#602 Had enough of Liberals or Conservatives? The Artificial Intelligence Party

 

What would it take to register a federal party? A thought experiment

6 Nov 2026 · @Peter J Karwacki

Registering a federal party in Canada takes 250 electors, a leader, three officers, a chief agent, an auditor and a statement of purpose, and keeping it takes a good deal more. To see how it works, I drafted a registration package for an imaginary party, the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. It is a concept for this blog. It is not registered, and no real people are named in it.

The idea

Here is the statement of purpose as I drafted it:

The fundamental purposes of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party are to particippate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, and, through that participation, to promote good government in Canada by advancing the use of artificial intelligence within government and in executive decision-making, so that public decisions rest on rational, evidence-based analysis, and by supporting the regulation of artificial intelligence and guardrails on its use.

In plain terms: use AI inside government so that decisions are better supported by evidence, and back regulation and guardrails on AI itself. Detailed policy would live in a separate platform document, not in the registration.

What Elections Canada requires

According to Elections Canada’s Political Financing Handbook, registration is a three-step process.

1. Apply. The party appoints a leader before filing. It also names at least three officers besides the leader, a chief agent and a CPA auditor, each with signed consent. The application adds names, addresses and signed declarations from at least 250 electors, a statement of fundamental purpose, a records office address and a published privacy policy.
2. Become eligible. Elections Canada checks that the name can’t be confused with another party’s and doesn’t include the word “independent”, verifies the members, and confirms the roles are filled.
3. Become registered. This happens only once a general election or by-election is called. The party needs at least one candidate with a confirmed nomination, and its application must have been made at least 60 days before the call.

The order matters. A party can sit on paper as an eligible party for years without ever appearing on a ballot.

Why the purpose statement carries weight

The law requires a party to have, as one of its fundamental purposes, participating in public affairs by endorsing members as candidates and supporting their election. That is why the electoral purpose comes first in the statement and the AI focus follows. A group that mainly wanted to advocate or research, with elections as an afterthought, would be on shaky ground: the leader must declare the party’s purpose every June 30, and a court can order deregistration if the purpose isn’t genuine.

Staying registered is the harder part

The paperwork doesn’t end at registration. A party files annual confirmations by June 30, reports changes within 30 days, and submits fresh declarations of 250 members every third year (the next is due June 30, 2028). Once registered, it also files annual financial returns with an auditor’s report. The Act allows no extensions, and missing a deadline can cost a party its status.

The registry shows how real that risk is. Elections Canada currently lists 14 registered parties, and its deregistered list includes the Libertarian Party of Canada (March 31, 2026) and the Marijuana Party (October 31, 2025).

Why bother with the exercise

The package makes one thing clear: a party is an organization first and an idea second. For an idea like AI-supported decision-making, the interesting questions come after registration. Who reviews an automated recommendation before a minister acts on it? What gets published so the public can check the reasoning? Those are platform questions, and this thought experiment deliberately leaves them open.

Sources

• Registered Political Parties and Parties Eligible for Registration, Elections Canada (page updated November 3, 2026)
• Political Financing Handbook for Registered Parties and Chief Agents (EC 20231), Chapter 2: Registration, Elections Canada (March 2026)

Per Elections Canada's Political Financing Handbook (March 2026), registering a federal party is a three-step process.

Step 1: Apply for registration

The party files an Application to Register a Political Party. It must include:

• The party's full name, and optionally a logo and short-form name.
• The leader's contact information and a copy of the resolution appointing them.
• Contact details and signed consent from at least three party officers (besides the leader), a chief agent and an auditor.
• Names, addresses and signed membership declarations from at least 250 electors who support the application.
• A statement of the party's fundamental purpose.
• The address of the party's records office.
• A personal-information privacy policy, plus the web address where it is published.

Step 2: Become an "eligible party"

Elections Canada reviews the application. The party becomes eligible if:

• Its name, short form, abbreviation or logo isn't confusingly similar to another eligible or registered party's.
• Its name doesn't include the word "independent".
• Elections Canada verifies the 250 members. The handbook suggests submitting more than 250, since some declarations may not hold up.
• It has at least three officers besides the leader, plus a chief agent and an auditor.
• Its privacy policy is published on its website and meets the requirements.
• All required information has been provided and is accurate.

Step 3: Become a registered party

An eligible party is registered during a general election or by-election if both of these are true:

• At least one of its candidates has a confirmed nomination.
• Its complete application was made at least 60 days before the election was called. If it applies later, it stays eligible and can register at the next election.

For a general election, an eligible party with no confirmed candidates loses its eligibility.

Who can hold the key roles

• Leader and officers: Canadian citizens aged 18 or older who live or have lived in Canada.
• Chief agent: The same, or a corporation. Candidates, undischarged bankrupts and the party's auditor can't serve.
• Auditor: A CPA, or a partnership of CPAs. Candidates, officers, chief agents and registered agents can't serve.

Keeping the status

Eligible and registered parties both have ongoing obligations:

• By June 30 each year, a confirmation of registry information, a leader's declaration of the party's fundamental purpose, and a privacy officer's compliance statement.
• Changes to registry information or new appointments reported within 30 days.
• A statement and list of candidate-endorsing representatives within 10 days of a general election being called.
• Fresh names, addresses and declarations of 250 members every third year (next due June 30, 2028).
• For registered parties, annual financial returns and an election expenses return after each general election, each with an auditor's report.

Registered parties face involuntary deregistration for reasons including failing to endorse a candidate in a general election or missing reporting deadlines. It also applies if a court orders it, for example after certain convictions or a finding that the party doesn't genuinely aim to endorse candidates.

For the actual forms, see Elections Canada's Tools for Political Parties section.

Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party

Draft Registration Package · prepared November 6, 2026 · items in [BRACKETS] are for you to fill in

Draft text for each item in Elections Canada’s Application to Register a Political Party, based on the Political Financing Handbook (EC 20231, March 2026). The official forms govern: copy this content onto them, and use Elections Canada’s prescribed membership declaration rather than the template in section 6. This is not legal advice; confirm anything uncertain with Elections Canada before filing.

