The guidelines define generative AI as technology that "produces content such as text, audio, code, videos and images" for things like chatbots, e-mails, briefing notes, research or programming. The guidelines recommend caution when using AI for things like public communications on social media or automating "assessments, recommendations or decisions about clients."

If a department uses generative AI to respond to a citizen, answer questions via a chatbot, create a document or make a decision, it should be transparent about using the technology, the guidelines say.

I mean, I understand why they are doing this. However, enforcing it is an entirely different matter. Are there going to be federal records of every question asked to ChatGPT? Are citizens supposed to launch investigations if they suspect they are getting responses from an AI?

Overall, I just question where the oversight is coming from.

One thing that isn't talked about enough is the possibility of beefing up infrastructure in smaller (and cheaper) cities/towns. The federal government should consider building up network infrastructure in more rural and remote locations. Make "work from home" more accessible—allow people to buy homes where they are affordable and work from there. It cuts down on commutes and helps limit the sprawl of our major urban centres.

The federal government should set the example by creating their own work from home policy for their public servants. Show how it could be done, and then pressure the provinces to revamp their labour laws to implement work from home protections.

I realize this wouldn't be applicable to all kinds of work, but it would alleviate some of the housing demands in the most expensive parts of the country.

In June, India criticized Canada for allowing a float in a parade depicting the 1984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards, perceived to be glorification of violence by Sikh separatists.

"They are promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian diplomats, damaging diplomatic premises and threatening the Indian community in Canada and their places of worship," the Indian statement said.

This is laughably dumb. Does he think there is a federal bureau of parade floats? Some idiots in Brampton made an inappropriate float. A year prior, some idiots in Sundre made an inappropriate float that was discriminatory towards towards Sikhs. The federal government, and the country at large, didn't sanction or approve of either float. (You'll also note the lack of complaints from India about the Sundre float, despite India's large Sikh population.)

Both are considered embarrassing and the municipalities should have stopped both. What it doesn't call for, is a draconian federal government that inspects every last bit of speech and expression for potential violations. Hate speech will be treated as every other crime—complaints will lead to charges, the courts will try the crimes, punishments will be dealt.

At a closing summit news conference in New Delhi on Sunday, Trudeau said he pushed for harsher language, but that if other leaders had their way, the declaration would have been much weaker.

"If it was just up to me, it would have been stronger, he said.

"The G20 is an extremely disparate group and we worked very hard to get as strong language as we possibly could," Trudeau told reporters.

Ukraine's existence is contingent on the worldwide popularity of its counteroffensive. It's a tenuous situation, especially when attention spans are short and interests are wavering. Trudeau is quite right to call this out; millions of lives and Ukraine's statehood and culture depend on it. The world cannot grow apathetic, and certainly not resentful towards Ukraine if we want them to survive.

“If we were going to shift the way that we operate, to set a target or to align the numbers with the housing capacity, it's a monumental change in the way that Canada does immigration,” Fraser said in an interview on CTV’s Question Period with Vassy Kapelos on Sunday.

“That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But it does mean if we're seeking to make a permanent change to the way that Canada's immigration laws operate, we have to do it right.”

Finally. This is a message that needed to happen weeks ago. It's acknowledging the concerns many are having, while remaining even-keeled enough to not look reactive and hasty.

I think this is a good proposal, and renews federal interest in ensuring that housing is taken care of. It'll give an internal motivation for the federal government to push provinces and cities into zoning residential to meet our needs and regulating developers to ensure they are building enough of the right kind of housing. It means if a federal government is interested in high levels of immigration, they also have to ensure there are enough residences to absorb those people. It is win-win for Canadians.

I really hope they carry through with this kind of policy shift.

I'll just throw this question out there:

Suppose we build an entirely new residence for the PM. Do you think it would be worthwhile to dismantle the current residence, move it elsewhere, and keep it as a heritage site?

The renovations would be minimal, merely to restore its structure. There wouldn't be any need to ensure it meets rigorous security needs or staffing functions.

Frankly, other than the fact that the house is old and a handful of prime ministers lived in it, it doesn't have much cultural value. Personally, I don't really find it worth keeping, even as a historical site.

Student advocates say providing universities and colleges with funding for housing construction would allow universities to pull Canadian and international students into campus settings, where housing is cheaper and simpler to build.

"When you build student housing ... they do not have to have the same amenities that a luxury condo does," Afousi said.

That's what I was saying! Except, sometimes universities do allow luxury condos on campus. To which, I think there should be stipulations that all luxury suites are put on hold, otherwise the university will not be eligible for grants to build more student residences.

"It's one of my fears," Miller said in a recent interview with CBC News. "I do worry about the stigmatization of particularly people of diversity that come to this country to make it better, and that includes international students."

This is a lingering concern. International students are one of the few groups that the Liberals have called out in respect to the housing crisis. If they ignore that numerous corporations are buying up housing stock either as investments or for rentals, while only talking about international students, then those students are going to be scapegoated.

