Once waiver is received

@HatBootsHats

I went after Ken when he gave inaccurate information. My other problem was posting fake information (fake September Letters) on his website. You were the only other person I went after, again, when you give inaccurate information. In your case its not malicious, but you fall into the trap of knowing more than the average person, and thinking that makes you an expert.

You rail against "the industry" yet you would never criticize Ken, simply because he would say nice things about you. That makes you a hypocrite. I am sure Ken simply found another job, or got deported. I certainly never got him in trouble, although when you make fraudulent claims, you certainly can get into trouble. My main concern was something medical to be honest.

People deserve a second chance, and my whole business model is predicated on that concept. Have you talked to your MP? I have talked to 4 different MP's in the last calendar year. I got into a shouting match with one. One has his office next door to me. I also participated in 2 Government consultations in 2016 and even had a petition and website called "Bring Back Fairness". I literally started a website and paid for it to bring attention to what the Conservatives did in 2012. I discontinued it in 2017 because the Liberals promised to make changes.

Look at my Facebook. I constantly go after Conservative Politicians about breaching the charter rights of 2 million Canadians in 2012.

You seem to care, but I see little in the way of action from you.

You say things like "they should automatically get rid of certain minor offences", but you forget that this will actually cost quite a bit of money, taxpayer money, to do. Your talking about 9% of the population with a criminal record. (8.69%) That's over 3 million criminal records to sift through. Who should pay for that?

Pardons should be affordable. Pardons should be easier. But the onus should surely be on the person to at least APPLY to remove a record. If minor offences are removed after 5 years for example, does that mean a person could have an impaired driving every 5 years and it always looks like its his/her first? I have many clients who stay out of trouble for years, but then re-offend. With a pardon, the record is restored, and rightly so.

We had an excellent system before 2012. It didn't need to be changed. This is what should be restored. If the MP who heads the committee looking into this keeps to his timetable, we should see significant Pardon changes in February. That is also when they will come up with a system for minor pot convictions to possibly be removed under 30 grams with no pardon fee.

When these changes occur, I will be letting everyone know whats changed, and how they can take advantage of it.

I agree with your opinions John on the pardon system... it should go back to how it was. Simply put though the conservatives made changes to seem like they were taking action on crime, and sadly we would never know if those changes would impact numbers and statistics until 20 years down the road.

That said, other than the pardons issues, I think they're a much better government to have in place than our current figureheads.... say what you want, but our current government is spineless with a global agenda and could care little what happens outside of key election zones for them. If you're not in Ontario or Quebec, they have zero interest or care to act in your interest.

I would be shocked if they kept to their february timeline .... if they did the cons would use the pardon changes as "Trudeau is soft on crime" and make it an election wedge issue.

@Jazzsax1

I disagree about the Conservatives being better at governing than the Liberals but we will spare everyone a spirited debate.

To your point about the upcoming election, this is my big concern. They definitely don't want to be too close to an election and making it easier to get pardons. The only BUT I am going to put in there is that they promised a system for the possession of pot people "in the coming weeks" when they decriminalized it. They could possibly tout the pot system and downplay the pardon changes, because it makes sense to change the legislation together.

The committee dragged its feet (the minutes are available online) and promised in May that final decisions would be made "in the next 9 months". February is that deadline.

The changes HAVE to be made. In Ontario and BC you get a pardon and have 1 set of rules (3-5 years for eligibility) and the rest of Canada you still get a Record Suspension and have to wait 5-10 years. It has to be standardized and the Courts made it clear the Conservative changes were unconstitutional.

The thing that bothered me the most is when a consultation is held and the results ignored. The Conservatives were told 1074-12 not to change these rules, and lawyers told them it was unconstitutional. Its borderline criminal to make the changes in the face of this.

Not to make the same comparison but Doug Ford held a consultation about the school curriculum and 99% said they wanted it left. That's not a typo. He is ignoring it.

There is something about democracy that right wing leaders seem to hate.

I could argue with you until you are blue in the face John. We will disagree on politics. Both sides are awful, each is out to serve their own interests regardless. The main difference between liberals and conservatives is pretty simply --- Liberals feel they have the natural right to govern, and should tell us how we are to act, feel, think, look, speak, but will go to the trough and spend money like drunken sailors, unless they have a competent finance minister (Paul Martin) .

