[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Duque de Bragança]

If the "translating" AI is trained by lazy and incompetent Anglos, well, maybe no translation is better. 
There won't be any acceptable translation, anyways.

Because everybody knows that French speaking AI specialist are just so much better and produce such a better product

To translate into French, that's a given, yes.
Hardly new that choosing a native for a translation to his (target) language i.e French, a Francophone is or should be a basic requirement, along with knowledge of the source language.

Not that monolingual Anglos understand it, of course. 

[crazy canuck]

If the "translating" AI is trained by lazy and incompetent Anglos, well, maybe no translation is better. 
There won't be any acceptable translation, anyways.

Because everybody knows that French speaking AI specialist are just so much better and produce such a better product

To translate into French, that's a given, yes.
Hardly new that choosing a native for a translation to his (target) language i.e French, a Francophone is or should be a basic requirement, along with knowledge of the source language.

Not that monolingual Anglos understand it, of course. 

The language of the person creating the AI tool speaks is irrelevant.  You're not programming the AI tool to speak in a language.  The AI tool is trained on God knows what data to come up with God knows what gibberish the AI tool will blurt out when it translates one language to another.

I think you know that, and you just like playing along with the linguistic rage bait.

[viper37]

I can definitely picture AI being used for product labeling translation and stuff like that.  Contracts is a big stretch...

It's already being done, don't worry...

[Barrister]

Alberta petition for secession declared invalid by court.

I came back curious to see if this was being discussed.

Turns out this is the sum total of the discussion.

So here's the entire decision in all it's glory.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2026/2026abkb375/2026abkb375.html

So I think I need to do a bunch of caveats here:

1. I think Alberta succession is a dumb idea.  The large majority of Albertans agree it's a dumb idea - independence polls less than 20%.

2. I dislike the proponents of Alberta secession.  They have been far too cute about their ties to the US government, their funding has been opaque, and have serious doubts that all of their signatures are legitimate.

3. I've only appeared in front of this Justice in very limited capacity as a judge, but used to have regular contact with her when she was in practice and found her to be very capable.

4. I dislike how our current government seems to have a "no enemies to the right" approach and panders to the worst feverish impulses of a minority of her own party.

5. This is all my opinion only. 

But with that - I feel like thus decision was a mistake.  Governments have the right to make dumb decisions like this one.

The decision is on very technical grounds, and is written in a very technical fashion.  I feel like both are a mistake.  The technical grounds are A: on a judicial review, the CEO of Elections Alberta misinterpreted the law and should not have granted the parties the ability to start the petition process, and B: there was a duty to consult with First Nations prior to starting the petition process.

So technically, the Justice wasn't saying you could never have a secession referendum - just that the government went about it the wrong way.

Both judicial review, and FN duty to consult, have been huge legal messes for years, with no clear legal tests - which has led to tons of litigation and uncertainty.  To apply them to what is very much a political question is deeply unsatisfying.  And it has led to some criticism.  Some of it to be sure is talk about a "Trudeau-appointed Judge", but more broadly about how it seems to circumvent a democratic process.

Let's remember hear - even if the vote were to be a "yes" - that would only be the start of the process, not the end.  This is one of the many reasons why I think secession is dumb.  It would be like UK Brexit times ten with endless negotiations and uncertainty.

But let's have this argument in the public sphere, not a courtroom.

[Syt]

Hey, Beeb, good to see you.

[crazy canuck]

Seems a petty straight forward decision to me. This case wasn't about whether governments can do stupid things or not.  This case was about interpreting the legislation as amended by the legislature. There was no challenge to that legislation.

The challenge was the way in which the statutory decision-maker applied the legislation. And from my reading of the court's decision, it's pretty clear as statutory decision maker erred in the number of ways and therefore their decision should be quashed.

I don't see what is so technical about it, other than administrative law is by its nature rather technical.  But the court didn't make any new law here. The court app applied well established legal principles regarding statutory interpretation and the standard to be applied on judicial review.

So basic rule of law stuff.

