Category: Canada

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #9: Conspiring With A Free Speech Advocate

(Not entirely sure why this is controversial)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

Spoiler alert: This article starts off by talking about University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, and then meanders to entirely different topics. Seems that CBC couldn’t be bothered to ensure that there actually was a point to it. Even high school editors would perform better. Anyway….

“Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a one-on-one meeting with Jordan Peterson a week after the controversial university professor publicly urged Ford to abolish the province’s human rights commission, CBC News has learned. “

This actually is true. Peterson is a vocal advocate against Bill C-16, which not only added “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Codes, but also resulted in “compelled speech”. However, not sure why this is controversial.

“The meeting was revealed in Ford’s appointment calendar for October and November, obtained through a freedom of information request. CBC News made the request because Ford is not providing the media with his daily public itinerary, breaking from the practice of previous premiers.”

Premier Ford doesn’t think too highly of the media, a trait shared by US President Donald Trump. Given this attitude, by Unifor, the union that represents media workers, who can blame Ford?

“CBC News cannot find any record of Ford or Peterson publicly mentioning that their Oct. 18 meeting took place.
.
Ford tweeted about several of his other private meetings around that date: with Dianne Martin, CEO of the Registered Practical Nurses Association, with Susan Le Jeune the British high commissioner to Canada, and with Tim Hudak, the former PC leader who is now CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association.
.
Ford met with Peterson “to discuss free speech on Ontario’s university and college campuses,” the premier’s press secretary said Friday in an email to CBC News.
.
The meeting followed this Oct. 10 tweet by Peterson, calling for the Human Rights Commission to be abolished.”

Yes, Peterson has called for the Human Rights Commissions to be abolished. However, there is a valid reason for this: namely that these Tribunals do not uphold any human rights. They are a means to grandstand and impose absurd rulings and consequences. See this, an earlier article on the Human Rights Tribunals.

Still am not clear why it would be so controversial to at least have a meeting with a well known advocate for open inquiry and free speech.

“Peterson has garnered international attention for his critique of what he calls “politically correct” limits to free speech. The Ford government ordered Ontario’s universities and colleges last summer to put in place policies by the end of 2018 guaranteeing free speech, or they would face funding cuts.”

True, but so what? Universities are supposed to hold open inquiry dear. Sadly, a move like this was long overdue.

“”I know something about the way that totalitarian and authoritarian political states develop and I can’t help but think that I’m seeing a fair bit of that right now,” Peterson said in a lecture posted to his YouTube channel, which has 1.8 million subscribers.
.
Ford’s calendar for October and November shows no one-on-one meetings with any other Ontario university professors. Peterson and his publicity firm did not respond to a request for an interview or to emailed questions about the meeting.”

Seeing the language policing that goes on in schools, these comments are fitting.

The remaining 60% of the article has nothing to do with Peterson, nor is it tied back in any way. Seems that CBC never bothered to do any proofreading prior to publication.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #8: Border Walls Are Useless. People Will Go Around

(Walls are pointless. Don’t even bother)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

A lot to go through on this on.
CLICK HERE, for the article.
CLICK HERE, for the full transcript.

Quotes From The Transcript

AMT: Last week President Trump tweeted some statistics that he claims bolster his case. He wrote – and I’m quoting here – “There are now 77 major or significant was built around the world with 45 countries planning or building walls”. And then he continued: “The 800 miles of wars that have gone up in Europe since 2015 have been almost 100 percent successful.” Well as is usually the case for Donald Trump’s tweets some people took issue with those facts. What is true is that the United States is not the only country building walls and fences to protect its border.

Okay, are Trump’s facts wrong? Are border walls not going up across the globe?

SOUNDCLIP
[Music]
NEWSCASTER1: The race is on to get Hungary’s border fence ready by the end of month. It’s being built by prison inmates.
NEWSCASTER1: You’re still on Norwegian soil. Just over there. And you are in Russia. And while this fence is just a few hundred meters long, campaigners for refugees say it’s become something of a symbol of Norway’s changing attitudes.
NEWSCASTER2: The IDF is constantly improving its defensive capabilities. One of those being a wall being built between Lebanon and the 20 some Israeli communities adjacent to the border.
NEWSCASTER3: The King and county town of [unintelligible] clan elders say the border barrier has helped. This is what is meant to keep out Al Shabab fighters based in Somalia, part of a larger government project to protect the porous border

None of the examples cited here seem at all unreasonable. All are meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration. “Illegal” immigration is something which globalists openly call for, since they don’t believe in sovereign nations.

