[flagged]
Canadian Breitbart is probably more like rebel news or epoch times.
Absolutely not, their American owner has cut so much into that newspaper that whatever reputation they had a decade ago is entirely gone. They used to be somewhat of a right leaning equivalent to the Globe and Mail, but this is no longer an equivalent, what comes out of that publication is now extremely poor quality, often entirely false.
This is not anywhere close to the WSJ.
CBC is definitely left wing[1], with a bias towards the liberal party (centre-left). Globe and Mail is centrist[0].
Highly partisan news is generally not respected for good reason though.
Be it Fox News lying and then claiming they're entertainment, not news, so they're allowed to lie; The Telegraph giving a soapbox to various climate skeptics and COVID deniers and having to retract them, or publishing flat out lies by folks like Boris Johnson; the Sun needs no explanation; Sky News Australia (same owner as Fox News) having a "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section on their Wikipedia; etc.
That's why I cited this excerpt.
Order
(2) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order,
...
(d) impose conditions on a telecommunications service provider’s provision of services to a specified person, including a telecommunications service provider;
...
Non-disclosure
(5) An order made under subsection (1) or (2) may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents, by any person.
Factors
(6) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must consider
(a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and
(d) any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.
...
No compensation
(10) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection (1) or (2).
> (e) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from entering into a service agreement for any product or service used in, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities;
> (f) require that a telecommunications service provider terminate a service agreement referred to in paragraph (e);
Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.
Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to
- Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.
- Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of 15.2)
- By the charter not be things that are punitive, substantially impact the ability of someone to speak (i.e. to access the internet), etc. For clarity free speech in Canada includes anonymity.
And I really don't see much of interest that complies with all of those. Were it not for the charter part I agree the conditions could be onerous, but "defacto termination of service" would likely be the bar where courts say that's too onerous without the charter.
How's it clear?
--- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. ---
They probably won't do this right away, but the door is open.
And they shouldn't be able to do this to the ISP's suppliers either.
They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, but there are categories like CSAM and hate speech), the government doesn't have the ability to prevent significant amounts of protected speech to prevent unprotected speech without invoking the notwithstanding clause (which this law does not).
You realize that while the charter still safeguards your freedoms, it will eventually be overturned if the populace gets used to more and more control over time. Laws like this are cracks in the dam. If you pay no attention to it or give it charitable interpretations, then someday the dam will crumble.
As we seen with the tariff court cases in the US (ie. does "regulate ... imports" mean the power to set tariffs?), vague language like this is exactly what an authoritarian government would use to justify their actions.
>Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
So they can crush dissenters and maybe get overturned in 2-3 years time, by which time everyone forgot? That's exactly what happened with the convoy protests.
You're welcome to respond to those posts if you believe I missed a bit somewhere.
I didn't read the article not because I would have to click on it, but because it is paywalled and I'm not giving them my money, as I said in the post you replied to.