Pierre Poilievre’s call for the Carney government to

permanently scrap the temporary foreign workers program

may well prove to be a winner with voters who agree with the Conservative leader that the Liberals broke the immigration system.

But that doesn’t make it good policy, or even a smart political move in the long run.

Poilievre was accompanied at the announcement by the party’s immigration critic, Michelle Rempel Garner, who is the driving force behind the policy.

She said that young Canadians can’t even think about buying a house or starting a family without a good paying job. Today, they can’t secure those jobs because they can’t find entry-level positions, even with a university degree. Those of us who are parents of young people struggling to launch are all too aware of the cold reality of a

youth unemployment rate of around 15 per cent

.

Rempel Garner said the social contract has been broken and part of the blame lies with the temporary foreign workers program, which has foreigners competing with Canadians for entry-level jobs. The majority of those positions are on farms, in restaurants and in homes as child-care providers. But as the government’s own statistics show, permits are issued for jobs as diverse as graphic designers and comedians.

Poilievre took up the case from there, pointing out that what he calls “generation screwed” is the first generation of Canadians that can’t afford a house.

He said the Liberals brought in “too many (workers), too fast,” and he’s not wrong. After the pandemic, with the job vacancy rate heading towards one million, the government panicked and opened the floodgates by creating a parallel immigration system of temporary workers and international students. Then immigration minister

Sean Fraser ignored warnings by his own department

that allowing a tsunami of foreign students into the country, and allowing them to work off-campus, would lead to “program integrity” concerns.

Instead, he listened to employers who warned that the economy would seize up without hundreds of thousands of new workers.

In the event, the number of temporary workers increased 88 per cent and the number of international students by 126 per cent between 2019 and 2023. Work-permit–holder numbers rose to 1.58 million, or nearly seven per cent of the workforce.

The changes created a large pool of cheap labour: the Immigration Department’s own figures suggested that 80 per cent of international students were working more than 20 hours a week.

But, as the government was all too aware, the newcomers would be competing with Canadians for work once the economy cooled.

A

paper prepared for the Department of Employment and Social Development in 2023

, concluded that there was a negative correlation between the number of temporary workers employed and the annual earnings of Canadians employed in the same firm at the lowest levels. Not only that, but the number of temporary workers correlated with higher earnings for Canadian workers at the upper end of the firm’s earnings ladder. In other words, it was no wonder employers and bosses wanted more temporary workers: it made them richer.

The public intuited that the government had broken the system, undermining a remarkable consensus in favour of mass immigration.

A Leger poll for the Association of Canadian Studies last December

concluded that 65 per cent of voters believed Canada was accepting too many legal immigrants, up from just 35 per cent in March 2019.

The Liberals belatedly realized that they’d screwed up, and

reduced targets of temporary workers

to 82,000 a year and foreign students to 286,000 this year and 128,7000 next.

New restrictions ended the policy of allowing visitors to apply for a work permit while in Canada; restricted the work eligibility of spouses; and, brought in new rules that aligned post-graduation work permits to market needs. The goal remains to reduce the number of temporary–work-permit holders to five per cent of the workforce by the end of next year.

But as

then immigration minister Marc Miller admitted last year

: “We didn’t turn the taps down fast enough.”

Poilievre is likely aligned with Canadian public opinion in his criticism of Tim Hortons for increasing its use of temporary workers by 1,135 per cent in the last four years. (Tims said that less than five per cent of its workers are hired through the program, “generally in small towns and communities where local candidates are not available.” Still, that’s around 5,000 jobs.)

“The principle is very simple: Canadian jobs for Canadian workers,” Poilievre said this week. “Temporary foreign workers are not bad people — they are being taken advantage of by Liberal corporate elites who want to drive down wages. The time has come for decisive action.”

But while he has correctly identified the disease, it is less clear he has found the cure.

The Conservative plan would create a standalone program for seasonal agricultural workers and the food processing industry.

But ending the issuance of new permits cold turkey is likely to result in a completely different set of unintended consequences than the ill-advised policy that caused the problem in the first place.

The program should return to its original intent of allowing firms to hire foreign workers when qualified Canadians are not available, gradually reducing the number of temporary foreign workers as a share of the low-skill workforce.

