Category: Globalism

Posted on

Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act Returns, With AI Provision

Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act (or Dee CIA), has been brought back. In the last session, this was Bill C-11.

Contrary to what many might assume, this is not about gun control. Instead, it concerns digital privacy, and the way and means that personal information will be shared.

In fact, a lot of the Bills in this current session are recycled versions of legislation that died in previously. This is no exception.

One major difference here is something that was created:

The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act

[Section 2: definitions]
artificial intelligence system means a technological system that, autonomously or partly autonomously, processes data related to human activities through the use of a genetic algorithm, a neural network, machine learning or another technique in order to generate content or make decisions, recommendations or predictions.

[Section 3] Interestingly, this Act, and the limitations, do not apply to:
(a) the Minister of National Defence;
(b) the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;
(c) the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment; or
(d) any other person who is responsible for a federal or provincial department or agency and who is prescribed by regulation.

The legislation then gets into how the Act would be applied, and what the limitations would be. There’s a provision to prevent “biased outcomes” from being determined by artificial intelligence.

[Section 5(1)]
biased output means content that is generated, or a decision, recommendation or prediction that is made, by an artificial intelligence system and that adversely differentiates, directly or indirectly and without justification, in relation to an individual on one or more of the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, or on a combination of such prohibited grounds. It does not include content, or a decision, recommendation or prediction, the purpose and effect of which are to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds.

For reference, the Canadian Human Rights Act lists: “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered”, as protected grounds

In other words, AI can be used to pander to specific groups of people. However, “noticing” things would presumably violate the law.

[Section 6] lays out a requirement to add safeguards to anonymized data, which actually a really good idea. Guess we’ll have to see what those protections are later.

[Section 11] states that anyone or group that is involved in running a high-impact system must publish information — in plain terms — how the system works, and what safety protocols are in place.

(from the Bill) High-impact system means an artificial intelligence system that meets the criteria for a high-impact system that are established in regulations. However, the regulations haven’t been established yet.

[Sections 13, 14] allows Cabinet Ministers to require the disclosure of certain records, particularly if there is the risk of “biased outcomes” in what the AI is generating.

[Section 26] lists others who may be able to access confidential information, including:
(a) the Privacy Commissioner;
(b) the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
(c) the Commissioner of Competition;
(d) the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission;
(e) any person appointed by the government of a province, or any provincial entity, with powers, duties and functions that are similar to those of the Privacy Commissioner or the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
(f) any other person or entity prescribed by regulation.

[Section 28] gives the Minister the authority to publish information about people or a group (without their consent), if it’s believed that doing so will prevent harm from coming to them. However, it’s not stated what “reasonable grounds” actually means.

[Section 29] gets into Administrative Monetary Penalties, and the stated goal of ensuring compliance with the The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.

[Section 30] states that it’s an offence to violate Sections 6-12, as well as providing misleading information to the Minister, or anyone acting for the Minister.

[Section 36] is a backdoor provision, which exists in many pieces of legislation. It allows the Governor in Council to make regulations without the need to Parliamentary oversight.

[Sections 38-40] lay out penalties, both monetary and potential prison time, for violations of this Act. Fines can be up to $25,000,000 + 5% of revenues. Prison time can be up to 5 years (if proceeded by indictment), and 2 years less a day (if proceeded summarily).

Aside from the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act being included, this legislation is essentially just Bill C-11 from the last session of Parliament.

Consumer Privacy Protection Act

The Consumer Privacy Protection Act was the bulk of the last version of this Bill, and was in this one as well. While name appears to take privacy seriously, it’s worth noting that that Section 4 states that it doesn’t apply to:

(a) any government institution to which the Privacy Act applies;

(b) any individual in respect of personal information that the individual collects, uses or discloses solely for personal or domestic purposes;

(c) any organization in respect of personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes;

(d) any organization in respect of an individual’s personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses solely for the purpose of communicating or facilitating communication with the individual in relation to their employment, business or profession; or

(e) any organization that is, under an order made under paragraph 122(2)‍(b), exempt from the application of this Act in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information that occurs within a province in respect of which the order was made.

In other words, personal information can be shared with just about anyone.

[Section 8(1)] requires that organizations designate someone to be responsible for the security of this information, and that their contact information be furnished if requested.

[Sections 9-11] outline how a privacy safety management program must be established, and some considerations in setting it up.

[Section 18] lists how and when businesses can collect personal information, or disclose it, and when consent isn’t required to go through with it.