The cons are just as bad, but are more apt to let government stay out of what you say, feel, think, look, act as long as individuals rights aren't infringed upon (ie, follow the rules or pay the price). They will spend like drunken sailors but still at least you know how they are doing, and 99% of the time it's for the benefit of our home country / economy instead of the rest of the world.

Take care of the issues at home before you worry about everyone else. Not this stupid "peoplekind" bullshit.

Don't be surprised though if they drag their feet on this... the liberals are known to only further things that suit the agenda and narrative, and this one won't get rushed if it's not a wedge issue. It's more likely you see them wait until after the election with a majority so they could easily ram it through.

@Jazzsax
@John Rogers

Both Libs and Cons are equally bad. Both of you bring excellent points but I have to disagree on some other topics.

For starters, I don't believe that stealing a bag of chips from a convenience store or breaking a window should result in a criminal record. Same goes for drunk driving. There are other ways to tackle these social problems but we rather put people in jail, convict them, prevent them from finding housing and a job upon their release. They claim that prisons help rehabilitate offenders but we all know prisons are not the place for that.

Northern european countries have found better ways to deal with such matters. Putting people in jail costs significantly more to the tax payer. It's very easy to lock up people and tarnish their reputation with a "criminal record". The consequences of all this is that you have a substantial percentage of your population that is now labelled a criminal. US statistics are alarming as 1/3 of Americans are criminals. Do you believe this is acceptable? Then you have 1/10 Canadians with convictions on their file. I won't discuss about the UK or Australia. What is a crime today may no longer be a crime tomorrow. Why would we judge people simply on a criminal record.

The Canadian system allows for discharges, peace bonds and extra judicial matters to avoid a formal criminal conviction but the person still has a stain somewhere which may hinder his job search or travelling to the US amongst other limitations in the future. Non convictions are a huge issue. Ontario recently passed a law to hide such information when it is not relevant but other provinces have not followed.

Bottom line, a criminal record should not be used to discriminate against a person who happened to make a past minor mistake. Laws have been enacted in many provinces to prevent such practices but they are seldom enforced.

It would be in everyone's interest for pardons to be automatic for minor offences as many of these individuals were young adults who happened to make poor decisions. The current system is not beneficial because of the time frames involved. I do agree that they should revert to the old system however a parallel expungement system should be also available for individuals that haven't re-offended for the last 25 years.

As for US waivers, I won't share my personal beliefs about them. They are simply a money grab and our canadian politicians are powerless.

I have had discussions with a few MPs recently who share my opinions. I do hope that they make a fair system again and a system that goes beyond pardoning individuals because pardons are useless for crossing borders.

@Jazzsax1 we will agree to disagree. That's the beauty of democracy.

@HatsBootsHatsBoots

“For starters, I don't believe that stealing a bag of chips from a convenience store or breaking a window should result in a criminal record. Same goes for drunk driving. There are other ways to tackle these social problems but we rather put people in jail, convict them, prevent them from finding housing and a job upon their release. They claim that prisons help rehabilitate offenders but we all know prisons are not the place for that.”

You live in Ontario, so you know about Marco Muzzo killing 3 children and their grandfather driving drunk? Your statement about drunk driving is the stupidest thing you have ever said.

None of the offences you mentioned results in jail time. But if you own a store, or manage a grocery store, you would just let people steal without consequence? If I get drunk and break your windshield, you will just happily pay to replace it and no consequences?

When I first started doing pardon in 1997 people would be pissed that impaired was criminal. "Everyone I know drives drunk" "Its not like I am using drugs". In 2019 people are genuinely more embarrassed about impaired than domestic assault. That's how far we have come in that time period, and how effective the campaign against drunk driving has become.

Typically a person convicted of impaired, theft, mischief get a fine and probation. Under the past "fair" system, they would be eligible to remove the record 3 years after the probation. If they were diligent, they might have a criminal record for 4 -5 years. That is a lesson learned, but not enough to ruin a persons life permanently. They can fix it.

We are no where near the American system where the sentences are given with an eye for a judges re-election. We have a 'decent' but not perfect system here in Canada.