That is what the Liberal reforms are trying to do, although as Poilievre pointed out, it looks like the government won’t hit its target in 2025.

However, a hard stop to the program is likely to give labour markets whiplash.

From a political perspective, it’s not an obvious win for Poilievre, even if the public is sympathetic to the intent.

His critics cite this as another example of him fighting the culture wars. That’s unfair: he was clear he was not demonizing foreign workers or regular immigrants.

But it is undoubtedly a hardening of the party’s position from the 2025 platform, which talked about dramatically reducing the number of temporary foreign workers and international students.

Poilievre seems to be more concerned about his leadership review in January than winning votes from people who didn’t vote for him last time.

This — and other immigration-reform positions to come — are Rempel Garner’s work and it should have been her show. There are many able Conservative MPs who have been reduced to bobbleheads by the leader and that must change.

Scrapping the temporary foreign worker program is a valid, if misguided, response to the crisis in youth unemployment.

But the risk for Poilievre is that he’s shrinking, not expanding, his pool of available voters.

National Post

jivison@criffel.ca

• John Ivison: Liberals’ EV mandate will see Canada’s carmakers paying billions to Elon Musk
• John Ivison: Carney’s reputation is holding up better outside of Canada than in

Leadership in the fight against antisemitism is measured not by words, but by action. This week, Quebec MP Anthony Housefather and 31 of his Liberal colleagues signed a statement on “the deplorable rise of antisemitism in Canada.”

It was a clear, moral and necessary acknowledgement of the hatred that is endangering Jewish-Canadians. The statement recognized that a Jewish woman was stabbed in Ottawa solely because she was Jewish; that synagogues, schools and Jewish-owned businesses are under threat; that monuments have been defaced; and that this reality has become chillingly normalized in our country.

It drew a link between October 7 and the rising tide of antisemitism, while also pointing to statistics showing that the Jewish community, representing just one per cent of the Canadian population, is the target of 70 per cent of hate crimes. The MPs are correct: antisemitism is a spreading plague that demands action.

And yet, the deafening silence in response spoke louder than the statement itself. Out of 169 Liberal members of Parliament, only 31 joined Housefather in signing the statement. Of those, at least five are Jewish.

In other words, just 26 non-Jewish Liberal MPs supported a document that did not advance a political agenda, but simply condemned hate against Jews. Worse, around 80 per cent of the governing caucus could not even bring themselves to sign a straightforward denunciation of antisemitism. The absence of signatures exposed a void of moral courage at the very heart of our government.

This is not new in Canada. Our history is littered with examples where political leaders failed the test of moral courage, only to apologize decades later. Ottawa has formally apologized for the horrors of the residential school system, the internment of Japanese-Canadians, the internment of Italian-Canadians, the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants, the shameful Komagata Maru incident, the systemic racism faced by the No. 2 Construction Battalion, the mistreatment of LGBT citizens and the turning away of the MS St. Louis, a ship carrying Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

The pattern is painfully familiar: when minorities are in crisis, political leaders lack the clarity of vision to defend them in real time. Decades later, apologies are offered, but the damage is irreparable. Something is deeply broken in our system when the protection of minorities depends on political expediency rather than enduring moral principles.

What makes this even more troubling is that these MPs are not calling on an abstract body to act — they’re calling out their own government. Their statement appealed to law enforcement, schools and institutions, but the government is not a bystander in this crisis. It has the power to legislate and to enforce. And yet, 137 of Housefather’s own colleagues failed to answer that call.

This failure matters. It’s a signal to antisemites that even in the face of violence, even when a Jewish woman is stabbed in public, condemnation is not unanimous, not resolute and not bipartisan.

My hope is that this fall, Parliament will table and pass serious hate crime legislation that addresses the new realities of social media and extremist networks. But even that will not be enough. A picture is building of a government failing to rally against antisemitism, while siding with Hamas and declaring it will recognize a Palestinian state, even though such a state currently does not exist by any reasonable definition.

Foreign policy is being driven not by logic but by internal demographics, and by an instinct to appease rather than to lead on principle. A system of government that bows to shifting demographics rather than moral clarity will always fail the most vulnerable.