[Section 19] says that no consent or knowledge is required from the individual to share personal information with a service provider in the course of business.

[Sections 20-22] permit research to be done using customer information as data, although it’s expected that it would be anonymized. It’s also okay to do this for prospective business transactions that haven’t yet been approved.

[Sections 23-24] are about disclosure during the course of employment. This has been the norm for a long time, as companies routinely share data for things like payroll.

[Sections 25-28] says information can be shared without knowledge or consent for the purposes of disclosure to a notary, obtaining witness statements, suspected fraud, and debt collection.

[Section 35] allows information to be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or consent if it’s being done for statistical purposes, study or research, if obtaining consent is impractical.

[Section 36] gets into the disclosure of “records of historic or archival importance”, which again, can be done without knowledge or consent.

[Section 38] allows journalists, artists and people performing literary purposes to disclose information without the knowledge or consent of other parties involved.

[Sections 43, 44] mean that Government employees would be able to access personal records without the knowledge or consent of others, if done for the purpose of administering laws.

The Act then goes on at length about procedures that would be in place if these other rules were violated.

Bill C-27 would make various changes to other acts such as: the Canada Evidence Act; the Access to Information Act; the Aeronautics Act, the Competition Act; the Telecommunications Act; and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

While it sounds great to enshrine digital privacy, there are so many exceptions written in that one reasonably has to wonder what protections are really offered.

Of course, there is a bit of a conflict of interest here. Reporters and journalists require access to information in order to do their jobs. While doxing isn’t acceptable, the ability to dig deep is essential in order to properly prepare a broadcast or newspaper.

Bill C-11, (the last version of this), didn’t get far in the last session, and it doesn’t appear to be urgent now. Who knows if this will actually pass?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-11
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-11/first-reading
(3) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-27/first-reading
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html

Posted on

Four Applications To Federal Travel Mandates All Struck As “Moot”

The other day, the Federal Court released its reasons for dismissing various Applications challenging air and train vaccination mandates. The ruling came from Associate Chief Justice Gagné (2022 FC 1463). The specific challenges were:

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

All of these challenges were heard together, since they cover essentially the same issues. This isn’t surprising, as it can theoretically free up other courts.

To be clear, the cases weren’t struck or dismissed based on the merits, evidence, or arguments of the case. Instead, they were struck since the orders themselves had expired. The Judge decided it wasn’t worth hearing anyway, to ward off any potential return of these restrictions.

In the ruling, it came down to 2 questions: (a) are the cases moot; and (b) if so, should they be heard anyway?

[14] The Applicants and the Respondent both agree that the applicable test on a motion for mootness is the one articulated by Justice Sopinka in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), 1989 1 SCR 342. Unsurprisingly, they take very opposite positions on both of the two key stages as set forth in Borowski. Namely, they disagree on i) whether the issue is moot, and on ii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the case, if it is found moot.

[15] The Respondent’s motion therefore raises the following issues:
(a) Are the issues raised by these Applications for judicial review moot; is there a live controversy?
(b) If the issues are moot, should the Court nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the merits?

“Mootness” in the legal context means that the underlying issues have already been resolved in some way, or the circumstances have changed in a way that makes it impossible to determine. In this instance, the Federal Government argued that since the travel mandates had expired, there was no remedy to seek.

The Applicants, however, were concerned that these measures — or very similar ones — could be brought back, and it could happen at any time. They wanted this issue dealt with once and for all.

In their eyes, travel mandates were hardly “theoretical”, as they had already happened. Should the Court refuse to intervene, Ottawa would be able to reimpose them at a later date.

[20] The Applicants argue that there remains a live controversy because of statements by the Government of Canada that travel restrictions have only been “suspended”, suggesting that they may be re-implemented at any time if the COVID-19 public health situation worsens. In that sense, the Respondent’s motions would be premature. The Applicants rely on a press release issued by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, statements made by Ministers at a June 14, 2022 press conference, and in an interview that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to the CBC shortly afterwards.

[21] Firstly, the hearing of these Applications for judicial review is set for five days commencing on October 31, 2022. Since the hearing of this Motion, Transport Canada has removed the requirement to wear a mask on planes and trains and repealed the last remaining IO. In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing.

[22] Secondly, a comment made by a Minister to a journalist, taken outside its context, does not amount to a decision by that Minister and it is no more an indication of a live controversy. Even if the Minister called what occurred in June 2022 a suspension, the reality is that all IOs/MO that had contained a vaccination mandate have legally expired and none that contain such a mandate have been reissued since June.

