Does Starlink in Canada use US Ground Stations? I suppose someone could register them just south of the border and smuggle one in. But Starlink tends to follow all laws in every jurisdiction they operate in, and registers as a carrier entity there. I doubt Starlink would refuse any legal obligations that risk losing access to a region.
I doubt Starlink can somehow bypass Canadian law. It's the countries who rule and enforce the EM spectrum usage on their land, and countries are prepared to go to great extents in enforcing whatever rule they come up with.
The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented.
Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybe... from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2... their submission to the government regarding the previous attempt at the same thing.
The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip internet access from specified individuals". I haven't read the bill closely enough to know if I agree with them on that, but a bill having a different issue doesn't justify the false headline by the national post that everyone is discussing here.
(I have not read the contents of the national post article, as it is paywalled. So I can't comment on any other consequences actually described in the article).
> The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Many people ITT have already explained, including in direct replies to you, how they are.
