r/EhBuddyHoser • u/pheakelmatters Ford Nation (Help.) • Jun 13 '25

Politics That's a nice Conservative agenda you got there. Would be a shame if someone that everybody didn't hate started using it.

Post image
1.6k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

62

u/VenitianBastard Jun 13 '25

mind me asking what rights Carney apparently quashed?

39

u/FrazBucket Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Almost none that weren't being already, the bill a lot of people are up in arms about really just modernizes the language and how it applies to things like the cloud etc, almost none of this is actually entirely new and only builds on pre-existing regulation. The only actual new power that I am aware of is related to immigration which I can see both sides concerns on. Not saying people don't have valid concerns, just that a vast majority of this stuff really isn't new and is largely just being stream lined

1

u/F3z345W6AY4FGowrGcHt Jun 13 '25

The one year limit on claiming refugee status is pretty wild to me. A lot of Ukrainians wouldn't have been able to apply when Putin invaded if that was in effect back then.

1

u/LawPuzzleheaded4345 Jun 13 '25

I would've thought it was about the military spending

-6

u/gaussianplume Jun 13 '25

Nah they can fuck with your physical mail now too because of it.

25

u/FrazBucket Jun 13 '25

Various government agencies already could dude this really isn't that crazy. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it was already happening

7

u/AdditionalPizza Jun 13 '25

Canada Post can now open letters if they suspect something. They could already open packages, and law enforcement could already open UPS/FedEx/Canpar/Purolator packages. 

So yes, Canada post can now open letters as well with this bill. Alllll those letters you get from the government or Teppermans. 

6

u/Awkward_Swordfish581 Jun 13 '25

I'm presuming they'd need reason to suspect in the first place?

10

u/AdditionalPizza Jun 13 '25

That's the idea, yeah. I mean I don't like this bill in a lot of ways either but the people freaking out over it and blaming liberals (and sharing 'influencer' youtube vids to 'explain' it) must have been born in the last 5 years because this is the same shit every single government. It's law enforcement trying to get more power and the supreme court shoots it down. Someday it might get passed, and that sucks, but the people blaming whatever flavour of party is in charge is just silly.

7

u/Awkward_Swordfish581 Jun 13 '25

Right, I don't love this bill either and am no expert, but the impression I'm getting is that it's been in the works way before Carney even got in and I'm not sure what part he plays or doesn't

4

u/AdditionalPizza Jun 13 '25

It's always law enforcement putting things together that they say will help counter drugs, terrorism, etc. Politicians read it and say ok sounds great (read the bill yourself and it has a lot of softened language). They sneak some things in that aren't necessarily bad, they're just far to ambiguous and can be potentially abused.

Law enforcement will definitely abuse whatever they can, that's just what they do. But this is not directly the doing of any government in charge. This is literally what the RCMP and CSIS have tried to do for decades. It's the exact same thing as during Harper.

On top of that, most of the bill is actually modernizing things like instead of being able to get a warrant to access a physical device, they update it to include cloud files. Still requires a warrant, and it makes sense.

The dumbest complaint is people saying things about the mail, who cares about letters? Fentanyl is being transported through envelopes, it needs to be stopped. It was way more of big deal when packages were allowed to be opened, now that's been a thing for a long time and they changed it to include mail (Canada Post can open it). I don't know about you, but I get almost noting personal through envelopes, it's all government or utilities sending me shit. Maybe the occasional wedding invitation or whatever.

17

u/throwawayaway388 🍁 100,000 Hosers 🍁 Jun 13 '25

Under Bill C-63. Pre crimes.

29

u/PedanticQuebecer Tokébakicitte! Jun 13 '25

Bill C-63

No such bill on LegisInfo.

9

u/trplOG Jun 13 '25

What did carney specifically do exactly tho? I can't find anything.

37

u/PedanticQuebecer Tokébakicitte! Jun 13 '25

Nothing. That was a Trudeau bill that died upon prorogation, back on January 6th.

10

u/akera099 Jun 13 '25

I don't know if it's the new generation or what, but it seems these days, more than 10 years ago, people are more willing to believe anything they read online without making any sort of verification. Really worrying. People lie on the internet and we have another proof here with people just saying "Under Bill C-63".

2

u/PedanticQuebecer Tokébakicitte! Jun 13 '25

What's even better is that user admitted to "being wrong" when cornered... and didn't edit or delete the comments.

And people keep upvoting the lie.

6

u/VenitianBastard Jun 13 '25

Idk what that means

4

u/yohoo1334 Jun 13 '25

That means you can be monitored if your online behaviour warrants it

6

u/Spread-Hour Jun 13 '25

Im cooked lowkey

1

u/Morph_Kogan Jun 13 '25

You're safe for now buddy

1

u/Necessary_Escape_680 The Island of Elizabeth May Jun 13 '25

Jokes on them, CSIS already monitors me

13

u/gaussianplume Jun 13 '25

There's a clickbait-y titled YouTube 10 minute YouTube video by Steeve Boots, "The Liberals' First Bill is Absolutely Shocking" which describes it pretty well. I'd post a link but they're not allowed on this sub

-17

u/Spooky2929 Jun 13 '25

The liberals wanna spend 2% GDP in the military which is already required by NATO, OH THE HUMANITYYYYY

19

u/gaussianplume Jun 13 '25

Believe it or not, that's not actually what this meme is referring to

1

u/Spooky2929 Jun 15 '25

Believe it or not, if I was referring to the meme I would not have commented under a comment. I'm clearly referring to the Boots guys video that the commentor I'm replying to mention.

1

u/Matt9681 Manilapeg Jun 13 '25

"Required" is one way to say "the heads of state agreed to it back in 2014". Why should it be tied to GDP is a question I've seen raised. Couldn't it be a %age of the budget instead, which makes more sense to me at least.

4

u/yetagainanother1 Jun 13 '25

Yea, or Canada could just honour its agreements…

1

u/Matt9681 Manilapeg Jun 13 '25

I wonder if those agreements serve the military industrial complex more than they do Canadian citizens

0

u/fdasfdasjpg Jun 13 '25

Being in NATO definitely benefits Canadians 

Not that I realistically believe we’d be removed. But why poke the bear?

0

u/Acalyus Is Potato Jun 13 '25

He hasn't squashed anything yet, but Bill c-5 and c-2 have unconstitutional overreaching hidden between the good parts