Waivers are not a cash grab. Canada also stops Americans with a criminal record and makes them make an application like a waiver. We actually make impaired drivers inadmissible. The United States SHOULD recognize pardons, on that I agree. But a country has a right to control who enters their borders.

If it was a cash grab, why exempt Canadian Citizens from the increase in the waiver fee to $930? Canadians play $585. Lets be honest. Everyone hates waivers, but travelling to the United States is not a mandatory part of life for most people. Spend your money elsewhere and avoid the waiver altogether.

I have filing cabinets FULL of people who will never do a waiver because they are doing a Pardon and have never been denied entry. Its unfortunate when people get caught, but those who do their due diligence before travelling are rewarded by never being denied entry.

At the end of the day, everyone hates waivers (I would be no different if I needed one) but generally the person has a waiver through their own actions.

@HatsBootsHats I get the impression your about 25 years old. You sound very immature and very naive.

Imagine one of these stats are your girlfriend (who you mentioned way back you were doing a waiver for) Imagine a drunk driver killed her, or your future daughter. Then shoot your mouth off about "drunk driving should not be criminal"

“In 2014, road crashes claimed an estimated 2,297 lives. Based on testing of fatally-injured drivers, it may be estimated that 1,273 (55.4%) of these deaths resulted from crashes in which an individual was positive for alcohol and/or drugs.

299 deaths, or 13%, occurred in crashes involving individuals who were positive for alcohol alone.
618 deaths, or 26.9%, occurred in crashes involving individuals who were positive for drugs alone.
356 deaths, or 15.5%, occurred in crashes involving individuals who were positive for both alcohol and drugs.”

@John Rogers

You mistake justice for vengeance. You think punishing people is the way to fight crime. You are no better than the Conservatives you keep criticizing. Punishing them for stealing or breaking a car window for life is beyond ridiculous. You can just pay the fines and go on with your life, no criminal record. Pardons do not go beyond the extra step, they still appear when you go through a vulnerable sector check. People have gone to prison for stealing. They can just pay back the amount they stole. Why prevent them from finding a job or affordable housing with a criminal record?

For drunk driving, it is social problem. Why stop an American with a drunk driving record from entering Canada? How does that protect Canadians? Another American with no record however can enter, drive drunk and never be caught. The whole system is beyond ridiculous.

A person with a clean record is in no way any better than a person who has a criminal record. Wether I'm 25 or 60 is of no importance.

I would for you one day to look at the northern European model and then you might change your perspectives.

I would like to see the Pardon rules go back to the way they were years ago. Summarily was 3 year + sentence time. Indictable 5 year + sentence time. Court docs only required if under 15 years. Everyone was eligible for a Pardon, regardless of offense. The problem was never Pardons...it is Organizations that do not do the proper background checks on people. I remember when Pardons changed, it was in response to Karla Homolka and Graham James.. Well first Graham James did a legal name change, which should have never been allowed, therefore, it had nothing to do with Pardons, that he was able to volunteer again. And everyone was freaking out that Karla would be eligible for a Pardon, so the rules had to change. But nobody seems to care that she got married and had kids. **Strange Priorities**..But lets change the entire system and make it backwards, difficult and effect thousands of "rehabilitated" people, because of (2) people who beat the system. Put the Pardon system back to the way it was, and educate Organizations on the proper ways to screen people using reference checks, back ground checks, including Vulnerable Sector Searches, and education checks. My two cents..

@HatsBootsHats

A criminal record is not to PUNISH someone. Technically the "sentence" is the punishment. You give an air of knowledge but when you talk about this subject, you can see you have no experience with WHY people commit offences, and what ultimately makes them stop.

No one in Canada goes to Jail for a first time theft. NO ONE.

Why create a "record" of offences, a "criminal record?" A one time offender should be treated differently than a person with 10 incidents. Some people are part of organized crime rings and see getting caught as "the cost of doing business". How would you track THEM vs the first time shoplifter unless there is a record? How would you track if they paid their fines?

