Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Canada 2020, “Independent” Liberal Think Tank; Recovery Summit; Guilbeault Interview On Internet Regulation

Canada 2020 calls itself Canada’s leading, independent progressive think-tank. Keep the term “independent” in mind, as it will become important later on.

In the following sections, the group identifies as an active member of the Global Progress network, with a goal to build a community of progressive ideas and people that will move and shape governments. So, it is independent, or part of a network?

From the onset, there issues with this group, especially when the members are looked up. But who is running Canada 2020? From their own profiles:

  • Thomas (Tom) Pitfield is Co-Founder of Canada 2020, Canada’s leading, independent, progressive think-tank. Prior to his appointment, Tom served as the Chief Digital Strategist for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal election campaign, as well as his campaign for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Previously, Tom served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Honourable Jack Austin. He also worked in China for the Canada Chinese Business Council and as a business strategy consultant, specializing in Corporate Governance, for IBM Canada. After co-founding IBM’s Toronto Innovation Center, he worked as Policy Advisor to the Director of IBM’s Business Partner Channel.
  • Jennifer Walsh was previously a Professor in International Relations at the University of Oxford, and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict. In 2013, she was appointed by the UN Secretary General to serve as his Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. Prof. Welsh sits on the editorial boards of the journals Global Responsibility to Protect and Ethics and International Affairs, as well as the editorial board for the Cambridge University Press BISA series in International Relations. She has also served as a consultant to the Government of Canada on international policy, and acts as a frequent commentator in Canadian media on foreign policy and international relations.
  • From 2014-18, Anna Gainey served as President of the Liberal Party of Canada. Her leadership was key to growing and empowering grassroots organizing and innovative campaign technologies, which contributed to the election of the first Liberal majority government in 15 years. After Canada’s 2015 election, Anna led the transformation to open up and modernize the party – including by eliminating all membership fees and redrafting the party’s constitution to better suit 21st century organizing and campaigns. She has also been a leading Canadian advocate in support of more women’s participation and leadership in our democracy, government, and economy. Anna is the founder of the Gainey Foundation, which provides funding for environmental and arts education programs for youth, and has been the Executive Director since 2008. She continues to sit on the national board of directors of the Liberal Party of Canada as Past President, as well as on the Board of WarChild Canada, Pointe-à-Callière Museum and the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation.
  • Matt Browne is a Visiting Fellow at American Progress, working on building trans-Atlantic and international progressive networks and studying trans-Atlantic policy issues. Previously, Matt was director of public affairs in APCO Worldwide’s London office, where he ran the company’s Europe, Middle East, and Africa government relations practice. Matt is also the former director of Policy Network—the international network founded by Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Goran Persson, and Giuliano Amato—and remains a member of the organization’s governing board and advisory council. During his time at Policy Network, Matt worked closely with a host of progressive leaders, prime ministers’ and presidents’ offices across the globe, and international organizations such as the U.N. and WTO. Matt also ran the international press operation for New Labour’s general election campaigns in 2001 and 2005.
  • Mira Ahmad is Canada 2020’s Director of Communications and Operations. Mira has over six years of experience working as a political strategist and activist. She has served as the President of the Young Liberals of Canada, and currently sits on the Liberal Party of Canada’s National Board of Directors as Vice President. Mira has provided strategic advice and managed campaigns for a number of candidates running for federal office. She has worked for the Jeanne Sauvé Foundation, a non-profit educational and leadership development organization in Montreal, as well as Data Sciences, a data analytics and digital marketing firm. Mira has a Bachelor’s degree in Communication Studies from Concordia University. She has long been active in a number of volunteer causes and leadership initiatives, including the Climate Reality Project Canada, the Austrian Leadership Program and Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada.
  • Kate [Graham] is an active community member and volunteer. She served as the Chair of the Pillar Nonprofit Network Board of Directors, on the Executive of the ReForest London Board of Directors, and as a volunteer for numerous community organizations. She was named one of London’s Top 20 Under 40 in 2015. Kate has also dabbled in politics herself, including running in the 2018 Provincial Election in Ontario.

Far from being “independent” as their website claims, Canada 2020 is run by partisan hacks of the Liberal Party of Canada. They are insiders masquerading as a non-partisan group.

And who is funding Canada 2020? At the bottom of their website, the major donors are listed. Some interesting ones include: Facebook, Mastercard, Power Corporation and Shopify. Maclean’s did a great piece a few years back on the myriad of connections.