The ruling goes on some more, with the Judge explaining why this wasn’t worth continuing, since the orders had all lapsed.

The case was ultimately thrown out for “mootness”. The Judge declined to hear the merits anyway.

And therein lies another problem with this Court. Is there really justice when a Judge can simply pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and which ones they can decline? What exactly was the remedy that they should have sought? And where?

[48] For the above reasons, these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.

[49] There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.

[50] Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions. If the air and rail vaccine mandates are re-introduced in the future, they can be properly challenged and should be weighed against the reality in which they are implemented.

Apparently, the inability of millions of people to fly and exercise their Section 6 Charter rights (mobility) isn’t a concern for the Court. After all, the mandates are gone — for now. If this isn’t worth spending judicial resources on, what exactly is?

Interestingly, the Judge says it’s not the place of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions, but suggests that the cases can be brought back again if travel mandates are reinstated.

Suppose that does happen — and that the vaccine passport does return — what’s to stop Ottawa from temporarily pulling it (again) to ward off another challenge? Perhaps this is old fashioned, but it would be nice to see the issue resolved once and for all.

The Applicants who initiated these suits are now on the hook for the costs of losing this motion. While their initial filings were compelling, letting the orders expire then doing this was a dirty trick. It’s unclear what cost scale would be used, but the parties could very well settle it on their own.

Had a Prothonotary issued this ruling, it could be reviewed under Rule 51. But this came from a Justice, so the next step would be challenging this at the Federal Court of Appeals. There has been talk of doing this, especially in light of the Associate Chief Justice refusing to hear it altogether. We will have to see if that happens in the next few weeks. There is a 30 day time limit to file notice.

For reference, the standard for review is also available online. It addresses findings of fact, law, and mixed fact and law.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.pdf
(3) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/522361/1/document.do
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: Pfizer Docs; AEFI; Deaths; Weather Modification

In the last piece, it was shown how the Nova Scotia Premier’s Office apparently had no records whatsoever concerning the “document dumping” that Pfizer was forced to undertake. Now, it seems like NS Health has no records to disclose either. One would think that the revelations in that paperwork would be cause for concern.

Nova Scotia doesn’t have statistics available on the compensation of adverse reactions from the vaccine. However, there a small package for the AEFI reported thus far. There’s also an attached link to the Federal program that is being administered through a 3rd party, RCGT Consulting Inc.

As of June 2022, there were:

  • 615 non serious and 315 serious AEFI
  • 57 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis
  • 5 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome
  • 2 cases of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

Keep in mind, this is just what has been reported. It’s possible that there are far more side effects that have thus far gone under the radar.

As of the time of writing this:

  • 774 claims have been submitted
  • 7 claims have been approved
  • 71 claims were deemed inadmissible for ineligibility and/or missing information
  • 654 claims were deemed admissible
  • 553 claims are in the process of collecting medical records
  • 23 claims are being reviewed

From the FAQ section on their website:

A serious and permanent injury is defined as a severe, life-threatening or life-altering injury that may require in-person hospitalization, or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death

The Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) is premised on the notion of no-fault. This means that financial support to eligible claimants is provided regardless of responsibility or possible fault (e.g., of the claimant, manufacturer or health professional administering the vaccine). A no-fault program ensures timely access to financial support.

The amount of financial support an individual will receive will be determined on a case by case basis. Amounts will be based on a pre-determined financial support payment framework. The framework will align with compensation provided under the Québec Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and informed by other public and private sector injury compensation practices.

It’s interesting that all of this is premised as “no-fault” when there was outright coercion to get people to take the shots in the first place. There doesn’t seem to be any posted rates of compensation.

One other point: accepting money from this program almost certainly means waiving any rights to take other actions (such as suing). True, there were indemnification agreements in place, but this would protect everyone from liability, and can’t really be challenged later. Expect non-disclosure agreements to be put in place as condition of getting any funds.

Also released is data on the total numbers of deaths in Nova Scotia, going back to 2017. In fairness, a small increase annually isn’t farfetched, given the growing population. That said, the data shows small decreases from time to time, while 2021/2022 lists increases across the board. Look at it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

Remember: WHO defines a “Covid death” as: A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose). Sounds legitimate, right?

Now, this is unrelated to the above, but worth a browse. Here is the decision letter, and the results, of an FOIA request into weather modification. Remember when all of this was written off as conspiracy theories?

