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

If you’re genuinely curious, you should probably watch the video. He makes a pretty good case.

How do the things in this bill accomplish that?

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.

I read the content of the bill, not the video, and thought through it without having my opinions spoonfed by a YouTube huckster.

IMO This appears to be a reasonable dual purpose bill to stop snow washing and strengthen our borders for war footing.

If you’re going to reply to me, you could at least make an effort to reference a single thing that I said.

I believe I’ve addressed your opinions correctly.

I read the bill instead.

Why get it interpreted second hand?

Unless you’re trying to tell me those things aren’t in the bill (they are), you haven’t said anything at all.

From what I read yesterday, it gives law enforcement more options when dealing with organized crime at borders.

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?

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.

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?

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.

the Strong Borders Bill is being sold as a security measure but it tramples over basic rights. First off, it retroactively disqualifies asylum seekers who crossed irregularly and didn’t file within a year, even if they had legit reasons like trauma or no legal help. That alone throws out the idea of fairness and due process. Instead of a full refugee hearing, they’re shoved into a weaker risk assessment process with low success rates.

Then you’ve got the cabinet getting sweeping power to cancel or suspend immigration documents and stop applications, just by citing “public interest.” No oversight, no clear rules, nothing stopping them from targeting whoever they want.

They also gave themselves the power to open mail, including letters, to “combat drugs.” That’s a huge privacy red flag. Once you open that door, it’s hard to shut it again. Add to that expanded info sharing with U.S. agencies, and suddenly personal data is flying across borders with no way to track how it’s used. (this alone is enough to toss this bill, ESPECIALLY now)

Worse? The bill barely allows for appeals. If you get caught in the gears of this thing, there’s almost no legal way out.

This undermines core Charter protections, Section 7 (liberty and security), Section 8 (protection from unreasonable search), and Section 10 (rights upon detention). They say it’s Charter compliant, but that’s just PR. In reality, it’s a blueprint for unchecked executive power and a direct hit on civil rights.

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.

How does it reach “well beyond that goal”?

Do you believe current legislation is good enough in regards to combating abuse of our systems?

What would you amend in the bill to deal with what you perceive as a problematic?