National
‘This is insane’: Elon Musk condemns Trudeau gov’t ‘Online Harms’ bill
From LifeSiteNews
The Trudeau government’s proposed ‘Online Harms’ bill, which seeks to expand the scope of government regulation of the internet through threats of fines and lengthy prison terms, continues to be blasted by prominent international voices.
Tech mogul Elon Musk has blasted the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over its recently proposed “Online Harms” legislation which could see Canadians imprisoned for years for so-called “hate speech” offenses.
On March 12, Musk posted on his own social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to condemn Trudeau’s newly proposed Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which seeks to increase the punishment Canadians could receive for “hate speech” posted online, while also expanding the length of sentences for certain already illegal “hate” crimes to life in prison.
“This is insane,” Musk wrote in response to independent outlet Not the Bee which had revealed that the new law would “allow judges to hand down life sentences for ‘speech crimes.’”
While Musk himself is not conservative, and is, in fact, a self-described “atheist” and promoter of trans-humanism, universal basic income and a carbon tax to combat so-called climate change, he does have a history of opposing the Trudeau government’s targeting of speech.
In October of last year, Musk accused Trudeau of trying to “crush free speech in Canada” over his government’s internet regulation efforts, following up on similar comments he made in 2022. Earlier this year he continued his opposition to Trudeau, referring to the left-leaning Toronto Star as “Canada’s Pravda” for its hit-piece against Trudeau’s rival, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.
Musk’s recent comment comes after Attorney General and Justice Minister Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63 last month and continues to defend the legislation despite pushback.
The new legislation seeks to create the Online Harms Act and modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.
However, the bill also seeks to punish “hate speech,” and increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner.
Most concerning is that the new law would allow anyone to file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of “protected” categories, notably gender, race and sexuality.
Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time, including life in prison for what it deems the most serious offenses.
According to the proposed legislation, the bill would not only punish those who have committed a “hate crime” but also those suspected of committing one in the future.
“A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit; (a)an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.1); or (b) an offence under section 320.1001,” the text of the bill reads.
However, Virani justified the legislation which would force a potential “hate crime” violators to wear an electronic tag or be banished to house arrest, arguing the measure is “very important” in preventing anyone from “targeting” a variety of groups.
Virani remained vague on what would be considered “hate speech,” saying, “There’s a lot of bad stuff out there. But this is not about the bad stuff. This is a much higher level.”
He explained that some comments which are “awful but lawful” would not be punished, promising the Trudeau government would have a high threshold before punishing Canadians for their speech.
Increasingly, prominent Canadians and even Americans have begun commenting on Trudeau’s authoritarian rule over Canada, particularly his restricting of internet speech.
In late February, prominent Canadian anti-woke psychologist Jordan Peterson warned the new bill would undoubtedly lead to his criminalization.
Similarly, a top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.
Additionally, Campaign Life Coalition recently warned that Bill C-63 will stifle free speech and crush pro-life activism.
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Tegan Hill
If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.
On Thursday, the Trudeau and Ford governments announced they will dole out an estimated $5 billion in corporate welfare to Honda so the auto giant can build an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. This is the third such deal in Ontario, following similar corporate welfare handouts to Volkswagen ($13.2 billion) and Stellantis ($15.0 billion). Like the previous two deals, the Honda deal comes at a significant cost to taxpayers and will almost certainly fail to create widespread economic benefits for Ontarians.
The Trudeau and Ford governments finalized the Honda deal after more than a year of negotiations, with both governments promising direct incentives and tax credits. Of course, this isn’t free money. Taxpayers in Ontario and the rest of Canada will pay for this corporate welfare through their taxes.
Unfortunately, corporate welfare is nothing new. Governments in Canada have a long history of picking their favoured firms or industries and using a wide range of subsidies and other incentives to benefit those firms or industries selected for preferential treatment.
According to a recent study, the federal government spent $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019 (the last pre-COVID year). Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. (Notably, the study excludes other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the total cost of corporate welfare during this period is actually much higher.)
Of course, when announcing the Honda deal, the Trudeau and Ford governments attempted to sell this latest example of corporate welfare as a way to create jobs. In reality, however, there’s little to no empirical evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.
Instead, these governments are simply picking winners and losers, shifting jobs and investment away from other firms and industries and circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.
Unfortunately, the Trudeau and Ford governments believe they know better than investors and entrepreneurs, so they’re using taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. Again, corporate welfare actually hinders economic growth, which Ontario and Canada desperately need, and often fails to produce jobs that would not otherwise have been created, while also requiring financial support from taxpayers.
It’s only a matter of time before other automakers ask for similar handouts from Ontario and the federal government. Indeed, after Volkswagen secured billions in federal subsidies, Stellantis stopped construction of an EV battery plant in Windsor until it received similar subsidies from the Trudeau government. Call it copycat corporate welfare.
