Fuck you, Carney.

The expanded birthright citizenship rules were brought about as a result of a 2023 court ruling, very solidly in the Trudeau era.

I’m not completely opposed to hosting these mega-events, or subsidizing them to a degree. Whatever you might think about the “prestige” factor, they can be a good excuse to ram through valuable infrastructure projects.

But the devil’s in the details (and FIFA in this instance is a literal devil), and it’s madness to expect an actual profit.

I think it’s more about shoddy training and oversight of the staff.

I guess I’ll add a more moderate take of “this is probably intended for absolute emergencies like a Biblical plague of locusts or something,” but in the name of the Prophets, put guardrails on your emergency measures.

It will be interesting to see what the Senate does with it - they’re not as predictable as they used to be.

I only recently discovered this channel, but I find their economics-based energy and climate discussions pretty interesting.

In this episode in particular, they talk a lot about what they think Carney is getting right in his approach to climate (though I wish they would have given more details), as well as something they think he might be getting very, very wrong.

I’m guessing this is hinting that they’ll finally be restoring the Klingon War-era “trilogy” of “The Kuvah’Magh”, “City on the Edge of Never”, and “Past Imperfect”.

If true, it will be good to finally restore a lot of Leonard Nimoy’s recorded dialogue.

If they can show that Sylvestre et al have committedntreason, then 46.2(e) might be applicable.

Maybe. Is there any credible reason to think that they have access to military or scientific secrets that threaten the government?

As for sedition, it is the use of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change, or advocacy thereof. I don’t think that line has been crossed yet.

But as I said, go ahead and investigate. I just doubt there’s anything there. Yet.

Yeah, I guess there’s some provision somewhere that doesn’t require them to amend the entire criminal code every time there’s a change in the monarchy?

This is not an article about amending the criminal code, nor is it an article about having the RCMP investigate people for future crimes (at least, I hope not).

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that we shouldn’t change laws to retroactively target individuals.

I mean sure, investigate away - but they’re not likely to find anything, because the legal definition of “treason” is quite narrow. Mere “foreign interference and influence” ain’t gonna cut it.

High treason

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

They had contact with multiple federal agencies, including Transport Canada, Parks Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans. DFO in particular flagged concerns, and failed to pass them on to Transport Canada.

Oceangate was a terrible company run by a terrible person, but we shouldn’t be dismissing this story.

That was my first reaction, but the regulatory gaps highlighted are actually pretty important.

The government is expected to table legislation on Friday that Carney said would enhance its enforcement to keep goods made with forced labour out of the Canadian supply chain.

I guess we’ll see…

They restored it about two months later, after receiving an interim UN report on the original allegations.

My interpretation so far is that the bill is meant to signal to social media companies that they should alter their platforms to implement “adequate safeguards” (not yet defined) and apply for an exemption, do they don’t have to use nonexistent technology to verify users’ ages.

Yeah, it looks like the goal here is to get the thing set up to provide an option for other nations to pour resources into.

It was worth a shot (from the perspective of an evil, soul-sucking corporation) - had it gone their way, it would have been one hell of a legal precedent.

As Canadian businesses rush to adopt artificial intelligence tools, they face a growing risk of customer backlash — even legal action — if those tools make mistakes.

Canadian law has already established that companies can be held liable if AI chatbots dole out bad information. In a 2024 case, Air Canada was forced to honour a fare rebate after its chatbot provided a passenger with incorrect advice about bereavement fares.

The airline argued before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal that the chatbot was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.” But the tribunal disagreed, stating that Air Canada was ultimately responsible.

“Just like an employee may do something wrong and the company’s held responsible, a bot is just like an employee,” said Tanya Walker, a litigation lawyer with Walker Law in Toronto.

“I don’t think companies really realize the magnitude and the power that a bot can have,” she said. “It can enter into a contract on your behalf.”