@Jazzsax1 will vouch for the fact I certainly don't come off as a Conservative, I am sure I come off as a "bleeding heart liberal". Working in this industry makes me VERY sympathetic to the plight of people with criminal records. But these same people would tell you that regardless of WHY they committed the offences, it would be stupid to treat all offenders the same, regardless of whether they do the offence all the time, over and over, or if it is a one time thing.

Thats only possible with a record.

Finland -Drunk driving is an offence punishable by a fine or a maximum of six months of imprisonment. Aggravated drunk driving is punishable by a minimum of sixty unit-fines or a maximum of two years of imprisonment.

Norway - Norway’s drunk driving laws are tough—really tough. In Norway, a BAC of 0.02% gets you arrested for drunk driving with penalties equal to a month’s salary and your license suspended for one year. If your BAC tops 0.15% or higher, expect to be shelling out one and a half month’s salary, spending at least 21 days in prison, and a suspended license for 2 years. Your financial penalty is all based on your income and penalties range from 100-150% of your monthly income although judges can use some discretion in determining your actual financial situation.

Sweden - Drunk Driving laws in Sweden reflect the country’s serious attitude toward the crime. The fine you pay is not set by statute, so a star athlete won’t have a $200 hand-slap. Fines are based upon how much money you have in the bank. That can really hurt, and that makes everyone think twice about getting behind the wheel after drinking

@HatsBootsHats you said:

“I would for you one day to look at the northern European model and then you might change your perspectives.”

Apparently you talked out of your ass without doing any research. Again.

@John Rogers

You fail to see through my perspective once again. Offenders don't re-offend in those countries that you mentioned. They are rehabilitated and crime is non existant. They are able to have good careers after their release from prison or move on past their convictions. Poverty is low and offenders are re-integrated into society. They are not discriminated for past mistakes.

I happened to witness a minor go to jail here in Canada for first time theft. He was a person of color. He received 30 days to be served on the weekends. So believe me, when you try to intimidate me by saying I'm a juvenile or using vulgarity, it only makes you look bad once again. You had requested for a moderator but it is you it seems that needs to be monitored.

Waivers are a cash grab for Americans and whatever you say, you cannot change my mind. Unfortunately, our politicians can't stand up to them. It only makes sense for Canada to stop Americans with lenghty criminal records from coming here too.

The current system allows for little judgement. A person with 1 incident will be hindered for the rest of his life just like a person with 10 incidents. However, the later has been through the system often and knows how to navigate it. He is better off in many regards.

A criminal record is the real punishment unfortunately. Once people complete their sentence, they are limited in getting affordable housing, jobs, traveling or volunteering because of the existence of said record. You have a society of people labelled as criminals. Politicians and the media will go to great extent of brainwashing the population using said "criminals" to advance a certain agenda.

How many people do much worse and never get caught? Yet, we don't discriminate against them.

Keep believing in your senseless police state John.

I also laugh at people who support the death penalty yet they find abortion to be morally unacceptable. They claim they are Christians yet they forgot the two basic principles: forgiveness and not to kill. The hypocrisy of modern western society.

I suppose we do have a better system than other places on this planet but improvement is always welcomed.

Well HATS HATS BOOTSyou are 100% correct as usual. I fully agree with what you have said. A lot of European countries handle the crime issue much better than Canada or the USA. England is the exception though sinceBritish jails are full and obviously great for business for us for now.

I have missed quite a few posts as we are involved with a brand new project that has honesty caught us off guard and now we are severely backlogged with work. We have everyone to include Seth Ben Archer helping with non Investor visa cases. It is quite a few different types of work from L-1 visas, E-2, Waivers, Green Card Applications and etc. I don't want to bore anyone here. Anyway, this is the reason why you have not heard from us.

This also brings up a good point. I feel that the system is partially responsible for a lot of these people getting a conviction. There is no reason that someone should get a criminal record for trying to feed their family. Stealing food is something that they obviously are embarrassed to do and I feel that it is a system failure. The community as a whole is responsible for the group and should look out for each other.

Mr. NO DUMMY is an example of the system failing someone and then essentially forcing them to become institutionalized. Then you have a man that became part of the system but has reformed his life and changed for the better.

usentrywaiverservices.com

Actually you can't compare Europe to Canada. Europe has open borders. Go commit a crime in Germany, use your EU passport to move freely through Schengen and go work in a different EU country. Pretty sure they won't know squat about you or do the background checks.