“AMT: Well my next guest is someone who has studied many of the wars going up around the world right now. And Elisabeth Vallet fundamentally disagrees with Donald Trump. She says more walls are being built not because they work but in spite of the fact that they do not. Elisabeth Vallet is an adjunct professor and scientific director in geopolitics at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal are and she joins us from Montreal. Hello.
.
AMT: What was your reaction when you saw Donald Trump tweeting those statistics about walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: I had seen statistics quoted by extreme right groups before and marginal blogs. I thought I would leave them alone since they didn’t need more exposure. But when the president did so, and argued that they were working, the fact that he was distorting my research really bothered me. And I thought that I had – not as an activist which I am not, but as a researcher – I had to set the record straight.”

Wanting to defend you borders and nation from massive amounts of illegal immigration is “far-right”? An issue that seems to be conflated here: Do you see border walls as 1/ immoral, or 2/ impractical? These are two very different arguments. And not an activist? Good to hear, but we will see.

“AMT: So can you break it down for me? How much of what Mr. Trump had to say was correct?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: So first of all he used the uproar that of our research. There are 77 walls that have been announced, are built so far credibly announced. And 70 of them have been built so far. And [unintelligible] countries have indeed built 70 border walls in the world. So that part was straight. The part about the 100 percent efficiency is that adequate, even in Europe. Because all those walls, some of them, are designed to prevent migration in Hungary are in Norway, but some of them are also designed to keep Russia at bay. This is in the Baltic states are Ukraine. So you’ve got different walls, different functions and in all cases what a wall does? Is a wall will redefine the geo-politics of the area and the geo-politics of the flows? So far while it may look like it is working, but actually it will just reroute and redefine the flows. Sometimes those flows that were taking place in the open will just be more underground, so more dangerous for the people that are trying to cross the border. But in the end they are not working. And this is why usually when you have a wall then you will have military deployed around the wall and technology and robots, drones and sensors. Because a wall per se doesn’t achieve anything apart from scarifying at the borderlands and ruining the local economies.”

We have different walls, different functions, and in all cases, what a wall does? Granted geo-politics differs form region to region. However, the function is the same: to prevent people from illegally crossing.

People will just go underground and it’s more dangerous? So what? You act as if illegal crossings and immigration are human rights.

Walls don’t achieve anything other scarifying at the borderlands and ruining local economies? Considering the amount of benefits that get paid out CLICK HERE, for one example, it could be argued that illegal immigration “strains” local economies.

And what about the rights of citizens to have an independent state and to not be forced to put up with illegal immigration? Do those voices not matter? Or are they all “far-right”?

“AMT: So can you give us an overview of some of the more significant walls that exist and are being built around the world?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well we could speak about countries that are literally fencing themselves and India is one of them. India has a huge fence with Pakistan, but of course with Bangladesh. They are actually fencing Bangladesh out of the peninsula. Of course you have the U.S. Mexican border which is fenced, walled on a third of the border. The one between Israel and the West Bank is also an interesting one. Israel was among those countries that is trying to fence itself, fortify itself literally. And then you will find other walls. You spoke about the one between Kenya Somalia. There is one between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Those in the Fergana Valley in Central Asia between China and North Korea. So you have those border walls across the world. A lot of them, the majority of them, has been built after 9/11 and a lot of them has been built after the Arab Spring.
.
AMT: So what do you see is driving the construction of those what?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: There are three reasons why you Bill borrow walls. Few of them now are being built for peace keeping, border enforcing reasons. It’s a way to end a conflict that has no end; between the two Koreas, between the Turkish and Greek part of Cyprus, in a way between India and Pakistan, Ukraine and Russia. Even between Israel and the West Bank it is a way to define a border that if we had a two state solution picking up that would be the final border. And then you have two reasons that dominates the discourse. One of them is smuggling and terrorism and the other one is migration. But those reasons sometimes alternate or overlap. So it’s pretty hard to distinguish them. So two third of them are built for that purpose. “

Walls are being built for peace keeping and border enforcement? Are those people far-right racists as well?

Smuggling and terrorism are 2 valid concerns? Agreed.

Sometimes for migration? Illegal immigration “is” a serious problem in the west. And if you make it a human right, then anyone can migrate. In fact, you acknowledge here that there is overlap between immigration, smuggling and terrorism.

You seem unaware that you are actually debunking your own arguments against walls.

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

This quote is so disingenuous that it needs to be called out all on its own. The Berlin Wall was put up in the 1960s by the Soviet Union to keep people in Berlin from leaving. To keep them prisoners. It was not about preventing illegal immigration “into” East Germany.