Frankly, the Liberals need to 'grow a pair' and dare to speak out against some of their 'stakeholders.' Yes, they run the risk of fouling up some business and professional relationships, but as the polls are showing, the alternative is to be voted out of office. To which, why fall on your own sword for the sake of lobbyists?

The Jekyll and Hyde routine continues. The reactionary, regressive policies are red meat for the more unsavoury parts of the party—the "grassroots" as they like to call them. Which, I might add, I don't entirely agree with the notion that those people are their 'grassroots.' They are extreme. They have little expertise. They are loud. They are so loud, in fact, that they run roughshod over their more civil peers. None of this means they need to be pandered to, or that they represent the 'true core' of the party.

All this considered, behind closed doors, the party panders to them and becomes as disagreeable as they are. When public facing, they adopt a softer and more tolerant tone—they want to seem even-handed and composed. We are then told that these two identities are the same, as if our eyes and ears have been lying to us.

What an embarrassing state of affairs for the more moderate members.

OP ate Ths Onion on this one, eh?

If you mean me, I certainly know that it is satire. I even tagged it as satire in the title.

"Why should I listen to you folks?," said another MP mimicking Trudeau. "You're all know-nothings and coattail candidates."

"People are really disillusioned," offered another MP. "Really, really, disillusioned," said a fourth.

Some MPs said that over their entire careers, the PMO had never spent as much time listening to them as I had in my 30-minute calls with them.

Wow... Just... Yikes...

I mean, a lot of MP's probably feel like the walls are closing in on them as they gaze upon the polls. I imagine caucus meetings are getting stressful.

Regardless, really good column—worth a read.

Not accounting for what the 'ethically correct' action is, this is a politically tough situation.

If the Liberals don't let him back in, it looks like an admission of guilt. If the Liberals do let him back in, it looks like they are uncaring towards the foreign interference issue.

They would have done themselves a lot of favours if they just 'temporarily suspended' him back when the news first dropped, and said his return is pending on the results of an investigation. At that point, it looks like a softer measure that could have been lower stakes that the party is entirely in control of.

I mean, to just speak to the headline, the answer is a resounding "no."

In fact, if the Liberals just shed a few Montreal seats to the Bloc, that's all the Conservatives really need.

Disappointing, but not entirely surprising. I'm seeing people shouting "Argentina! Argentina!" already, which is hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous. However, if you want an Argentinian economy, sowing doubt in the stability of the Bank is a great way to do it.

A 5% interest rate and inflation that is higher than it should be, but not even piercing double digits is not the crisis these 'Chicken Littles' are bemoaning. At least not yet.

I loathe the "common sense" narrative. It's really no different than a "customer is always right" policy, applied to politics. To which, if you have ever worked in a service job that faces the general public, you very well know that the customer is rarely right, especially when the topic doesn't relate to their expertise or profession.

Yes, technocrats can miss the forest for the trees. Sometimes they lose focus on what the general will of the nation is in favour of a precise, but aloof policy directive. That said, it doesn't mean you fire your accountant and hire a plumber to do your taxes instead.

This is neither the first nor the last time that politicians have and will use the Bank of Canada as a political football. It's really quite bad for the economy when they do so. The last thing we want is a partisan Bank where half the country has lost confidence in it.

Of course, that doesn't mean we are forbidden from being critical of the bank. In those moments we ought to turn to economists, and not politicians, to inform us on what the correct policy should be.

You get a poll! You get a poll! Everyone gets a poll!

Seriously, everyone is dropping polls today. You'll note that Nanos' poll from yesterday showing the LPC and CPC in a dead heat was conducted via telephone, while today's three polls with a CPC lead were all from online panels.

Methodology:

Survey dates: August 31 - September 6

n=3113

MOE 1.5% (equivalent)

Online

Methodology:

Survey dates: September 2-4

n=1000

MOE 3.1% (equivalent)

Online

Methodology:

Survey dates: August 29 - September 4

n=3330

MOE 1.7% (equivalent)

Online

What’s fascinating about yesterday’s public spat is that it demonstrates that the federal Conservatives are willing to jump into bed with urban progressive local politicians in their quest to win over younger urban voters. [...] The common enemy for Poilievre’s Conservatives and the urban progressive councillors is … a bunch of conservative (and sometimes Conservative) Calgary City Councillors. Calgary is the spiritual home of the Canadian conservative movement, and suddenly the city councillors who were holding the line against ‘progressive silliness’ are being taken to task by their federal comrades.

It is a gamble, but Calgary being such an overwhelming CPC stronghold, they can probably afford to shed some votes in order to pick up demographics that otherwise would not vote for them. I'm genuinely curious to see if it pays off—not out of any personal investment in the CPC, but it would be a very interesting shift in Canadian politics. The NDP and Liberals have owned the youth vote for such a long time. Recently, it seems like it is flipping, where the LPC hangs onto the 55+ vote and the CPC are chasing the 18-35 year-old demographic.