Thank you Ms. Simons, excellent article and I agree with everything until the end. I think you are much to kind to this Liberal government. It is not incompetence. The Liberals are demonstrating time and again an absolute disregard for personal privacy and free speech rights. Just in the last year: emergency act where people still have their bank accounts frozen and can't pay bills, including mortgages, because of a donation, internet censorship bills (follow Michael Geist) and now this. They do not respect personal freedoms and our courts tend to side with government vs individuals in these fights, certainly with exceptions, using the "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" language. It needs to stop and we need to push back harder. Thanks for bringing this to light but I believe your conclusions are far to soft on this government.
"And I don’t think it requires much creativity to imagine how much more vulnerable you might be to such a search if you were, for example, Black, or Muslim, or Chinese, or Indigenous or LGBQT+."
Er, how about wearing a MAGA hat, or a 'Truckers Convoy' tee-shirt? That would make you much more of a 'deep state' target here. Your own biases--your sense of where the threats to freedom come from--show through clearly in the examples chosen.
Don't misunderstand... I share your concerns about the legislation. It's just ironic that you inadvertently supply such a good reason for sharing them.
Thanks for bringing this up. The motives of the government doesn't have to be nefarious; we should be asking how can this be abused. Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs?
I'd like to see some examples of where this is power would help the border officers. What's on my phone amounts to ideas, and we shouldn't be in the position of policing ideas.
Now that I write this I'm reminded of a TV show that featured border officers going about their day, and the people that try to get in the country. One was a young guy from Australia. The officer looked through his phone, which showed the traveler was an avid graffiti artist. The officer denied him entry, claiming he didn't want him to express his artistic talents in our country by defacing Canadian property. Put him on the next flight back to Sidney. Too much?
I'm not a lawyer, but if I follow the argument correctly, we're offered various thresholds of legally justifiable evidence for searches: reasonable suspicion, reasonable and probable grounds, and now, reasonable general concern.
Whether it's a suspicion, grounds or concern, in all cases it must be reasonable and I assume therefore justiciable on that basis.
Folks in Canada have Charter rights including the right to hold and express various beliefs (short of, for example, hate speech).
The idea that folks are going to be searched at the border if a border agent has a 'reasonable general concern' that the traveller did not vote for Justin, as opposed to, for example, a national security threat, seems unlikely to survive its day in court as a reasonable and legally justifiable search.
So while a new formulation of evidence is worthy of attention, in a rule of law society the ultimate forum to test how this new threshold of evidence fits in the wider context of legal rights and obligations is, of course, the courts.
I realize that in the political arena suspicion suffers no such burden of reasonableness.
Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I don't understand why my comment was "unacceptable". I merely agreed with the writer that the search powers were ambiguous, and unclear, and that it was unwise to vest them in a body of state employees who may be less well-trained than police officers. And I suggested that legislative design is hard; and that the somewhat-reformed Senate (where the writer comes from) has a role in making it better. Otherwise the issues will be fought out in the forum run by allegedly "elitist" judges, who handiwork also draws criticism - although not enough, yet, to warrant invoking the notwithstanding clause.
I was with the author (and still share their reasonable general concerns) until they suggested customs would target travellers based on their political views. That’s hyperbolic, would not be authorized by the bill, and is not a behaviour supported by any experience in case law or complaints about customs agents.
What a great article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Has this been picked up in the media anywhere else? What do the opposition parties have to say about it? Will the Senate support the Bill?
The truth is that Trudeau and his regime are leaving the vaccine mandates in place in order to achieve personal identificaltion numbers for all citisens of Canada. We were volunteered by the regime with the UK following to see how the implementations of the identiy number trial is conducted. That is the only reason, other than a massive amount of vaccines that were ordered per person for Canadians, why we are the only country with mandates. They must have every citisen documented in order to complete the trial. Its has little to do with health, safety, or concern for Canadians and more about attaching numerical identities for ease of control.
