Category: Criminal

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-69: Impact Assessment, Energy Regulation, Navigation Protection Acts

(Canada’s Bill C-69)

(Apparently, science is “Colonial”, in S. Africa anyway)

(Science is so racist, apparently)

(One of the few times “White” science is good)

CLICK HERE, for the bill in its latest form, which is currently undergoing 3rd reading in House of Commons.

CLICK HERE, for 2012 version of Environmental Assessment Act.
CLICK HERE, for the 1985 Navigation Protection Act.
CLICK HERE, for Energy Regulator Handbook.

SUMMARY HERE
If nothing else, take these points away:

-Regulators have wide discretion to shut everything down
-Regulators have wide discretion to hand out fines and penalties
-Gender based analysis is lens which projects to be viewed though
-Indigenous rights ensure that any project can be stopped almost at will
-Advisory Board must include (a) FN; (b) Inuit; (c) Metis
-“White Science” and “Indigenous Knowledge” to both be considered
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is confidential, unless common knowledge
-“Indigenous Knowledge” given to regulator is private unless public interest to disclose.
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is some secret sauce that can shut down projects, but must be kept confidential to protect …. something.
-Special Tribunal can be set up for compensation in pipeline spills

THIS CAN BE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT

Federal Court

Appeal to Federal Court

138 The Minister or any person or entity to whom an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer, is directed may, by filing a written notice of appeal within 30 days after the day on which the written reasons are provided by the review officer under section 135, appeal to the Federal Court from the review officer’s decision.

Order not suspended

139 The filing of a notice of appeal under section 138 does not suspend the operation of an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer.

Injunctions

Court’s power

140 (1) If, on the Minister’s application, it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction that a person or entity has done, is about to do or is likely to do any act constituting or directed toward the commission of an offence under this Act, the court may issue an injunction ordering the person or entity who is named in the application to
(a) refrain from doing an act that, in the court’s opinion, may constitute or be directed toward the commission of the offence; or
(b) do an act that, in the court’s opinion, may prevent the commission of the offence.

Notice

(2) No injunction is to be issued under subsection (1) unless 48 hours’ notice is served on the party or parties who are named in the application or unless the urgency of the situation is such that service of notice would not be in the public interest.

*****************************************

Judicial Review

Grounds

170 Subject to section 168, every decision of a Tribunal is final and conclusive and is not to be questioned or reviewed in any court except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.‍1(4)‍(a), (b) or (e) of that Act.

Good to know…. this may come in handy later.

Also, there is a section on discrimination. Of course, with this government, no legislation would be complete without it. However, the terms here seem to suggest more of a “price fixing” nature than actual discrimination. Read for yourself.

Discrimination

No unjust discrimination

235 A company must not make any unjust discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality.

Burden of proof

236 If it is shown that a company makes any discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality, the burden of proving that the discrimination is not unjust lies on the company.

Prohibition

237 (1) A company or shipper, or an officer, employee or agent or mandatary of a company or shipper, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction if they
(a) offer, grant, give, solicit, accept or receive a rebate, concession or discrimination that allows a person to obtain transmission of hydrocarbons or any other commodity by a company at a rate less than that named in the tariffs then in effect; or
(b) knowingly are party or privy to a false billing, false classification, false report or other device that has the effect set out in paragraph (a).

Due diligence

(2) A person is not to be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)‍(a) if they establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Prosecution

(3) No prosecution may be instituted for an offence under this section without leave of the Commission.

Introduction To The Bill
Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing an impact assessment and regulatory system that Canadians trust and that provides safeguards to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing Canada’s global competitiveness by building a system that enables decisions to be made in a predictable and timely manner, providing certainty to investors and stakeholders, driving innovation and enabling the carrying out of sound projects that create jobs for Canadians;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using transparent processes that are built on early engagement and inclusive participation and under which the best available scientific information and data and the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigen­ous peoples of Canada are taken into account in decision-making;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1/ Safeguards to protect the environment, and H&S of Canadians? Okay, few could disagree with that.
2/ Promoting competitiveness sounds great, if that is what the Bill does.
3/ Committed to reconciliation? Okay, here is where we start to have issues. Will development be blocked or rerouted in the name of “reconciliation”? Or will there be extra “taxes” attached?
4/ Inclusive participation? Isn’t that redundant? And best scientific information and data “and” the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples are taken into account?