Government handouts to corporations do not pave the path to economic success in Canada. To help foster widespread prosperity, governments should help create an environment where all businesses can succeed, rather than picking winners and losers on the backs of taxpayers.
Authors:
From LifeSiteNews
Conservative MP Corey Tochor argued the term “corrupt” is an accurate description of Trudeau and his government.
“If you ask the Ethics Commissioner about all of the infractions that the Prime Minister has been charged and convicted with on corruption, you will find the truth to be that this is a corrupt government and Prime Minister”
Liberals are pushing for the word “corrupt” to be banned in Parliament amid ongoing ethics scandals within the Trudeau government.
On April 19, Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) Mark Gerretsen moved to prohibit MPs from referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government as “corrupt,” arguing it is disrespectful towards the Liberal government.
“My point is that, today, during question period, the member for Regina—Wascana referred to the Prime Minister as ‘corrupt’ and to the government as ‘corrupt,’” he told the House of Commons.
“Although he did it today, it has been done a number of times in the House,” he continued. “I would say that terminology specifically goes against Standing Order 18.”
The House of Commons’ Standing Order 18 regulates speech within the House to ensure that MPs do not use disrespectful or offensive language.
“No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof,” it states. “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.”
“I would encourage the Chair, during this time of reflection over that week that he indicated he was going to do that, to consider my comment on this and to weigh into whether or not this is actually,” Gerretsen added before being interrupted by Conservative MPs calling for a debate.
However, Gerretsen refused to debate his suggestion, instead pushing for Conservatives to be censored. Gerretsen’s recommendation was supported by Bloc Quebecois MP Martin Champoux.
“I would like to build on what my colleague just said,” Champoux said. “I actually raised a point of order about this yesterday with the Speaker, who was in the chair at the time, to ask him to once again set out strict rules and clear guidelines for members to follow.”
“That would help us to better understand how far we can go,” he argued. “Right now and for the past few months, there has been a lack of consistency in the way freedom of expression is interpreted in the House and in the way measures are applied when members cross the line or do not follow the guidelines, which, again, are not exactly clear.”
However, Conservative MP Corey Tochor argued the term “corrupt” is an accurate description of Trudeau and his government.
“If you ask the Ethics Commissioner about all of the infractions that the Prime Minister has been charged and convicted with on corruption, you will find the truth to be that this is a corrupt government and Prime Minister,” he declared.
Indeed, between the ArriveCAN app scandal, alleged Chinese election meddling and the SNC-Lavalin affair, Canadian MPs seem well within their rights to call, or at least remain concerned, that Trudeau and his government are “corrupt.”
So, why are Liberals moving to have the term banned?
It appears Trudeau and his government prefer Canadians remain unaware of past and ongoing corruption scandals, preferring to silence those who remain unconvinced by Liberal Party propaganda.
In the last few years of Trudeau’s near-decade reign, the prime minister and his Liberals have become increasingly intolerant of opposing views, infamously labelling their critics during the COVID-era as “right-winged extremists” and a “small fringe minority.”
Unfortunately, it seems this trend is only going to continue.
As LifeSiteNews recently reported, law professor Dr. Michael Geist warned that the Trudeau government is “ready” to “gaslight” opponents of Bill C-63, a proposed law that could lead to jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.
While the banning of the word “corrupt” in Parliament may not yet be implemented, who is to say that if Bill C-63 is passed that the Trudeau government won’t decide to consider such accusations of corruption as meeting the definition of online “hate speech.”
Indeed, perhaps the Liberals’ move to ban the word “corrupt” should be considered a sign that they know they’ve lost the public’s trust and are acutely aware silencing opposition is their only option.
In fact, it would appear that Trudeau’s only response to dismal polling figures with respect to his scandal-plagued government’s popularity is to double down on censorship, rather than consider why citizens feel the way they do.
As the late U.S. President Harry S. Truman warned: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Japanese study finds ‘significant increases’ in cancer deaths after third mRNA COVID doses
Maxime Bernier warns Canadians of Trudeau’s plan to implement WEF global tax regime
A Coup Without Firing a Shot
WHO Official Admits the Truth About Passports
-
COVID-1919 hours ago
Japanese study finds ‘significant increases’ in cancer deaths after third mRNA COVID doses
-
Business17 hours ago
Maxime Bernier warns Canadians of Trudeau’s plan to implement WEF global tax regime
-
Brownstone Institute15 hours ago
A Coup Without Firing a Shot
-
COVID-1913 hours ago
WHO Official Admits the Truth About Passports
-
Energy11 hours agoAnti-LNG activists have decided that they now actually care for LNG investors after years of calling to divest
-
Bruce Dowbiggin16 hours agoCoyotes Ugly: The Sad Obsession Of Gary Bettman
-
Freedom Convoy14 hours agoOttawa spent “excessive” $2.2 million fighting Emergencies Act challenge
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy18 hours agoThe tale of two teachers