"Bill C-22 builds the blanket model of data retention that the European courts have consistently rejected, as it would require providers to retain, for up to a year, the date, time, duration, origin of communications, and location of the devices involved. The result is a surveillance map of the movements and communications practices of virtually all Canadians for a year, the very opposite of what recognizing privacy as a fundamental right envisions." From @mgeist.

https://mas.to/@mgeist/116691913037603373

#C22 #FediLaw #CanPoli

Do I want to inflict clause-by-clause on myself? It's a miserable experience at the best of times, trying to figure out what an amendment to a bill that amends an act actually does.

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20260604/-1/45519

Jenny Kwan proposes the first amendment, despite not being a regular member of the committee (because the NDP doesn't have enough MPs to merit a permanent spot).

And then immediately into a Conservative point of order on briefs that have yet to be distributed. The Liberal Chair evades a direct answer. A different Conservative asks if the (non-partisan) Clerk has a ballpark answer on how many briefs are outstanding. The Chair declines to let the Clerk take the mic.

Gross. So gross.

Some discussion of the difference between storing information on one’s phone versus the cloud. Negative a hundred points to the DoJ for assuming a hypothetical judge is necessarily a "he.”

Discussion of amendments getting slightly derailed because the witness didn't have copies of the amendments. Good thing we're rushing this shit.

The Bloc points out that the witnesses are specifically there from the pro-surveillance camp, not the privacy camp. Every answer from their perspective is “your proposed amendments to Bill C-22 as the government drafted it would make it harder for police.”

First voice vote fails (on an amendment apparently recommended by the Privacy Commissioner). 6 no, 5 yes. C'est comme ça.

Conservative echoing the Bloc that the witnesses are here to "give more access to law enforcement," not to balance that with Canadians' Charter right to privacy.

I think we're still (after an hour and a half) on clause 4. The bill has 48 clauses. The most controversial is 41. Seems unlikely they'll get through by 6:30.

Sunday morning, currently no indication on the SECU website of when the next clause-by-clause meeting on #C22 will be held (parl.ca/secu). (Probably Tuesday.)

The most recent meeting for which there are published minutes and a transcript is May 7, a month ago. This means they're doing clause-by-clause without minutes, without transcripts, and without submitted briefs and objections.

I'm musing about a letter to whatever Senate Committee ends up studying this, pointing out that they don't have to legitimize this farce. They can, this chamber of sober second thought, insist on a bare minimum Parliamentary standard of democracy and respect for official languages and Charter rights. Apparently it's as easy as splitting the bill.

What fun that would be for historians, if the independent senators declined to endorse a police state. At the very least they could slow it down a bit.

Ah, the blessing of having friends you can send questions to like "are you able to spit up examples of the Senate splitting a bill"?

Yup! C-103 from 1998 (the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency / Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation) and C-10 from 2002 (firearms / cruelty to animals).

Procedurally it looks like a motion that happens when the bill gets referred from the Senate to committee for study. It could be that if the bill gets sent to committee whole then a motion to split the bill *at* committee would be considered out of order. So that helps establish timeline.

You know, if C-22 is stuck at parl.ca/SECU for a while (on a Liberal subamendment to an amendment to clause 6 of 40-some), now might be a good time to email additional objections to the clerk (officially non-partisan) and chair (extremely partisan, majority rules). Demand information, assert rights, gum up their progress.

Ask how many documents the majority government, demonstrably itching for a police state, has withheld from the Parliamentarians who are currently pro-privacy. Ask for the complete list (surely tracked somewhere), including dates submitted and published. (I believe proposed amendments were due June 1.)

Confirm that the explanation for the delay is that the Liberal majority government is underfunding human translation services? And then using its professed deep belief in official languages to withhold expert evidence and mass public opposition from non-government members of the committee? While insisting that clause-by-clause happen in the absence of written documentation?

I only watched the last few minutes of last night's broadcast, but what I saw was a Liberal subamendment where even the bilingual lawyer mouthpiece for it stumbled over the alinéas.

You cannot make good law without a clear written record of evidence.

Regardless of what the chair rules, this *is* a breach of privilege, not just for members but also for the public itself. MPs are supposed to be representing us. Their legitimacy comes from us. Even if the opposition loses the vote on the numbers every time, we can tell the chair he is wrong. We can insist that our elected representatives respect democratic rights, official language rights, and privacy rights. I would argue the non-partisan clerk owes a duty to the public too.

They are misusing official languages rights to expedite the violation of privacy rights. We can say no to this.

The Clerk of parl.ca/SECU acknowledged receipt of my email and failed to engage with any of the substance.

This is unsurprising, since "non-partisan" often gets interpreted as "required to uphold a bad system" (as opposed to "truthful no matter who looks bad as a result").

Is it that a Parliamentary committee does not, as a matter of course, track correspondence? Are there not systems in place for that?

Or, is it that the Clerk thinks Canadians aren't entitled to know who submitted information (opposition) that has been withheld on the pretext of respect for official languages while the government bulldozes the law?

Neither response is great when your actual job is democracy.

#C22 #CanPoli #FediLaw

There's also been some weirdness with the Privacy Commissioner's brief.

When I wrote to the clerk, it was listed under Information > Briefs (https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13454852) as having been posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 4:46 p.m., except there was no name attached to the link to the brief. Meaning, instead of "Privacy Commissioner" being the name above "Brief," it said nothing. This hid it from ctrl-f finding.

I asked the Clerk to fix it, meaning add the name to the website (in both languages). Now there's no brief posted Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 4:46 pm. That seems odd.

You *can* read a brief from the Privacy Commissioner, still dated May 21, 2026, but now posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 4:09 p.m., again without attribution.

Also posted without attribution yesterday, a document dated April 16, 2026, from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pointing out quite politely that C-22 fails to provide for "timely and effective independent review," making it inconsistent with NSIRA's mandate. The French version is dated 16 avril 2026. So this critique with suggested written amendments was submitted bilingually weeks before committee study began and published nine days after proposed amendments were due?

@Paulatics Hey. I wonder if you would be open to the idea, if it comes to that, of introducing a motion to split Bill C-22 when it arrives in the Senate, in the hopes that the most problematic aspects of it will get voted down / returned to the House.

There's some stuff happening during committee study at SECU that's pretty appalling in a democracy. I've been posting a lot about it (above if you want to scroll). I could also provide the information in some other format if you prefer.

Basically I'm hoping the Senate will decline to be complicit in this.

I don't want to wait until C-22 has been referred to whichever committee (Legal? TRCM? SECD?) to flag it: it could be too late then, if second reading endorses the principle.

Clause by clause meetings, C-22

Thursday, June 4, 2026, 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 11, 2026, 3:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.

Today's witnesses "to be determined."

https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/SECU/meeting-43/notice

Conservatives forcing police officers to explain different ways they pursue cases if a judge says "no, you're not entitled to that information."

Steps include: talking to more people, including colleagues, lawyers, and witnesses. So onerous, investigating.

I have no clue what the subamendment actually is. That shit's not written down anywhere the public can view it.

Jenny Kwan's petition against C-22 (https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7416) seems very slow to load at the moment. I wonder if there's a burst of signatures during SECU meetings.

(Over 12,500 last time I checked.)

Thing that just happened: a Liberal complained on the record about not getting paid enough to listen to officials explain the legal changes they're making.