Thanks for watching! Remember to subscribe for daily uploads of news compilations, clips, and a weekly 30 minute show!Website: www.steveboots.netIf you'd lik...
Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
Maybe you should tell the Public Safety Minister.
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.
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?
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.
I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.
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.
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 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.
My definition is people who aren’t in organized crime, or being investigated for crimes against children.
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.
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.
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.
Is your assertion that organized crime does not involve abuse of the Immigration system, Postal service, or online service providers?
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.