[Zoupa]

I can definitely picture AI being used for product labeling translation and stuff like that.  Contracts is a big stretch...

Canada. A bilingual country to be proud of.

[viper37]

So technically, the Justice wasn't saying you could never have a secession referendum - just that the government went about it the wrong way.

HI!

And the govt of Alberta could restart the process by doing it the correct way.

It's annoying if the courts rules against you, I know. But it happens.

[Valmy]

Beeb!! 

Missed you buddy

[grumbler]

Beeb!! 

Missed you buddy

Ditto

[viper37]

University of Toronto revokes Buffy Sainte-Marie's honorary law degree 

Original link

TORONTO -  
The University of Toronto has rescinded folk singer Buffy Sainte-Marie's honorary degree.
It's the latest recognition Sainte-Marie has lost since a 2023 CBC News investigation called her Indigenous heritage into question, including the Order of Canada and Polaris Prize.
Sainte-Marie disputed the CBC's reporting but acknowledged in a statement to The Canadian Press that she is American and not a Canadian citizen.
Sainte-Marie rose to prominence as a folk performer in Toronto's Yorkville music scene weaving activism into her music and appearances and becoming a prominent advocate for Indigenous causes on both sides of the border. 
The University of Toronto did not provide reasons for revoking Sainte-Marie's honorary Doctor of Laws degree, saying only that it received a petition in February 2025 requesting the move.
The school says the committee recommended the degree be revoked at a meeting on April 20 this year and the executive committee later endorsed the recommendation. 
It says the governing council approved the rescindment on Wednesday.
The University of Toronto's governing council lists only one other person whose degree has been revoked: Duncan Campbell Scott, who presided over the expansion of Canada's residential school system.
A spokesperson said in an email that they are the only two people to have their degrees de-recognized since the Standing Committee on Recognition was created in 2024.
"We can't immediately confirm what may have happened in the university's 200-year history prior to such a process being put in place," they wrote.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 15, 2026.

The Canadian Press

[crazy canuck]

The Globe has an extensive analysis of the Gerrymandering occurring in Alberta.  For our American friends, gerrymandering is unlawful in Canada. We have an independent commission that sets the electoral boundaries on a set schedule.  The Alberta government did not accept the commission's report and will now create its own boundaries.  This will likely end in another legal challenge, which the government will lose. I suspect that is the purpose. The right wants to say the courts are undemocratic - and the simple minded will accept that line, forgetting (or perhaps never knowing) the important role of the rule of law in a healthy democracy.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the effect of the gerrymandering - gifted link

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/4K7VB7BWWZAW5P3M37Y7SX55ZA/

[Grey Fox]

Interesting. Quebec just went thru this entire ordeal. Commission recommends, government & all MPs really disagree and enact a law, law gets struck drown by the courts.

It's going to happen for Alberta too.

[PJL]

If Albertan politicians can get enough support from the voters for the gerrymandering, then they would be right in calling the courts undemocratic. Ultimately, laws are there for the benefit of the people. If enough of them deem it unjust (aka undemocratic), then they do have the right to change it in the long run, irrespective of the courts.

[crazy canuck]

If Albertan politicians can get enough support from the voters for the gerrymandering, then they would be right in calling the courts undemocratic. Ultimately, laws are there for the benefit of the people. If enough of them deem it unjust (aka undemocratic), then they do have the right to change it in the long run, irrespective of the courts.

Laws are there to benefit the people, and the supreme law in our country is our constitution.  If a law is unconstitutional, it is struck down.

Explain to me why this is a bad thing?

Also, do you know what judicial review is? Do you know the purpose it has an ensuring that governmental decision-maker are making decisions within their statutory authority.  If not, I suggest you take a closer look at why there is judicial oversight of statutory decision-maker, and the important role. The courts have an ensuring that those decision makers stay within the authority that the legislature/parliament gave to them.


It's incredibly simplistic to say that the courts should not intervene and it would be undemocratic for them to do so.  I'm actually astounded that the understanding of the rule of law in a democratic nation is so poorly understood.