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.
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.