1. Pre-filing checklist

Requirement	Who / what	Done
Party leader appointed (before applying)	[LEADER NAME]	☐
Leader resolution, co-signed by officers	Section 4	☐
At least 3 officers besides the leader, with signed consents	[OFFICER 1–3]	☐
Chief agent with signed consent	[NAME or corporation]	☐
Auditor (CPA or all-CPA partnership) with signed consent	[NAME / FIRM]	☐
At least 250 elector membership declarations (aim higher)	Section 6	☐
Statement of fundamental purpose	Section 3	☐
Records office address	[ADDRESS]	☐
Privacy policy published on party website, exact URL given	Section 7	☐
Name, short form, logo checked for confusion with existing parties	Section 2.1	☐

Eligibility. Leader and officers: Canadian citizens aged 18+ who live or have lived in Canada. Chief agent: the same, or a corporation; candidates, undischarged bankrupts, election officers and the auditor cannot serve. Auditor: a CPA or all-CPA partnership; candidates, officers, the chief agent and registered agents cannot serve.

2. Application content (Step 1)

2.1 Party name

• Full name: Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party
• Short form (optional): [e.g., AI Party or CAIP; Elections Canada may set a maximum length]
• Logo (optional): [attach if desired]
• French name: [decide whether to register one, e.g., Parti canadien de l’intelligence artificielle, and confirm with Elections Canada how it is entered]

The name must not be confusable with another eligible or registered party’s name, short form, abbreviation or logo, and must not include “independent” (it doesn’t). None of the 14 currently registered parties looks like an obvious conflict, but Elections Canada decides.

2.2 Party leader

[LEADER FULL NAME] · [MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL] · attach the certified leader resolution (section 4).

2.3 Officers (at least three besides the leader)

	Name	Address	Phone / email	Consent
Officer 1	[NAME]	[ADDRESS]	[CONTACT]	☐
Officer 2	[NAME]	[ADDRESS]	[CONTACT]	☐
Officer 3	[NAME]	[ADDRESS]	[CONTACT]	☐

2.4 Chief agent and auditor

• Chief agent: [NAME / CORPORATION], [ADDRESS], [CONTACT]; consent attached.
• Auditor: [NAME / FIRM, CPA], [ADDRESS], [CONTACT]; consent attached. Ask whether your province requires a public accounting licence.

2.5 Records office, privacy policy and members

Office: [STREET, CITY, PROVINCE, POSTAL CODE] · [PHONE] · [EMAIL] · [WEBSITE]
Privacy policy URL: [EXACT WEB PAGE URL] (text in section 7)
Members: names, addresses and signed declarations of [NUMBER, at least 250] electors (section 6).

3. Statement of fundamental purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election.

Keep the statement to this legal definition. Describe what the party cares about in a separate mission or platform document. The leader must also declare the purpose each year by June 30.

4. Resolution appointing the party leader

CANADIAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PARTY
Resolution Appointing the Party Leader

WHEREAS the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party (the “Party”) intends to apply for registration under the Canada Elections Act, and a leader must be appointed before applying;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. [LEADER FULL NAME], a Canadian citizen of at least 18 years of age who lives or has lived in Canada, is appointed Party Leader, effective [DATE].
2. The Party Leader is authorized to certify the Party’s registration documents and sign the annual confirmation of registry information.

Passed on [DATE] at [CITY, PROVINCE].

Leader: ____________________ [LEADER FULL NAME] · Date: [DATE]

Officer: ____________________ [OFFICER 1] · Date: [DATE]

Officer: ____________________ [OFFICER 2] · Date: [DATE]

Officer: ____________________ [OFFICER 3] · Date: [DATE]

If the leader later changes, a new resolution certified by the new leader and another officer must be filed within 30 days.

5. Consents to act

Use the consent section of the official form. Draft wording:

5.1 Party officer

I, [NAME], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as an officer of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years of age, and live or have lived in Canada.

Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]

5.2 Chief agent

I, [NAME / CORPORATION], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as chief agent of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am not a candidate, election officer or member of a returning officer’s staff, an undischarged bankrupt, or the Party’s auditor, and I have full capacity to contract in my province or territory. [Individual: I am a Canadian citizen of at least 18 who lives or has lived in Canada. Corporation: incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province.]

Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]

5.3 Auditor

I, [NAME / FIRM], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as auditor of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am a member in good standing of a provincially accredited accounting body (CPA) [partnership: and so is every partner], and I am not a candidate, official agent, election officer, returning officer staff member, or an officer, chief agent or registered agent of the Party.

Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]

6. Membership declarations (250 minimum)

Use Elections Canada’s prescribed form; this wording is for planning only.

I, [FULL NAME], of [RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS], am an elector. I am a member of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party and I support its application for registration as a political party.

Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]

#	Full name	Address	Signed	Verified elector
1			☐	☐
2			☐	☐
…

• Submit more than 250: some declarations may fail verification.
• Collect only the personal information the form requires and handle it under the privacy policy.
• Fresh declarations of 250 members are due every third year (next: June 30, 2028).

7. Privacy policy (draft)

Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party – Privacy Policy
Effective [DATE]. Published at [URL].

1. Who we are. The Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party (the “Party”) is a federal political party. Our records office is at [ADDRESS].

2. What we collect. The personal information you give us when you join, volunteer, donate or contact us: name, address, email, telephone number and, where required, confirmation that you are an elector. Donor information is collected as political financing rules require.

3. Why. To maintain membership records, meet our obligations to Elections Canada, communicate with members and supporters, process contributions and issue receipts, and organize party activities. We collect no more than we need.

4. Sharing. We do not sell or rent personal information. We share it only with Elections Canada as the law requires, with bound service providers who help us operate, or where otherwise required by law.