Housefather’s letter, though admirable and probably meant to appease his constituents, would have carried greater weight had it been backed by more Liberals (including the prime minister) and by MPs from other parties. This would have sent a message that the fight against antisemitism transcends politics. The abysmal response to this statement did more harm than good, proving why the Jewish community and its allies are losing faith in this government.

If the Liberal party was once based on equity and inclusivity, this exercise has proven otherwise. Housefather’s letter will stand as historic evidence of who stood up to antisemitism and who was silent and complicit.

National Post

Avi Benlolo is the chairman and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative.

• Richard Robertson: Ottawa must start taking online youth radicalization seriously
• David J. Bercuson: By recognizing ‘Palestine,” Carney upends 80 years of Canadian foreign policy

Several major media outlets reported this week that an association of leading genocide scholars had passed

a resolution

condemning Israel’s war in Gaza. Yet, online sleuths

quickly discovered

that the story was a sham, as the organization has no real membership requirements and seemingly torqued its processes to reach a preordained conclusion.

The resolution, which declared that Israel’s actions “meet the legal definition of genocide,” was passed on Sunday by the

International Association of Genocide Scholars

(IAGS), a roughly 500-member organization that produces

peer-reviewed research

and biennial conferences related to the history and prevention of genocide.

Only 129 individuals participated in the vote, representing approximately 28 per cent of the IAGS’s members and barely meeting the quorum requirements established by its

bylaws

. Of those who voted, 86 per cent were in favour of labelling Israel’s actions genocidal.

The story was immediately and enthusiastically amplified.

The Washington Post, for example,

published an article

claiming that the world’s “oldest and largest association of genocide scholars” had added their voice to “a growing chorus from human rights organizations and academics concluding that Israel is committing genocide.” The Guardian

similarly published

an article claiming that the “world’s leading genocide scholars” had deemed Israel guilty of the crime, while

BBC’s headline

read: “Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s leading experts say.”

Reuters, too, produced a

syndicated report

on how the “world’s biggest academic association of genocide scholars” had condemned Israel’s actions. “This is a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide,” said the associations president, Melanie O’Brien, in that piece.

The majority of this reporting failed to acknowledge the fact that membership participation in the vote had been dismal. The Guardian erroneously claimed, for example, that an “overwhelmingly majority of members” had supported the resolution, while The Washington Post misleadingly quoted an IAGS board member in a manner that suggested organization-wide consensus on Israel.

In a

filmed interview with ABC

(an Australian channel) on Tuesday, O’Brien said that the low participation rate was “quite standard,” and claimed that the IAGS’s members “mainly consist of people who are academics, so scholarly experts, but our membership is also made up of people who come from different communities within the field of genocide prevention, education, and punishment.”

That evening, Honest Reporting, an organization dedicated to exposing anti-Israel media bias, decided to test the credibility of O’Brien’s claims about her organization’s expertise.

They discovered that, although the IAGS presents itself as an collection of “experts in the field of genocide studies,” it actually

has no membership requirements

. For as little as $30, anyone can join and call themselves a “genocide scholar.” Furthermore, Iraq, a country that produces a negligible amount of genocide scholarship, was inexplicably overrepresented in the membership list, with 80 individuals hailing from the country (including five faceless profiles who appeared to come from the same family).

After these findings were made public, the IAGS was inundated with

new applications

, many of them satirical. To the internet’s amusement, the organization’s roster of “genocide experts” grew to include

Adolf Hitler

, Emperor Palpatine (the Star Wars villain) and Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster wearing a Hamas headband.

The IAGS

responded

by shutting down its X profile, deactivating at least some of these new accounts and removing the membership list from public view.

It seems that, not only that IAGS members may be far less credentialed than claimed, its status as the world’s oldest and largest association of genocide scholars may not actually be that impressive. While there are a

handful of organizations

that deal with genocide education across the globe, only two position themselves as scholarly entities: the IAGS and

International Network of Genocide Scholars

(the latter was founded in 2005).

The framing used by some major media outlets over the past week has given the impression that the IAGS is an eminent leader in a well-populated field of competitors. In reality, it is the “oldest” and “largest” organization in a niche of two.

