ryper

CBC's coverage says his problem isn't with the law itself:

Blanchet's criticism follows Carney's remarks Monday that a government led by him would act as an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada should it ever hear a challenge to Bill 96.

Carney said he would do so not because he has a problem with the legislation, but because he opposes any province's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to pass laws.

CBC has English coverage, and the law is only described as a "trade irritant", not anything illegal, which is surprising given the insane claims the Trump admin likes to make:

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its annual list of global trade barriers Tuesday, and it includes Quebec's controversial language law Bill 96 as a trade irritant between the two countries.

The law isn't new but it has provisions that kick in in June that seem to be the main issue:

The changes impact the use of French in the judicial system, health care, schools, workplaces and businesses across the provincial economy, but the issue singled out as a trade barrier by the U.S. is how it impacts trademarks and labelling.

"U.S. businesses have expressed concerns about the impact that Bill 96 will have on their federally registered trademarks for products manufactured after June 1, 2025, which is when the relevant provisions of Bill 96 enter into force," the National Trade Estimate Report said.

When the new provisions kick in this summer, trademarks displayed on a product can only appear in English if there's no French version of the trademark registered. If the trademark or label contains generic terms or descriptions that are not in French, the trademark must be changed to include a French version of those terms and descriptions.

Companies found to have violated these changes to the law can face fines of up to $90,000 per day for their third offence, while individuals can be fined up to $42,000 a day for their third offence.

"Woke"? Didn't he get the memo on "DEI" being the new right-wing target?

Their environmental policies have shown that they're not worried about their children's future.

He loves free speech so much he wants it all to himself.

Legal analysts predict challenges, citing potential overreach and conflict with congressional authority.

So a standard Trump executive order then.

ABC already settled one lawsuit from Trump since the election, maybe this will teach them settling won't stop the harassment.

Maybe he should tell Danielle Smith to stop talking him up to the American right-wing.

The title of the post matches the title of the article, this isn't a case of a poster editorializing.

Let's see if Mitch McConnell will effectively represent his state on this one...

Didn't the funding bill a couple of weeks ago give Trump more tariff power? Why didn't this guy speak up sooner?

According to this non-paywalled coverage, there are times when the filibuster doesn't apply to repealing laws:

The 1996 CRA gives Congress a 60-day window to repeal federal regulations with a simple majority vote in each chamber and the president’s signature. The clock resets in a new session of Congress for rules finalized toward the end of the previous congressional session.

Republican lawmakers are also eyeing CRA measures to repeal the CFPB’s larger participant rule for digital payment companies and its ban on the use of medical debt in consumer credit reports.