They intend to bring in facial recognition for all passports to keep your identy safe. I thought that was truly heroic for them to consider each citisens safety and making it difficult for anyone to steal identities. It is why there are massive lineups for passports as they must identify every Canadian with this new technology. No conspiracy at all in play as these are facts and not conjectures.
It used to be you could say that the intention of the Government is nefarious without verbal and abusive backlash nor the threat of losing your job. Unfortunately the regime will punish you if you dare even site the truth and it is autocraticly deemed a "conspiracy theory."
I think this is just another example of the pace of governance not being able to keep up with the pace of change on the planet, mixed with what they feel is a need to appear to be doing something. Governments no longer know what to do anymore.
I am fairly sure that the photo accompanying this article is not of an airport. No luggage anywhere, not even a backpack and everyone has their shoes on. Also, no phones, laptops or tablets anywhere. Maybe it's a sports venue? A comic book or sci-fi convention? I wonder what the little girl clutching her Barbie doll could let us know.
The article raises valid drafting and policy questions; even if it is unlikely that “Justin Trudeau” (who apparently cares not about monetary policy) has anything to do with it. But it doesn’t help to debate about which “political persuasion” is more likely to “abuse” powers that could so obviously impinge upon “privacy rights” or the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is: it is unwise to empower low level state functionaries (whatever their personal motivation in particular cases) with the power to rummage through the kind of information that may, today, be found, on personal devices.
The possibility of abuse and pretextual searches are just so obvious that they should not be ignored, even if any over-reach might be subject to review (at great cost) through a Charter lens. Better to be very clear at the outset – including in the statute itself – about the personal and public interests being balanced. Otherwise you get “law” like the well-meaning voluntary-intoxication amendments to the Criminal Code, that have just struck down by the Supreme Court.
And happily, the chamber of sober second thought (now somewhat de-politicized…thank you Justin!) is just the place to do the homework.
Excellent article. We seem to be drifting away from civil rights that matter.
Thank you Ms. Simons, excellent article and I agree with everything until the end. I think you are much to kind to this Liberal government. It is not incompetence. The Liberals are demonstrating time and again an absolute disregard for personal privacy and free speech rights. Just in the last year: emergency act where people still have their bank accounts frozen and can't pay bills, including mortgages, because of a donation, internet censorship bills (follow Michael Geist) and now this. They do not respect personal freedoms and our courts tend to side with government vs individuals in these fights, certainly with exceptions, using the "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" language. It needs to stop and we need to push back harder. Thanks for bringing this to light but I believe your conclusions are far to soft on this government.
"And I don’t think it requires much creativity to imagine how much more vulnerable you might be to such a search if you were, for example, Black, or Muslim, or Chinese, or Indigenous or LGBQT+."
Er, how about wearing a MAGA hat, or a 'Truckers Convoy' tee-shirt? That would make you much more of a 'deep state' target here. Your own biases--your sense of where the threats to freedom come from--show through clearly in the examples chosen.
Don't misunderstand... I share your concerns about the legislation. It's just ironic that you inadvertently supply such a good reason for sharing them.
Why does socialism inevitably tend towards authoritarianism despite the boistrous protestations to the opposite?
It is always worth listening to Paula Simons.
Thanks for bringing this up. The motives of the government doesn't have to be nefarious; we should be asking how can this be abused. Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs?
I'd like to see some examples of where this is power would help the border officers. What's on my phone amounts to ideas, and we shouldn't be in the position of policing ideas.
Now that I write this I'm reminded of a TV show that featured border officers going about their day, and the people that try to get in the country. One was a young guy from Australia. The officer looked through his phone, which showed the traveler was an avid graffiti artist. The officer denied him entry, claiming he didn't want him to express his artistic talents in our country by defacing Canadian property. Put him on the next flight back to Sidney. Too much?
I'm not a lawyer, but if I follow the argument correctly, we're offered various thresholds of legally justifiable evidence for searches: reasonable suspicion, reasonable and probable grounds, and now, reasonable general concern.
