Category: Canadian Bills

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

TSCE #9(A): 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.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Redefining Replica Firearms, Turning Them Into Prohibited Weapons

This Bill brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding they may be. It also redefines what a “replica” is, and potentially causes more problems.

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. What Criminal Code Currently Says

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

The Criminal Code, under Section 84(1), already has a definition for a replica firearm, and it’s a pretty clear one. However, this would make changes to it regarding energy of the discharge, and speed.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To Code

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

(2) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.‍1):

Certain firearms deemed to be prohibited devices
(3.‍2) For the purposes of sections 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.‍03, a firearm is deemed to be a prohibited device if
(a) it is proved that the firearm is not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules; and
(b) the firearm is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, other than an antique firearm, that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules.

From this new definition, could air guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns and pellet guns now be considered prohibited weapons? After all, many do “resemble” regular firearms.

By this new definition, many of those guns available for purchase by the general public might qualify. They aren’t designed for the same capacity as real ones. But “exactly resembling, or resembling with near precision” could be very subjective. It also raises the question of what kind of due diligence a person should do to ensure that their gun is not resembling (exactly, or with near precision), a prohibited weapon.

Since these aren’t standard firearms there’s no way to get a license to own them, unless that’s coming next. Is this a way to ban other types of “guns”, or is this just poor wording?

Posted on

Bill C-21: Yellow Flag Laws To Temporarily (Or Indefinitely) Suspend A Gun License

Red Flag Laws were covered previously. Bill C-21, would also allow for a Chief Firearms Officer to suspend or revoke the license of a person based on “reasonable grounds”. However, the wording is vague, and a reasonable interpretation is that a suspension could be renewed indefinitely. It also calls into question the due process options the person would have.

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. What The Firearms Act Currently Says On This

Refusal to Issue and Revocation
Marginal note: Licences and authorizations
.
68 A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Marginal note: Registration certificates
.
69 The Registrar may refuse to issue a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason including, in the case of an application for a registration certificate, where the applicant is not eligible to hold a registration certificate.

Marginal note: Revocation of licence or authorization
.
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization,
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
(iii) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of an offence referred to in paragraph 5(2)(a); or
(b) where, in the case of a business, a person who stands in a prescribed relationship to the business has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of any such offence.

Marginal note: Registrar
.
(2) The Registrar may revoke an authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason.

Previous Version
Marginal note: Revocation of registration certificate
.
71 (1) The Registrar
.
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
.
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.

Marginal note: Automatic revocation of registration certificate
.
(2) A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(3) (pre-August 1, 1992 converted automatic firearms) is automatically revoked on the change of any alteration in the prohibited firearm that was described in the application for the registration certificate.

Marginal note:Notice of refusal to issue or revocation
.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: When notice not required
.
(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
.
(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
.
(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: Material to accompany notice
.
(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.

Marginal note: Non-disclosure of information
.
(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms
.
(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms — registration certificate
.
(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Reference
.
(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.

The Chief Firearms Officer or the Registrar already have significant powers in the Firearms Act to suspend or revoke licenses and authorizations for “any good and sufficient” reason”. Of course, this is very vague, and open to interpretation.

There is also the option to refuse to disclose information that could “endanger a person”. In practice, this can mean the person who made such a complaint to get the gun seizure would not have to be confronted by the person they accuse.

This Bill will go even further, and allow for 30 day suspensions of licences. Of course, nothing says that a suspension can’t be renewed — or another one handed out — 30 days later.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Change To Firearms Act

28 The heading before section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to Issue, Suspension and Revocation

29 Section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 (1) A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

30 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:

Suspension
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of a licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.
.
Notice
(2) A chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the suspension to the holder of the licence. The notice shall include reasons for the decision, the nature of the information relied on for the decision, the period of the suspension and a copy of this section and sections 69.‍2 and 70.
.
Non-disclosure of information
(3) A chief firearms officer need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in their opinion, endanger the safety of any person.
.
Termination of suspension
(4) A chief firearms officer shall terminate the suspension at the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (2) or, if they are satisfied that the grounds for the suspension no longer exist, at any time before the expiry of that period. The chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the termination of the suspension to the holder of the licence.

Prohibition on use, acquisition and importation
69.‍2 The holder of a licence shall not use, acquire or import firearms while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1).

31 (1) The portion of subsection 70(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport — and the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(2) Subsection 70(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.‍1) where the holder of the licence uses, acquires or imports a firearm while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1); or

32 Section 71 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Automatic revocation of registration certificate
(3) A registration certificate for a handgun is automatically revoked on the failure of the holder to provide to a chief firearms officer, during the 180 day period referred to in subsection 58.‍01(2), the information required to update the registration certificate for that handgun.

33 Subsection 72(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Reference
(6) If the applicant for or holder of a licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74 they shall, within 30 days after referring the matter, deliver to a peace officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm that they possess. Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder during that time.

Order — return of firearm
(7) If the decision of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar is confirmed, the judge shall, if a firearm was delivered to a peace officer under subsection (6), order the return of the firearm to the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate, in order for the applicant or holder to lawfully dispose of it.

A Chief Firearms Officer can revoke a license for any “good and sufficient” reason. The information can come from anyone, and there is no requirement that the person be named, if done for safety reasons. In short, there is no real right to confront the accuser.

A license can be suspended for 30 days. However, it doesn’t look like there is anything that would prevent necessarily the suspension from being renewed.

While this portion of Bill C-21 is pretty bad, a lot of these rules were already on the books. This just seems to make it easier to issue a 30 day suspension without a real investigation.

