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.

I think in the case of the Manitoba storms the other night, the correct level was being used - there were legitimate funnel clouds being produced - but the coverage area was way too large.

I got 5 or 6 top level “tornado in your area” alerts - not from Environment Canada, mind you, but from the government emergency alert system - but the actual at-risk areas were up to 30 km away.

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.”

Today is day 1,568 of Putin’s 10-day “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Well, that’s why I said “on its own” - the rest of the bill is extremely vulnerable to criticism.

The more I think about it, the more it’s clear that the intent here isn’t to prevent kids from using social media - it’s about forcing the social media companies to implement “adequate safeguards.”

There’s an exception available for them if they do, and a surprisingly hefty fine for violations.

That’s a good question. The bill itself is pretty vague so far:

Obligation 27 (1) Subject to section 29, an operator must, with respect to every regulated social media service specified by regulations made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5) that it operates, implement adequate age-verification or age-estimation measures designed to prevent a person under the age of 16 from being able to have an account with, or be otherwise registered with, the service.

Adequacy of measures

(2) In order to determine whether the measures implemented under subsection (1) are adequate, the Commission must be satisfied that the measures

(a) are effective;

(b) do not involve the collection or use of personal information other than for age-verification or age-estimation purposes;

© provide for the destruction of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes once the verification or estimation is completed;

(d) provide for the protection of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes until that information is destroyed; and

(e) comply with any other requirement specified in the regulations.

On its own, that’s not a very strong argument - underage people can still get their hands on alcohol, but the sale of it is still restricted.

The Liberal bill would force social media services — defined as traditional social media platforms, live-streaming services and adult content services focused on user-shared content — to restrict accounts for children under 16 years old.

However, services could seek an exemption if they implement what officials briefing reporters called adequate safeguards to protect children. The exemption wouldn’t apply to adult content services.

AI chatbots will need measures to respond when a user expresses ideas of suicide or self harm or an intention to commit an act that could cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual, said officials. The bill would not require the companies behind the chatbots to report those interactions to police.

According to the bill, the maximum penalty for a violation would be either $10 million or three per cent of the company’s gross global revenue — whichever is greater. Companies could face multiple penalties for repeated violations.

Full text of the bill here

I think that’s the most generous interpretation of it, not that I think it will help tamp down the crazies.

The article delves into the government’s motives, and in my opinion is at least somewhat sympathetic to them.

I agree that jettisoning the consumer carbon tax may have been a necessary move to kneecap the Conservatives…but that doesn’t mean there won’t also be negative consequences to doing so.

On a similar note, the Liberals are getting loads of justified criticism for the Alberta pipeline “deal”…but few people are talking about the whole thing requiring a private company that’s willing to step up and build the thing, which…I don’t think I’d bet money on that.

All of which is to say…it’s a mess, at best. I have a bunch of conflicting thoughts and feelings about it.

Thanks for sharing - this is an excellent overview of…gestures broadly to the state of things.