Yep

https://lemmy.ca/post/56644443/20499957

Good. Poach as much US talent as we can. It’s time for the brain drain to reverse direction.

That’s a great letter. Thanks for posting it here.

There are other big problems with Bill C-15 like the part where any minister can exempt a person/organization from any act of parliament (outside of the criminal code) under their responsibility. It’s section 208.

So the minister of the environment could exempt a company from any environmental laws. One person could decide to let someone dump whatever they wanted into our lakes or rivers.

There are countless other acts that could be exempted at the judgment of one minister appointed to the role.

Carney is a capitalist. He’s a banker. He’s pro money and doesn’t give a shit about the environment.

Check out section 208 of Bill C-15 which gives a minister the ability to allow any entity to ignore a law for a period of time. They could freely allow a company to ignore environmental laws for example.

Here’s the relevant part of the bill copied below, and the link to the bill on parl.ca. Scroll down a little bit to section 208. There are some things I trimmed out for brevity. This is not the whole thing, just the parts I considered most relevant.

208 Section 11 of the Act and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

#Exemptions to Encourage Innovation, Competitiveness or Economic Growth

Order
12 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of

• (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act;
• (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if
• • (i) the minister is responsible for the Act, or
• • (ii) the body that made the instrument is accountable, through the minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs; or
• (c) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, or a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if the minister administers or enforces the provision.

Conditions
(3) A minister may make an order under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that

• (a) the exemption is in the public interest;
• (b) the exemption would enable the testing of, among other things, a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth;
• (c) the benefits associated with the exemption outweigh the risks;
• (d) sufficient resources exist, and appropriate measures will be taken, to maintain oversight of the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption and protect public health and safety and the environment; and
• (e) a feasible implementation plan has been developed.

#Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight

Accessibility
14 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a minister must, as soon as feasible after making an order under section 12, make the order and the following information publicly accessible:

• (a) a description of the decision-making process and a summary of the reasons for the order; and
• (b) a description of the process for providing comments or information to, or requesting information from, the minister in relation to the order.

Exception

• (2) The minister may exclude information that, in the minister’s opinion, would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible for reasons that include safety or security considerations or the protection of confidential or personal information.

Good point. Added.

Here’s the relevant part of the bill copied below, and the link to the bill on parl.ca. Scroll down a little bit to section 208. There are some things I trimmed out for brevity. This is not the whole thing, just the parts I considered most relevant.

208 Section 11 of the Act and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

#Exemptions to Encourage Innovation, Competitiveness or Economic Growth

Order
12 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of

• (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act;
• (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if
• • (i) the minister is responsible for the Act, or
• • (ii) the body that made the instrument is accountable, through the minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs; or
• (c) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, or a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if the minister administers or enforces the provision.

Conditions
(3) A minister may make an order under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that

• (a) the exemption is in the public interest;
• (b) the exemption would enable the testing of, among other things, a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth;
• (c) the benefits associated with the exemption outweigh the risks;
• (d) sufficient resources exist, and appropriate measures will be taken, to maintain oversight of the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption and protect public health and safety and the environment; and
• (e) a feasible implementation plan has been developed.

#Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight

Accessibility
14 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a minister must, as soon as feasible after making an order under section 12, make the order and the following information publicly accessible:

• (a) a description of the decision-making process and a summary of the reasons for the order; and
• (b) a description of the process for providing comments or information to, or requesting information from, the minister in relation to the order.

Exception

• (2) The minister may exclude information that, in the minister’s opinion, would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible for reasons that include safety or security considerations or the protection of confidential or personal information.

If you can ignore laws whenever you want then they’re not laws.

Ethics, environment, civil rights

The corporations are loving all this chaos. It’s another chance to drastically increase prices.

Yeah, criminals.

Disgusting that Canadian businesses are actively supplying equipment for stripping people of their rights.

Caesar salads were created by a Mexican guy about a hundred years ago. Nothing to do with Rome.

Yeah that’s how anti-vaxxers started too.

Not true. A few months ago Microsoft admitted US law overrides privacy agreements with other countries or where it’s stored. It was in reference to a situation in France.

As an American company Axon would be bound the same way.

He’s a banker. He’s going to follow the money. This shouldn’t be a surprise.

Exactly. They care more about the economy than about the people.

They’ll call out China for arbitrary detentions, but still nothing about travel to the US?

Nope. Still fucking green.

https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/united-states

Defending yourself from someone directly threatening your country is not petty.

I hadn’t heard about that. I stopped using all MS products when I switched to Linux so I haven’t had that problem. It doesn’t surprise me though.

If only the English language had more options than either:

• shenanigans
• tracking, logging, screen capturing, spying, high-jacking user data to Onedrive, resetting basic user settings