Further undermining the IAGS’s credibility, one longtime member, Sara Brown, published

a thread on X

this week claiming that the process behind the Israel resolution had been “a disaster from start to finish.” Brown, who has a PhD in genocide studies and

wrote a book on Rwanda

, claimed that members who opposed the resolution “tried to submit our concerns for discussion but were blocked by the leadership.”

She said that critics “were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions,” only for the president (O’Brien) to reverse this. According to Brown, the association refused to disclose the resolution’s authors, which frustrated her as the document was “poorly cited,” included “unsubstantiated claims” and perpetuated “intentionally distorted” analysis. “Anyone who considers themself a genocide scholar should feel embarrassed by this vote,” she wrote.

An article

written by O’Brien earlier this year for Opinio Juris, an international law blog, confirms that the president passionately believes that Israel has been committing genocide – a perspective she also alluded to in her recent ABC interview.

For now, none of the major media outlets which promoted the IAGS’s resolution have issued updates or corrections, addressing the organization’s non-existent membership standards. Thanks to this reckless journalism, many readers will be given the impression that a consensus on Israel exists among genocide scholars, when, in fact, it does not.

National Post

A question that is about to break like a tsunami over social media:

wait, did Malcolm Gladwell really say that?

On Tuesday, the renowned Ontarian journalist, podcaster and former youth track star

appeared on the Real Science of Sport podcast

, and you would have to say he immediately established a hell of a pace.

Co-host Mike Finch observed at the outset of the 108-minute video chat that his colleague, South African sports scientist Ross Tucker, had previously met Gladwell in 2022 at the annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Tucker had appeared

on a panel

about “the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports,” representing the position that biological-male physical advantages in women’s athletic competitions are fundamental, incorrigible and incompatible with the entire concept of a women’s competition. Gladwell had served as moderator.

As soon as Tucker mentioned the panel on the podcast, Gladwell observed that it had clearly been “stacked” against him. “My recollection of it,” said a chuckling Tucker, “was that everything I said was met with deathly silence, and everything the other (panellists) said got cheered.” Gladwell attested that 2022 “was a particular moment, which has passed. If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan Conference this coming March, it runs in exactly the opposite direction. And it would be, I suspect, near-unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in the female category. I don’t think there’s any question.”

“I’m ashamed of my performance at that panel,” Gladwell added, “because I share your position

a hundred per cent

, and I was cowed. The idea of saying anything on this issue … I believe, in retrospect, I was objective (as a panel moderator) in a dishonest way. I let a lot of howlers pass.” Gladwell further explained that the discussion itself was a moment of dawning for him: in real time he saw the old trans-inclusion arguments that there is no meaningful male advantage give way suddenly to the attitude that, in the words of a trans athlete on the panel with Tucker, “you have to let us win.”

Gladwell — who, remember, was a genuinely elite 1,500-metre and mile track competitor as a teenager — then spent about 10 minutes talking with Tucker about the plain preposterousness of allowing biological men and boys to compete in women’s and girls’ sport. He emphasized his own cowardice in a way that has already

infuriated some commentators

who upheld the sane position all along. (Tucker, it should be said, is not among the infuriated:

he tweeted on Tuesday about his own memory of the 2022 Sloan panel

, describing it as a “car crash,” but doesn’t think Gladwell did a bad job.)

Asked how he accounts for the great force of the now-receding moral mania surrounding trans athletes, Gladwell said: “I think in retrospect we will look back on the COVID period as a period of profound cultural destabilization. I think we all went crazy. And, I think, for understandable reasons! It was a crazy period! … There was just a kind of discontinuity that lasted for about two-and-a-half, three years. And what we’ve done is, we’ve, in some sense, returned to normal.”

Gladwell adds that “it’s harder and harder and harder to make a naïve argument about trans participation; the evidence is now mounting, so that even the advocates are now having to shift their feet and make a different claim.” I.e., an unconditional demand for inclusion at all costs, rather than contrived reassurance that the innate male athletic advantage can be mitigated.

If it needs saying, Malcolm Gladwell is a big deal. He is thought to have sold 23 million books in North America, and is probably one of the top five bestselling Canadian authors who have ever lived. His brand of anecdotal pop social-science has been applauded and condemned, sometimes by the same people at different moments, and he has a gift for making provocative, even radical-sounding utterances without escaping the political boundaries of polite liberal consensus.