5. Safeguards. Information is kept in [SYSTEM / LOCATION], with access limited to authorized officers, agents and volunteers who need it, using [SECURITY MEASURES].

6. Retention. Only as long as needed for these purposes and legal record-keeping. [RETENTION PERIODS]

7. Your choices. You may ask to see, correct or stop our use of your information by contacting our Privacy Officer.

8. Privacy Officer. [NAME], [EMAIL], [PHONE].

9. Changes. We will post changes at the address above and update the effective date.

Before publishing, check Elections Canada’s guidance on what a party privacy policy must contain. The privacy officer must sign a compliance statement each June 30.

8. After filing

When	What
Once eligible	Report changes or new appointments within 30 days
By June 30 each year	Confirm registry information; leader’s purpose declaration; privacy officer’s compliance statement
Within 10 days of a general election being called	Confirm registry information; list designated representatives who endorse candidates
Every third year	250 members’ names, addresses and declarations (next June 30, 2028)
To become registered	Apply at least 60 days before an election is called and have at least one confirmed candidate
After registration	Statement of assets and liabilities with auditor’s report within 6 months; annual financial returns; expenses return after each general election

A late application isn’t fatal: an eligible party that misses the 60-day cutoff stays eligible and can register at the next general election or by-election. Missing a reporting deadline, however, can cost eligible status, and the Act allows no extensions.

9. Open items

• Choose the short form; decide on a logo and French name.
• Confirm the leader, three officers, chief agent and auditor; collect signed consents.
• Launch the website and publish the privacy policy at a stable URL.
• Collect well over 250 elector declarations on the prescribed form.
• Ask Elections Canada to confirm the name raises no confusion concerns before filing.

Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party: Policy Framework

Better public decisions through evidence, accountability, and sensible guardrails on AI.

Statement of purpose

The fundamental purposes of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party are to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, and, through that participation, to promote good government in Canada by advancing the use of artificial intelligence within government and in executive decision-making, so that public decisions rest on rational, evidence-based analysis, and by supporting the regulation of artificial intelligence and guardrails on its use.

Guiding principle

AI should inform public decisions, and elected people remain accountable for them. Using AI in government and regulating AI are one commitment: public decisions should be evidence-based, transparent, and answerable to the public.

Evidence-based decision-making in government

Major executive decisions are backed by analysis that can be inspected, reproduced, and challenged.

• Decision-support requirement. Significant policy, budget, and procurement decisions come with a structured analysis covering options, assumptions, data sources, projected outcomes, and uncertainty. AI tools can help produce it.
• Published rationale. The analysis behind a major decision is made public when the decision is announced, along with where and why the decision-maker departed from it.
• Outcome tracking. AI-assisted review of whether programs delivered what they promised, reported publicly on a regular schedule.
• Lighter administrative load. AI used for routine work such as case triage, document processing, and service wait-time forecasting, with the savings reported openly.

Accountable use of AI within government

Using AI in government must never dilute responsibility.

• Human accountability. A named official is responsible for every decision, whatever tools informed it. "The system recommended it" is never a defence.
• Human review of high-impact decisions. Decisions affecting rights, benefits, immigration status, or enforcement require meaningful human review and a right of appeal.
• Transparency register. A public registry of every AI system the government uses: its purpose, vendor, data, known limitations, and responsible official.
• Explainability. People affected by an AI-assisted decision can obtain a plain-language explanation of how it was reached.
• Independent audit. Regular testing of government AI systems for accuracy, bias, and drift, with the results published.

Regulation and guardrails

Clear, enforceable rules on AI use across society.

• Federal AI legislation. A comprehensive statute with risk-tiered obligations: stricter requirements for high-impact uses, lighter ones for low-risk uses.
• Prohibited uses. Examples include social scoring, covert mass surveillance, and AI impersonation used for fraud or election manipulation.
• Democratic integrity. Disclosure rules for AI-generated political content and deepfakes during elections.
• Independent oversight. A regulator with investigation, audit, and penalty powers, reporting to Parliament.
• Privacy and data governance. Limits on collecting and using personal data to train and deploy AI, backed by enforceable individual rights.
• Liability. Clear responsibility for harms caused by AI systems, shared appropriately among developers, deployers, and operators.

Public trust and capacity

Citizens and public servants should be able to understand and shape how AI is used.

• Public-service training so staff can evaluate, question, and override AI outputs.
• Open data and open methods wherever security and privacy allow.
• Citizen input. Public consultation before AI is introduced into services that affect large numbers of people.
• Procurement standards that avoid vendor lock-in and guarantee the government can audit the systems it buys.

The party's own commitments

• Candidates and officers disclose when AI tools materially contribute to policy positions or public communications.
• The party's own use of AI follows the standards it advocates: human accountability, transparency, and privacy protection.
• Policy positions are reviewed periodically against new evidence and revised in public.

Questions this framework has to answer

• Does evidence replace politics? No. Evidence informs choices, but values decide what to prioritize. Elected representatives set the goals; AI helps assess how to reach them and whether they were reached.
• What about bias and opacity? Analysis that looks rational can still rest on flawed data. The audit, explainability, and human-review requirements exist for this reason.
• How far does the party's scope extend? The purpose statement keeps the focus on government and regulation. Issues such as jobs, copyright, and education are for later consideration.

Draft policy framework for discussion.

How Parties Set Policy: Traditional and AI Party Compared

One question, two processes: how should a party decide what to do about emergency room wait times?

The test question: How should we reduce emergency room wait times?

How a traditional party typically sets policy

Processes vary by party, but a common pattern looks like this.

1. Grassroots input. Riding associations submit resolutions, and a convention or policy conference debates and votes on them.
2. Leadership filtering. The leader's office and a platform committee decide which resolutions become election commitments. Convention votes are often treated as advisory.
3. Research and polling. Staff, think tanks, and pollsters test which positions resonate with voters and donors.
4. Caucus and coalition management. Positions are shaped to hold together regional, ideological, and interest-group support.
5. Costing and release. Party staff cost the platform, announce it, and defend it through the campaign.
6. Revision. Positions change mainly after an election loss or a shift in public mood.

