Liberals introduce bill proposing sweeping border security powers
-
Their point (well, part of it anyway) is that whatever the government says, there’s no guarantee that the powers provided to the government by this bill will only be applied to organized crime, or that it’ll stay that way. “America doing what’s best for America” got them ICE.
We are better than that. At least, I hope and trust that we are.
-
Better air space monitoring. We need to develop technology to accurately detect small drones anyway since thats the direction a lot of militaries are going.
Anything that’s capable of detecting drones would get hella false positives from birds/bikes/cars/people. There’s a reason radar usually ignores movement under a certain altitude.
You could detect via radio signals, but fly-by-wire drones are already a thing, perfect for short distances, like what you’d need to move a package over a wall.
-
Sweeping border powers? What, they gonna give them brooms?
-
Have you heard of drones being used to smuggle guns? No physical person even needs to cross a border now. Personally, I can’t think of a practical solution to this.
Drone carrying bag of handguns from United States to Canada intercepted by tree | CBC News
Ontario Provincial Police are trying to figure out who sent a shopping bag full of handguns across the Canada-U.S. border via drone -- and who was supposed to receive the illegal package.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
Goddamn.
-
Anything that’s capable of detecting drones would get hella false positives from birds/bikes/cars/people. There’s a reason radar usually ignores movement under a certain altitude.
You could detect via radio signals, but fly-by-wire drones are already a thing, perfect for short distances, like what you’d need to move a package over a wall.
It probably can be done with some combination of signal sources. Yeah radar alone doesn’t sound great. It might be possible combined with computer vision, other computer signal pattern recognition, etc. Whoever gets a decent system like that working would have a lot of sales for it.
-
Most of it is fine on the border/tough on crime provisions, whatever.
The export inspections is good and will help with the car theft epidemic. (I don’t own a car but I can understand communities being frustrated by our current laws not being able to respond effectively to theft rings).
The one part I am concerned about is Part 15 (Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act), a mandatory confidential pathway for electronic service providers to provide information to authorities. Even though “systemic vulnerabilities” are not meant to be introduced in that Act, I can’t help imagine certain edge cases may serve as loopholes to install backdoors that are exploited by both our government and others.
-
Most of it is fine on the border/tough on crime provisions, whatever.
The export inspections is good and will help with the car theft epidemic. (I don’t own a car but I can understand communities being frustrated by our current laws not being able to respond effectively to theft rings).
The one part I am concerned about is Part 15 (Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act), a mandatory confidential pathway for electronic service providers to provide information to authorities. Even though “systemic vulnerabilities” are not meant to be introduced in that Act, I can’t help imagine certain edge cases may serve as loopholes to install backdoors that are exploited by both our government and others.
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. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for students and temporary residents. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.
Not the kind of legislation I would want a Tory government to inherit (and hence “strengthen”).
The changes would also speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.
And this kind of shit is straight up alarming.
Basically, at a time when the US is going full on fascist with respect to immigrants, I want Canada moving confidently in the opposite direction.
-
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. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for students and temporary residents. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.
Not the kind of legislation I would want a Tory government to inherit (and hence “strengthen”).
The changes would also speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.
And this kind of shit is straight up alarming.
Basically, at a time when the US is going full on fascist with respect to immigrants, I want Canada moving confidently in the opposite direction.
Fair point, while I wouldn’t like a Conservative government to expand on it, I read those sections but I don’t consider it beyond the pale. My impression was it is more about removing slack in the process. There are many good arguments to maintain that slack, but that to me is a matter of debate, not a certain slide into fascism.
I’m not a fan of the bill, why it’s the first thing the House gets to is concerning, but I’m trying to keep a level head while analyzing the bill and not get into an immediate frenzy.
-
Very, very different scope:
“We need to ensure Canada’s law enforcement is equipped with the tools they need to stay ahead of organized crime groups and crack down on their illicit activities.”