*** So is there Indigenous knowledge and non-Indigenous science and data? See the above video on “decolonizing science”

5/ Committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience things? Okay, back to the gender obsession. And is “gender diverse” a reference to trannies, or just mixed men/women?
6/ I thought this was a science based approach. Now it’s being infiltrated by (a) Indigenous knowledge and (b) Gender politics.

Okay, now we get to “another” preamble,

PART 1 

Impact Assessment Act

Enactment of Act

Enactment

1 The Impact Assessment Act, whose Schedules 1 to 4 are set out in the schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:

An Act respecting a federal process for impact assessments and the prevention of significant adverse environmental effects

Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to fostering sustainability;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessments provide an effective means of integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes related to designated projects;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, including the planning phase, and is committed to providing Canadians with the opportunity to participate in that process and with the information they need in order to be able to participate in a meaningful way;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the public should have access to the reasons on which decisions related to impact assessments are based;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed, in the course of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in relation to impact, regional and strategic assessments, to ensuring respect for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with jurisdictions that have powers, duties and functions in relation to the assessment of the effects of designated projects in order that impact assessments may be conducted more efficiently;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that a transparent, efficient and timely decision-making process contributes to a positive investment climate in Canada;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessment contributes to Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of encouraging innovative approaches and technologies to reduce adverse changes to the environment and to health, social or economic conditions;

And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of regional assessments in understanding the effects of existing or future physical activities and the importance of strategic assessments in assessing federal policies, plans or programs that are relevant to conducting impact assessments;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1/ The Government of Canada is committed to sustainability? Okay, sounds nice, but that can get very expensive. See Agenda 21, signed in 1992 by Brian Mulroney, and Agenda 2030, signed in 2015 by Stephen Harper. Interestingly, Mulroney and Harper both “identify” as Conservatives.
2/ Integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge? Again, is there a separate set of scientific principles depending on skin colour or ethnicity? Science is so racist.
3/ Committed to public participation, yet this is an omnibus bill rammed though parliament
4/ Fostering reconciliation and inclusion? So will protests be shutting down any projects? Will “payments” be demanded?
5/ You support UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights? Okay, that agreement means that virtually any work can be shut down at any time, for any reason.
6/ Meet it’s international efforts regarding climate change? Silly me, thinking Paris Accord was “non-binding”

Note: There is a preamble for the Energy Regulator Act, and it’s wording is almost identical.

Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada

3 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Again, any project can be shut down on a whim.

Purpose

Purpose of Act

6 The purpose of this Act is to regulate certain energy matters within Parliament’s jurisdiction and, in particular,

(a) to ensure that pipelines and power lines as well as facilities, equipment or systems related to offshore renewable energy projects, are constructed, operated and abandoned in a manner that is safe, secure and efficient and that protects people, property and the environment;
(b) to ensure that the exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, is carried out in a manner that is safe and secure and that protects people, property and the environment;
(c) to regulate trade in energy products; and
(d) to ensure that regulatory hearings and decision-making processes related to those energy matters are fair, inclusive, transparent and efficient.

(a) No problem with this.
(b) No problem with this.
(c) Stop. Government shouldn’t be regulating trade. It just makes things more expensive.
(d) Make decisions that are inclusive? Getting back into the gender politics again?