On the ER question, this usually produces a convention resolution, a leadership decision on a headline promise such as a funding figure or a hiring pledge, and polling to refine the message.

How the AI party would set policy

1. Define the objective. Members set the goal and its limits, for example "reduce median ER wait times by a stated amount without lowering quality of care." This step is deliberately human, because it is a values choice.
2. Evidence review. AI tools help gather and summarize research, comparable jurisdictions, and available data, with sources listed.
3. Option modelling. Several approaches, such as staffing, triage redesign, primary care access, and discharge flow, are analyzed with assumptions, costs, projected outcomes, and uncertainty ranges stated openly.
4. Public analysis. The full analysis is published before any position is adopted, so experts and the public can challenge assumptions and flag errors.
5. Human decision. Members and candidates choose among the options and publish their rationale, including where they departed from the analysis.
6. Measurable commitments. Each policy states what success looks like and when it will be reviewed.
7. Scheduled revision. Positions are rechecked against new evidence on a set timetable, and changes are announced openly.

Side by side

	Traditional party	AI party
Where policy starts	Member resolutions, leadership priorities, polling	A stated objective, then an evidence review
Who shapes the options	Caucus, staff, advisers, interest groups	Analysis open to public challenge
Role of data	Mostly to test messaging	Core input, with sources and assumptions shown
Who decides	Leadership, with member input of varying weight	Members and candidates, with a published rationale
When policy is revisited	After elections or political shifts	On a schedule, against evidence
Main strength	Democratic legitimacy and coalition-building	Transparency and testability
Main risk	Positions driven by polling and internal politics	False precision, flawed data, values hidden inside models

A fair reading of the comparison

The traditional model has real strengths. Party members debating values and trade-offs in person is what gives policy democratic legitimacy, and compromise is how diverse regions and interests get represented.

The AI party's approach works best as a discipline layered on top of that. It improves how options are analyzed and how decisions are explained, but it does not replace the political judgment about priorities. This fits the party's guiding principle: AI informs public decisions, and elected people remain accountable for them.

Draft for discussion.

#601 Public Delegations - the point

 

The Case for Showing Up: Why Citizens Should Attend Council and Present Delegations

1. Council decides things that affect daily life, usually with little public input

Zoning, transit routes, road safety, budgets, parks, and housing approvals are decided at council and committee tables. Most of these decisions are made with very few residents in the room. A councillor who hears from three people on an issue treats that as a signal, and one who hears from none treats it as a mandate to follow staff recommendations.

2. A delegation creates a public record

Written submissions and emails can be skimmed or lost. A delegation is delivered on the record, usually recorded or livestreamed, and entered into the meeting's minutes. Councillors have to hear it and, ideally, respond. That record can be cited later in debates, in media coverage, at the Ontario Land Tribunal, or in the next election.

3. Lived experience fills gaps in staff reports

Staff reports are built on data, policy, and legal frameworks, and they often miss what a decision feels like on the ground. A resident can say that the "safe" crossing is in fact a route kids avoid, or that the consultation happened at a time no working parent could attend. That kind of testimony is often what exposes a gap in the analysis.

4. Councillors are more responsive to people they can see

Email is easy to dismiss in volume. A person at the podium, speaking calmly and specifically, is harder to ignore, and councillors know their constituents are watching the video. Delegations also change what other residents think is possible: when one person speaks, others realize the issue is shared.

5. Accountability depends on people actually watching

Councils are scrutinized by a thin layer of local media and a few dedicated observers. Regular attendance builds institutional memory about who voted how, which promises were made, and which staff recommendations got changed. That knowledge is what lets citizens hold decision-makers to their own words.

6. Small, early input has outsized influence

Decisions are shaped long before the final vote, at committee, in staff reports, and in amendments. A delegation at committee stage, when options are still open, can change a motion. By the time an item reaches full council, minds are often made up. Showing up early is the most effective use of a citizen's time.

7. It builds civic capacity

People who present once usually learn how the process works: where agendas are posted, how to register, how motions get amended. They become resources for neighbours, community associations, and future campaigns. A community with several experienced delegators is much harder to ignore than one that only complains online.

8. It is democratic participation between elections

Voting every four years is a thin form of accountability. Delegations let residents participate on specific issues, informed by current facts, without waiting for the next ballot. They also keep the public's relationship with government from being mediated only by lobbyists, developers, and organized interests, who attend reliably.

Practical points to make citizens' case persuasive

• Be specific: Name the agenda item, the problem, and the exact change you want (an amendment, a deferral, a study).
• Keep it short: Delegation time is typically a few minutes. One clear ask beats a broad critique.
• Bring evidence: A local data point, photo, or personal example carries more weight than general opinion.
• Coordinate: Several brief delegations on one theme are stronger than one long one. Co-ordinating with neighbours or associations multiplies impact.
• Follow up: Email councillors afterward, thank those who engaged, and track how they voted.

Fair counterpoints worth acknowledging

Skeptics argue that delegations often feel performative, that councillors may have decided already, that meeting times and processes favour retirees and the well-resourced, and that the loudest voices are not necessarily representative. These are real limits. The response from advocates is not that delegations always win, but that they cost little, create a record, and shift outcomes at the margin more often than people expect. Proponents also push for reforms such as evening or remote participation, plain-language agendas, and earlier notice, so that attendance is more accessible.

Procedures including how to register, time limits, and whether remote delegations are allowed.

Recent mayoral candidate Alex Lawson asked about the purpose od delegations saying, "council is aware of the issues".

I told him, " if you go, I'll go"

Delegation rules at the City of Ottawa

Based on the City’s participation page and the Procedure By-law (No. 2022-410). Checked November 5, 2026.