You thought that breaking down a wall imprisoning people would lead to the end of state sovereignty? You are delusional. Again, you conflate 2 completely different purposes.

Building border fences is the only way to contain globalism? You make that sound as if it’s a bad thing. It would only be bad if you believe nations shouldn’t have sovereignty.

“AMT: Donald Trump has talked about how he wants the border to be impenetrable. What do you think would happen if we had more rigid borders like that?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Basically nothing because there is always a way to go around. You will see those pictures of ramps where you can drive cars to go over the U.S. Mexican wall which is huge. You will see drones going above. You will see even there is that one catapult that was actually fixed on the border wall to send drugs on the other side. They found a tunnel last week and through the city of Nogales. So there are always ways to go around. And one thing is, the wall doesn’t change a thing in the U.S. case since most of the trucks are coming into the U.S. through their regular ports of entry. So the world doesn’t help anything, doesn’t change anything. A border cannot be impenetrable. I would even say that a border is not meant to be that way.”

First, assuming everything she says is true, should a nation not “try” to defend its borders and independence just because people will try to sneak in? Border defence is difficult, so to heck with it, I suppose.

Second, she is not making a “moral” argument against border walls, but rather a “impracticality” argument. As outlined in earlier comments, she cites: 1/ open conflict; 2/ smuggling; 3/ terrorism, not to mention 4/ mass migration. All of the above are certainly valid reasons to invest heavily in border security.

There is another interview with a historian, David Frye, but compared to the first interview, there is little to criticise.

Overall though, it is interesting how often CBC has open-borders and illegal immigration supporters doing interviews. The globalist slant is very obvious here. Perhaps some balance, or at least provide tougher questions next time.

Posted on

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 2: Meeting The Man)

(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

See the previous article on the infamous paper by Thompson Rivers University Economic Professor, Derek Pyne.

For a simplified version of the story, Professor Pyne published a paper in April 2017 titled “Predatory publications”. It was a look into the academic publishing, and how fake journals were popping up. Given university professors’ duty to “publish or perish”, these seemed to be a way out.

This is a topic that has been reluctantly addressed by universities before. However, this paper took more of an economic view of the subject — rewards and benefits from publishing in such journals.

The paper has not been well received by Thompson Rivers University, especially since it seemed to implicate members of the faculty. Relations between Professor Pyne and the school have gone downhill.

In September 2018, almost a year and a half later, Professor Pyne was suspended from TRU. He is now back at work. He claims that the paper was one reason, but not the only, for the suspension.

Currently, a complaint has been filed under Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, claiming the Union violated Section 12. Here is the actual text from the Labour Relations Code (of BC)

Duty of fair representation
12 (1)
A trade union or council of trade unions must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith
(a) in representing any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, or
(b) in the referral of persons to employment whether or not the employees or persons are members of the trade union or a constituent union of the council of trade unions.
.
(2) It is not a violation of subsection (1) for a trade union to enter into an agreement under which
(a) an employer is permitted to hire by name certain trade union members,
(b) a hiring preference is provided to trade union members resident in a particular geographic area, or
(c) an employer is permitted to hire by name persons to be engaged to perform supervisory duties.
.
(3) An employers’ organization must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in representing any of the employers in the group appropriate for collective bargaining.
.
Procedure for fair representation complaint
13 (1) If a written complaint is made to the board that a trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization has contravened section 12, the following procedure must be followed:
(a) a panel of the board must determine whether or not it considers that the complaint discloses a case that the contravention has apparently occurred;
(b) if the panel considers that the complaint discloses sufficient evidence that the contravention has apparently occurred, it must
(i) serve a notice of the complaint on the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization against which the complaint is made and invite a reply to the complaint from the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization, and
(ii) dismiss the complaint or refer it to the board for a hearing.
(2) If the board is satisfied that the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization contravened section 12, the board may make an order or direction referred to in section 14 (4) (a), (b) or (d).

Canuck Law meeting Professor Pyne

The actual interview occurred on Thursday, January 24 at the University in Kamloops, BC. Note: Questions were prepared, but the replies shown are summaries of what was said.

