105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
105 points (94.9% liked)
Canada
9789 readers
798 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
- 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
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
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.
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?