On this page

• Where you can speak
• Registration
• Format and time
• Written comments
• Record and conduct
• Tactical point
• Caveats
• References

At a glance

Where	Standing committees, Transit Commission, sub-committees and advisory committees. Not City Council.
Time limit	5 minutes, unless the committee grants more.
Register by phone	Before 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting.
Register by email	No later than 1 hour before the meeting starts.
Slides	Send to the Committee Coordinator by 4:00 PM on the last business day before.
Written comments	4:00 PM on the business day before. They reach Council until it considers the item.

All deadlines apply unless the agenda for that meeting says otherwise.

Where you can speak

• Committees only, not Council. The City’s page says presentations can be made only at standing and advisory committee meetings, and that public delegations are not in order at Council meetings. The by-law says oral submissions are made to Committees and Commissions, not to Council (s. 71).
• Written comments reach Council. Written submissions are accepted until the matter is considered by City Council, and can go to the Committee or Council coordinator for distribution to Members.
• One exception. Council sitting as Committee of the Whole may receive oral submissions by resolution, with prior notice at a regular meeting or in the draft agenda (s. 52(2)). This is unusual.

Registration and deadlines

• Phone: register with the Committee Coordinator before 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting.
• Email: register no later than one hour before the meeting’s start time.
• Agenda overrides: these deadlines apply unless the agenda says otherwise. Always check the specific agenda.
• What to provide: your name, telephone number, and email address if available. The Coordinator needs this to send you the Zoom information.
• By-law basis: delegates register with the Office of the City Clerk according to the timelines on the agenda (s. 83(5)(a)).

Format and time limit

• Time: no one may speak longer than five minutes without leave of the Committee (s. 83(5)). The committee can therefore grant more time.
• Hybrid participation: you can speak in person or by Zoom. No computer or camera is required, since you can join by calling a toll-free number.
• Slides: if you want to show a visual presentation such as PowerPoint, you must register and send the materials to the Committee Coordinator by 4:00 PM on the last business day before the meeting. The Coordinator shares your slides from their screen.
• Advisory committee representatives: one person (the Chair, Vice-Chair or a designated member) may speak for up to five minutes on any one item on the committee’s behalf (s. 83(5)(b)).

Written comments

• You can email the Committee Coordinator, or phone to have your comments transcribed.
• The deadline is 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting, unless the agenda says otherwise.
• The Committee gives written and oral comments equal consideration.
• Late comments go to all Members of Council before Council’s final consideration of the item.

Public record and conduct

• Written or verbal submissions become part of the public record. That includes your name but excludes personal contact information.
• The Mayor can expel a person for improper conduct, meaning conduct that obstructs the deliberations or proper action of Council (s. 12). The Chair has the same duty to maintain order at committee (s. 78(9)).
• Recording by members of the public is subject to the Mayor’s or Chair’s approval or direction (s. 97).
• In Council Chambers: placards and signs, megaphones, noisemakers and beverages are prohibited, and bags are inspected at security.

Tactical point

The consent agenda applies only when no speaker is registered (s. 84(1)). Items that pass on consent are adopted without debate. A registered delegate means the item gets discussed.

Items needing a statutory public hearing can’t be adopted on consent unless no speakers are registered and the Chair has invited submissions (s. 84(6)).

Caveats

1. The by-law text may be out of date. The City’s online version is a consolidation current to October 1, 2023. Councils typically review procedure by-laws each term, and a new term of Council begins this month, so confirm nothing has changed.
2. The City’s participation page has some pandemic-era wording and may lag current practice. For any meeting, the agenda and its “Notices and meeting information for meeting participants” document are the controlling instructions.
3. For a particular item, contact the Committee Coordinator listed on the agenda.

Other bodies have their own rules. The Ottawa Police Service Board and the Ottawa Public Library Board, for example, set theirs separately.

References

• City of Ottawa, “How to participate in Council and committee proceedings”: https://ottawa.ca/en/node/1000138
• City of Ottawa, Procedure By-law No. 2022-410 (ss. 12, 52, 71, 78, 83, 84, 97): https://ottawa.ca/en/node/1156841

#600 Gilgan's Largess lost in Total Hospital cost

 

The $50-Million Drop in a $10-Billion Bucket: Why the Gilgan Announcement Feels Like a Leacock Satire

It was supposed to be a day of unbridled celebration for Ottawa philanthropy. Standing alongside Premier Doug Ford, the Peter Gilgan Foundation triumphantly announced a historic $50-million donation to The Ottawa Hospital—the largest single philanthropic gift in the city's history. In exchange, the hospital's future state-of-the-art emergency, trauma, and ICU facility on Carling Avenue will officially bear the name the Peter Gilgan Critical Care Tower.

On paper, it looks like a staggering victory. The The Ottawa Hospital Foundation's Campaign to Create Tomorrow immediately watched its total haul rocket to $464 million, putting them within striking distance of their $500-million goal.

There is just one glaring, multi-billion-dollar problem: the project's math has completely unraveled.

The Evolution of a Price Tag

Only days before Gilgan’s historic generosity grabbed the headlines, Ontario Infrastructure Minister David Piccini dropped a bombshell during a Queens Park committee meeting. The provincial government’s investment alone has skyrocketed to "just shy of $10 billion".

To put that into context, the entire hospital project was originally expected to cost $2.8 billion. Over the last few years, due to what the province calls supply chain crunches, general inflation, and an "evolving scope" of community healthcare needs, the budget quietly quadrupled behind closed doors.

This massive budget surge turns an otherwise magnificent $50-million charity win into a stark mathematical reality check, bringing us face-to-face with the province's strict 90/10 hospital funding formula.

The "Local Share" Moving Target

In Ontario, the province funds 90% of a major hospital build, while the local municipality and community are legally obligated to raise the remaining 10% local share.

• The Old Math: Against a $2.8-billion project, the community needed to scratch together roughly $700 million. Between the Foundation's $500-million target and a $150-million pledge from Ottawa City Council, the numbers almost made sense.
• The New Math: Against a $10-billion provincial stake, the local community's 10% burden suddenly balloons to nearly $1 billion.

