Connect with us

Business

Australia passes social media ban for kids under 16 sparking online surveillance concerns

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.

Australia has passed a social media ban for children under the age of 16, a seemingly prudent move but one that has raised serious concerns about online surveillance.

On Thursday, November 28, the Australian Senate passed the bill with a 34-19 vote, making it the world’s first social media ban for under-16-year-olds.

The “Online Safety Amendment Bill 2024” threatens social media companies with up to 50 million AUD (32 million USD) if they fail to comply with the requirement of verifying the age of their users.

While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.

“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Elon Musk wrote on X.

Journalist and free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger said that “this bill is a Trojan horse to create digital IDs, which is a giant leap into the totalitarian dystopia depicted in ‘Black Mirror,’ and already in place in China.”

The bill, which was rushed through parliament, does not give any details about how age verification will work and will not come into force until the end of next year. On November 26, the Australian Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee approved the bill under the condition that social media platforms must not force their users to give them their personal data, including information from government-issued IDs.

While this provision appears to rule out the use of Digital IDs for now, the question of how it will be enforced remains. The Guardian reports that supporters of the bill have said that platforms may use biometric methods, such as facial scans, to verify the age of its users. This would, of course, mean that social media companies would collect the biometric data of all its users in Australia.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill says that there will be “robust” privacy protections, “including prohibiting platforms from using information collected for age assurance purposes for any other purpose unless explicitly agreed to by the individual.”

However, the memorandum also explains that “compliance with the minimum age obligation” will likely require platforms “to implement systems and procedures to monitor and respond to age-restricted users circumventing age assurance.”

This suggests that social media companies could continually monitor a user while using the platform, for instance, by repeatedly doing face scans to ensure that the user is still the same and at least 16 years old.

The vaguely worded bill also does not specify which companies will be affected by the age restriction. Communications minister Michelle Rowland said that TikTok, Instagram, X, Reddit, Facebook, and Snapchat will likely be included, while YouTube will be excluded due to its educational purposes.

In addition to the under-16 social media ban requiring age verification of users, the Australian government also sought to curb speech online via a draconian “Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.” However, the government had to abandon the controversial bill after facing significant cross-party opposition in the Senate. The bill would have forced social media companies to remove information that was “reasonably verifiable as false” or if “misinformation and disinformation” could cause serious harm. The vague definitions of these terms would have allowed social media companies or the government to arbitrarily censor content it deemed unwanted.

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

Alberta

Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier

Published on

Marco Navarro-Génie's avatar Marco Navarro-Génie

Note: This post was written from notes prepared for a panel at the Canada Strong and Free Conference in Calgary on Sept 6. I am grateful for the invitation and the opportunity to explore solutions to recognized interprovincial barriers and push further beyond.

Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Try it out.


Alberta is the number one destination for Canadians seeking a better life. In the last 5 years, 1 of 3 Canadians moving out of their provinces seeking a better life have come to Alberta. People come to Alberta to escape stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and the bureaucratic chokeholds of central Canada. They come for work, for opportunity, and for the chance to get ahead. Alberta doesn’t just have oil and gas; it has policies and an entrepreneurial culture that reward hard work. (Every province, except for PEI, has hydrocarbon resources, but most chose not to exploit them). That’s why the province often draws more people than it loses.

But Alberta cannot assume it will always stay ahead. Prosperity, like liberty, is not automatic, and it can vanish if Albertans get complacent. To remain the country’s economic frontier, Alberta must keep moving. That means tearing down the barriers to trade and commerce we still have and fighting the new ones Ottawa and other provinces are busy inventing.

The costs of standing still are enormous. Economists estimate internal trade barriers drain Canada of up to $130 billion a year, as much as seven percent of GDP, a fraction of what the Trump tariffs would inflict. For Alberta alone, even a ten percent reduction in interprovincial barriers would be worth $7.3 billion annually. And when Quebec blocked the Energy East pipeline, Alberta lost the chance to ship crude worth as much as $15 billion a year — roughly one-fifth of its economy. That isn’t theory; that is lost paycheques, foregone tax revenue, and hospitals and schools that never got funded.

Alberta has worked to make itself freer than most provinces. Liquor was privatized decades ago—Ditto for property registries. The New West Partnership has opened labour mobility and procurement between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. Alberta imposes no cultural or linguistic tests on newcomers. No PST. These are the reasons people come here — because it’s easier to find work, to start a business, to access pristine natural environments, to raise your children, and to get on with your life. Less bureaucracy and fewer people telling you what to do and how to live.

But there are still cracks in the foundation. Alberta’s liquor market is open on the retail side, but still congested at the warehouse level due to the AGLC monopoly. Professional guilds in law, teaching, and health care slow down credential recognition. Public procurement often tilts local in ways that make no sense. And like every province, Alberta still bows to Ottawa’s telecommunications rules, the banking oligopoly, the dairy and poultry cartels (supply management), even though it benefits Quebec farmers and hurts Alberta’s. These barriers cost real money and serve no useful purpose.