Mandate

11 The Regulator’s mandate includes

(a) making transparent decisions, orders and recommendations with respect to pipelines, power lines, offshore renewable energy projects and abandoned pipelines;
(b) overseeing the construction, operation and abandonment of pipelines, interprovincial power lines and international power lines and overseeing work and activities authorized under Part 5 as well as abandoned facilities;

(c) making orders with respect to traffic, tolls and tariffs and overseeing matters relating to traffic, tolls and tariffs;
(d) making decisions and orders and giving directions under Part 8 with respect to oil and gas interests, production and conservation;

(e) advising and reporting on energy matters;
(f) providing alternative dispute resolution processes;

(g) exercising powers and performing duties and functions that are conferred on the Regulator under any other Act of Parliament; and
(h) exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in a manner that respects the Government of Canada’s commitments with respect to the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

On the surface, this doesn’t look objectionable. However, it is unclear just how much authority the Energy Regulator will have to make unilateral decisions.

Board of Directors

Establishment and composition

14 (1) The Regulator is to have a board of directors consisting of at least five but not more than nine directors, including a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson.

Indigenous representation

(2) At least one of the directors must be an Indigenous person.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Liberal bill without a racial or gender quota.

Matters of law and fact

(3) For the purposes of this Act, the Commission has full jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters, whether of law or of fact.

Power to act on own initiative

33 The Commission may on its own initiative inquire into, hear and determine any matter that under this Act it may inquire into, hear and determine.

Orders and prohibitions

34 The Commission may
(a) order any person to do, immediately or within or at any specified time and in any specified manner, anything that the person is or may be required to do under this Act, under a condition of a document of authorization, or under any order made or direction given by the Commission or a designated officer under this Act; and

(b) prohibit the doing or continuing of anything that is contrary to this Act, to a condition of the document of authorization or to the order or direction.

Okay, now we are getting into some actual enforcement. However it is unclear what all these added levels of bureaucracy will actually accomplish. It just seems to slow things down.

Wasn’t part of this bill to ensure speedy startup and process?

Exercise of Commission’s Powers and Performance of Its Duties and Functions by Designated Officers

Regulations

54 The Governor in Council may make regulations that specify
(a) powers, duties and functions of the Commission that are technical or administrative in nature and may be exercised or performed by designated officers;
(b) any circumstances in which those powers are to be exercised and those duties and functions are to be performed only by designated officers; and
(c) the procedures and practices that apply to the exercise of those powers and the performance of those duties and functions by designated officers.

Good in a way, delegate matters the powers at hand don’t understand to underlings who would know more.
Also a bit concerning. There is no requirement to actually have any education, experience or training in the industry. Wouldn’t this invite mistake from incompetent, politically driven leaders?

Rights and Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada

Duty to consider — Commission

56 (1) When making a decision, an order or a recommendation under this Act, the Commission must consider any adverse effects that the decision, order or recommendation may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Duty to consider — designated officers

(2) When making a decision or an order under this Act, a designated officer must consider any adverse effects that the decision or order may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Advisory committee

57 (1) The Regulator must establish an advisory committee for the purpose of enhancing the involvement, under Part 2, of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in respect of pipelines, power lines and offshore renewable energy projects as well as abandoned pipelines.

Membership

(2) The membership of the advisory committee must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.

Confidentiality — Indigenous knowledge

58 (1) Any Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence to the Regulator under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator is confidential and must not knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent.

Exception

(2) Despite subsection (1), the Indigenous knowledge referred to in that subsection may be disclosed if
(a) it is publicly available;
(b) the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice or for use in legal proceedings; or
(c) the disclosure is authorized in the circumstances set out in the regulations made under section 59.

Consultation

(2.‍1) Before disclosing Indigenous knowledge under paragraph 2(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Regulator must consult the person or entity who provided the Indigenous knowledge and the person or entity to whom it is proposed to be disclosed about the scope of the proposed disclosure and potential conditions under subsection (3).

Further disclosure

(3) The Regulator may, having regard to the consultation referred to in subsection (2.‍1), impose conditions with respect to the disclosure of Indigenous knowledge by any person or entity to whom it is disclosed under paragraph (2)‍(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Duty to comply

(4) The person or entity referred to in subsection (3) must comply with any conditions imposed by the Regulator under that subsection.