He is probably well aware of the abuse and threats J.K. Rowling has experienced for having sinful opinions about exclusive social spaces for women and girls. He is bound to know, or will find out by the end of the week, that he is painting a target on himself. Some critics will find “COVID drove everybody crazy” to be an insufficient or superficial excuse, despite the self-evident element of accuracy in it, and some of those people, of course, actually did stand up against a moral stampede while it was still in progress. But if Gladwell is more culpable because he is rich and famous and successful, surely he has to be given greater credit for the risk he is taking now.

National Post

In yet another sign that Canada’s social fabric is unravelling, Montreal police recently

arrested

a 17-year-old boy who’s alleged to have been planning a violent act in the name of the Islamic State.

Cyberspace has emerged as the frontline in the battle against extremist and radical ideologies that endanger Canada’s democracy. Canadian youth, a cohort of society that is especially vulnerable to such indoctrination, have become unwitting casualties in this fight.

B’nai Brith Canada has backed common-sense proposals to rein in the proliferation of extremist content on the internet. But the solution to this problem is offline.

Incidents such as the alleged terrorist plotter who was arrested in Montreal are becoming more common, even though successive governments have raised concerns about the rise of extremist ideologies among Canadian youth. This crisis has accelerated since Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel ignited a firestorm of hate targeting Jews around the globe, including in Canada.

In December 2023, the RCMP warned of a growing trend of “terrorist use of the internet” in a press release announcing the arrest of an Ottawa teen on terrorism charges. Two months later, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre

cited

the Israel-Hamas war as a source of religious and ideological tensions that could spill over into violence.

In September 2024, police apprehended an international student, a Pakistani national, who is alleged to have plotted to kill Jews in New York City. During 2024, terrorist threats such as these surged to an unprecedented level. The RCMP noted a 488 per cent increase in terrorism charges compared to the previous year.

Radicals from across the ideological spectrum have used the conflict in the Middle East to amplify their messaging, leveraging novel digital means to reach younger audiences. On the far right, groups such as the Maniac Murder Cult (MKY), a white supremacist network, have influenced Canadian youths to engage in real-world acts of hate.

Police in Manitoba, for instance, charged a teen linked to MKY with terror-related offences earlier this year. The accused allegedly engaged in a spate of depraved vandalism, which included spray-painting racist and antisemitic graffiti.

This alarming trend suggests that the extremist vitriol festering on the internet is seeping into the daily lives of Canadians. It is not relegated to individual, thwarted terrorist attacks. For months, radicalized youths have led and participated in rallies and university encampments across the country, which have often glorified terrorist groups and featured slogans exhorting violence.

Our society must take adequate steps to insulate impressionable Canadians from radical narratives that threaten Canadian values. Governments at all levels cannot divorce what is happening online from the recent terrorism-related threats and the rise in hate, division and incitement on our streets.

Legislation can and should be part of the solution. Any formal review of online harms policies must consider the evolving nature of digital radicalization. This should be paired with changes to the Criminal Code. When radical voices use online platforms to traffic in hate speech or incite violence, they must be held accountable, even if they attempt to justify what they say in the name of protected speech.

Lawmakers must also heed the warnings of Canada’s national security establishment, which has sought greater resources for agencies such as the RCMP and other institutions tasked with confronting the rise of domestic extremism.

Likewise, given the international scale of digital radicalization, Ottawa should amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to strengthen Canada’s capacity to properly vet those with a history of propagating extremist ideologies.

At the same time, the cultural and political dimensions of youth radicalization should not be discounted. As a society, we have a duty to protect the next generation of Canadians from malign influences. In the face of the extremist threat, Canada’s future hinges on its ability to instill Canadian values in Canadian youth.

National Post

Richard Robertson is director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada.

• Opinion: Muslim radicalization has increased, not decreased, since 9/11
• Joe Adam George: Islamist group using Canada to plot caliphate schemes must be banned

Artificial intelligence 

companies are flagrantly scraping and summarizing content directly from published news articles via retrieval-augmented generation. News media is by far the most frequently cited source of current information for large language models (LLMs), which are using news content without authorization or fair compensation. AI overviews combine many sources of unlicensed content to provide an effective substitute to the original source. With the user staying within Big Tech’s increasingly taller walled garden, rather than being pointed electronically to news websites via links, publishers are deprived of audience and their ability to sell advertising and subscriptions is significantly diminished. No clicks mean no cash for news businesses. Yet, AI companies are selling ads against copyrighted (and often paywalled) content as well as subscriptions for their premium products.

