Canada

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.

Is your assertion that organized crime does not involve abuse of the Immigration system, Postal service, or online service providers?

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.

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.