Canadian Bill C-23

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Alflives said:

Is making life miserable for criminals a bad thing?  We talk a lot about freedoms of the innocent, law abiding citizen, but forget that criminals use these freedoms to promote their agenda too.  We are not (IMHAO) moving to a world where Big Brother is on our doorstep.  We are making a world that is safer for the law abiding citizens, and one where the criminals are the ones running scared.  Maybe it's an American thing to lack trust in your elected officials to do what's right?  

You obviously have a different views and opinions on your liberty, freedoms, and national sovereignty than most of us here do.  I'm not going to be able to change your mind.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[higgyfan]

9 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

It's amazing to me that Canada let(s) that happen.  I'd think that the US would blow a fuse if the RCMP went into Seattle and started arresting people.

Imo, many Canadians take their freedom for granted.  One just has to travel a bit to see how fortunate we are. 

 

To Homeland Security, Canadians are viewed as potential threats to the country or possible illegal immigrants; just like any other foreigner.  Sad to say, the days of the two countries being bffs is long gone.

 

 

 

 

[luckylager]

20 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

It's amazing to me that Canada let(s) that happen.  I'd think that the US would blow a fuse if the RCMP went into Seattle and started arresting people.

I'm now ALMOST positive that through the 90's the DEA and RCMP were running joint missions in Canada. I'm feeling a little unsure as to the circumstances involving my buddy's dad serving time in the US.... I'll be sure to ask him more about it the next time we hang, but as the story goes he was home when choppers raided his parents property and arrested his Dad in the mid 90's. The raids on those Islands were well known, and definitely mid 90's. However- 

 

Now, @Ryan StromeStrome- I did a quick google search to try and find published proof, and only found articles from 2004, which appear to be the last series of raids on Texada / Lasqueti. I have to admit, a little shamefully, that the choppers I saw on the Kludak in '01 could have been, and most likely were RCMP Irradication Team choppers. They borrow equipment from the military, apparently. Which is documented in one of the old articles I read. I could not find anything prior to 2004 to prove my timeline / narritive.

[Ryan Strome]

39 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

It's amazing to me that Canada let(s) that happen.  I'd think that the US would blow a fuse if the RCMP went into Seattle and started arresting people.

The Rcmp make arrests in Hyder Alaska. Have for decades.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, higgyfan said:

Imo, many Canadians take their freedom for granted.  One just has to travel a bit to see how fortunate we are. 

 

To Homeland Security, Canadians are viewed as potential threats to the country or possible illegal immigrants; just like any other foreigner.  Sad to say, the days of the two countries being bffs is long gone.

The countries are still bffs for the most part, the problem is that the quality of our politicians is eroding.  I see some seriously worrying signs in Ottawa.  The politicians there are quickly becoming more like the ones here.

 

The US will take whatever they can get from foreign countries including Canada.  It's always been like that and always will be.  Don't forget that the US is a defacto imperialist country.  Imperialism is predicated on spreading your power and influence throughout the world.  We don't actually take over non-middle eastern countries, but we sure do like to get our say as much as possible in them.

 

It's up to the foreign countries to say, "no".  In this case, Canada and Canadians should say "no" to ceding any of their rights and sovereignty to a foreign nation.

[SabreFan1]

9 minutes ago, luckylager said:

I'm now ALMOST positive that through the 90's the DEA and RCMP were running joint missions in Canada. I'm feeling a little unsure as to the circumstances involving my buddy's dad serving time in the US.... I'll be sure to ask him more about it the next time we hang, but as the story goes he was home when choppers raided his parents property and arrested his Dad in the mid 90's. The raids on those Islands were well known, and definitely mid 90's. However- 

 

Now, @Ryan StromeStrome- I did a quick google search to try and find published proof, and only found articles from 2004, which appear to be the last series of raids on Texada / Lasqueti. I have to admit, a little shamefully, that the choppers I saw on the Kludak in '01 could have been, and most likely were RCMP Irradication Team choppers. They borrow equipment from the military, apparently. Which is documented in one of the old articles I read. I could not find anything prior to 2004 to prove my timeline / narritive.

Joint missions under the supervision of the RCMP is perfectly fine and normal.  The same kind of thing happens in Mexico and South America.

[luckylager]

5 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

Joint missions under the supervision of the RCMP is perfectly fine and normal.  The same kind of thing happens in Mexico and South America.

I don't agree with it being "fine". But it is normal and has been for a long time.

[SabreFan1]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

The Rcmp make arrests in Hyder Alaska. Have for decades.