If those are the old barriers, new ones are emerging. The most notorious new barrier isn’t new at all. This is the recently resurrected protectionist reflex in the RoC. For a century and a half, Canadians have built a culture that is contrary to the dream of their founding fathers to have open trade within the country. Canadians like to mock Donald Trump’s tariffs, but their instincts are no different. When Trump tariffed Canadian steel, Ottawa’s immediate answer was “We’ll buy Canadian” as retaliation. The elbows-up, “buy local” campaigns are no different from the commercial nationalism Trump is using. And the “buy local” impetus precedes Trump. They prop up the cartels and marketing boards, the oligopolistic giants in telecoms, banking, groceries, and construction. Such reflexes are not based on free market ideas.

What makes this 21st-century mercantilism sting even more is the lack of any real appetite in Ottawa to defend free trade. When Mark Carney announced he would “help” canola farmers, it was a double insult. First, it signalled that in the Prime Minister’s Office, there is no courage to fight for open markets abroad — subsidies at home are easier than complicated negotiations. Second, those subsidies are no gift: they are paid for by the very farmers they are supposed to help, through taxes collected in Saskatchewan and Alberta, among others, laundered through Ottawa’s bureaucracy, and handed back with a smile. This is Canada’s oligopoly culture in miniature: no defence of free markets, more subsidies to placate, and more Ottawa bureaucrats to process the paperwork. All of these come at a price. Ottawa money is never free money.

And the irony deepens. Carney himself promised that interprovincial barriers would be gone by July 1, 2025. He did not deliver. And his latest announcement of a new “process” to expedite infrastructure risks does precisely the opposite — adding new layers of federal meddling, vetoes and Ottawa bureaucrats into what should be provincial decisions.


Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

If you enjoy our work and would like to support us and see more of it, please share our posts

and consider becoming a paid subscriber.


The enforcement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the surrounding culture, is a recent development. What began as workplace training has evolved into a mechanism for bureaucrats and gatekeepers to extend their authority. In some regions, such as Ontario, DEI mandates have been codified into law, forcing individuals to think and act in ways that are not of their own choosing.

This kind of identitarian enforcement saps productivity, creates “bullsh*t jobs” focused on compliance, and categorizes people instead of promoting unity among them. Most concerning is the way it restricts mobility for workers who don’t fit ideological criteria, punishing those who refuse to conform. This system creates opportunities only for a select, tiny class of individuals.

Alberta has a distinct advantage in this context, as it has not fully embraced the DEI agenda—apart from federal agencies and affiliated organizations, sadly including our own ATB. However, it must remain vigilant against the encroaching imposition of these practices.

The third significant challenge we face on the horizon is “debanking.” In 2022, we witnessed how swiftly Ottawa could order banks to freeze accounts, and how readily banks complied. Since then, federal regulators have been extending their influence under the guise of anti-money laundering regulations. The reality is straightforward: industries or individuals that federal governments deem undesirable can be cut off from financial services. For Alberta, with its energy sector labelled as a threat to the planet, this poses a considerable risk. Entire industries—or even individuals who consume “too much” energy—could soon find themselves excluded from the marketplace by radicals in the PMO.

David Suzuki once called for criminally charging folks he considered environmental offenders, and the NDP has expressed a preference for criminalizing support for the oil and gas sector (The NDP, ostensible fond of books in schools and free speech, also wants to criminalize asking questions about non-existent mass graves and the fictional narrative of genocide in Canada). A free economy loses its meaning if citizens can be excluded from it through government decrees. Alberta must protect its residents by establishing ATB as a fortress for banking, addressing any divisive tendencies, and enshrining access to banking as a civil right. Alberta needs to protect its citizens when those federally chartered banks act as enforcers for Ottawa.

So what does moving forward look like? Alberta has a strong culture of enterprise, but it cannot rest on its laurels. Unless it works to keep ahead, others will eventually catch up. Alberta must double down on being the most desirable place in Canada to live and work. That means bold and greater transformational reforms.

Breaking the cartel-like influence of professional regulators—such as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses—who have transformed their organizations into barriers is crucial. These groups often prosecute their members to enforce ideological beliefs that most Albertans do not support.

Additionally, we need to ensure that access to banking is protected in provincial law, regulating credit unions so that no Albertan can be denied banking services for political reasons. We should also consider breaking up large municipalities to encourage smaller communities to compete for residents and businesses.

Ending the equalization payments and replacing them with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) transfer to Ottawa is necessary to ensure that Alberta’s wealth benefits Albertans directly. Healthcare delivery must be reformed so that patients receive timely services and genuine choices.