Totally different from when Trump talks about cartels /s
-
So not only is this significantly expanding government’s power to arbitrarily fuck with people’s immigration paperwork but this is a significant expansion of police powers in general:
-
The Coast Guard is being turned from an emergency search and rescue service to an agency that also carries out surveillance for the police and military
-
People convicted of sex crimes will have their personal information shared with foreign governments
-
Police can more easily search your mail
-
“Electronic service providers” will be banned from deleting certain user data just in case the police will want it
-
-
So not only is this significantly expanding government’s power to arbitrarily fuck with people’s immigration paperwork but this is a significant expansion of police powers in general:
-
The Coast Guard is being turned from an emergency search and rescue service to an agency that also carries out surveillance for the police and military
-
People convicted of sex crimes will have their personal information shared with foreign governments
-
Police can more easily search your mail
-
“Electronic service providers” will be banned from deleting certain user data just in case the police will want it
The banker will save us from fascism guys you’re going to have hold your noses and wipe out the third parties!
-
-
Very, very different scope:
“We need to ensure Canada’s law enforcement is equipped with the tools they need to stay ahead of organized crime groups and crack down on their illicit activities.”
That’s exactly the justification Trump made to start unleashing ICE
-
We are better than that. At least, I hope and trust that we are.
Hope and trust will only take you as far as your politicians are willing to play along. Trump happened to the United States, but demagogues with great aspirations and a willingness to bend rules to (and beyond) the breaking point are by no means unique to them.
Which is to say: make it legally binding instead of relying on the goodwill of politicians.
-
Hope and trust will only take you as far as your politicians are willing to play along. Trump happened to the United States, but demagogues with great aspirations and a willingness to bend rules to (and beyond) the breaking point are by no means unique to them.
Which is to say: make it legally binding instead of relying on the goodwill of politicians.
Trump happened to the United States
I would argue that Americans knew for decades that he was a piece of shit. Why they continued to vote for him is something for psychology professors to explain.
I hope that Canada never becomes that ignorant, and my worry for the future isn’t really with our politicians, but more with our shifts as individuals.
Where I live, we’ve got a resurgence of violence towards visible minorities, and racist graffiti going up in public places (libraries, etc.). My concern is that a growing number of bad people will vote for bad politicians, not that good people will vote for bad politicians.
-
The banker will save us from fascism guys you’re going to have hold your noses and wipe out the third parties!
I mean, PP wouldn’t be better, and you know damn well a third party government wasn’t an option.
Unfortunately, most voters just don’t see things our way.
-
This is essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country … it is also a priority that we share with our neighbours.
Am I the only one who finds this statement deeply troubling?
There’s a lot of sucking up to Trump going on. One hopes that it’s strategic and the elbows up stuff was genuine, not the other way around.
Time will tell. I lean towards the good option right now because Carney doesn’t seem dumb enough to not recognise a bad deal.
-
ICE deporting people
Canada “Hold my beer”.
As far as I can tell this doesn’t directly mean deporting people, and Carney himself seems unlikely to want to go on an immigrant purge. The devil will be in the details, though, and I worry this could be built on in the future in a way that weakens democracy.
-
Very, very different scope:
“We need to ensure Canada’s law enforcement is equipped with the tools they need to stay ahead of organized crime groups and crack down on their illicit activities.”
Pretty true point, bad argument (as others have pointed out).
-
Anything that’s capable of detecting drones would get hella false positives from birds/bikes/cars/people. There’s a reason radar usually ignores movement under a certain altitude.
You could detect via radio signals, but fly-by-wire drones are already a thing, perfect for short distances, like what you’d need to move a package over a wall.
Birds might be tough, but modern radars/lidars can get smart. I doubt anything terrestrial would be a problem.
How much border you can cover for a given price and how well is a much different question, though.
-
Silver lining - sounds like something that could be used to stem the illegal gun importation from the US?
Guns, drugs, pornography, refugees, factual information contradicting or embarrasing the powerful.
You might see a moral difference, but it’s all the same from an enforcement perspective. It’s a thing, and you want to keep it out. The real question is how much control you trust them with.