Nobody in the US gives 2 shakes of a lambs tail about Alaska.  It's basically just one giant oil field to us.  Canada even does fire service for some town just over the border.  If you can put out their fires in their towns, you should be able to arrest them in those same towns if they break laws while they're in Canada, or even "rent" out police services to those towns for a fee and work under US laws.  It would be a good business decision for the RCMP to sell it's services to small communities.

 

If the RCMP went into a major city over the border like Seattle, there would be he*l to pay.

[SabreFan1]

4 minutes ago, luckylager said:

I don't agree with it being "fine". But it is normal and has been for a long time.

As long as it's in the best interest of Canada and it's overseen by the RCMP, they may as well take advantage of it.  It saves the RCMP money and manpower.  Not to mention the costs associated with jailing.

 

Granted, if I was the one getting arrested and tossed into a foreign prison though, I'd be pretty upset.

[higgyfan]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

The countries are still bffs for the most part, the problem is that the quality of our politicians is eroding.  I see some seriously worrying signs in Ottawa.  The politicians there are quickly becoming more like the ones here.

The citizens are, this is true. 

 

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

The US will take whatever they can get from foreign countries including Canada.  It's always been like that and always will be.  Don't forget that the US is a defacto imperialist country.  Imperialism is predicated on spreading your power and influence throughout the world.  We don't actually take over non-middle eastern countries, but we sure do like to get our say as much as possible in them.

So true.  Canada has some delicious looking natural resources that will be needed south of the border at some point.

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

It's up to the foreign countries to say, "no".  In this case, Canada and Canadians should say "no" to ceding any of their rights and sovereignty to a foreign nation.

Absolutely.  C=Canadians  C=Complacent

 

We need to take matters into our own hands.  I've already started a list of Senate members with contact numbers and will be visiting my MP as well.  Hopefully word will get out to a large portion of Canadians who will voice their opinions in whatever form to get the Senate to vote against this bill.

 

Just like you, I see this as a very serious situation that has the potential to change Canada forever.

[Tre Mac]

Quote

        

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, the speech of my hon. friend from Durham was riveting. There is just one really big problem with the thesis, which is that this terrible bill—and I agree with him on that—is not the product of bad negotiations by the current government, but bad negotiations under Stephen Harper, because the preclearance bill was negotiated and concretized in 2015 between the previous government and the Obama administration.

The U.S. Congress passed its version of the bill back in early December. This version, we were told in committee, is take it or leave it, because it is already in an agreement that was negotiated under Stephen Harper. I believe it is better to leave it than to take it, but I did want to correct that aspect of my friend from Durham's narrative, as riveting as it was.

 

[SabreFan1]

Just now, higgyfan said:

The citizens are, this is true. 

 

So true.  Canada has some delicious looking natural resources that will be needed south of the border at some point.

Absolutely.  C=Canadians  C=Complacent

 

We need to take matters into our own hands.  I've already started a list of Senate members with contact numbers and will be visiting my MP as well.  Hopefully word will get out to a large portion of Canadians who will voice their opinions in whatever form to get the Senate to vote against this bill.

 

Just like you, I see this as a very serious situation that has the potential to change Canada forever.

I have both conservative and liberal views on issues here in the US.  I'm very conservative when it comes to my rights, freedoms, and liberties.  They are the most precious thing in the world to me. 

 

Hopefully more Canadians will have that view.  I don't want my country to start stomping all over yours.  I just wish that this would have come to my attention much sooner.  I'm a little less thorough keeping up with Canadian news than I am with US news for obvious reasons.

[Tre Mac]

I am just going by these quotes from MP's

 

Quote

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.

The bill would modify the legislative framework governing pre-clearance operations, the process that allows people travelling from Canada to the U.S. to go through American customs and immigration procedures while still on Canadian soil. This currently exists at eight Canadian airports, and as anyone who has taken advantage of it is aware, it makes travel to the United States much faster and more convenient.

With Bill C-23 in place, it will be possible to expand pre-clearance to new locations and modes of transportation, to implement cargo pre-clearance, and to establish for the first time Canadian pre-clearance operations in the United States. This entails substantial advantages for Canadian travellers and for the Canadian economy.

Certain members have raised concerns about the bill and the new legislative framework it would create. Obviously, that is fine. Each of us has the responsibility as members of Parliament to scrutinize legislation and bring any potential issues to the House's attention. However, we also have the responsibility to avoid exaggerated statements and keep our analysis tethered to the facts. Unfortunately, certain critics of Bill C-23, in particular the NDP candidate for Ottawa—Vanier, have been making, I assume unintentionally, blatantly incorrect assertions about the bill. It is important to set the record straight.

