The SQ has raided a Montreal business that created false documents: passports, birth certificates, drivers’ licences, health cards and so forth, although how these items work when everything’s always checked against a database is unclear.
This story rang a bell. A year ago, a man was sentenced to 14 months for running a similar ID‑faking business downtown. Here’s La Presse’s version of that story and TVA reporting that he only served a quarter of his sentence.
Following from a recent story about the buyer of a duplex finding she can’t move in, now she can, at least into the ground‑floor flat, in September.
At least the tribunal was able to discriminate based on immigration status! (They have a visa for two years and the owner can apply for PR for her parents and then an indefinite open work permit until that’s decided.)
The decision implies that not only must you have residency status but anything less than permanent residency status is not OK, as “[t]he judge said there can’t be any uncertainty regarding the plan’s feasibility.” That strikes me as one of those things that sounds like common sense but is complicated by the details, as there are a lot of status that allow very long tenures in Canada and often with a clear path to PR.
Being on a supervisa is on the more tenuous side, as it doesn’t have temporary resident status, but these visas are valid for up to 10 years with any single visit up to 5 years, and living in Canada five—or almost ten—years is a long time! (And that’s not even considering how there’s often a clear pathway to PR!) Similarly, US citizens usually do not need temporary resident visas, but US citizen professionals can have work permits that effectively renew continuously as long as they’re employed, and some have been here for literally decades—long enough to raise Canadian citizen children from conception through graduating university!—but that, too, would probably be too uncertain. PhD programmes can take six years, followed by a work permit and (less so than before) a path to PR, but this nearly decade-long commitment to Canada would not be enough to meet a “can’t be any uncertainty” standard.
Meanwhile, a citizen or PR could be forced to move for any number of reasons—being transferred by work, getting a new job, needing a larger or smaller home, moving to a CHSLD, divorce or marriage, dying—because nothing in life is actually uncertain.
The super visa that she has does not lead to PR, and they closed the parent/grandparent PR path. But I am not entirely against “you can’t evict a tenant for a non-owner who doesn’t have a permanent right to stay in Canada”.
In case we thought brush fires were something that only happens in the north, there were fires near the St‑Hubert airport Monday, luckily not damaging anything of great value – yet.
Michael Hendricks, who campaigned for gay rights for a long time before finally being able to legally marry his longtime partner René Leboeuf in 2004, has died.
In the Fugues interview referenced in the CBC article Kate linked to, Michael is quoted as saying “De plus, les jeunes générations ne connaissent pas l’histoire de nos luttes.”
In an article published after Michael’s death (also Fugues) they write “et les deux hommes obtiendront gain de cause devant la Cour suprême du Canada.” (https://www.fugues.com/2026/07/19/deces-de-michael-hendricks-1941-2026-un-pionnier-de-nos-communautes-vient-de-nous-quitter/)
That ,of course, is wrong. Michael & Réné’s case only went as far as the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Same-sex advocates had won their cases in B.C., Ontario, and Quebec appeal courts. Rather than appealing any of the three cases to the SCC, the Chretien government sent a Reference asking 3 (later 4) questions.
Here’s the Reference explained by political science professor Peter Hogg:
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/4/712/640266
When the SCC replied that the federal government could legislate same-sex marriage, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-38, “An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes”; and, they made it a free vote.
A number of Liberals voted against same-sex marriage recognition, including Montreal MP Francis Scarpaleggia (currently Speaker of the House of Commons).
Like Michael, I think we need to remember our history. He certainly was at the centre of a great deal of it.
When I first started posting, Kate explained that there was already a John and I would have to differentiate it.
I immediately thought of H. John. Although I’ve written my name like that since high school, only one person always called me H. John in person. That was Michael.
H. John, I wondered whether Scarpaleggia’s Wikipedia page would cover his views on same‑sex marriage, and it says “Scarpaleggia today supports same-sex marriage” citing this Globe & Mail piece from 2019: “Liberal MPs Francis Scarpaleggia, Lawrence MacAulay and Rodger Cuzner, who voted against same-sex marriage in 2005, all said they now support it.”
Too little too late?
At no point prior to the Chretien government’s choice to send the Reference to the SCC had the Liberal Party of Canada at any policy convention voted in favour of same sex-marriage. Party conferences invariably voted against it – year after year.
I suppose your question “Too little too late?” leads to a larger debate about human rights and leadership expected from elected officials. There had been three major appeal court decisions in the most populous provinces of Canada explaining why this was a basic human right that should be respected.
As long as Canadians only have rights as long as legislatures allow them (thanks to the notwithstanding clause), then the fact that someone might change their mind later on doesn’t really cheer me up.
When Paul Martin ran for the leadership of the Party, I asked him during one of his presentations whether or not he supported it; and, secondly why most people thought his opponent Sheila Copps seemed to have taken a clearer stance (in favour) on the issue. He didn’t answer the second question, and he responded that if the SCC ruled in its favour, then he would support it. Immediately after the event his leadership team approached me and said they would have to work on his answer.
Even with the Reference, the Chretien government tried, belatedly, to wash their hands of the issue.
As Peter Hogg explains in his essay the fourth question, added late to the Reference, was an attempt to take the issue out of politicians hands and leave it entirely to (aka blame) the courts:
“The fourth question in the reference asked whether the opposite-sex requirement for marriage was consistent with the Charter of Rights. That, of course, was the very question the Court would have had to decide if the decisions in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec been appealed up to the Supreme Court. However, none of the cases advanced to the Supreme Court for a ruling that would be binding throughout the country.”
and
“In the reference, the Court refused to answer the fourth question. The Court’s reasoning is neither clear nor persuasive, but I think the main reason, albeit unarticulated, was a desire to make Parliament play a role in the legalization of same-sex marriage. If Parliament acted, it could not be claimed that such a controversial project was entirely driven by judges. This had been a consistent theme of the political opposition to same-sex marriage, reflected in parliamentary debate as well as in the wider public debate. It was a theme that exposed the Court itself to the criticism that it was too active in making rulings that could not pass muster in a democratic legislature.”
Chris 10:04 on 2026-07-21 Permalink
Everything is absolutely not always checked against a database, especially not immediately.
Kate 11:06 on 2026-07-21 Permalink
If you’re stopped by police and asked for your licence, don’t they immediately check to see if you have outstanding fines or other problems? Wouldn’t work if the licence is fake.
Likewise with our new health records, they’d want to look up your RAMQ number, I would imagine.
Nicholas 11:18 on 2026-07-21 Permalink
Well local police will at most only have Quebec databases. For RAMQ if you want to get health care that is more likely to be checked in the database, so presumably you’d want to use someone else’s real info with a fake photo, as surely not everyone checks that, but it is riskier.
Chris 22:48 on 2026-07-21 Permalink
Kate, one doesn’t only show id to the government. bars don’t do database lookups for example and neither do lots of websites or companies.
CE 08:42 on 2026-07-22 Permalink
Some bars will scan your ID card to make sure it’s real. I’m not sure what kind of database they have access to but it seems to give them some sort of information.
Kate 09:48 on 2026-07-22 Permalink
Depending on the kind of card, there may be a feature in the printing that isn’t easily reproduced that can be detected by the scanner, something like a QR code. Wouldn’t need a database. I have no idea whether anyone does this, mind you.