlubish #PremierDanielleSmith #StarlinkSatelliteAlberta feature

Up Next

Canadian bankers ask gov’t to let them view private citizens’ tax returns

Don't Miss

Forget identity politics — growth and investment must be Canada’s top priorities: Jack Mintz

Todayville

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

Follow Author

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 4 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.