Protection from civil proceeding or prosecution

(5) Despite any other Act of Parliament, no civil or criminal proceedings lie against the Regulator or the Minister — or any person acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, either of them — and no proceedings lie against the Crown or the Regulator, for the disclosure in good faith of any Indigenous knowledge under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator or for any consequences that flow from that disclosure.

Regulations

59 The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which Indigenous knowledge that is provided to the Regulator under this Act in confidence may be disclosed without written consent.
Once again, this seems designed to fail.

1/ If any indigenous person or group can shut down an entire project, or at least delay it for years, development will come to a standstill.
2/ Duty to consult: Again sounds nice, but written in such a way as to ensure nothing gets through.
3/ Committee must include:
(a) First Nations
(b) Inuit
(c) Metis
So not only is there “one” representative, but there are to be “three” each from different groups.
4/ Indigenous Knowledge provided to regulator is confidential.
What? So it cannot be challenged if we don’t know what it is.
5/ Before “disclosing Indigenous Knowledge”, the Regulator must discuss with person who provided it.
6/ No punishment for disclosing “Indigenous Knowledge” if it was done in good faith? Great, but if this knowledge is so powerful, why “wouldn’t” we want to share it
7/ So where is all this transparency, if “Indigenous Knowledge” is kept secret?

Public Engagement

Public engagement

74 The Regulator must establish processes that the Regulator considers appropriate to engage meaningfully with the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — when public hearings are held under section 52 or subsection 241(3).

Participant funding program

75 For the purposes of this Act, the Regulator must establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — in public hearings under section 52 or subsection 241(3) and any steps leading to those hearings.

Public hearings are good, but the incessant pandering to Indigenous groups gets tiring.

Regulation of Construction, Operation and Abandonment

Orders

95 (1) To promote the safety and security of the operation of a regulated facility, the Commission may, by order, direct the holder to repair, reconstruct or alter part of the regulated facility and direct that, until the work is done, that part of the regulated facility not be used or be used in accordance with any conditions specified by the Commission.

Other measures

(2) The Commission may, by order, direct any of the following persons or bodies to take measures in respect of a regulated facility, an abandoned facility or any work or activity authorized under Part 5 that the Commission considers necessary for the safety and security of persons, the safety and security of the regulated facility or abandoned facility or the protection of property or the environment:

(a) an Indigenous governing body;
(b) the holder or any other person;
(c) the federal government or a federal Crown corporation;
(d) a provincial government or a provincial Crown corporation;
(e) a local authority.

This sounds nice, but in practice, anyone on the list can start making demands and delay or shut down any major project. Again, pandering to Indigenous bodies.

Offence and punishment — duty to assist and orders

112 (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 103(4) or fails to comply with an order under section 109 is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to both.

Defence — no notice

(2) A person must not be found guilty of an offence for failing to comply with an order under section 109 unless the person was given written notice of the order in accordance with paragraph 109(3)‍(a).

Offence and punishment — obstruction

(3) Every person who contravenes section 106 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $100,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $300,000.

This is one of many references in the Bill which criminalise certain actions. If nothing else, the bill does have teeth in it.

Pipeline Claims Tribunal

Establishment

Establishment of Tribunal

143 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, after a designation is made under subsection 141(1), establish a pipeline claims tribunal whose purpose is to examine and adjudicate, as expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, the claims for compensation made under this Act in relation to the release that occurred from the designated company’s pipeline and specify the location of its head office.

Reasons

(2) However, the Governor in Council may establish a pipeline claims tribunal only if, having regard to the extent of the compensable damage caused by the release, the estimated cost of paying compensation in respect of that damage and the advantages of having claims dealt with by an administrative tribunal, the Governor in Council considers it in the public interest to do so.

Claims treated equitably

(3) A Tribunal must exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions with respect to claims for compensation in an equitable manner, without discrimination on the basis of nationality or residence.