Suddenly, even with Peter Gilgan’s record-shattering $50 million safely in the bank, Ottawa is staring down a massive, looming local shortfall.

Pure Leacock Comedy

This bizarre disconnect reads like it was lifted directly out of Chapter 5 of Stephen Leacock's classic Canadian satire, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town. In Leacock's "Whirlwind Campaign in Mariposa," the townspeople whip themselves into a frenzy of high-energy, corporate-style fundraising lunches to wipe out a nagging church debt. They cheer, they make grand announcements, and they declare absolute victory—only to realize later that the money they raised barely covered the cost of the fundraising lunches themselves.

While Gilgan's real-world money obviously won't be spent on literal lunches, the structural irony is identical. We are watching a masterclass in civic cognitive dissonance: the city is aggressively celebrating reaching the finish line of a $500-million fundraising goal, while the actual goalpost has been silently moved hundreds of millions of dollars down the field.

The Finger-Pointing Begins

Predictably, the political blame game has immediately filled the void. The Ministry of Health has already released statements subtly chiding the City of Ottawa, pointing out that Ottawa's financial contribution to its hospital is just "a fraction" of what much smaller Ontario municipalities (like Oakville, Mississauga, or Windsor) cough up for their local builds. Meanwhile, local MPPs and municipal leaders are pushing back, noting that Ottawa’s infrastructure budget is already stretched to its absolute limit.

Peter Gilgan deserves immense credit—his foundation’s money will build world-class, vital trauma infrastructure that Ottawa desperately needs. But as the corporate hype clears, the cold, hard ledger remains. Ottawa's "Campaign to Create Tomorrow" is about to discover that "tomorrow" carries a much higher price tag than anyone is willing to publicly admit.

#599 Palantir in Ottawa?

Could Palantir-style technology help run Ottawa?

The city is a mess, and a new way of managing it is worth discussing. The idea behind the software matters more than the brand name on the contract.

Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, has been in the news again. On the company’s third-quarter earnings call on November 2, he argued that governments buying their own AI infrastructure is the company’s defining opportunity. He called it “Sovereign AI.” Reports on the call also said U.S. commercial revenue of $984 million outgrew the government book for the first time.

Karp is not an easy speaker to follow, so here is the plain version. Palantir sells software that pulls an organization’s scattered data into one place, builds a model of how that organization works, and lets people, and increasingly AI, make decisions on top of it. For a city that struggles to see how its own departments connect, that is worth thinking about.

What Palantir actually sells

Gotham

The original product, built for intelligence, military and law enforcement users. It connects data from many sources so analysts can see relationships and plan operations.

Foundry

The civilian and commercial version. It merges data from different systems, such as inventory, finance, patient records and supply chains, and builds workflows on top.

Ontology

A digital map of the organization: the real-world things it cares about (shipments, hospital beds, buses) and how they relate. It is the layer that lets software and AI “understand” the business.

AIP

Connects large language models to that map, so an AI can answer questions or take actions using the organization’s own data, within permissions and controls.

Apollo

The deployment layer that keeps the software running across cloud, on-premises and secure environments.

The idea: run the city as one connected system

Most city departments run their own systems, budgets and metrics. Nobody sees how a decision in one place affects another. A connected model would work differently:

• One shared data model of the city, where every asset, service request, project and budget line is a connected record.
• Decisions tied to live data instead of annual reports.
• Departments measured on outcomes, such as response times, backlogs and cost per result, and benchmarked against comparable cities.
• Public accountability built in, so residents can see the same core numbers council sees.

Where it could apply: transit, housing and policing

Transit

This is the best fit, because the data is mostly operational and not about individuals. Linking vehicle location, ridership, maintenance records, LRT fault logs, schedules and road works could predict breakdowns, show where buses lose time, and support a public reliability scorecard. The main risks are vendor lock-in and metrics being gamed, not privacy.

Housing

The data exists, but it is spread across many bodies. Connecting the housing registry waitlist, shelter occupancy, social housing repairs and vacancies, building permits and approvals would show where the pipeline actually jams: approvals, financing, repairs or intake. The risk is personal data. Records about shelter use and benefits are sensitive, so access limits and aggregation by default are essential.

Policing

This is where the same technology is most controversial. The strongest low-risk uses are workload and response-time analysis, overtime and budget tracking, and linking police, paramedic, mental health and housing data to find calls that would be better handled by someone else. The high-risk uses are predictive policing and individual risk-scoring. Critics argue these tend to reproduce where police have historically looked, not where crime actually is. If any police use goes ahead, it needs public rules on what data can be linked, independent audit, civilian oversight and no secret contracts.

The payoff across all three is that one person can appear in the shelter, emergency-call and hospital systems at once, and today nobody sees the total cost or the pattern. A connected model makes that visible, which is what lets a city shift money toward prevention. It is also the part that needs the strictest privacy rules.

Why it is a hard sell

• Cost and fit. Palantir is built for very large clients such as militaries, national health systems and big corporations. A municipality may get most of the benefit from cheaper, simpler tools or from fixing its own data problems first.
• Lock-in. Once a city’s data is modelled in a vendor’s proprietary layer, switching away is hard and expensive.
• Data sovereignty. Experts have raised the concern that a 2018 U.S. law could compel American companies to hand data to the U.S. government, wherever it is stored. Municipal data includes sensitive information about residents, and the federal government has promised its own data sovereignty strategy.
• Transparency. Federal dealings with Palantir have drawn criticism for how quietly they were done. Reporting found that National Defence quietly extended a Gotham deal a dozen times between 2020 and 2025, with its estimated value rising from $14.4 million to $44.4 million, and that a separate $3.7 million contract surfaced only after an MP asked about federal AI contracts.
• The other view. The Defence Minister has defended the newer contract as a legitimate procurement with Palantir’s Canadian branch. Supporters of the technology point to its record on large, complicated data problems.