Recovery Project Build Back Better Agenda
Recovery Project Build Back Better Report

In September 2020, Canada 2020 and Global Progress hosted the Recovery Summit, with a goal to “Build Back Better” (the globalist catch phrase). It would also involve remaking society environmentally, socially, and financially. In short, there was an opportunity for a RESET.

In the early days of the pandemic, Canada 2020, Global Progress, and the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa launched The Recovery Project, an initiative designed to start conversations around social and economic recovery from COVID-19. Built on a foundation of evidence, sustained effort and common purpose, The Recovery Project aims to provide resources, insight and analysis for what comes next.
.
The Recovery Project brings together a large swath of people from a variety of different fields (business, academia, government, and more) to discuss five key themes in the context of recovery: Shared Prosperity, Democratic and Institutions, Sustainability, Global Public Health and Inclusive Societies. These conversations are presented to The Recovery Project’s audience by way of livestream broadcasts, podcasts, research and analysis. The Recovery Project has convened leading international and domestic voices to share ideas on how to achieve global and lasting recovery from the pandemic. Notable contributors include former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Irish President Mary Robinson, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee David Miliband, Dutch Labour Party leader Lodewijk Asscher, CEO of New America, Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt, and Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan.

Shared Prosperity ==> Communism
Democratic Institutions ==> World Government
Sustainability ==> Eco-Gods Reign Supreme
Global Public Health –> Medical Tyranny
Inclusive Societies ==> Forced Multiculturalism

Not only is Canada 2020 run by Liberals, but they will by consulting with other Liberals in how to advance their agenda. Strange that “Conservatives” are silent on all of this.

On March 31, 2021, this NGO posted a video which included an interview with Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. The topic was around a proposed Bill to protect against online harms. While idea itself sounds well meaning, the details of implementation are still vague, and that’s troubling.

The full video with Canada 2020 is here, and should be watched in full. None of the clips are of people being taken out of context.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault admits that Canadians weren’t consulted in the content of this bill, and he’s okay with that. Instead, he points to foreign governments and NGOs with their own agendas as the source material. Strange that the people who would be most impacted aren’t able to submit their concerns.

Under the proposed legislation, the Regulator would be able to tell social media companies what kind of content can be taken down, and in fact order certain things removed. Given the prospect of heavy fines, it seems very unlikely that any outlet will put up a fuss. After all, the users aren’t paying for the service.

Guilbeault mentions that he finds the Australian model the most attractive. The bureaucrat in charge would have the power to enter into agreements with NGOs and social media companies. So while the legislation itself may not be too bad, it’s implementation is open to interpretation.

A positive moment here: Guilbeault admits that adding “misinformation” into things that get blocked would be tricky, and open up all kinds of free speech considerations. That said he brags about using public money to fund groups to promote government talking points. That is already happening here, here, and here. In fact, subsidies are rampant in Canadian media. So while not directly banning certain ideas, he supports funding opposition to those ideas.

Is this group, Canada 2020, really pulling at least some of the strings of the Trudeau Government? At least as far as online freedoms, Guilbeault saw no need to consult with actual Canadians. He would rather get input from non-governmental organizations.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/inside-the-progressive-think-tank-that-really-runs-canada/
https://canada2020.ca/people/thomas-pitfield/
https://canada2020.ca/people/jennifer-welsh/
https://canada2020.ca/people/anna-gainey/
https://canada2020.ca/people/matt-browne/
https://canada2020.ca/people/mira-ahmad/
https://canada2020.ca/people/kate-graham/
https://recoveryproject.ca/the-recovery-summit/
https://recoveryproject.ca/about/
Misinformation Counters Run By Political Operatives
Grants Given To Groups Fighting “Misinformation”
Ottawa Colluding With Facebook On Permitted Content

Posted on

Ontario Health Care Consent Act Of 1996: FYI For Vaccines Or Tests

A disclaimer: this article is merely information about what laws exist. It does not constitute advice. Read, research, research further, and come to your own conclusions.

That being said, a request in Ontario had been made asking about was on the books regarding forced (or coerced) tests. This is course refers to the nasal rape sticks that are being passed off as coronavirus tests. Here is what some digging uncovered. Again, take this as information, and then decide for yourself.