Furthermore, we should deregulate trucking and housing construction to make life more affordable for families. Finally, we must tackle public service unions that operate like political monopolies, using examples from small towns like Coaldale to demonstrate how reform can begin at the grassroots level.

Canada advocates for free trade but often behaves like a medieval guild. Alberta has demonstrated that a more liberated approach is viable, but the province must continue to leverage its advantages. This involves resisting cartels, challenging the banks, dismantling outdated barriers, and preventing the emergence of new ones before they become too imposing.

Alberta has always been a frontier — a place where people come to build, take risks, and prosper. Frontiers are not maintained by standing still; they thrive by moving forward. If Alberta continues to push ahead, it can remain the engine of prosperity and the most desirable place to live and work. However, if it becomes complacent, it risks falling behind, becoming weaker, and Ottawa will be more than willing to take advantage of that.

The choice is simple: Alberta can either be fenced in by cartels and bureaucrats, or it can break the fences and keep the frontier open. That is the task, and it is one worthy of Alberta’s spirit.

Share Haultain Research

For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney government’s housing GST rebate doesn’t go far enough

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson

While there are many reasons for Canada’s housing affordability crisis, taxes on new homes—including the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST)—remain a major culprit. The Carney government is currently advancing legislation that would rebate GST on some new home purchases, but only for a narrow slice of the market, falling short of what’s needed to improve affordability. A broader GST rebate, extending to more homebuyers and more new homes, would cost Ottawa more, but it would likely deliver better results than the billions the Carney government plans to spend on other housing-related programs.

Today, Ottawa already offers some GST relief for new housing: partial rebates for homes under $450,000, full rebates for small-scale rental units (e.g. condos, townhomes, duplexes) valued under $450,000, and a full rebate for large-scale rental buildings (with no price cap). Rebates can lower costs for homebuyers and encourage more homebuilding. However, at today’s high prices, these rebate programs mean most new homes, and many small-scale rental projects, remain burdened by federal GST.

The Carney government’s new proposal would offer a full GST rebate for new homes—but only for first-time homebuyers purchasing a primary residence at under $1 million (a partial rebate would be available for homes up to $1.5 million). Any tax cut on new housing is welcome, but these criteria are arbitrary and will limit the policy’s impact.

Firstly, by restricting the new GST rebate to first-time buyers, the government ignores how housing markets work. If a retired couple downsizes into a new condo, or a growing family upgrades to a bigger house, they typically free up their previous home for someone else to buy or rent. It doesn’t matter whether the new home is purchased by a first-time buyer—all buyers can benefit when a new home appears on the market.

Secondly, by limiting the GST rebate to primary residences, the government won’t reduce the existing tax burden on rental properties—recall, many small-scale projects still face the full GST burden. Extending the rebate to include rental properties would reduce costs, unlock more construction and expand options for renters.

Thirdly, because the proposed GST rebate only applies in-full to homes under $1 million, it will have little effect in Canada’s most expensive cities. For example, in the first half of 2025, 31.8 per cent of new homes sold in Toronto and 27.4 per cent in Vancouver exceeded $1 million. Taxing these homes discourages homebuilding where it’s most needed.

Altogether, these restrictions mean the Carney proposal would help very few Canadians. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the 237,324 housing units projected to be completed in 2026—the first full year of the proposed GST rebate program—only 12,903 (5.4 per cent) would qualify for the new rebate. With such limited coverage, the policy is unlikely to spur much new housing or improve affordability.

The proposed GST rebate will cost a projected $390 million per year. However, if the Carney government went further and expanded the rebate to cover all new homes under $1.3 million, it would cost about $2 billion. That’s a big price tag, especially given Ottawa’s strained finances, but it would do much more to improve housing affordability.

Instead, the Carney government plans to spend $3 billion annually on “Build Canada Homes”—a misguided federal entity set to compete with private builders for scarce construction resources. The government has earmarked another $1.5 billion per year to subsidize municipal fees on new housing projects—an approach that merely shift costs from city halls to Ottawa. A broader GST rebate would likely be a more effective, lower-risk alternative to these programs.

Finally, it’s important to note that exempting new homes from GST is not a slam dunk. GST is one of the more efficient ways for the federal government to raise revenue, since it doesn’t discourage work or investment as much as other taxes. GST rebates mean the government may increase more economically harmful taxes to recoup the lost revenue. Still, tax relief is a better way to increase housing affordability than the Carney government’s expensive spending programs. In fact, the government should also reform other federal taxes on housing-related capital gains and rental income to help encourage more homebuilding.

The Carney government’s proposed GST rebate is a step in the right direction, but it’s too narrow to meaningfully boost supply or ease affordability. If Ottawa is prepared to spend billions on questionable programs such as “Build Canada Homes,” it should first consider a more expansive GST rebate on new home purchases, which would likely do more to help Canadian homebuyers.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X