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.

For sure.

Though to give them some credit, I do think there’s a fundamental disconnect between municipal responsibilities and their ability to generate revenue, but that’s not really the issue here.

intercity HSR and robust intracity public transit are two great flavours that go great together.

What you’re forgetting is that provincial governments blaming the feds for problems in their own jurisdictions are also two great flavours that go great together.

The bill covers only outward-facing cameras, not cameras inside the cab, addressing privacy concerns raised in committee.

Here’s the bill (emphasis added).

“dashboard camera” means a recording device that is capable of continuously recording the view of the road in front of a commercial vehicle through the commercial vehicle’s front windshield at all times when the commercial vehicle is operating, and meets the following criteria:

(a) retains at least 72 hours of recording;

(b) records at a minimum video format of high-definition video at a resolution of 1080p;

© has night vision capability;

(d) records at the manufacturer’s default settings on the device’s local storage;.

…

Any recording made by a dashboard camera must be collected, used, disclosed, retained and destroyed in accordance with all applicable privacy and security requirements, including the Personal Information Protection Act.

The task force is intended to bring together different partners like RCMP detachments and chambers of commerce to help bridge gaps when it comes to municipalities offering military support.

Could they vague that up a little?