To begin, the candidate has written that Bill C-23 would allow American border security officers to arrest Canadians on Canadian soil. This is completely wrong. Under this legislation, U.S. officers would have no powers of arrest whatsoever. She has also written that Bill C-23 would allow U.S. pre-clearance officers to detain, question, seize property, frisk, strip search, and arrest Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. Once again, the claim about powers of arrest is simply fictional.

As for the first four items in that list, U.S. officers have already had those authorities for decades. In fact, during the debate, NDP members have been calling for the current framework to remain in place. While the current framework empowers U.S. officers to detain, question, seize property, and frisk Canadian citizens on Canadian soil, it seems worth asking whether the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier considers her own party's position in favour of the current pre-clearance arrangement to be an affront to Canadian sovereignty.

With respect to searches, the current framework allows U.S. pre-clearance officers to detain a traveller for the purpose of a search, and requires them to request a Canadian officer to conduct the search. This remains the case in Bill C-23. The only change is that in the exceptional circumstance that a Canadian officer is unavailable, the U.S. officer would be allowed to conduct the search himself or herself. If the NDP considers this a bridge too far, it is free to make that argument, but I think most Canadians would rightly see this as the minor adjustment that it is.

On the subject of travellers who enter a pre-clearance area and then change their mind and decide to withdraw, the NDP's candidate has written that there is no escape. She claims U.S. officers would have all the power they need to hold anyone they want. The reality is that travellers would be free to withdraw from pre-clearance, just as they are now. Bill C-23 merely adds that withdrawing travellers may have to say who they are and why they are leaving in order to guard against people probing the pre-clearance area for security weaknesses. Moreover, it is already the case under existing law. Anyone detained by a U.S. pre-clearance officer must be transferred to Canadian authorities as soon as possible.

She has also written that Bill C-23 would protect U.S. pre-clearance officers who abuse their powers from all prosecution. Once more, this is just plain false. The new pre-clearance agreement with the United States, the one that would be implemented by the bill, would establish a fully reciprocal framework for shared criminal jurisdiction. The U.S. would have primary jurisdiction over most acts committed by its officers in the course of their duties, just as Canada would have primary jurisdiction over most criminal offences committed by our officers in the United States. The host country would retain primary jurisdiction for the most serious offences, as well as any offence committed by an officer while off duty.

With respect to civil action, Bill C-23 maintains the existing rules. As is currently the case, a traveller who feels he or she has been mistreated could not sue an individual officer, but could sue the U.S. government. The same would apply in reverse for Canadian operations on American soil.

In all circumstances, American pre-clearance officers operating in Canada would be required to comply with Canadian law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The more we expand pre-clearance, the more Canadian travellers could undergo U.S. border procedures while protected by Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution. The alternative is for Canadian travellers to be searched and questioned in the United States with none of these safeguards.

Finally, the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier has written that Bill C-23“threatens the right of permanent residents of Canada to be able to return home from abroad”. Once again, this is incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would prevent permanent residents from returning to Canada.

Her assertion seems to be a reference to the unlikely confluence of multiple hypotheticals that could result in a person with major admissibility issues having to return to Canada the usual way rather than through pre-clearance. In the event that Canada established pre-clearance operations in the U.S. and in the event that a permanent resident of Canada develops a major admissibility issue, such as committing a serious crime, and in the event that a person is nevertheless allowed into the United States, such a person may have to re-enter Canada through an ordinary port of entry rather than benefiting from pre-clearance, simply because pre-clearance officers may not be equipped to deal with that particular situation. Now the NDP is free to argue that this quadruple hypothetical, whereby a person with a record of serious criminality would be inconvenienced, is a good reason to deny millions of Canadians the advantages of expanded pre-clearance, but I strongly disagree.

That is the heart of the issue here. Do the concerns raised by the NDP justify saying no thanks to the huge upside of pre-clearance expansion? It seems quite clear to me that they do not.

The changes that would be made by Bill C-23 to the legislative framework governing pre-clearance are moderate and reasonable. They would pave the way for substantial benefits, benefits such as reducing congestion to 12 million passengers per year, benefits such as in 2015 when Canada exported over $400 billion in goods and services, some $50 billion in services, to the United States, benefits of 600,000 jobs, benefits of tourism activities. We are talking about reducing hassles and delays for Canadian travellers, making it more convenient for tourists and business travellers to come to Canada, and making it quicker and easier for Canadian businesses to ship goods to and from the United States. Bill C-23 would be good for travellers, good for business, and a major step forward for the Canadian economy.

