Business
Former Canadian broadcast regulator warns against Conservative-backed internet bill
Peter Menzies served as CRTC vice-chair after an extensive career in the newspaper industry
From LifeSiteNews
‘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.
“Bill S-210 isn’t a slippery slope. It’s an avalanche: Court ordered site blocking that can include lawful content and mandated age verification using facial recognition to access search or social media overseen by CRTC. Conservative MPs voted for this?!” Geist posted recently on X.
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.
Automotive
New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By WILL KESSLER
Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.
The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.
“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”
Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.
Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.
The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.
The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.
Business
Economic progress stalling for Canada and other G7 countries
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
For decades, Canada and other countries in the G7 have been known as the economic powerhouses of the world. They generally have had the biggest economies and the most prosperous countries. But in recent years, poor government policy across the G7 has contributed to slowing economic growth and near-stagnant living standards.
Simply put, the Group of Seven countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States—have become complacent. Rather than build off past economic success by employing small governments that are limited and efficient, these countries have largely pursued policies that increase or maintain high taxes on families and businesses, increase regulation and grow government spending.
Canada is a prime example. As multiple levels of government have turned on the spending taps to expand programs or implement new ones, the size of total government has surged ever higher. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s general government spending as a share of GDP has risen from 39.3 per cent in 2007 to 42.2 per cent in 2022.
At the same time, federal and provincial governments have increased taxes on professionals, businessowners and entrepreneurs to the point where the country’s top combined marginal tax rate is now the fifth-highest among OECD countries. New regulations such as Bill C-69, which instituted a complex and burdensome assessment process for major infrastructure projects and Bill C-48, which prohibits producers from shipping oil or natural gas from British Columbia’s northern coast, have also made it difficult to conduct business.
The results of poor government policy in Canada and other G7 countries have not been pretty.
Productivity, which is typically defined as economic output per hour of work, is a crucial determinant of overall economic growth and living standards in a country. Over the most recent 10-year period of available data (2013 to 2022), productivity growth has been meagre at best. Annual productivity growth equaled 0.9 per cent for the G7 on average over this period, which means the average rate of growth during the two previous decades (1.6 per cent) has essentially been chopped in half. For some countries such as Canada, productivity has grown even slower than the paltry G7 average.
Since productivity has grown at a snail’s pace, citizens are now experiencing stalled improvement in living standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a common indicator of living standards, grew annually (inflation-adjusted) by an anemic 0.7 per cent in Canada from 2013 to 2022 and only slightly better across the G7 at 1.3 per cent. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers.
A skeptic might suggest this is merely a global phenomenon. But other countries have fared much better. Two European countries, Ireland and Estonia, have seen a far more significant improvement than G7 countries in both productivity and per-person GDP.
From 2013 to 2022, Estonia’s annual productivity has grown more than twice as fast (1.9 per cent) as the G7 countries (0.9 per cent). Productivity in Ireland has grown at a rapid annual pace of 5.9 per cent, more than six times faster than the G7.
A similar story occurs when examining improvements in living standards. Estonians enjoyed average per-person GDP growth of 2.8 per cent from 2013 to 2022—more than double the G7. Meanwhile, Ireland’s per-person GDP has surged by 7.9 per cent annually over the 10-year period. To put this in perspective, living standards for the Irish grew 10 times faster than for Canadians.
But this should come as no surprise. Governments in Ireland and Estonia are smaller than the G7 average and impose lower taxes on individuals and businesses. In 2019, general government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 44.0 per cent for G7 countries. Spending for governments in both Estonia and Ireland were well below this benchmark.
Moreover, the business tax rate averaged 27.2 per cent for G7 countries in 2023 compared to lower rates in Ireland (12.5 per cent) and Estonia (20.0 per cent). For personal income taxes, Estonia’s top marginal tax rate (20.0 per cent) is significantly below the G7 average of 49.7 per cent. Ireland’s top marginal tax rate is below the G7 average as well.
Economic progress has largely stalled for Canada and other G7 countries. The status quo of government policy is simply untenable.
Author:
-
John Stossel2 days ago
The Swamp Survived: Why Trump Failed to “Drain the Swamp”
-
Education2 days ago
Schools shouldn’t sacrifice student performance to vague notions of ‘equity’
-
Energy2 days ago
U.S. EPA Unveils Carbon Dioxide Regulations That Could End Coal and Natural Gas Power Generation
-
COVID-192 days ago
COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?
-
Automotive2 days ago
New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business
-
Environment2 days ago
Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists
-
conflict2 days ago
America Is Really Bad At Foreign Interventions. Why Does Biden Think Ukraine Will Be Any Different?
-
Opinion1 day ago
Boy Scouts of America changes name to ‘Scouting America’ to be ‘more inclusive’