"Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional
Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.
You're viewing a single thread.
Of the points raised in the video, which do you think aren't harmful?
Unilaterally cancelling immigration applications without any real oversight is draconian.
The video lays out a very concrete example of why the one-year limit on asylum claims is not a great idea.
I would think that eliminating "barriers" to forcing electronic service providers to hand over user data to law enforcement should be relevant to the interests of most Lemmy users.
Making it easier for the police to seize and open mail is...concerning.
Why is the year limit a problem. If you sneek into the country for asylum and can't be bothered to make it legal in a year I have no problem kicking you out.
There are legal ways to visit Canada for extended periods of time.
If, during that time, a person's country is invaded or otherwise made unsafe, do you still have no problem kicking them out?
Well, whether or not your asylum application gets processed and approved is at the whim of the government, not the applicant. From what I understand, the process is slow and rigidly bureacratic and can take more than a year to complete even if they don't make you start over because you missed a ticky-box on some form or other.
I admit I haven't read the bill and it's possible it gives some leeway for claims in process . . . but I would bet not.
78 (1) Subsection 101(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(b.1) the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made the claim more than one year after the day of their entry;
That's the entire passage in question.
If you're going to reply to me, you could at least make an effort to reference a single thing that I said.
Unless you're trying to tell me those things aren't in the bill (they are), you haven't said anything at all.
If you're genuinely curious, you should probably watch the video. He makes a pretty good case.
Because you didn't. You're lying and I'm 100% sure of it.
For those interested, this is the bill, an absolutely monstrous document which when read on its own doesn't even convey the full extent of the changes because much of it is a series of paragraph amendments to other laws made out of context. To really understand what's being proposed, one must first understand the current state of all laws being amended, so it's really this giant document ×20 or so.
So unless it's your job to parse these documents, or you wrote it yourself, you did not read it.
I also did not read it, but at least I'm being honest about that. I did however skim through it looking for confirmations of what was mentioned in the video. What I found was enough to convince me that the video is accurate. What's more, the author has done the work of a responsible journalist: he cited his sources in the video description. Sources which were in turn written by responsible people whose literal jobs are to understand these massive changes and compile them into documents the public understand. You know, journalism.
Maybe you read the summary, which is much easier to parse, though still ridiculously long, lacking context and glazing over important details. Even in there though, there are clear mentions of allowing the opening of your mail, so if you read that and are still somehow cool with it then... well I guess it's true that we're all condemned to repeat history 'cause some people just refuse to learn.
Whether you're right or they are, it doesn't change the fact that you are acting unbearably smug and self absorbed. You aren't exactly demonstrating any redeeming or useful qualities if your entire comment is that level of hostile removediness for no reason.
Drop that personality off across the border in America where it belongs. Or if you absolutely insist on being Canadian, then piss off back to /r/Canada with the rest of your kind? That is, if you want a single person to change their opinion instead of doubling down because they are being yelled at by some expat Canadian. You know, because that's totally gonna change someone's mind.
You don't get to decide who's Canadian, so I'm really not concerned about how my tone makes you feel. The guy/girl was straight-up lying to show support for authoritarianism and government surveillance. I will not apologise for pointing that out.
You don't get to decide who's Canadian
Good that I didn't, huh? Considering I explicitly called you a Canadian and an ex-pat Canadian and said "If you insist on being Canadian." So already you're just inventing shit to be upset over.
I'm realy not concerned about how my tone makes you feel
No, I've looked through your comment history. You've made it abundantly clear you aren't concerned with what anyone thinks.
The guy/girl was straight-up lying
Oh I'm sorry. I was unaware that if you believe someone else is lying you are given cart blanche to be as unbearable as humanly possible and try to beat the arrogant smug with more arrogant smug of your own. Please. By all means. Do carry on.
I will not apologise for pointing that out.
Nor did I tell you do.
I simply said that you are never going to convince anyone to listen to you when you're behaving the way that you are. You are acting like a toddler. You are throwing a temper tantrum and lashing out. To anyone from the outside, it seems like a liar who made up reading the act is being yelled at by a child who cannot control his own temper.
Keep thinking that you won in this situation when you both lost.
Good luck with that. Just keep it in mind when you wonder why no one wants to listen to you, why no one cares what you think, and why everyone you talk to seems to utterly ignore your opinion.
Flies, vinegar and honey. Try googling it sometime. Have fun throwing your own pity party, don't expect the rest of us to show up to it.
I think we all need to take a step back here, and remember that there are human beings behind every account.