I invite all hon. members to engage in thoughtful, informed discussion of this legislation both today and hopefully at committee. I certainly intend to support the bill.

TBH I don't know what to believe.  I honestly doubt they let the US come over and flex their enforcement muscles on our turf, maybe some fear mongering going on?  Enlighten me wizards of CDC.

[SabreFan1]

3 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

I am just going by these quotes from MP's

 

TBH I don't know what to believe.  I honestly doubt they let the US come over and flex their enforcement muscles on our turf, maybe some fear mongering going on?  Enlighten me wizards of CDC.

The border patrol would be armed and have powers of detention for an indeterminate amount of time.  That basically gives them the power of arrest in all but definition.

 

Right now if you get upset with a US border officer and his questions on Canadian soil, you can just say, "I've changed my mind, I no longer wish to go to the US" and leave without explanation.  If this bill passes, under section 31, you lose that right.  They could grab you and drag you away and interrogate you if they choose to. 

 

I don't know about you, but to me that's probably scarier than just simply being arrested.  That's an action that should only afforded to actual domestic police.

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government.

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-23/

 

This enactment implements the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (the Agreement), done at Washington on March 16, 2015, to provide for the preclearance in each country of travellers and goods bound for the other country.

Part 1 of the enactment authorizes United States preclearance officers to conduct preclearance in Canada of travellers and goods bound for the United States and, among other things, it

(a) authorizes a federal Minister to designate preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in Canada, in which preclearance may take place;

(b) provides United States preclearance officers with powers to facilitate preclearance;

(c) establishes that the exercise of any power and performance of any duty or function by a United States preclearance officer is subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act;

(d) authorizes Canadian police officers and the officers of the Canada Border Services Agency to assist United States preclearance officers in the exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions;

(e) allows a traveller bound for the United States to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under Part 1; and

(f) limits the ability to request the extradition or provisional arrest of a current or former United States preclearance officer.

Part 2 of the enactment provides for the preclearance in the United States, by Canadian officers, of travellers and goods bound for Canada. Among other things, Part 2

(a) specifies how the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will apply to travellers bound for Canada who are in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in the United States, and extends the application of other Canadian legislation that relates to the entry of persons and importation of goods into Canada to those preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;

(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations adapting, restricting or excluding the application of provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that other Canadian legislation in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;

(c) prevents, as required under the Agreement, the exercise of powers of Canadian officers under Canadian law with respect to questioning or interrogation, examination, search, seizure, forfeiture, detention and arrest in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters, as similar powers will be conferred under the laws of the United States on Canadian officers; 

(d) allows a traveller bound for Canada to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under the laws of the United States;

(e) deems an act or omission committed in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter to be committed in Canada, if the act or omission would constitute, in Canada, an offence relating to the entry of persons or importation of goods into Canada; and

(f) grants the Attorney General of Canada the exclusive authority to commence and conduct a prosecution of a Canadian officer with respect to an act or omission committed in the United States.

Part 3 of the enactment makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to provide United States preclearance officers with an exemption from criminal liability under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act with respect to the carriage of firearms and other regulated items. It also amends the Criminal Code to provide for a stay of proceedings against a United States preclearance officer when the Government of the United States provides notice under paragraph 14 of Article X of the Agreement.

Part 3.‍1 of the enactment provides for an independent review relating to the administration and operation of the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Part 4 of the enactment makes a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, repeals the Preclearance Act and contains the coming-into-force provision.

 

https://canadians.org/blog/trudeau-backs-c-23-armed-us-border-guards-canada

 

The Trudeau government is moving forward with C-23, a controversial pre-clearance border security bill.

CBC reports, "U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government. The bill would enshrine in law a reciprocal agreement for customs and immigration pre-clearance signed by the governments of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in March 2015."

The article notes, "Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer in Calgary, says C-23 takes away an important right found in the existing law. 'A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: I don't like the way [an interview is] going and I've chosen not to visit your country. And they can just turn around and walk out. Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn't be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw', said Greene."

Greene adds, "If that person tries to leave, then they can be charged with failing to co-operate, which under this bill is an offence they can be arrested for, and then charged and given a federal record."