AI slop can be harmful to readers

There are plenty of examples of AI overviews serving up slop: inaccurate, irrelevant, out-of-date and even harmful information. That is because the large language models do not adhere to journalistic standards; they cannot perceive reality, truth or facts without (mis-)using the work of human journalists and content creators. According to the

BBC

, “AI assistants have significant issues with basic factual accuracy … The range of errors introduced by AI assistants is wider than just factual inaccuracies. The AI assistants we tested struggled to differentiate between opinion and fact, editorialized, and often failed to include essential context. Even when each statement in a response is accurate, these types of issues can result in responses which are misleading or biased.”

If publishers cannot monetize content, they cannot reinvest in the accurate and authoritative journalism readers rely upon to make informed decisions that empower them to participate effectively in democratic processes.

AI companies are stealing our content and using it to compete against us. They are strip-mining and cannibalizing proprietary content and are free riding on the backs of news publishers while unlawfully enriching themselves. In essence, they are unlicensed news syndicators. That’s unfair. That’s anti-competitive. It runs counter to the interests of the news media and the wider public, while undermining government’s drive to encourage AI development and adoption, as this depends on access to high-quality data and information created by humans.

A possible Canada-European Union Digital Trade Agreement could help scale Canadian and European innovation leaders, while ensuring the ethical, positive and responsible use of AI through reasonable guardrails: First, intellectual property should be protected. Second, platforms should provide fair compensation to publishers. Third, platforms should provide clear attribution to source content. Fourth, publishers should be allowed to opt out of AI overviews without their websites being removed from search engines. Fifth, platforms should not discriminate in the ranking of search results.

In negotiating a possible DTA, we recommend trade negotiators consider the 

Global Principles for Artificial Intelligence

, which were developed in 2023 by 26 organizations around the world, including News Media Canada and News Media Europe. Those principles include:

• Respecting intellectual property rights, protecting the organizations’ investments in original content
• Leveraging efficient licensing models that can facilitate innovation through training of trustworthy and high-quality AI systems
• Providing granular transparency to allow publishers to enforce their rights where their content is included in training datasets
• Clearly attributing content to the original publishers of the content.

Copyright protections must be properly enforced

We also encourage Canadian and European negotiators to consider the power imbalance between news publishers and dominant online platforms and services, and to put in place measures to address the massive bargaining imbalance.

The U.S. administration’s

AI Action Plan

seeks “to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance,” and it does not even mention the word “copyright.” Against that backdrop, Canada and the EU should align through regulatory co-operation to support homegrown, decentralized, fair and responsible tech development, while protecting intellectual property, so that news publishers can continue to invest in fact-based, fact-checked original high-quality news content produced by real journalists.

Real, trustworthy news is an antidote to the proliferation of misinformation online. With a framework backed up by the teeth of enforcement, it contributes to the sustainability of reliable, innovative AI models themselves.

A free, independent and pluralistic press is a cornerstone of western democracy. Journalism plays a critical role in holding power to account, informing citizens and providing resilience against the rising tide of information manipulation and state-sponsored propaganda.

But today, the unchecked spread of AI-generated content by platforms and chatbots — delivered without fact-checking, transparency or legal accountability — risks eroding public trust in professional verified editorial sources. When synthetic information is treated as equivalent to journalism, the very foundations of public discourse and democratic decision-making are weakened.

To ensure our free and plural press remains commercially viable, AI providers should not use publishers’ content to build and run their products without consent, credit and compensation.

Special to Postmedia News

Paul Deegan is the CEO of News Media Canada. Wout van Wijk is the Executive Director of News Media Europe.

Reprinted with permission from PressGazette: Future of Media

• Lawsuits allege AI chatbots have pushed kids to die by suicide. Is the technology safe for children?
• Google AI Overview’s health advice: Eat a rock a day, and go jump off a bridge