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?
ValueSubtracted
joined 3 years ago
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.
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.
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.