Furthermore, the article notes, "Under the existing law, a strip search can only be conducted by a Canadian officer, though a U.S. officer can be present. Greene points out C-23 says if a Canadian officer is unavailable or unwilling, the U.S. officer can conduct the search."

And, "C-23 would also allow U.S. officers to carry sidearms while on duty in Canada, if they're working in an environment where Canada Border Services Agency officers are normally armed."

The US Congress passed legislation in December 2016 supporting these pre-clearance procedures. At that time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted, "Great news. One step closer to easier travel and trade between our countries.''

The Canadian Press has reported, "12 million passengers [use pre-clearance] each year at Canadian airports. ...The new agreements allow the system to be extended to every mode of transportation: first trains, then buses, and potentially someday even car travel. ...The pilot projects will take place at Montreal's train station and on Western Canada's Rocky Mountaineer train line." Pre-clearance stations are also currently in place at the Port of Vancouver, at Vancouver's Pacific Central train station and on some B.C.-Washington ferry routes.

Trudeau will be meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC on Monday (February 13).

The Globe and Mail reports, "A senior official said Mr. Trudeau will not use the Oval Office meeting to criticize the President’s executive order temporarily banning Syrian refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries – now the subject of a legal battle between the White House and U.S. courts."

Thousands of people across this country have been protesting over the past several weeks the Trump administration's racist and Islamophobic policies. Rather than immediately rescinding the Safe Third Country agreement, Trudeau is extending the reach of US border security into Canada.

==============================================

 

Just sayin

[Warhippy]

8 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

You see the signed part? Trudeau making it law.

 

 

Making a bill law that was already enacted by the Harper/Obama governments

8 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Yup but what does the article say? Bill proposed by liberals. You can be a liberal or JT fan all you want this is all on them. Trudeau is essentially handing Canadian sovereignty over to the Americans.

The article states it is enshrining a bill made concrete by the Harper and Obama governments.

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

IIRC this was an initial Harper bill.

 

True Dough campaigned against it but is still allowing it to go through.

 

Kinda just shows people that the two parties are no different.

 

Amazingly, those who supported this under Harper rail against it under True Dough.

 

You truly cannot fix stupid when it comes to partisanship

Honestly.  This bill was bad before, but because of the government proposing it people were ok with it.  Now that Trudeau is actually signing this in to power those same people are now very against it.

 

the ONLY parties that have been adamantly against it are the Greens, Bloc and NDP.

 

How sad that the Lobs and Cons are so similar but will rail against their own legislation being signed by the other party.

[Ryan Strome]

47 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-23/

 

This enactment implements the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (the Agreement), done at Washington on March 16, 2015, to provide for the preclearance in each country of travellers and goods bound for the other country.

Part 1 of the enactment authorizes United States preclearance officers to conduct preclearance in Canada of travellers and goods bound for the United States and, among other things, it

(a) authorizes a federal Minister to designate preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in Canada, in which preclearance may take place;

(b) provides United States preclearance officers with powers to facilitate preclearance;

(c) establishes that the exercise of any power and performance of any duty or function by a United States preclearance officer is subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act;

(d) authorizes Canadian police officers and the officers of the Canada Border Services Agency to assist United States preclearance officers in the exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions;

(e) allows a traveller bound for the United States to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under Part 1; and

(f) limits the ability to request the extradition or provisional arrest of a current or former United States preclearance officer.

Part 2 of the enactment provides for the preclearance in the United States, by Canadian officers, of travellers and goods bound for Canada. Among other things, Part 2

(a) specifies how the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will apply to travellers bound for Canada who are in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in the United States, and extends the application of other Canadian legislation that relates to the entry of persons and importation of goods into Canada to those preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;

(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations adapting, restricting or excluding the application of provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that other Canadian legislation in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;

(c) prevents, as required under the Agreement, the exercise of powers of Canadian officers under Canadian law with respect to questioning or interrogation, examination, search, seizure, forfeiture, detention and arrest in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters, as similar powers will be conferred under the laws of the United States on Canadian officers; 

(d) allows a traveller bound for Canada to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under the laws of the United States;

(e) deems an act or omission committed in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter to be committed in Canada, if the act or omission would constitute, in Canada, an offence relating to the entry of persons or importation of goods into Canada; and

(f) grants the Attorney General of Canada the exclusive authority to commence and conduct a prosecution of a Canadian officer with respect to an act or omission committed in the United States.

Part 3 of the enactment makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to provide United States preclearance officers with an exemption from criminal liability under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act with respect to the carriage of firearms and other regulated items. It also amends the Criminal Code to provide for a stay of proceedings against a United States preclearance officer when the Government of the United States provides notice under paragraph 14 of Article X of the Agreement.