1/ What did you think would happen publishing this?
-It was a new angle on the publishing industry
-This hadn’t been done before
-Expected a higher amount of support for academic freedom and inquiry

2/ Any support from colleagues?
-Some privately do offer support
-No one wants to be public about it
-This is considered an attack on academic freedom

3/ What actually triggered the suspension?
-Collective agreement allows for feedback for candidates
-I exercised that right. University called it defamatory and accusatory

4/ Why the 16 month delay in the suspension? (April 2017-Sept 2018)
-It took time for the backlash to happen
-Reporting by the New York Times really hurt
-American media interviews were given
-Comments made in online forums
-Research comments

5/ Why isn’t the TRU faculty union helping?
-164 page complaint was filed
-Academic unions don’t work the same way private sector unions do
-Lack of understanding by the union in matters like this

6/ What do you see Labour Relations doing?
-Little. They have a very low success rate
-Since 2016 (records shown), 0 or 1 cases successful each year
-Most “successes” come from informal negotiation between parties

7/ What would you like Labour Relations to do?
-Order the union to file a grievance

8/ How can universities screen for “predatory journals”? What are the warning signs?
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
-There are 10,800 right now identified, another 955 suspected (all fields)

9/ Has this led to policy changes at TRU?
-Might have tipped people off as to what is happening?

10/ Was it difficult to get data for research?
-Time consuming
-Manually searching profiles
-Research Ethics not needed (since no face-to-face interviews)
-Google Scholar quick source (academic publications)
-Checking academic profiles also an option

11/ Does this hurt academia?
-It can lower the trust people have in experts and authority figures

12/ Broadly speaking, how does peer review work?
-You need an idea of which journals to submit to
-You submit your research
-You may have to redo large sections of your paper
-Editor of publication often orders revise & resubmit
-Editor will find referees with similar publications to review yours
-Referees are usually volunteers, it’s more of an honour
-It can easily take a year or two to get published

Posted on

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 1: The Paper)

(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

CLICK HERE, for the Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy

CLICK HERE, for the whistle-blower protection policy

CLICK HERE, for research ethics

An economics professor, Derek Pyne, at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC, was suspended over “defamatory language and accusations”, over a paper he published regarding “predatory publishing”.

Pyne is now back at work at TRU, though the controversy is far from over.

For some reason, suggesting that university faculty are engaged in pay-to-publish scheme tends to burn bridges and create tension.

Here is a brief review of the research paper.

Note: This review is not a factual determination one way or another of the validity of the findings, but just an overall critique of the paper.

Quotes From The Paper

“derek pyne
.
This study is the first to compare the rewards of publishing in predatory journals with the rewards of publishing in traditional journals. It finds that the majority of faculty with research responsibilities at a small Canadian business school have publications in predatory journals. In terms of financial compensation, these publications produce greater rewards than many non-predatory journal publications. Publications in predatory journals are also positively correlated with receiving internal research awards. By improving the understanding of the incentives to publish in predatory journals, this research aims to contribute to a better-informed debate on policies dealing with predatory journals.”

Okay, this is just the opening summary, but the point is clear: so-called “predatory journals” seem to be more lucrative in terms of receiving publications, and in professional gains.

“When academics publish in these journals, their university affiliations contribute to the credibility of the journals. Because decision makers and the public may lack the expertise to distinguish between nonsense and legitimate research, they may be led to suspect expert opinion in general. In addition, when academics are rewarded for publishing in predatory journals, the research incentives of their universities are distorted.”

This is actually a bad combination: researchers get rewards distorted by publishing in predatory journals, and the decisions are being made by people who lack the expertise.

The university does not have merit pay for research success, but publications affect compensation in several ways:
.
1. through initial academic rank and placement of individuals on the salary grid;
2. through the speed at which individuals are promoted and thus pass the salary ceiling for their existing rank; and
3. by the opportunity cost of time spent on research in lieu of earning opportunities.
.
The first two considerations imply a positive relationship between publication success and compensation, while the third implies a negative relationship.

Interesting observations. #1 and #2 refer to “indirect” rewards which are gained from publishing, while #3 references time researching and not “working”.

“literature review Several articles have examined the relationship between journal publications and faculty compensation. For example, Sen, Ariizumi, and DeSousa studied the relationship between the research productivity of economics faculty in Ontario universities and their salaries. Contrary to the present study, they found that publications in top journals were positively correlated with salary increments but that publications in lower-ranked journals were not related to salaries. “

A fairly obvious conclusion, and one that is backed up with more research. Publishing in top journals gets more money, while publishing in subpar journals has little effect.