We don't really have those free borders, except between provinces. Way different. Way way different.

John is an anomaly. He's a bleeding heart liberal that likes to beat things up. Don't know many liberals who do that, other than with their words at people who offend them.

The irony in that is striking. Very striking. You would have thought he'd prefer to stay indoors and hide in a safe space and talk more about peoplekind. :)

@Jazzsax1

John Rogers, a liberal and kind? I highly doubt it.

If the USA could fix its gun laws, Canada would agree to having more open borders with our neighbors. They have some pretty bad individuals over there, why should we allow them to visit us if they don't equally allow Canadians to visit them. Mind you, we did have a pretty lenient system before 9/11. There were waivers back then but at some point, you would receive somewhat of a pardon from US immigration, a so called "permanent waiver " after several waivers. Also, passports were not required. Why can't both politicians from either country go back to the old system before 9/11? I will tell you, waivers and temporary entry permits (somewhat canadian "US waiver" equivalents) are a lucrative business. John Rogers would lose big time.

Remember, Canada never closed its borders to Americans. They systematically blocked out a bunch of Canadians by imposing new rules after 9/11. They just recently started attacking NAFTA again which had provisions for establishing open borders somewhat near the future, signed I remind you from Republicans, the same individuals who came out criticizing the deal 25 years later. Last year, they made our government bend backwards and concede to more ridiculous demands. Canada was also forced to step up security after 9/11. Many Americans became inadmissible from entering our country as a result. They have themselves to blame. However, politicians will never tell you this stuff.

@HatsBootsHatsBoots

Canada has a similar system to the United States. (Waivers/Rehabilitations ) Its not a gun thing, its a criminal record thing. Canada, like the US, wants to know how serious the criminal record is before they enter and want to "VET" them. Although restrictive, its a better compromise that no control.

I think people with minor criminal records are right to be frustrated with Waivers, but at the same time, I think everyone would be upset if "dangerous" people were allowed to cross the border at will. There has to be a compromise.

You said this: "Offenders don't re-offend in those countries that you mentioned. They are rehabilitated and crime is non existant."

Since I debunked your "Northern European Countries don't make you a criminal when you drink and drive easily, and your only reply was "You fail to see through my perspective once again", please provide ANY proof for the above statement. Don't forget, Pardons and light sentences means Canada is a world leader in this regard already. Show me what you said is true or I call bullshit. Again.

HATS, I adjust to the system that exists, it wasn't created for me. Pardons, Waivers, Fingerprints, even Passport Photos. I am not dependent on any one service, although I try and personally keep my focus on the Waiver business. That's why I am an expert.

@KenScott are you working for NO DUMMY like he claims? Why has your name been removed from everything, and why is your name NOT mentioned on any sites for the these investor visas? I know Facebook was simply you blocking me, I am more curious why you went from unable to NOT stopping promoting yourself, to not being mentioned at all?

Are you currently residing in Canada? And before you get offended, I only ask because some people may care if they are thinking of using you for waiver services. You have promised refunds to some, (if their application is unsuccessful) and that becomes less attainable from the UK.

@HatsBootHatsBoots

Politically. I once started a Union at Famous Players Theatres with IATSE. I have campaigned on the left my entire life. Started the UNION. Spent weeks fighting for certification at the Labor Board. Lost.

I actually did a fax and letter campaign AGAINST Stephen Harper twice. I was the go to Pardon provider for social services in Toronto, Peel, Durham, York and even Oxford County from 2002-2012 and still do many, although they do not like to pay for it anymore. It was a great eye opener to the effects of poverty of people and the struggles to gain employment. We are talking about a period where I was probably sent 2-4 people a DAY.

I had a campaign and website www.bringbackfairness.com and encouraged EVERYONE to sign my petition and spent hundreds on literature. It was the first thing you saw when you came to my office. I ran it for 2 years and stopped after the public consultations in 2016, since it was clear changes were coming.

I used to spend one night a month at the Don Jail before they closed it, and I have spoken at 3 other institutions about pardons. I used to go once every 2 weeks to some location, whether it was a social services office, or a workers meeting to talk about pardons and why they should be paid for by social services. Community involvement is very important to me.