The software is the easy 20 percent. Most government digital transformations fail because departments won’t share data, metrics get gamed, procurement locks the city into one vendor, or a platform gets bought without anyone changing how decisions are made.

A 90-day pilot

If Ottawa wanted to test this, the aim should be real results and clear rules before anything large is bought.

Days 1 to 30: foundations and rules

• Name one accountable executive, a small cross-department team, and an independent privacy and legal adviser.
• Publish the principles first: Canadian data residency, no secret contracts, privacy impact assessments, aggregated data by default, a public register of what data is linked and why, and an exit plan for any vendor.
• Inventory the data in transit, housing and policing: who owns it, what it holds, how clean it is, and what legal limits apply. This step needs no software and is usually the most revealing.
• Choose two or three specific questions and set baseline metrics, such as why a development permit takes as long as it does at each step, or where transit loses the most time.

Days 31 to 60: build a small, real version

• Start with transit as the quick win: link vehicle, schedule and maintenance data and publish one reliability scorecard.
• Build the housing pipeline view using aggregate data only.
• For policing, do governance and analysis only: workload, response times and call types. No predictive or individual-level tools.
• Use cheap, replaceable tools: open data standards, a city-controlled data layer, hosted in Canada. Any vendor demo, Palantir’s included, should be a bounded trial with no long-term commitment.

Days 61 to 90: test, publish, decide

• Use the integrated view on two or three real operating or budget decisions and see whether it changed them.
• Publish a results report covering what worked, the data-quality problems and the cost.
• Get an independent review and open it to council and public questions.
• Make a go or no-go call on scaling, with a procurement process that compares options instead of defaulting to one vendor.

Success at day 90 would be a public dashboard residents can use, a documented data inventory the city didn’t have before, one or two visibly better-informed decisions, a governance framework that survives scrutiny, and an evidence-based answer to whether a big platform is needed or lighter tools do the job.

The bottom line

Ottawa needs a better way to see and manage itself, and a connected, outcome-based model is a reasonable direction. But the paradigm is the valuable part, not any one product. A city can adopt the approach with a city-owned data layer, open standards and Canadian hosting, and keep control of its own data and its own decisions. Whether Palantir has a role should be decided by an open comparison against those alternatives, in public, and not by a quiet contract.

Sources

• 24/7 Wall St.: Karp bets on Sovereign AI as Palantir’s next growth engine (November 2, 2026)
• 24/7 Wall St.: Palantir Q3 2026, commercial revenue tops government for the first time
• The Peak: Why are security experts worried about Canada’s secret Palantir contracts? (June 6, 2026)
• Investigative Journalism Foundation: NDP’s Lewis slams secret federal contract with Palantir (June 5, 2026)
• Toronto Star reporting on the Defence Department’s $3.7 million Palantir contract and the Defence Minister’s response (2026)

Based on the above and Dr. Karp's sales pitch, why should Ottawa choose Palantir blog and Karp’s recent pitch is that Ottawa should not default to “choose Palantir.” It should test whether a Palantir-style connected data model delivers measurable operational gains under public rules, city control, and open comparison—then decide. The valuable part is running the city as one shared data model (an “Ontology” of objects, links, and actions) with live data, outcome metrics, and public accountability, instead of siloed departmental systems.
Transit: Link operational data for predictions and public scorecards (lower privacy risk).

Housing: Connect waitlists, permits, and outcomes to surface bottlenecks (use aggregates where possible).

Policing: Low-risk uses like workload and response analysis; high-risk predictive tools would need strict public rules, independent audits, and civilian oversight.

The payoff described is visibility into patterns that no single department currently sees (e.g., the same person appearing across shelter, emergency, and hospital systems, and the total cost or trajectory). 

Note that many government digital projects fail because of data-sharing problems, gamed metrics, or poor procurement, not lack of software.⁠Peterkarwacki.blogspot

The counter-arguments: high cost and questionable municipal fit, vendor lock-in, data-sovereignty exposure under U.S. law, transparency problems (quiet federal extensions of Gotham deals, late revelations of contract values), and bias risks in any predictive policing use. 

The recommended path is a 90-day pilot (data inventory and rules → small working versions → published results and open comparison) with Canadian residency principles, city-owned layers where feasible, and no secret contracts.⁠Peterkarwacki.blogspot

Bottom line in the post: “The paradigm is the valuable part, not any one product… 

Whether Palantir has a role should be decided by an open comparison against those alternatives, in public, and not by a quiet contract.”

What Karp’s recent sales pitch adds

On the Q3 2026 earnings call (the one the post references), Karp framed “Sovereign AI” as a defining opportunity and noted that U.S. commercial revenue ($984 million) had overtaken government revenue for the first time. The pitch emphasizes rapid value through intensive bootcamps rather than long traditional pilots, an Ontology that lets organizations (or partners) build operational AI on their own data, and the ability to turn pilots into production contracts quickly. 

He has also criticized slow AI adoption outside the U.S. and China (including in Canada), arguing that hesitancy creates political and economic pressure.⁠Peterkarwacki.blogspot

In other words, the commercial pitch is: the platform already works at scale for complex operational problems, customers can get results fast, and “sovereign” deployment options exist.

Combined case for why Ottawa might choose it (under these conditions)

1. It matches the problem diagnosed — Ottawa’s data is fragmented across transit, housing, social services, and policing. A working Ontology + decision layer can surface total costs and patterns that siloed systems hide, supporting the shift toward prevention and outcome measurement you describe.
2. Proven on large, messy data problems — Federal defence use (and the Defence Minister’s defense of it as legitimate) is cited as evidence that the tools handle serious data environments. Commercial traction supports the claim that it is not only a government specialty product.
3. Speed of value — Karp’s bootcamp/model is designed to produce usable results quickly rather than multi-year IT projects that often fail. Your 90-day pilot structure is compatible with that approach.
4. Accountability potential — Public dashboards, published inventories, and outcome scorecards (transit, housing bottlenecks) can be built on top of the model if the city insists on them from day one.

