Business
Canadian Constitution Foundation in court this week intervening in “plastics ban” case

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation
“In this case, criminal law power should not be allowed to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product on the list of ‘toxic’ substances and therefore under the umbrella of federal authority,” … “The Cabinet Order plastic ban is outside the scope of the federal power.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is appearing as an intervener in the legal challenge to the federal “plastics ban” being heard on June 25 and 26 at the Federal Court of Appeal. The CCF will be arguing that the federal “plastics ban” is outside the jurisdiction of Parliament’s criminal law power.
In November 2023, a Federal Court of Canada judge struck down the Trudeau government’s Cabinet Order declaring all “plastic manufactured items” as “toxic” under the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Order had been challenged by a coalition of plastics companies who had argued that the Order was unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The appeal of that decision is now being heard at the Federal Court of Appeal. At issue is the scope of the federal law power. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act grants the federal government exclusive authority to make criminal law. Previous court rulings have found and affirmed that prohibiting truly toxic substances, like lead and mercury, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a legitimate expression of that power. But the criminal law power cannot be used to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product onto the list of “toxic” substances and therefore under federal authority.
CCF Litigation Director, Christine Van Geyn said: “The criminal law power is not a magical incantation. Invoking the words ‘criminal law’ does not transform any issue into something Ottawa can regulate.”
“In this case, criminal law power should not be allowed to justify the sweeping inclusion of every imaginable plastic product on the list of ‘toxic’ substances and therefore under the umbrella of federal authority,” Van Geyn added “The Cabinet Order plastic ban is outside the scope of the federal power.”
The CCF is intervening in the case to argue about the scope of federal criminal law power. Criminal law powers should be applied cautiously. To claim authority to regulate something based on federal criminal law power, Parliament must clearly demonstrate the criminal aspect of the targeted activities. The federal government cannot assume control over an entire area which is not, in itself, harmful or dangerous. This is particularly important when Parliament has asserted control and jurisdiction over an amorphous subject matter prone to overlapping jurisdictions, like environmental regulation.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is represented in its intervention by Brett Carlson and Rebecca Lang of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
You can read the CCF’s intervener factum here.
Business
Chinese firm unveils palm-based biometric ID payments, sparking fresh privacy concerns

By Ken Macon
Alipay’s biometric PL1 scanner uses vein and palm-print data for processing payments, raising security concerns over the storage and use of permanent biometric data.
Alipay, the financial arm of Alibaba, has introduced a new palm-based biometric terminal, dubbed the PL1, which enables individuals to make purchases simply by presenting their hand – no phone, card, or PIN required. Positioned as a faster, touch-free alternative for payment, this system reflects a growing industry shift toward frictionless biometric transactions.
At the core of the PL1 is a dual-mode recognition system that combines surface palm print detection with internal vein mapping. This multi-layered authentication relies on deeply unique biological signatures that are significantly harder to replicate than more common methods like fingerprints or facial scans. Alipay reports that the device maintains a false acceptance rate of less than one in a million, suggesting a substantial improvement in resisting identity spoofing.
Enrollment is designed to be quick: users hover their palm over the sensor and link their account through a QR code. Once registered, purchases are completed in around two seconds without physical interaction. During early trials in Hangzhou, this system reportedly accelerated checkout lines and contributed to more hygienic point-of-sale environments.
The PL1 arrives at a time of rapid expansion in the biometric payments sector. Forecasts estimate that more than 3 billion people will use biometrics for transactions by 2026, with total payments surpassing $5 trillion. Major players are already onboard: Amazon has integrated palm authentication across U.S. retail and healthcare facilities, while JP Morgan is gearing up for a national deployment in the same year.
Alipay envisions the PL1’s use extending well beyond checkout counters. It is exploring applications in public transit, controlled access facilities, and healthcare check-ins, reflecting a broader trend toward embedding biometric systems in daily infrastructure. However, while domestic deployment benefits from favorable policy conditions, international expansion may be constrained by differing legal standards, particularly in jurisdictions that enforce stringent rules on biometric data usage and consent.
Despite the technological advancements and convenience the PL1 offers, privacy remains a major point of contention. Unlike passwords or cards that can be reset or replaced, biometric data is immutable. If compromised, individuals cannot simply “change” their palm patterns or vein structures. This permanence heightens the stakes of any potential data breach and raises long-term concerns about identity theft and surveillance.
Alipay’s approach, storing encrypted biometric templates locally on devices and restricting data flow within national border, does address certain regulatory demands, especially within China, but the broader implications of biometrics are likely to be a growing privacy and surveillance concern in the coming years.
Business
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Trump voiced support Tuesday for a $5,000 cash bonus for new mothers, as his administration weighs policies to counter the country’s declining birthrate. The idea is part of a broader push to promote family growth and revive the American family structure.
Key Details:
- Trump said a reported “baby bonus” plan “sounds like a good idea to me” during an Oval Office interview.
- Proposals under consideration include a $5,000 birth bonus, prioritizing Fulbright scholarships for parents, and fertility education programs.
- U.S. birthrates hit a 44-year low in 2023, with fewer than 3.6 million babies born.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump signaled his support Tuesday for offering financial incentives to new mothers, including a potential $5,000 cash bonus for each child born, as part of an effort to reverse America’s falling birthrate. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told The New York Post in response to reports his administration is exploring such measures.
The discussions highlight growing concern among Trump administration officials and allies about the long-term implications of declining fertility and family formation in the United States. According to the report, administration aides have been consulting with pro-family advocates and policy experts to brainstorm solutions aimed at encouraging larger families.
Among the proposals: a $5,000 direct payment to new mothers, allocating 30% of all Fulbright scholarships to married applicants or those with children, and launching federally supported fertility education programs for women. One such program would educate women on their ovulation cycles to help them better understand their reproductive health and increase their chances of conceiving.
The concern stems from sharp demographic shifts. The number of babies born in the U.S. fell to just under 3.6 million in 2023—down 76,000 from 2022 and the lowest figure since 1979. The average American family now has fewer than two children, a dramatic drop from the once-common “2.5 children” norm.
Though the birthrate briefly rose from 2021 to 2022, that bump appears to have been temporary. Additionally, the age of motherhood is trending older, with fewer teens and young women having children, while more women in their 30s and 40s are giving birth.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt underscored the administration’s commitment to families, saying, “The President wants America to be a country where all children can safely grow up and achieve the American dream.” Leavitt, herself a mother, added, “I am proud to work for a president who is taking significant action to leave a better country for the next generation.”
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
-
International15 hours ago
Pope Francis’ body on display at the Vatican until Friday
-
Business1 day ago
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work