If you haven’t checked out the work of Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. No proper isolation has ever been done, anywhere in the world. Arguing about “mitigation” or protective measures seems pointless if there’s nothing to protect against.

DOCUMENTS/LINKS
(1) 2022-182 no responsive records NSH Pfizer
(2) 2022-181 no responsive records AEFI Statistics
(3) https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/adverse-events-following-immunization-with-COVID-19-vaccines-2022-06-30.pdf
(4) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics
(5) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/faq
(6) FOI 2022-01565-SNSIS deaths by month since 2017 Book2 (1)
(7) A-2022-01018 – Response Letter Weather Modification
(8) A-2022-01018 – Release Weather Modification

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-more-deaths-as-vaccination-numbers-climb/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-govt-data-on-deaths-by-age-vaxx-status/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-another-data-dump-on-cases-vaxx-rates/
(L) https://canucklaw.ca/freedom-of-information-requests-canuck-law/
(M) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-cant-be-bothered-with-pfizer-docs/

Posted on

O.I.C. 2022-1144: Handgun Sales Banned In Canada, Effective October 21

Without going through the legislative process, the Canadian Government has banned the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns. This has been done by Order In Council, and not by a vote. The specific Order is #2022-1144, from the Ministry of Public Safety.

The disarmament of the Canadian public continues, piece by piece.

Bill C-21 would have made a number of changes, including this ban on handgun sales.

The earlier incarnation of this Bill died when the Fall 2021 election was called. A similar version was re-introduced, with many of the same draconian measures. This includes red flag laws and yellow flag laws. That being said, it seems the Government isn’t willing to wait, or to take the chance that this won’t pass either.

This isn’t the first time (even on this Bill) that Ottawa has unilaterally implemented a portion of its own legislation without debate. On August 19, 2022, the importation of handguns into Canada was banned

Bill C-21 is currently only in its second reading, and addresses portions of the Firearms Act, such as:

Registration Certificates
Marginal note:Registration certificate
12.1 A registration certificate may only be issued for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm.

This would have been changed by adding that by adding a provision that a certificate cannot be issued for a handgun.

Apparently, any handgun applications submitted before today will still be processed, but any new ones will not.

Many predicted that after O.I.C. 2020-0298 (banning hundreds of models by executive decision), the incremental cuts would come. Keep in mind, it’s too obvious to do all at once, so the rights must be whittled away in a piecemeal fashion in order to succeed.

Now, how long until there’s a new O.I.C. to confiscate all handguns completely?

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/results.php?lang=en
(2) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42706&lang=en
(3) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(5) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-to-ban-handgun-imports-august-19th-using-regulatory-measure/
(7) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-bans-new-handgun-sales-in-latest-gun-control-action
(8) https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1583502471238160384

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Posted on

Bill C-75: Removing Prohibition On “Misinformation” From Criminal Code (Reminder)

Bill C-75 has been covered a few times before. There was the watering down of penalties for terrorism offences, child sex offences, and the NGOs who were pushing this degeneracy. That said, this piece of work isn’t finished revealing all of its dirty secrets.

Supposedly, this was in response to a 1992 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Seems pretty strange to deal with it nearly 30 years later.

At the time of this Bill, Jody Wilson-Raybould was the Minister of Justice. Absurdly, she hailed as a “hero” for standing up to Trudeau on SNC Lavalin, despite advancing all kinds of horrible legislation he was responsible for. Seems that her entire profile didn’t matter.

But thanks to a provision slipped into that Bill, it will no longer be a criminal offence to knowingly spread lies with the intent of causing harm or mischief. While this “appears” to be a win for free speech advocates, the timing is suspicious, considering what would come in 2020.

This is what Section 181 of the criminal code used to say. It has since been repealed, and taken off the books, at least for the time being.

Spreading false news
181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 177

While Bill C-75 did go through Parliamentary study, it doesn’t appear as if this single line was examined at all. Perhaps people were more concerned with reduced penalties for terrorists.

This is not the only time this sort of thing has been buried in larger Bills. Another recent example was pulling Government oversight with the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act. This was done by embedding it into a budget.

Of course, in early 2020, Ottawa proposed its own version of “misinformation” laws. Thankfully, those seem to have gone nowhere.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-75
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jody-wilson-raybould(89494)
(4) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c-39.html
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-25.html#h-118691
(6) http://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/List_of_Criminal_Code_Amendments_
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do?