I have NEVER voted Conservative. Look at my Facebook writings. They are wide open and the opposite of anything remotely right wing. I am all over any causes that support the rights of the individual, eliminating poverty, and stopping racism.

I know research isn't your strong suit, but your barking up the wrong tree if you think I am "law and order" minded. Not even close. Before you write, maybe RESEARCH.

I think Jazzsax1 can spot a political leaning easily, and can verify I am no Conservative. My Facebook page is not hidden. Anyone can look.

I am transparent and accountable. Always.

Yes I'm pretty good at weeding out which way people lean politically. My poli-radar is usually smack on.

Good to see you have been advocating for the little guy. It's obvious Hats has something to grind with you but whatever, brush it off.

The current government is one that's a huge example though of broken promises, so if I were you I wouldn't shut down your site and activism if you are hoping for the pardons to be improved. This government solely functions on wedge issues for them. Pardons aren't a pretty one.

If I need to remind you:

- campaigned on 3 modest deficits only, with that being front and centre. Blew that one up pretty quick
- campaigned on electoral reform (which was HUGE for the youth vote)...
- the list goes on (at least 43 documented broken promises from their last campaign)...

Not saying they are the worst, or the best, simply suggesting if you are waiting with anticipation for them to follow through on the pardon changes, you could be waiting a while.

@jazzsax1 (just to continue the debate)

**ALERT** this is all politics, ignore if your looking for waiver advice.

-I think with deficits you govern depending on the economy. I have never liked an ideological response, I want a measured one that helps the economy. That goes for both sides.

-Electoral reform. I liked electoral reform, and I think its a mistake to back off of it. It would have ensured Conservatives NEVER formed a majority government again. I think Trudeau actually realized that if he did it, it would change the way politics operate in Canada forever and I think fear of the unknown made him scrap it. Conservatives don't harp of this too much because they will never win Federally ever again if its implemented

-Pardons (I have to choose 1) I liked the first consultation but they were actually SMART to have a second one that asked more questions. If they don't implement the changes, I will agree with you 100%. But they did put up the results of the consultation and I expect them to follow through in February or March.

All I want is a government that protects the vulnerable and does whats best for the most people. There is still something noble in protecting, not exploiting the weak.

@JohnRogers

ALERT, debate continued.

- Deficits, if you govern depending on the economy then you actually look at the economy and spend accordingly. The massive deficits run the last few years were when the economy was STRONG pretty much country wide except for Alberta. There was no need, it was purely idealogic and against the election promises made. At least in 2008 Harper had a reason to do a massive spend which was historically ABNORMALLY for tories (they are not prone to spending) but was neccessary.

- He didn't scrap it due to fear of the unknown, he scrapped it once he realized that it would open the door to difficulty for the Liberals. The cons would never hold an outright majority, but the liberals would likely have been in the same boat. NDP and Greens would suddenly become King Makers, both with wildly differing platforms and ones that would take the liberals far more left of centre than their "natural governing" position. That in itself was their sole reason. They also don't like negotiating or having to work with other parties unless absolutely neccessary

- Pardons - well we'd all like to see that one change. No debate there.

Both sides can look after the little guy, it honestly comes down to how people like to see that happen.

No doubt the Liberals would never get a majority, and I am sure the external people who "fund" the party did not want that. But Liberals would have a Prime Minister, with the NDP help. Canada would take a shift politically left, with the Liberals being elected to the most seats and the NDP wielding a lot of influence. The Conservatives would at first be a far right powerless fringe. Then it would split, and the more moderate Joe Clark types would be a part of the political landscape. The Alberta Republicans would be stuck.

I was looking forward to it. The University Of Calgary crowd should never run a country.

And that's where we disagree.

Alberta should have a bigger say than it does given how much it funds towards social services and equilisation. Unfortunately that will never be the case.

Will be interesting to watch the next year, particularly how our provincial and federal election goes. There is alot more discontent here than people realize and I wouldn't be shocked if there was a push to change the formulas and/or a push to seperate similar to the stunts quebec pulled. AB has nothing to lose if it does.... just needs to grow the balls to do it.