We have a newborn baby. It's hot out. The windows are open. We're exhausted (pun not intended). We can't rest without getting startled awake by a motorcycle or car with a souped up muffler and it goes on late into the night.

Buses, garbage trucks, planes, helicopters , even the road work happening nearby: it's all present but tolerable. But these ripping and popping mufflers are the bain of my life right now. I am so effing tired.

Why do we tolerate this as a society?

So I emailed Tom Osborne about a dozen times over the past month or two about Bill C-22. I've yet to receive a response.

I emailed Elizabeth May after Bill C-22 was passed the other day. I got a response, written by her personally, this afternoon. A Saturday. She lives on the other side of the continent. She's the leader of a federal party. She has no reason to respond to me whatsoever. And yet...

Not much else to say, really. Based on the most recent legislative session, I really think all of us need to start demanding more of our Liberal MPs.

I think we need to remind them that they work for us, not the Prime Minister, and I think we should start reminding them this summer.

I know many people have been emailing their MPs about the government's police surveillance bill, C-22, without a reply, so I thought I'd post the response I just got from Joanne Thompson, MP for St. John's East and current cabinet minister.

As always, please sign the petition to withdraw the bill if you see fit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7416

My initial email:

*Minister Thompson,

I write to you with the utmost sincerity as a Liberal voter from St. John's who is extremely concerned by the government's recent legislative agenda.

A feeling of dread has crept into my daily life at the notion that the government I voted for has gone rogue.

There are a number of things I could speak about, but since this is likely the result of a deliberate political strategy I will focus on the most egregious issue: bill c-22.

This is the most irresponsible piece of legislation I have ever seen. I've watched in disbelief as the Minister of Public Safety has responded to valid and overwhelmingly negative testimony with what appears to be feigned indignance.

The concerns the minister is brushing aside amount to what would be a seismic shift in law enforcement culture and an affront to one of the most essential of Canadian values: personal liberty and the right to privacy.

We have frightening anecdotal evidence from other jurisdictions that this type of legislation does not strictly adhere to administrative intent. There have been hundreds if not thousands of illegal police actions in Australia alone, often targeting innocent people including journalists, that have been the direct result of language that was overly broad, in much the same basic way experts have described this bill as being overly broad. This says nothing of the practically inevitable nature of data leaks when storing large quantities of sensitive information. These warnings are being given ad nauseum to your government, and the perception from the outside is that they have been totally ignored.

There is absolutely no excuse for rushing this legislation. The only obvious rationale would be that the government knows this bill would not survive public scrutiny and they wish to pass this law now while they enjoy soaring public support.

It may be a few years before the headlines start running about Canadian data breaches and illegal searches, but the decision made this month about bill c-22 will be the direct antecedent to these unacceptable and entirely avoidable consequences.

Minister Thompson, please, please, please urge your colleagues to reconsider this bill. I do not want to raise my daughter in a country the collects and retains her personal information for the expressed purpose of investigating crimes that have not even occurred. That, even on principle if for no other reason, is a heartbreaking shift in our increasingly precious democratic ideals.

This bill cannot be allowed to pass.

_________

St. John's*

Her reply:

*Dear ______,

Thank you for taking the time to write regarding Bill C-22.

Our government recognizes that privacy rights and personal freedoms are fundamental Canadian values. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians against unreasonable search and seizure and affords Canadians a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bill C-22 has been developed in a manner that is consistent with the Charter and includes important safeguards to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Our government has been clear that lawful access measures are necessary to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect Canadians. These measures are intended to assist with complex investigations involving child sexual exploitation, extortion, human trafficking, money laundering, organized crime, phone scams, and other serious criminal activity. Canada is currently the only country among its Five Eyes and G7 partners that does not have lawful access legislation, and Bill C-22 seeks to provide Canadian law enforcement with modern tools to investigate serious crimes while preserving Canadians' civil liberties and privacy rights.

It is important to note that Bill C-22 does not permit the retention of content, emails, web browsing history, or social media posts. Rather, law enforcement and intelligence agencies would only be able to seek access to metadata and basic subscriber information that may assist in an investigation. Such access would require judicial authorization, and a judge would need to be satisfied that an offence has occurred or will occur and that the information sought would assist in the investigation. These orders may also be challenged before the courts.

The bill also does not require electronic service providers to create “backdoors,” weaken electronic protections, or install capabilities that would enable surveillance. In fact, provisions within the legislation recognize circumstances where compliance would require creating a systemic vulnerability in electronic protections, including encryption, and service providers would not be required to do so.

As an additional safeguard, the Intelligence Commissioner would play a role in the review process to help ensure that privacy protections are maintained and that appropriate oversight is in place.

As with all legislation before Parliament, Bill C-22 will continue to be studied and debated throughout the parliamentary process. The government welcomes the engagement of Canadians, stakeholders, experts, and parliamentarians, and any proposed amendments will be given careful consideration.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. Your comments have been noted and will be shared for consideration.

Sincerely,*

Joanne Thompson

My response:

*Minister Thompson this is unacceptable.

If this bill is Charter compliant you must explain to me how it will allow for the warrantless seizure of metadata without the use of information that the supreme Court has deemed private. The governmen's deliberate decision not to disclose the specifics of this retention does not shield them from obvious assumptions, including that IP addresses at the very least will be required to make this scheme work.

I know how this works. My friends in computer science know how this works. The Canadian Bar Association knows how this works. Your own privacy commissioner knows how this works. We're struggling to understand how this could possibly be legal.

In this absence of any explanation, this response is tantamount to an outright lie. I do not appreciate being lied to.The intelligence commissioner's "oversight" is not a replacement for a warrant, and I'm fairly sure you know that. So what is the explanation for this bizarre, contentious and arbitrarily short committee process if not to cover up your government's lies?

This is the response I was afraid of getting. As a Liberal voter It's more than disappointing, it is genuinely frightening. I'm deeply ashamed of what you are doing. In time, I'm confident you will be too.

__________*

I didn't go into it in the email because I'm honestly seething with rage but there is also no satisfactory explanation for how this scheme could be accomplished without "backdoors." Their official stance on this seems to be "trust me bro."

I had a lot more to say but my blood was rushing in my ears and I just couldn't calm down enough to say it.

Edit to say I have some regret about calling her a liar, but I'm sick of being gaslit about this and I was as angry as I've been in a very long time about that reply.