this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
101 points (94.7% liked)

Canada

9789 readers
497 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. 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
 

Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago

Like in all political systems, nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[–] [email protected] 10 points 20 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It means either, in the USA.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

Depends how British you are? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

language do be crazy sometimes. edited it to "toss" just for you, sir.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

So let's get racketeering laws?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

Well I'm just speculating where this is going, that the US wants to control our legal system in exchange for tariff relief.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago

The current sitting US president is pardoning the worst drug dealers and gang members.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

already wrote an email to my MP. I agree this is unnacceptable

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (27 children)

How do you quantify it as harmful? Genuinely curious.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

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)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (12 children)

If you're genuinely curious, you should probably watch the video. He makes a pretty good case.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›