We're getting into increasingly into name calling territory. Can we get back to talking about the bill?
OK so I read the intro/backgrounder, and skimmed the full doc (it's 140 pages, like c'mon, unless you're a retired politico you aren't reading that), and I pretty much agree with most people here. I don't have much interest in the number of rich immigrants are granted access, but I am concerned about the increase in police search powers, and restrictions on asylum seekers. If they have a legitimate case, why would we impose a hard time limit on them?
Also the fact that fentanyl is specifically mentioned (and highlighted in a heading of the backgrounder) is... embarrassing.
I would love to see trakata address Daniel Quinn's specific questions, since they are probably one of the very few Canadians who has actually read the bill. I know people who work at CBC, and they haven't even read it.
Gotta agree with Trakata here. It's in every citizen's best interest to be able to understand legislature. Even someone with just a high school-level education in civics can appreciate that there's more to participating in a functional democracy than just getting outside every couple years to vote.
That's the thing, Trakata isn't making the case that it's in our best interest to be able to understand legislation. They're making the claim that they read a document they did not read to show support for legislation that's both authoritarian and supporting of government surveillance in a time when our biggest problems will be solved by neither.
Understanding complex legislation is a difficult, time-consuming job that requires experts in the field. Experts like those who work with the CCLA and professional journalists that parse this complexity and make it easier to consume for the rest of the nation. In the same way that while it's in every citizen's interest to have clean water, we're not expected to source and boil our own: we have experts who maintain water treatment facilities. Trakata's smug "I read the bill and I think it's great" line is both (a) a lie, and (b) a deception intended to distract from the dangers of the bill.
I agree in part.
I'm genuinely curious, did you read the bill, or do you plan to? If so, I would seriously love to hear your take on it. I've read the backgrounder, and skimmed the actual bill. Even just doing that I'm sure I've read more of it than 99% of Canadians.
Generally speaking, if you've actually read and understand it, then I say it's your duty to help act as a vulgarizer so others can navigate it. It's easy to say that we value citizens' duty to educate themselves on their democracy, then figuratively cross our arms and say "well I read it and I don't agree" and refuse to elaborate, when asked for your informed (and valuable!) opinion--which is what certain people who claim to have read the bill in this thread appear to be doing.
I'm not trying to be cheeky. If you've (or anyone else has) read the bill and you care about our democracy, then please share your actual thoughts on the bill! So far all we seem to be doing is arguing meta amongst each about how to talk about bills, and not the fucking bill--pardon my language, this comment sections is frustrating me. it's not directed at you - you're cool. :)
I was going to ask the same. I don't know who this guy is, but he seems to be jumping to conclusions.
Our federal government has over and over said that our partnership with the States is done. There's no reason for us to come up with "draconian" bills to appease to Taco Chicken.
And none of our leadership have spouted anti-immigrant rhetoric like they do in the States.
The Liberals don't even have a majority government, so we don't have to be hysterical and act like this is a Totalitarian Dictatorship like they have in the States. The opposition can bring up their points, amend the bill if necessary, and move on.
There’s no reason for us to come up with “draconian” bills to appease to Taco Chicken.
Maybe you should tell the Public Safety Minister.
Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain "elements that will strengthen the relationship" between Canada and the U.S.
"There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues," he said. "But it's not exclusively about the United States."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legislation-border-fentanyl-1.7550684
It's a fact that the States are more of a problem than Canada when it comes to illegal drugs and weapons. So this "relationship between Canada and the States" is really more like "to protect Canada from the States" without saying that. LOL
It will prevent refugees/asylum seekers from the US coming into Canada when the shit really hits the fan down there.
What part of the bill says that?
How do the things in this bill accomplish that?
From what I read yesterday, it gives law enforcement more options when dealing with organized crime at borders.
So you started with "there's no reason to appease the US," and have now landed on, "they say they're trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don't really mean it"?
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples' mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples’ mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
You'd need to point out specifics in the bill that you have concerns about, because combing through it, I didn't see anything that would make me think that regular folks would be mass deported out of the country.
Regarding mail... border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
But there was a loophole for mail under 30g, which was closed in 2017 through Bill C-37:
If they suspected drugs were being sent, authorities needed permission from either the sender or receiver in order to open it. This created a massive loophole for drug trafficking, because fentanyl was often sent in small baggies weighing under 30 g.
What was happening is that if permission was not given, then the mail was sent back to the sender. No drugs are seized, and they would do it again.