Whether it's a suspicion, grounds or concern, in all cases it must be reasonable and I assume therefore justiciable on that basis.
Folks in Canada have Charter rights including the right to hold and express various beliefs (short of, for example, hate speech).
The idea that folks are going to be searched at the border if a border agent has a 'reasonable general concern' that the traveller did not vote for Justin, as opposed to, for example, a national security threat, seems unlikely to survive its day in court as a reasonable and legally justifiable search.
So while a new formulation of evidence is worthy of attention, in a rule of law society the ultimate forum to test how this new threshold of evidence fits in the wider context of legal rights and obligations is, of course, the courts.
I realize that in the political arena suspicion suffers no such burden of reasonableness.
Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I don't understand why my comment was "unacceptable". I merely agreed with the writer that the search powers were ambiguous, and unclear, and that it was unwise to vest them in a body of state employees who may be less well-trained than police officers. And I suggested that legislative design is hard; and that the somewhat-reformed Senate (where the writer comes from) has a role in making it better. Otherwise the issues will be fought out in the forum run by allegedly "elitist" judges, who handiwork also draws criticism - although not enough, yet, to warrant invoking the notwithstanding clause.
I was with the author (and still share their reasonable general concerns) until they suggested customs would target travellers based on their political views. That’s hyperbolic, would not be authorized by the bill, and is not a behaviour supported by any experience in case law or complaints about customs agents.
What a great article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Has this been picked up in the media anywhere else? What do the opposition parties have to say about it? Will the Senate support the Bill?
The truth is that Trudeau and his regime are leaving the vaccine mandates in place in order to achieve personal identificaltion numbers for all citisens of Canada. We were volunteered by the regime with the UK following to see how the implementations of the identiy number trial is conducted. That is the only reason, other than a massive amount of vaccines that were ordered per person for Canadians, why we are the only country with mandates. They must have every citisen documented in order to complete the trial. Its has little to do with health, safety, or concern for Canadians and more about attaching numerical identities for ease of control.
They intend to bring in facial recognition for all passports to keep your identy safe. I thought that was truly heroic for them to consider each citisens safety and making it difficult for anyone to steal identities. It is why there are massive lineups for passports as they must identify every Canadian with this new technology. No conspiracy at all in play as these are facts and not conjectures.
It used to be you could say that the intention of the Government is nefarious without verbal and abusive backlash nor the threat of losing your job. Unfortunately the regime will punish you if you dare even site the truth and it is autocraticly deemed a "conspiracy theory."
Concur. The legislation definitely requires additional work.
So what happens if I refuse access to my devices?
I think this is just another example of the pace of governance not being able to keep up with the pace of change on the planet, mixed with what they feel is a need to appear to be doing something. Governments no longer know what to do anymore.
I am fairly sure that the photo accompanying this article is not of an airport. No luggage anywhere, not even a backpack and everyone has their shoes on. Also, no phones, laptops or tablets anywhere. Maybe it's a sports venue? A comic book or sci-fi convention? I wonder what the little girl clutching her Barbie doll could let us know.
The article raises valid drafting and policy questions; even if it is unlikely that “Justin Trudeau” (who apparently cares not about monetary policy) has anything to do with it. But it doesn’t help to debate about which “political persuasion” is more likely to “abuse” powers that could so obviously impinge upon “privacy rights” or the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is: it is unwise to empower low level state functionaries (whatever their personal motivation in particular cases) with the power to rummage through the kind of information that may, today, be found, on personal devices.
The possibility of abuse and pretextual searches are just so obvious that they should not be ignored, even if any over-reach might be subject to review (at great cost) through a Charter lens. Better to be very clear at the outset – including in the statute itself – about the personal and public interests being balanced. Otherwise you get “law” like the well-meaning voluntary-intoxication amendments to the Criminal Code, that have just struck down by the Supreme Court.
And happily, the chamber of sober second thought (now somewhat de-politicized…thank you Justin!) is just the place to do the homework.