Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Former Canadian broadcast regulator warns against Conservative-backed internet bill

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

Peter Menzies served as CRTC vice-chair after an extensive career in the newspaper industry

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘By all means, ensure the Criminal Code is enforced, but do not, under any circumstances, put some puffed-up public servant in charge of patrolling the online world. The state has no business in the WiFi of the nation,’ former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies wrote.

One of the past vice-chairs of Canada’s official broadcast regulator, Canada’s Radio-Television Commission (CRTC), has sounded the alarm over recent Conservative-backed federal legislation working its way through the system which looks to severely regulate the internet under the appearance of “protecting children.” 

Peter Menzies, who served as the CRTC’s vice-chair for a time after an extensive career in the newspaper industry, and who is not known for being very conservative, wrote in a recent blog post in The Hub that the “[s]tate has no business in the WiFi of the nation,” criticizing in particular Senate Bill S-210.  

He specifically used his ink space to criticize the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and its leader Pierre Poilievre for supporting Bill S-210. 

“The Conservatives, as we speak, are backers of Independent Senator Julie Miville-Dechene’s private member’s Bill S-210. Its intent, like so many pieces of legislation, is virtuous, as it is trying to protect children from access to online pornography. But the road to regulatory hell is paved with good intentions, and the legislation is so clumsily constructed as to pose significant threats to privacy and free expression,” wrote Menzies. 

Currently before Canada’s House of Commons for review is Senate Bill S-210, “An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material.” The bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons last December, with CPC MPs lambasting most Liberal Party MPs for voting against a bill designed to protect children from accessing online pornography. 

The creator of the the non-governmental law, Miville-Dechêne, was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2018. It was passed by the Senate in April 2023. 

S-210 would create a framework to make it an offense for any organization that makes available “sexually explicit material” to anyone under the age 18 for commercial purposes. Anyone breaking the new rules would be fined $250,000 for the first offense and up to $500,000 for any subsequent offenses. 

However, professor Dr. Michael Geist, who has been an open critic of already passed Trudeau government online censorship bills  C-18 and C-11, as well as the newly introduced “Online Harms” Bill C-63, has warned that S-210 is an “avalanche” of bad news despite its good intentions. 

Menzies observed that if the Conservatives genuinely “Want to give us back control of our lives and make us the freest people on earth, they could start by stepping back from their recent alliance with Big Government solutions and instead find ways to help individuals take control of their lives by managing what comes into their homes.” 

He called S-210 “So clumsily constructed as to pose significant threats to privacy and free expression.” 

Menzies warned that Bill S-210, despite its seemingly good intentions, could result in Canadians being forced to use government-issued IDs to access many different internet services. 

Menzies wrote that in his view, it makes no sense that the CPC under Poilievre oppose Trudeau’s new Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63, yet support Bill S-210. 

As for Bill C-63, it was introduced in the House of Commons on February 26 and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as very troublesome. 

The new law will further regulate the internet and will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online, one constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews. 

The Liberals under Trudeau claim Bill C-63 will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.  

The reality is, that the federal government under Trudeau has gone all in on radical transgender ideology, including the so-called “transitioning” of minors, while at the same time introducing laws that on the surface, appear to be about helping children.  

Under Trudeau, the federal government has given millions of taxpayer money to fund LGBT groups of various kinds and aggressively pushes a pro-LGBT agenda. 

Trudeau gov’t needs to ‘leave legal internet’ content alone

Menzies observed that what needs to happen instead is for governments to “[l]eave legal content on the internet alone,” and instead empower “parents” to have more control over what can be viewed online.  

“By all means, ensure the Criminal Code is enforced, but do not, under any circumstances, put some puffed-up public servant in charge of patrolling the online world. The state has no business in the WiFi of the nation,” he wrote.  

“Second, empower parents and families with the equipment they need to control their household’s internet access as they see fit and work with the people who really understand technology to do so.” 

The CPC under its leader Poilievre has clarified that Conservatives “do not support any measures that would allow the imposition of a digital ID or infringe on the privacy of adults and their freedom to access legal content online,” when it comes to Bill S-210 or another other future law.  

Campaign Life Coalition recently warned that Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, will stifle free speech and crush pro-life activism. 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Opinion / 6 hours ago

Blind to the Left: Canada’s Counter-Extremism Failure Leaves Neo-Marxist and Islamist Threats Unchecked

COVID-19 / 7 hours ago

Top COVID doctor given one of Canada’s highest honors

Crime / 12 hours ago

Bryan Kohberger avoids death penalty in brutal killing of four Idaho students

Alberta

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

Published on July 2, 2025

By

From Pierre Poilievre

The tiny town of Hardisty, Alberta (623 people) moves $90 billion in energy a year—that’s more than the GDP of some countries.

Continue Reading

Business

Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast

Published on July 2, 2025

By

The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors

In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”

Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.

“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.

Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.

“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.

Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.

She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.

“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.

“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”

The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.

“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.

“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.

“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.

Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.

“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.

“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.

“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.

“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”

The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.

“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.

He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.

This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.

“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.

“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”

Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.

“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.

“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X