Like in all political systems, nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
110 points (94.4% liked)
Canada
9853 readers
817 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Give'r Gaming (gaming)
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Well they can't keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.
IPv4 does not protect your from online tracking and logging. Not at all.
Why is this the very first law the Liberals are trying to pass? This is not an issue that was campaigned and debated on in the election. This was nobody's priority. Why strengthen police powers as the very fucking first thing the new government is doing? This smells very bad. And even if it's all one big misunderstanding, given the slow burn that has been fascism in the US, I'm alarmed with even slight nudges in more authoritarian laws.
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 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.
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.
It means either, in the USA.
Depends how British you are? 🤔
language do be crazy sometimes. edited it to "toss" just for you, sir.
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
So let's get racketeering laws?
Well I'm just speculating where this is going, that the US wants to control our legal system in exchange for tariff relief.
The current sitting US president is pardoning the worst drug dealers and gang members.
already wrote an email to my MP. I agree this is unnacceptable
How do you quantify it as harmful? Genuinely curious.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
If you're genuinely curious, you should probably watch the video. He makes a pretty good case.
load more comments
(12 replies)
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.
regular folksI’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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›