On the issue of masks as a human rights issue, recent Clown Rights Tribunals have found that these demands from stores can be enforced in most cases. Simply having breathing issues is not sufficient. How it would be enforced in a health care setting is a bit more complicated. That said, let’s take a look at the poking stuff.

https://www.cpso.on.ca/About/Legislation-By-Laws
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/930856
https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Consent-to-Treatment/Advice-to-the-Profession-Consent-to-Treatment
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1996-c-2-sch-a/latest/so-1996-c-2-sch-a.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-51.html#docCont
https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
Interim Order From Patty Hajdu

  • Know What Is Actually Considered Malpractice
  • Understand What Consent Really Is
  • Applicable Legislation: Health Care Consent Act, 1996
  • Canada Criminal Code
  • Approved v.s. Interim Authorized Treatments

1. How College Of Physicians Views Malpractice

Medicine Act, 1991
Loi de 1991 sur les médecins
ONTARIO REGULATION 856/93
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Consolidation Period: From December 3, 2010 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 450/10.
This Regulation is made in English only.
.
1. (1) The following are acts of professional misconduct for the purposes of clause 51 (1) (c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code
.
2. Failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession.
.
3. Abusing a patient verbally or physically.
.
7. Discontinuing professional services that are needed unless,
i. the patient requests the discontinuation,
ii. alternative services are arranged, or
iii. the patient is given a reasonable opportunity to arrange alternative services.
.
8. Failing to fulfil the terms of an agreement for professional services.
.
9. Performing a professional service for which consent is required by law without consent.
.
12. Failing to reveal the exact nature of a secret remedy or treatment used by the member following a proper request to do so.
.
13. Making a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device.
.
14. Making a claim respecting the utility of a remedy, treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as reasonable professional opinion.

On the College of Physicians and Surgeons for Ontario website, they have a link to a very extensive list of what is considered to be malpractice. On the surface, forcing “Covid tests” would certainly seem to qualify as misconduct on several counts. If a person cannot access health care in a normal fashion without having this pushed on them, it would appear to count as misconduct, at least in Ontario.

Also, #12 makes it very clear that the exact nature of whatever medical procedure must be explained. That includes the process, and the risks. This cannot be shrugged off. Obviously, they will be at a loss to explain how these “Covid tests” or these “vaccines” actually work.

2. CPSO Describes Consent For Treatment

Source of Obligations
What is the source of my consent obligations?
.
Physicians have both legal and professional obligations to obtain consent prior to providing treatment. Although the policy does not contain an exhaustive catalogue, it does highlight many of the legal obligations set out in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA). It also sets out certain obligations that are not codified in the HCCA, but are professional expectations of physicians set by the College.

My patient is refusing to consent to a treatment that I think they should have. Does this mean they are incapable?
.
Not necessarily. Patients and SDMs have the legal right to refuse or withhold consent. Consent can also be withdrawn at any time, by the patient if they are capable with respect to the treatment at the time of the withdrawal, or by the patient’s SDM if the patient is incapable.
.
Patients or SDMs may sometimes make decisions that are contrary to the physician’s treatment advice. You cannot automatically assume that because the patient is making a decision you do not agree with, that they are incapable of making that decision.
.
It is possible, however, that a patient’s decision may cause you to question whether the patient has the capacity to make the decision (e.g., that the patient may not truly understand the consequences of not proceeding with the treatment). Where this is the case, you may want to consider doing a more thorough investigation of the patient’s capacity to ensure the patient’s decision is informed and valid.
.
It is important to remember that it is inappropriate for a physician to end the physician-patient relationship in situations where the patient chooses not to follow the physician’s treatment advice (for more information, see the College’s Ending the Physician-Patient Relationship policy).

The CPSO makes it clear that consent is MANDATORY in order to do anything to the patient. Moreover, it is explicitly stated that it’s considered inappropriate to terminate the patient-physician relationship just because the doctor doesn’t personally agree with the patient’s decision(s).

3. Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996

Purposes
.
1 The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;

No treatment without consent
.
10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,
(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or
(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act.

Elements of consent
.
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
.
Informed consent
(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,
(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and
(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters
.
Same
(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:
1. The nature of the treatment.
2. The expected benefits of the treatment.
3. The material risks of the treatment.
4. The material side effects of the treatment.
5. Alternative courses of action.
6. The likely consequences of not having the treatment.

The 1996 Health Care Consent Act makes it clear that consent to any medical treatment must be voluntary, informed, and the risks spelled out. These are not things that can just be ignored under the guise of an “emergency”.

For the nasal rape sticks: ask probing questions. Ask what are the effects of putting cotton almost to the brain barrier? Ask if they have verified themselves the sticks are not contaminated in any way. Ask how the PCR test works, and get specific information.