But criminals banked on the fact that some drug containing envelops would slip through, and they were right.
Bill C37 (again, from 2017) simply closed that loophole.
Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.
What new concerns come up that have you worried about mail?
forcing online providers to give up user data
This one is funny. Online providers are already willingly selling our data, and they were always obligated to share our private data to law enforcement.
This is why everyone in the privacy space tells you to change your DNS, use a VPN/TOR, etc.
The new bill gives more powers for police investigating digital crime involving children, and it's already been given full public support by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
But let's not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.
regular folks
I'm not even going to ask what your definition of that is.
border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, "the Corporation may open any mail."
It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, "Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention," and replaces it with, "Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament," which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.
It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there's...no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.
Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.
The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there's no warrant required. Just an "Act of Parliament." There's no probable cause defined here. Maybe you're fine with that. I'm not.
But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.
I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.
Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.
Is your assertion that organized crime does not involve abuse of the Immigration system, Postal service, or online service providers?
all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
C'mon, don't insult us both by pretending you can't read.
That is not an answer to my question. If you want to have a conversation about something learn not to be so combative and try communicating your thoughts when asked about them.
Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn't say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).
Go construct your straw men some place else.
The guy in the video makes some very good points though, don't you think? If this bill gets voted into law, it only takes on bad agent or bad government to exploit those laws against the people.
The guy in the video makes some very good points though, don’t you think?
Yes, I guess. It's hard to know what's opinion, what's fact, and what's even grounded in reality. He's making it seem really, really bad. But is it? Can he prove that it is?
I don't understand. Prove what? It's a bill. It's not passed into law yet. He's explaining how, if voted into law, these could be applied.
Like the opening and searching of your mail and your personal electronic data without a warrant.
That breaks article 8 of the charter of rights and freedoms.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Or deporting asylum seekers just because they've been in the country for a year on a visa. As written in the bill, if someone's been in Canada for a year ans a war breaks out in their country, they'd get deported without any question.
I don't know why you're asking for proof. Do you not understand English?
Prove what?
That his doom and gloom assumptions are based in reality. He doesn't reference any of the Parts or Sections in the bill, so is he getting his summary from someone else, and are they even right?
Like the opening and searching of your mail and your personal electronic data without a warrant.
Have you ever received a package from out of the country? Dude, they can already open and inspect your packages without a warrant. Same with mail, since at least 1985 when the Canada Post Corporation Act was made.
And mail has been opened at the border for years, and years, in an effort to stop fentanyl from entering the country.
The "unreasonable" part of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what protects us, but that doesn't apply if you're under investigation for crimes and stuff like a computer needs to be accessed as part of that investigation.
But anyway, looking at the bill, it already seems like sections related to this have already been repealed.
As written in the bill, if someone’s been in Canada for a year ans a war breaks out in their country, they’d get deported without any question.
I don't see anything like that in the full text of the bill. Can you point to where?
CBC reported that "The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give the government increased power over immigration documents in cases where public health or national security are at risk. "
They also reported that this was in regard to organized crime, which sounds like a good thing.
I will repeat that the Canadian Government isn't spewing the same vitriol against immigrants as the American Government, so neither the wording nor the content of the bill suggests some military backed deportation scheme.
It should be noted that the Canadian Center for Child Protection endorses this bill because of the ability for police to act more quickly on crimes against children (see here).
As with any bill, it will not be perfect (or even ideal) for everyone in first go, and that's where amendments, repeals, and challenges come into play. The dude in the video shits all over it for a few points (that may have been exaggerated for the video), but ignores some overdue benefits to Canada.
We do have a major problem with crime (organized crime) at our border, and this bill seems to streamline the process of tackling that.
you do make valid points. and i agree with many of them.
however a bill like this, even if applied altruistically by the current government, doesnt mean it cant be taken advantage of by another government in the future. we nearly got a conservative government that played hard on anti immigration, anti asylum, and anti refugee policies, among other less tasteful ones. they wanted to go hard on crime as well, and what they may think of crime tomorrow may not be a crime today. retroactively punishing people who are immigrants, or use the internet in a way that is legal today, but may not be tomorrow, is pretty fucked up.
for instance, just one example, a horror story what if scenerio, unlikely, but still very possible. what if we get an american compromised PM? or just a homegrown asshole who likes trumps work? And they want to start going after trans people, purchasing their meds online? or just looking into it? we are currently seeing parties in BC and alberta forcing people into rehab clinics and psychiatric care against their will, through new or potential policies. at the discretion of the police, and whoever may or may not control them now, or in the future.