“[Beale’s] six pages of criteria for evaluating journals largely relate to dishonest practices. Examples include not conducting ‘a bona fide peer review,’ copying or mimicking journal titles from other publishers, identifying the publisher’s owner as the editor of each and every journal published by the organization, not identifying a specific person as the editor, two or more of the publisher’s journals having duplicate editorial boards, and the publisher falsely claiming to have an ISI impact factor or purchasing ‘fake impact factors’ services. Publishers who believe they have been wrongly included can apply to a four-person appeal panel for removal.”

Interesting signs to look for:
-No proper peer review
-copying or imitating titles
-identifying owner of publication as each journal’s editor
-not having a specific editor
-2+ journals with duplicate editorial boards
-false claims of impact factor services.

“Bohannon conducted a ‘sting operation’ by submitting a scientifically flawed paper to 304 open access journals, some on Beall’s list. Eighty two per cent of the journals on Beall’s list accepted the paper; thus he concluded that ‘Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control.
.
Ray argues that predatory journals may be able to screen for hoax articles. Thus, her approach was to submit essays written by eighth- and tenth-grade secondary school students to ten open access journals. Of the nine who responded with an editorial decision, six accepted the paper without revisions, and only one rejected the paper. The paper was rejected for being too short, but the journal suggested to the author that it be expanded and resubmitted. “

Nice ways to screen for validity of academic journalism: do a little investigative journalism and see if they will literally publish anything. Several pages of data and charts are then presented in the paper.

“discussion and conclusions Predatory journals have become an increasing problem when it comes to assessing and rewarding researchers for the merit of their publishing records. In addition, the presence of predatory journals makes it difficult for non-experts to judge the quality and validity of published research. This paper finds that, at least at one university, there are few incentives not to publish in predatory journals. In addition, when the opportunity cost of forgone income from extra teaching is significant, publishing in ranked journals is costly.

A number of questions for future research on predatory publication are raised. A key question is the degree to which these findings are generalizable to business schools, and other faculties, at other universities. The similar proportions of questionable publications reported by Ray suggest that the results may be generalizable to other business schools, but additional research is needed. This type of research involves time consuming data collection, and answering these questions would require significant research support. However, the benefits of better understanding the market for predatory publications would be substantial. For example, such data could be used to study whether faculty research output is improved when administrators also have a research background.”

To summarise here: the author actually makes a pretty compelling case (backed up by data), that publishing in so called “predatory journals” is economically a better choice. This would apply both in terms of time (far fewer rejections), and financially (such as costs involved in ranked journals).

This topic will be continued later.

Posted on

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Good, Bad, Or It Depends?

Suggested Offences With Mandatory Minimums
CC 46-48 (Treason)
CC 83.01-83.3 (Terrorism)
CC 151-154 (child Sex Offences)
CC 229-239 (Murder, 1st degree)

The case AGAINST Mandatory Minimums
-Judges are better able to look at a case and decide what is fair
-Judges are better able to decide what would be best for the public
-Judges are not subject to the whims of the population, given their jobs are secure
-In the event of very poor rulings, they can be appealed
-Mandatory minimums are very costly to the public
-Mandatory minimums result in “social costs” to the public
-There is no general deterrence
-Politicians in general cannot be trusted to pass good laws
-Politicians take so much power anyway, a separate judiciary is necessary
-Government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible
-Given fraud and corruption within gov’t it is hypocritical for them to be passing such laws
-Judges are best able to “make that exception” when needed
-Mandatory minimums make it hard, if not impossible to make punishment fit the crime. It always must.

Articles Cited:
Research At A Glance
Mandator Minimum Penalties
Mandatory Minimums Unfair and Expensive
PBS Special on Mandatory Minimums

The Case IN FAVOUR OF Mandatory Minimums
-Politicians can (theoretically) be thrown out, judges cannot
-Although far from perfect, public input can help draft laws
-While judges are well intended, different perspectives can lead to widely differing sentences on cases of similar facts
-Consistency is necessary in applying sentencing principles
-If bad rulings occur and are not struck down, they can create ”precedent” for future bad rulings. Having set standards eliminates that possibility
-If not mandatory minimums, then guidelines (as is also the case in US/UK)
-Some offences are so bad they “require” prison time (as mentioned, it covered offences like murder, terrorism, child sex offences)
-Of course, this is not to imply that all, or even most offences should carry mandatory minimums
-The crimes being proposed for mandatory minimums are committed so rarely, that there would be ”no dragnet” of people.
-For certain offences, the well being of society needs to trump individual rights
-The Principles of Sentencing (see below) to see a need to balance both individual rights and society’s (the group’s rights)
-Items (a), (b), (c) put societal interest first, while (d), (e), (f) put individual interest first

What Does The Law Say?