4. Challenging Case In Provincial Court

74(2) Limitation period
.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

75(3) Burden of proof
.
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.
.
Marginal note: Where hearing may proceed ex parte
.
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

A few things to point out when challenging this is court:

First, there is a 30 day time limit to initiate the proceedings. While the Court “may” allow an extension for applications filed after that, they don’t have to, and there is no guarantee they will. So, be aware of this.

Second, the burden is on the Applicant to prove that the revocation or refusal to issue is unjust. The Firearms Officer doesn’t have to prove anything.

Third, in limited cases, the Judge can proceed ex-parte, which means “without the Parties”. In practice, this will mean the person who applied may not be able to attend.

An overall impression: while this 30 day suspension is certainly bad news, the Firearms Act was already pretty stacked against the rights of gun owners. This certainly doesn’t help.

Posted on

O.I.C. 2020-0298: Questioning Just How Committed Federal Politicians Are On Gun Grab

Order In Council 2020-0298 was signed on May 1, 2020, to ban some 1,500 types of guns and accessories. This was done without any public consultation, or legislative process.

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. May 1, 2020 Repeal The O.I.C. Gun Ban

May 1, 2020 was the day that Order In Council, 2020-0298 was issued, which instantly made some 1,500 models of guns illegal in Canada. While campaigning to head the CPC, O’Toole seemed to have no problem condemning the O.I.C., and promised to repeal it.

3. May 12, 2020 Talk With C.C.F.R.

This May 12 talk with the C.C.F.R., the Canadian Coalition of Firearm Rights, O’Toole had no problem spelling out that he would repeal the gun grab, calling it undemocratic. Again, no issue with addressing this directly.

4. June 9, 2020 Campaign Platform

AN O’TOOLE-LED OPPOSITION WILL:
.
Oppose efforts to reverse the former Conservative government’s policy advances on firearms, including the Trudeau government’s new proposals to confiscate legal firearms.
.
Oppose regulations that do not advance public safety and instead penalize law abiding firearms owners. This includes the arbitrary reclassification of firearms and magazines.

The campaign website has since been shut down, and was last archived on June 9, 2020. While there is a reference to “new proposals to confiscate legal firearms”, the O.I.C. is not specifically mentioned at all. While it may be ASSUMED to include it, it’s not directly stated.

5. June 10, 2020 Video/Tweet

In this June 10 video, there are references to the 1,500 firearm O.I.C., but does not specifically state that it would be repealed. In other words, it is brought up, but not addressed. It is implied, however, for anyone who were to watch the video.

Also strange, at the 50 second mark, O’Toole drops a reference to “second wave”. He knew about this script and talking points months in advance.

6. February 16, 2020 Party Press Release

Ottawa, ON – Shannon Stubbs, Conservative Shadow Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Richard Martel, Conservative Quebec Political Lieutenant, issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement on the firearms buy back program:

“It is disappointing that during a pandemic, Justin Trudeau is focused on his own re-election and advancing the Liberals’ ideological agenda instead of helping Canadians get vaccines.

“Just recently, the Liberals voted against and defeated Bill C-238, a Conservative bill that would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals smuggling or who are found in possession of illegal firearms. The Trudeau Liberals’ decision to vote against this bill shows they are not serious about stopping dangerous criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns.

“The reality is, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals and gangs who obtain their guns illegally.

“Instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians and firearm retailers, the government should be investing in police anti-gang and gun units and the CBSA to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to stop illegal smuggling operations and get dangerous criminals and gangs off the streets.

“Conservatives have, and will always, support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

“We are calling on the Trudeau Liberals to ensure that Canada’s firearms legislation is based on evidence, not on ideology, and respects the rights of Canadians.”

From a February 16, 2021 press statement, the CPC criticized the voting against of Bill C-238, to increase criminal penalties in some cases. While the topic “of taking guns” is brought up briefly, there is no specific reference to the O.I.C. In fairness, perhaps this was done so as to not overshadow the current announcement.

7. February 18, 2021 Press Conference

This is a clip from Andrew Lawton of True North, on February 18, 2020. He specifically asks about undoing the Order In Council, and O’Toole spits out a word salad to avoid giving a direct answer. And there is a valid point made, that having politicians explicitly promise something makes it easier (in theory) to hold them accountable later.

This should be a very easy question to answer — since it was answered in May 2020. However, O’Toole is backtracking from that promise. He isn’t even in power and he’s changing his tune.

8. Backtracking Is Some 5D Chess Move?

“It isn’t as simple as saying he would repeal the May 1, 2020 OIC because the OIC is laced with poison pills like it also banned some rocket launchers and other actual military hardware. Can you imagen the backlash if O’Toole suddenly legalised anti-tank weapons. And lawyers are still unpacking the implications of some of the provisions in Bill 21.”

“He can play the strategic game by not tipping his cards to the liberals. We know what they want. This is very cat and mouse at this point. A bait and hook strategy buy the liberals. Best be cautious”

According to at least a few commentators, this is some strategic move in order to make election more assured. Even if this were just such a move, appearing to throw supporters under the bus is a good way to ensure far fewer of them turn up on election day.

9. From “Scrapping” To “Reviewing” Act

This may be nitpicking, but is worth a mention. When O’Toole ran for the CPC leadership for the 1st time, in 2016-2017, he campaigned on “scrapping” the Firearms Act, and replacing it altogether. This time around, he only promises a “review“. Perhaps this is nothing, or it could be a watering down of his commitments.

Would O’Toole scrap the O.I.C. if he won? It’s possible that he would. However, it would be naive to fully trust politicians when they start backing away from their promises. Actually, it would be naive to fully trust them under any circumstances.