with a law like this, they could comb records, finding trans people, gay people, political dissidents, etc. and send them away to clinics, even prisons, forcing them against their will to take medication they may not need, effectively sedating, and potentially killing some, just for their search history.
also, we are likely heading towards a new world war, and climate change will increase climate refugees and asylum seekers as well. this could lead to the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of others who likely might have survived otherwise. just because in 2025 a government passed a law that made it easier for a less compassionate or maybe even fascistic government to block aid, or even hunt people they dont like.
thats my main issue with the content of this bill. its a glaring issue that shouldnt be pushed to the side for the sake of percieved safety in this moment. things could get better, but they could also be much, much worse.
however a bill like this, even if applied altruistically by the current government, doesnt mean it cant be taken advantage of by another government in the future.
I agree with this, and your other points. There's always a cause for concern when it comes to governments, especially as we witness the disaster south of the border.
But the reality is, any evil government in the future will either change "good bills" or come up with their own "bad bills", regardless.
The question is: do we stall progress in the meantime? Why not fix our current problems, and deal with any potential future ones if/when they come up?
We see from the States that any totalitarian administration will remove protection for women, children, elderly, veterans, immigrants (legal or otherwise), the sick, and the poor at any given notice (within weeks of taking power!).
Even when those protections have been put in place through decades of hard work, debate, and cooperation among their political parties.
Politics is always a game, unfortunately. This bill will be debated and adapted, for better or worse.
Ah there we go. Now I understand what you mean. Thank you!
As far as postal stuff goes, don't they only have the right to open packages, but not letters? And I don't think they have the right to get all our digital personal information either. At least not like they do in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The “unreasonable” part of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what protects us, but that doesn’t apply if you’re under investigation for crimes and stuff like a computer needs to be accessed as part of that investigation.
It does apply. A warrant is required for confiscating and searching mail and computer equipment. It sounds here like it won't be required.
I will repeat that the Canadian Government isn’t spewing the same vitriol against immigrants as the American Government, so neither the wording nor the content of the bill suggests some military backed deportation scheme.
Maybe not, but it lays the ground for it though.
In any case, as the guy mentioned, the bill isn't ALL bad. But there are some sections that can be worrisome and prone to exploitation.
As far as postal stuff goes, don’t they only have the right to open packages, but not letters?
They have the ability to open letters over 30 g for a very long time. Bill C37 (from 2017) gave border officers power to open letters less than 30 g, because criminals were sending fentanyl over in small bags, and that closed the loophole (read here)
I haven't heard of this being abused over the last 8 years, so why the assumption that it's all of a sudden going to start now?
And I don’t think they have the right to get all our digital personal information either. At least not like they do in the U.S. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If you are being investigated for crimes against children online, then your digital assets can be seized and combed through. This new bill strengthens that in this context.
The “unreasonable” part of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what protects us, but that doesn’t apply if you’re under investigation for crimes and stuff like a computer needs to be accessed as part of that investigation.It does apply. A warrant is required for confiscating and searching mail and computer equipment. It sounds here like it won’t be required.
I honestly didn't read anything in the bill that says that warrants are not required for things that they would have currently been.
In the case of the mail, what used to happen if there are suspected drugs being sent by mail (under 30g), the officer would have to get permission from either the sender or the receiver of the letter before opening it. If no response was given, they would send it back.
The problem is that criminals banked on the fact that some would get through, and because others envelops were being returned, the drugs wouldn't be seized and nobody was getting caught. This new bill tries to fix that.
Maybe not, but it lays the ground for it though.
I get it. There's always a chance for abusing this power. Maybe not now, but in 10 years.
Here's the thing: good laws can be abused by any corrupt government. And corrupt governments can always introduce bad laws (see the States).
Our current government seems to be doing this in good faith, so we have to take them at.
If Carney was giving public events saying that immigrants are all murderers and rapists, and we'll deport them by the millions, well... that would be a different story! I guess thank god we don't have a majority conservative federal government.
Yeah that's my problem with this. The laws definitely can be abused. You think you can trust the government, but can you trust the police? Because in the end, they're the ones who will be doing the abuse.
And if you eventually don't like the government that's in power, and want to protest and act against it, that's when these laws turn against you.
We definitely should not sacrifice our privacy, rights, and freedoms in exchange for security. We learned that in 2001 after 9/11 and we shouldn't make the same mistake again just to make Trump happy.