Note: the information here is not necessary to prove that mandatory minimums are necessary, but rather to explain when the rationale behind sentencing.

Also the Bill C-42 was introduced to remove so-called ”conditional sentencing” for certain offences. The rationale being, if house arrest is inadequate, the probation would be even more so. In effect, it would ”create” mandatory jail sentences (though the length not specified).

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Objectives — offences against children
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

Objectives — offence against peace officer or other justice system participant
718.02 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 270(1), section 270.01 or 270.02 or paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Objectives — offence against certain animals
718.03 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 445.01(1), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Fundamental principle
718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Restrictions on Conditional Sentencting, Bill C-42

R v. Proulx (2003) for conditional sentencing

“The requirement in s. 742.1 (b) that the judge be satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community is a condition precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence, and not the primary consideration in determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In making this determination, the judge should consider the risk posed by the specific offender, not the broader risk of whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community by providing insufficient general deterrence or undermining general respect for the law. Two factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. A consideration of the risk posed by the offender should include the risk of any criminal activity, and not be limited solely to the risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals.

Once the prerequisites of s. 742.1 are satisfied, the judge should give serious consideration to the possibility of a conditional sentence in all cases by examining whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. This follows from Parliament’s clear message to the judiciary to reduce the use of incarceration as a sanction.

A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence. As a general matter, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. There may be some circumstances, however, where the need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future.

Generally, a conditional sentence will be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and the community.

Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incarceration. Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved. However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. A conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation and deterrence will increase in these circumstances.

No party is under a burden of proof to establish that a conditional sentence is either appropriate or inappropriate in the circumstances. The judge should consider all relevant evidence, no matter by whom it is adduced. However, it would be in the offender’s best interests to establish elements militating in favour of a conditional sentence.

Sentencing judges have a wide discretion in the choice of the appropriate sentence. They are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts. Absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”

R v Proulx makes a pretty compelling case in favour of “conditional sentencing” a.k.a. “house arrest”. This case is recognized and relied on when handing down sentences. Many defense lawyers argue that conditional sentencing would better serve everyone (in most cases) than physical prison.

The restrictions that came from Bill C-42, however, means that certain offences are no longer eligible for conditional sentencing. This means that Judges will have to choose jail sentences, since probation would be considered unfit.

Overall, a very interesting topic to cover.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-46: Police Can Demand Breath Sample — 2 Hours Later

(Changes to Criminal Code, which put onus on drivers to prove they weren’t drinking 2 hours ago)

CLICK HERE, for the full text of the bill, which received Royal Assent and is now law.

Here Is Original Legislation

Operation while impaired

253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

Marginal note:

For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59;

This is reasonable enough. Let’s see what it looks like after the changes

Rationale Behind This Bill
SUMMARY

Part 1 amends the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to drug-impaired driving. Among other things, the amendments

(a) enact new criminal offences for driving with a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to establish blood drug concentrations; and
(c) authorize peace officers who suspect a driver has a drug in their body to demand that the driver provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada.

Part 2 repeals the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to conveyances, including those provisions enacted by Part 1, and replaces them with provisions in a new Part of the Criminal Code that, among other things,

(a) re-enact and modernize offences and procedures relating to conveyances;
(b) authorize mandatory roadside screening for alcohol;
(c) establish the requirements to prove a person’s blood alcohol concentration; and
(d) increase certain maximum penalties and certain minimum fines.

Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

How Criminal Code Now Reads

Operation while impaired

253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

Marginal note:

For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
Marginal note:

Operation while impaired — blood drug concentration

(3) Subject to subsection (4), everyone commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or after ceasing to operate or to assist in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment

(a) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation;

(b) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation and that is less than the concentration prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); or

(c) a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.

Marginal note:

Exception
(4) No person commits an offence under subsection (3) if

(a) they consumed the drug or the alcohol or both after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel, or after ceasing to operate or assist in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment; and

(b) after ceasing the activities described in paragraph (a), they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59; 2008, c. 6, s. 18;

(3) Subject to subsection (4), everyone commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or after ceasing to operate or to assist in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment

Within 2 hours of driving, if they consume alcohol…. What the hell?

The burden would now be on the person to prove they weren’t drinking 2 hours ago.

This new law, will almost certainly face court/constitutional challenges. While being (perhaps) well meaning, is too broad, too easy to abuse, and evades basic principles like:
1/ presumption of innocence
2/ probable cause needed

We will keep an eye on it.