For the gene replacement “vaccines”: ask about the lack of testing on certain groups. Ask about the ongoing testing, and how they can be sure they are safe. Ask if they know and understand what is even in them. This shouldn’t be controversial.

Offences Against the Person and Reputation (continued)
Duties Tending to Preservation of Life (continued)
Marginal note:Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life

4. Canada Criminal Code Provisions

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
.
216 Every one who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons undertaking acts
.
217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons directing work
.
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Criminal negligence
.
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
.
Definition of duty
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

Assault
.
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
.
Marginal note: Application
.
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
.
Marginal note: Consent
.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.

Just a take on this, but could pressuring people to take needles into their arms, or sticks up their nose, be seen as breaching the Criminal Code of Canada? Serious crimes can’t be masked simply by classifying them as medical care.

5. Interim Authorization V.S. Approval

To make this point, consider these categories:

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, if an Interim Order is signed. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Here’s a question that even small children should be able to understand: Looking at the product monographs, does it say these “vaccines were approved? Or does it say they were authorized under section 5 of an Interim Order? If the person doesn’t know, (and most won’t), pushing for vaccination would probably be malpractice.

It can’t really be informed consent if the people pushing it have no information about the product in question.

6. No Science Behind Any Of This

Too long to detail here, but there is no real science behind any of this so called “pandemic”. As an example, these “gold-standard” PCR tests are unable to distinguish between dead genetic material and an active infection. Using them at all is fraudulent. Feel free to argue any of this.

Now, just because these protections are in place, it doesn’t mean that health care workers actually know about them. It also doesn’t mean that they will care if push comes to shove.

That being said: at least know what you are talking about when you try to assert your rights. Perhaps bring a recording device if possible. That should make it easier for the patient.

To reiterate from before: all of this content is for informational purposes, and should not be considered professional advice. Please, do your own homework.

Posted on

CV #66(E): Ontario Inserts, Then Removes Protection Against “No Jab, No Job” By Employers

Worker rights are always important, especially if employers want to mandate they take experimental, unapproved gene replacement therapy. But what does the Ontario Government have to say?

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228
https://archive.is/pZoao (May 29, 2020)
https://files.ontario.ca/books/ontariogazette_153-24.pdf
Ontario Gazette June 13 Page 59 ESA Protections
https://archive.is/A03GF (March 2, 2021)
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228 (as of today)
https://archive.is/6atpm (as of today)

Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

The Infectious Disease Emergency Leave Provisions of the Employment Standards Act came into effect in May 2020. They were written up to be retroactive to January 2020. Sounds reasonable enough.

Now, this portion of the Ontario Employment Standards Act has undergone revision, several times. That being said, there is one particularly interesting provision. Specifically: protections were put in, then removed, for workers who don’t want to receive the “vaccine”.

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
Employees can take infectious disease emergency leave if they will not be performing the duties of their position because of any of the following reasons:
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
Examples include where the employer:
(a) is concerned that employees who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine may expose others in the workplace to COVID-19 and tells them not to come to work until they have been vaccinated
(b) directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
.
Examples include where the employer directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

The top quote is how the March 2, 2021, and the lower quote is how the law currently reads. The April 2021 update keeps the provision for international travel, but removes the protection for workers who don’t want to be vaccinated.

Now, it could be argued that this removal isn’t conclusive, and that the Government still could enforce such protections anyway. In that case, why was it removed then? The people drafting it saw a need to specifically include protections against forced vaccination. There was a concern they were addressing. Then they specifically wrote it out.

To further make this point, consider these categories:

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

These “vaccines” fall under the second category. They were authorized under a temporary order, because politicians declared that it was worth the risk. They are not, and have never been, approved.

And Doug Ford’s Government removed protections for workers that would have provided cover from bosses who make this demand. Once again, these were never approved, and simply given temporary authorization. So much for his slogan: “For The People”.

Posted on

TSCE #11(C): Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/43/2/14
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/3/22/garnett-genuis-6/

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
.
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.

Posted on

Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 was an omnibus piece of legislation. Given its size, it was impossible to properly debate back in 2017/2018. But it’s worth reviewing, even after the fact. It watered down penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

1. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

2. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

3. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

4. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

5. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.

(1) Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)
(2) Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
(3) Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(4) Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
(5) Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
(6) Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
(7) Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada
(8) Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

4. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

5. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.