The constraints the blog itself imposes

Even the positive case is conditional. Choosing Palantir only makes sense if the city keeps control (data residency, open standards or export paths to limit lock-in), runs a transparent pilot with published results and competing options, restricts high-risk uses (especially predictive policing), and treats any contract as a public decision rather than a quiet extension. The federal record of under-disclosed or quietly expanded deals is exactly the pattern your post flags as a problem.

Net: based on the blog + Karp’s pitch, Ottawa should choose the connected, outcome-oriented operating model. It should choose Palantir only if a short, public, controlled pilot shows it is the best practical way to get that model, with the city’s data and decision rights protected. The brand is secondary to the paradigm and the process.

i 

 In 2026, Palantir Technologies CEO Dr. Alex Karp public messaging has centered around geopolitical techno-nationalism, the "Sovereign AI" movement, a massive cultural manifesto.

The core themes

1. The "Sovereign AI" Manifesto (The Technological Republic)
A 22-point manifesto on X summarizing Karp’s core philosophical work,
The Technological Republic.  Karp's stance on tech and governance: [1, 2, 3]
The "Moral Debt" of Tech: Karp claimed that Silicon Valley engineering elites owe a moral debt to the United States and have an absolute obligation to build software for national defense rather than just creating consumer applications and "the tyranny of apps". [1, 2, 3]
Hard Power and Warfare: He asserted that the survival of democratic societies requires hard power built on software, stating that AI weapons will be built and western nations cannot pause for "theatrical debates" while adversaries move ahead. [1, 2, 3]
Universal National Service: Karp advocated for moving away from an all-volunteer military, suggesting society seriously consider reinstating a universal national draft so all citizens share the risk of future conflicts. [1, 2, 3]

Cultural Superiority: He stirred controversy by criticizing post-WWII pacifism/disarmament in Germany and Japan, arguing that some cultures are "harmful" or "middling" and that hollow pluralism must be rejected in favor of Western strength. [1, 2, 3]
2. Geopolitics & AI Dynamics ("Us vs. Them")
Karp has consistently framed the ongoing AI race as a binary, high-stakes battle for global dominance: [1, 2]

The China Threat: In several forums, Karp warned that China is "doing exceedingly well at AI," calling it a "super high IQ scaled culture". He bluntly summarized the geopolitical reality as an "us or them" scenario where American technological supremacy is the only thing capable of preventing global wars. [1]

Support for Allies: Karp reiterated his fierce public alignment with Israel and Western defense forces, asserting that Palantir is proud to serve the "warfighter" directly on the front lines in modern conflicts (such as Ukraine). [1, 2, 3]
3. Corporate AI Reality vs. "Selling Crap"
Karp has sharply criticized how the broader tech industry approaches enterprise AI, distinguishing Palantir's Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) from its competitors: [1, 2]

Condemning Frontier Labs: Karp ripped standard frontier AI labs for trying to "colonize your enterprise" by convincing companies to pay for expensive tokens that effectively transfer corporate intellectual property and alpha to the tech giants. [1, 2]

Fixing How AI is Sold: During a CNBC interview, he stated that "something has gone completely wrong" with the way AI is currently being marketed and sold, arguing that most products fail to translate into tangible, real-world utility. [1]
4. Financial "Vindication" and Taunting Wall Street
Following Palantir's extraordinary Q3 2026 earnings report—where revenue grew 96% year-over-year and commercial sales surpassed government sales for the first time—Karp took a victory lap: [1, 2]

The Binary Future: In his Q3 Letter to Shareholders, Karp noted that the AI revolution is creating a stark divide between the "haves and have-nots," writing that legacy companies who fail to adapt face a "lonely middle" that is "little more than a barren wasteland".

Insatiable Demand: He noted on earnings calls that demand for Palantir’s products is entirely "insatiable" and far larger than the company has the capacity to service.

A Message to Short-Sellers: At the close of the November 2026 earnings call, Karp bypassed traditional Wall Street analysts to speak directly to retail investors. He thanked early backers for defending the company against "ridiculously stupid and malicious" attacks, adding: "Part of what motivates me is helping to make sure we are fighting for you and, quite frankly, making sure that the people that made fun of you and made fun of us are suffering." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. Career & Job Advice in the AI Era
Karp has also offered blunt assessments regarding how AI will reshape human labor, challenging conventional Western assumptions: [1, 2]
The Death of Elite Humanities: Speaking on the impact of AI on white-collar jobs, Karp noted that AI will heavily disrupt roles relying solely on theoretical knowledge. He used himself as an example, stating: "You went to an elite school, and you studied philosophy... Hopefully, you have some other skill. That one is going to be hard to market." [1, 2]
The Rise of Vocational and Neurodivergent Workers: Conversely, Karp argued that the individuals who will thrive most in the AI era are those with technical vocational training (who can be rapidly upskilled by AI) and neurodivergent individuals with unique, outlier cognitive aptitudes. [1, 2]

 Palantir's 22-point summary of Karp's book:

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.

2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible.

3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public.

4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.

6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.

7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm's way.

8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive.

9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.

11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.

13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet.

14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war.

15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.

16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk's interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.

18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all.

20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite's intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.

21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5]





5. Career & Job Advice in the AI Era
Karp has also offered blunt assessments regarding how AI will reshape human labor, challenging conventional Western assumptions: [1, 2]
The Death of Elite Humanities: Speaking on the impact of AI on white-collar jobs, Karp noted that AI will heavily disrupt roles relying solely on theoretical knowledge. He used himself as an example, stating: "You went to an elite school, and you studied philosophy... Hopefully, you have some other skill. That one is going to be hard to market." [1, 2]
The Rise of Vocational and Neurodivergent Workers: Conversely, Karp argued that the individuals who will thrive most in the AI era are those with technical vocational training (who can be rapidly upskilled by AI) and neurodivergent individuals with unique, outlier cognitive aptitudes. [1, 2]