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?

The only thing you can be 100% sure of is that you’re projecting your own ignorance.

I enjoy how you fully admit you haven’t read it but take on the verisimilitude of a moral high ground after gently skimming and confirming your bias.

Very cute.

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.

already wrote an email to my MP. I agree this is unnacceptable

Send emails folks, to you MP and Carney himself. Be respectful and explain how you’re surprised that the libs are doing this and that this doesn’t feel like standing up to Trump. Tell them you voted for them. Harper used to try passing such bills and we fought against that for years.

The problem as far as I’ve read from Sam Cooper is the lack of policies like racketeering laws in Canada, thus we are used worldwide by criminal entities for laundering money. Which is likely the larger issue Trump has with drugs, and likely is a big reason how housing in Vancouver can be millions of dollars when the median salary is less than 70k.

Theres a long form interview here, Sam Cooper is a journalist who wrote Wilfull Blindness:

@17:45 the interview starts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B73Tayj37sM

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.

FYI, in Canada and the UK, to table something means to give it attention or handle it, unlike in America where it means to set it aside.

language do be crazy sometimes. edited it to “toss” just for you, sir.

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.

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.

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 bitchiness 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.