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.

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.

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.

It will prevent refugees/asylum seekers from the US coming into Canada when the shit really hits the fan down there.

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.

It’s actually not that hard.

I understand it’s authoritarian in your eyes, I see that and understand the argument you’re making as well but you won’t accept that I know that.

Perhaps seek to look beyond your confirmation biases and assumptions of others.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What part of the bill says that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This Bill is just a lie to spy on (mainly) Canadian Citizens and residents. It gives Canada Post the ability to open your mail for any cited reason. It requires your ISP to log and keep track of all your devices and online activity and require it be turned over at the governments request. It’s also gearing up to turn Canadian Border Officials into ICE. We’re cooked.

regular folks

I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.

My definition is people who aren’t in organized crime, or being investigated for crimes against children.

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.”

The weight limit was removed in 2017 via Bill C-37, because small baggies of fentanyl were getting through the mail system, and that bill closed the loophole.

And anyone sending packages knows that there’s a good possibility that their package can/will be opened by border authorities. This has always been a thing.

It’s important to note that the language in the bill still say that reasonable grounds for a crime (i.e. drug trafficking) must be established before any mail can be opened.

A few other sections of that specific part of the bill were repealed, so changes have already been made to tweak it.

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.

I’ve never heard of warrants being issued to open mail or packages. I’ve had plenty of international packages opened, and the paperwork never included a copy of a warrant.

On that note, “warrant” is mentioned 89 times in the bill, so they are still required when appropriate.

I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.

For sure. We have a right and duty as voters to demand that a Bill like this is balanced and fair. It will be interesting to see which parts are repealed before it’s passed.

I agree with you in part as well, I’ve made my opinions known.

I however have no intention of holding a serious conversation with someone who calls me a liar and stupid in the first breath.