Part 3.‍1 of the enactment provides for an independent review relating to the administration and operation of the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Part 4 of the enactment makes a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, repeals the Preclearance Act and contains the coming-into-force provision.

 

https://canadians.org/blog/trudeau-backs-c-23-armed-us-border-guards-canada

 

The Trudeau government is moving forward with C-23, a controversial pre-clearance border security bill.

CBC reports, "U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government. The bill would enshrine in law a reciprocal agreement for customs and immigration pre-clearance signed by the governments of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in March 2015."

The article notes, "Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer in Calgary, says C-23 takes away an important right found in the existing law. 'A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: I don't like the way [an interview is] going and I've chosen not to visit your country. And they can just turn around and walk out. Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn't be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw', said Greene."

Greene adds, "If that person tries to leave, then they can be charged with failing to co-operate, which under this bill is an offence they can be arrested for, and then charged and given a federal record."

Furthermore, the article notes, "Under the existing law, a strip search can only be conducted by a Canadian officer, though a U.S. officer can be present. Greene points out C-23 says if a Canadian officer is unavailable or unwilling, the U.S. officer can conduct the search."

And, "C-23 would also allow U.S. officers to carry sidearms while on duty in Canada, if they're working in an environment where Canada Border Services Agency officers are normally armed."

The US Congress passed legislation in December 2016 supporting these pre-clearance procedures. At that time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted, "Great news. One step closer to easier travel and trade between our countries.''

The Canadian Press has reported, "12 million passengers [use pre-clearance] each year at Canadian airports. ...The new agreements allow the system to be extended to every mode of transportation: first trains, then buses, and potentially someday even car travel. ...The pilot projects will take place at Montreal's train station and on Western Canada's Rocky Mountaineer train line." Pre-clearance stations are also currently in place at the Port of Vancouver, at Vancouver's Pacific Central train station and on some B.C.-Washington ferry routes.

Trudeau will be meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC on Monday (February 13).

The Globe and Mail reports, "A senior official said Mr. Trudeau will not use the Oval Office meeting to criticize the President’s executive order temporarily banning Syrian refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries – now the subject of a legal battle between the White House and U.S. courts."

Thousands of people across this country have been protesting over the past several weeks the Trump administration's racist and Islamophobic policies. Rather than immediately rescinding the Safe Third Country agreement, Trudeau is extending the reach of US border security into Canada.

==============================================

 

Just sayin

Ya basically you're trying to pin blame on Harper rather than Trudeau. You know the pm for the last 2 years. 

[Ryan Strome]

45 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Making a bill law that was already enacted by the Harper/Obama governments

The article states it is enshrining a bill made concrete by the Harper and Obama governments.

Honestly.  This bill was bad before, but because of the government proposing it people were ok with it.  Now that Trudeau is actually signing this in to power those same people are now very against it.

 

the ONLY parties that have been adamantly against it are the Greens, Bloc and NDP.

 

How sad that the Lobs and Cons are so similar but will rail against their own legislation being signed by the other party.

It is a bad bill but you blaming a pm that hasn't been pm since 2015 is silly. The liberals could have stopped this, they didn't. It's on them.

[CBH1926]

6 hours ago, higgyfan said:

The citizens are, this is true. 

 

So true.  Canada has some delicious looking natural resources that will be needed south of the border at some point.

Absolutely.  C=Canadians  C=Complacent

 

We need to take matters into our own hands.  I've already started a list of Senate members with contact numbers and will be visiting my MP as well.  Hopefully word will get out to a large portion of Canadians who will voice their opinions in whatever form to get the Senate to vote against this bill.

 

Just like you, I see this as a very serious situation that has the potential to change Canada forever.

That point about natural resources is spot on, I think China would like to get some of those resources as well.

 

[SabreFan1]

53 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

That point about natural resources is spot on, I think China would like to get some of those resources as well.

I'm sure both China and India will see more and more of Canada's exports as they grow.  Hopefully the businesses there don't end up tearing up the beautiful parts of Canada to meet demand from all 3 countries (US, China, India).

 

Canada/Harper pushed hard for this law 2-3 years ago.  It wasn't completely borne from US desire.  Canada hasn't been put under much duress.  That's one of the things that makes it perplexing.  Current PM Hair Gel could have killed it but he didn't and he was able to push it through the House of Commons, but hasn't had the same luck with your Senate.