Now adding even more bureaucracy. The Governor in Council may establish a tribunal to specifically rule on pipeline compensation.

This bill goes on and on. Feel free to read the entire document

But the main take away is that it creates more and more levels of bureaucracy for any sort of development projects, such as pipelines. The only plausible explanation is that the Bill seems designed to prevent anything from getting off the ground.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #10: Promoting World Hijab Day

(Windsor Hospital promoting “World Hijab Day”)

This is the 10th piece in the open-ended series “CBC Propaganda”. For those who don’t know, CBC (a.k.a. the “Communist Broadcasting Corporation” or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”) is a state funded media outlet, which taxpayers are forced to pay. This costs in excess of $1 billion annually.

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article itself.
THE PROPAGANDA MASTERLIST is available here.

“Windsor Regional Hospital is celebrating World Hijab Day, a day marked since 2013 to encourage women of all backgrounds to try on a hijab.
.
The hospital’s diversity committee will have booths set up at the Met and Ouellette campuses, explaining why the hijab is worn and visitors will be invited to try one on.
.
Lina Chaker, who volunteers with the Windsor Islamic Association, sees the day as an invitation for people to see how wearing the hijab influences their daily life.
.
“[The hijab] means something different for every single person,” said Chaker.
For her? It’s a way to strengthen her relationship to God.
.
People who are unfamiliar with the hijab or have questions are more than welcome to ask questions, according to Chaker.
.
Ruaa Farhat, a 4th year social work student at University of Windsor, echoes that sentiment.
“It’s understandable, because some people just don’t know,” said Farhat.
.
Commonly asked questions include: do you sleep with it on? To which the answer would be no, she doesn’t.
.
Any misconceptions?
.
Farhat and Chaker both started wearing the hijab at around 6th grade.
.
“A lot of times we think about people being pressured to wear the hijab. But I think over here in Canada, the trend is actually people tell you not to wear it,” said Chaker.
.
Hijab hacks: Two Windsor women share advice on World Hijab Day
.
VideoHow to: Lessons in hijab wrapping for non-Muslims
.
She remembers her family telling her that she was still young, that she didn’t need to wear it. And her mother was worried about her being bullied in school if she wore one.
.
Farhat said she’s had to explain that it’s so liberal in Canada and that there’s no pressure.
.
“So the fact that I am wearing it, shows that I’m doing it out of my own will,” she said. She feels wearing one is a representation of her true self.
.
Farhat and Chaker say there are many styles to the hijab and people wear it in many ways.
.
“Some people like certain colours more than others,” said Chaker. She personally prefers not to use pins and to have fewer layers.
.
To learn more about the hijab, people are invited to stop by the Met Campus Friday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the Ouellette Campus Friday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.”

One thing to note: CBC has disabled the comments on this article.

Okay, what could be wrong with this? What is wrong with promoting it? Anyway, this group seems nice enough.

One “very small” detail gets omitted here:

In parts of the world, where Muslims are a majority, wearing the hijab is MANDATORY. It isn’t OPTIONAL for those women. If CBC were actually an objective media outlet, it would mention that

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

These are just a few examples of media coverage of punishment for women removing these headscarves. Any quick internet search will reveal thousands of such articles.

Of course, these strict dress codes only apply to women, not to men. Yet, Western feminists are deafeningly silent on this double standard. Perhaps by comparison, Western women have nothing to gripe about.

Rather than go into detail, I will leave it to the reader to do their own research. Why “promote” the hijab in the west, while it is clearly “oppression” under Islamic rule?

CBC, which again, gets over a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money every year “should” be broadcasting a far more balanced view on the subject. But objectivity seems non-existent.

Final note: CBC seems to have ignored a story it posted a year and a half ago, because it obviously doesn’t fit the narrative.

Posted on

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

THE UNDERSTANDING

From the opening of the agreement


EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;

The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.

It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.

Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.

ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.

It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.

ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.

So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.

HERE is the problem:

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.

That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.

One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.

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 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.