Tag Archives: Lawful Access

The arrogant “tinfoil hat” dismissal

Posted on by

The House of Commons rose for the summer yesterday afternoon, after a particularly busy few months. Government House Leader Stephen MacKinnon took to the Foyer yesterday to pat himself on the back for passing twenty-one bills in the sitting, which is a lot, particularly after the record of the last few years when unrelenting procedural warfare meant that only one or two non-money bills (by which I mean either budget implementation or Estimates) got passed. This is thanks to the government having secured a working majority in the Commons, allowing them to use time allocation on a regular basis to move bills along—perhaps a little too often. Yes, things were being slow-walked but the solution is not to time allocate everything, which only creates distrust and bad will, but well, the Liberals have become arrogant since getting the majority. So if Ruby Sahota and Gary Anandasangaree are slowly morphing into Vic Toews given their rhetoric on lawful access, well, MacKinnon is morphing into Peter Van Loan, who time allocated absolutely everything when he was House Leader. (And suddenly I am having flashbacks of Peter Julian standing up to say “Here we go again…” with every time allocation motion).

An absolutely shameful statement by Steven MacKinnon. Every organization with a long track record of expert commentary on the rule of law in Canada condemned the bill. "Liberals dismiss ‘tinfoil hat’ privacy fears as lawful access bill passes"globalnews.ca/news/1191195…

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-19T01:15:29.519Z

What was beyond the pale, however, was the fact that MacKinnon over the past couple of days has decided to start casting concerns about the lawful access bill—which they rammed through with some absolute procedural fuckery—as being “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theories. Sorry, but no—the level of metadata they are demanding that companies track and retain is legitimately invasive, as are the requirements that telecom companies install equipment that will turn your phones into tracking devices (but only with judicial authorization…on a very low threshold to obtain it). The Supreme Court has twice ruled that lawful access is unconstitutional, but this government went and bowled ahead anyway, and think that they can dismiss any legitimate criticism as some kind of mental illness. (And no, the amendments they hastily passed before passage do not address any of the core concerns with the legislation).

Every privacy expert in this country is raising the alarm, and no, the fact that every police organization in the country wants these surveillance powers is not reassuring. It is, in fact, the opposite of that. We already have big problems in this country with cops who use the police database as a dating registry—do we really need to give them the ability to stalk any woman that they choose? What about the allegations of police in Toronto passing along information to organised crime? Do we need to give those cops the ability to track any phone so that they can pass along that information to organised crime as well? This is not far-fetched or out of the realm of possibility—these kinds of things are already happening. This government used to care about these kinds of things, but that has gone out the window with Carney in charge.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-18T13:08:10.185Z

Continue reading →

Cowardly responses on MAiD expansion

Posted on by

It was not a surprise that the majority of the special joint committee on MAiD recommended that the government “pause indefinitely” on expanding access to those whose sole condition is a grievous or irremediable mental illness. The fix was in on this committee from the start—the chairs were both anti-MAiD advocates, and the Conservative position going in was to be against, while many Liberals have become squeamish. It was also no surprise to see that there were five supplemental or dissenting reports to the main report, most of them from senators on the joint committee, four of whom were keen to call bullshit on the process that was torqued, ignored certain expert witnesses, and where the biased chairs put their thumbs on the scale all the way through.

To be frank, there was a lot of cowardice on display. Those senators and the Bloc members all wanted the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, because once again, MPs don’t want to have to make an important decision without being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the Court to do the right thing. There is a well-established pattern in this country, and it should surprise absolutely no one that they want to continue it. In addition, the position that people with a grievous and irremediable mental illness cannot access the same remedy as someone who has the same condition plus a comorbidity is untenable, and is going to be found to be unconstitutional when this is dragged through the courts, which it inevitably will be because the government is cowardly.

Finally, the notion that the federal government shouldn’t legislate in their area of competence—the Criminal Code—because provinces refuse to provide the necessary healthcare and social services makes this whole debate infuriating. Just about as infuriating as the federal government tinkering with the law of bail in the Criminal Code because provinces refuse to properly resource their court systems, which is where the real problem lies. So once again, people suffer while the provinces get off scot-free for abdicating their responsibilities, while the Liberals continue to backtrack on their being the “Party of the Charter.” What a sorry state we’re in.

My Latest:

My column tracks the state of play in Question Period, and Mark Carney’s infrequent appearances and disappointing performance, even it’s his job to answer to MPs.

Continue reading →

QP: Dismissing legitimate concerns about abusing their majority

Posted on by

The PM was on his way back from France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. That left it up to Andrew Lawton to lead off, bafflingly, and he dutifully recited the latest round of “recession” talking points that the party has put up. Steven MacKinnon responded with the assertion of just how proud Canadians are of the prime minister and the accomplishments at the G7 meeting. Lawton continued to rail about people using food banks, and tied in some mention of “surveillance pricing,” to which François-Philippe Champagne retorted that while the Conservatives are busy making videos, the prime minister was signing deals. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French, and he decried that companies have stopped investing in Canada, and that everything has ground to a halt. Champagne disputed this characterisation, and insisted things were going great, Paul-Hus tried again, and Champagne accused him of running down the economy, while the government was proud of the economy. Michael Guglielmin took over and read the script about so-called “inflationary spending.” Patty Hajdu accused them of voting against supports for families that need them. Guglielmin trotted out the in-flight catering talking points, and Tim Hodgson responded by listed countries who are investing in Canada.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she raised the Liberals abusing their majority to ram through bills that were contentious or offensive. Champagne said he was happy to talk about Bill C-30 and that the Bloc should want to help build the Quebec economy. Normandin (correctly) pointed out the abuse of Parliament, and Joel Lightbound patted himself on the back for the fact that there are more Quebec Liberals than Bloc MPs, and accused them of taking orders from the PQ. Claude DeBellefeuille also called out the abuse of Parliament, including retroactive deadlines, for C-22, and MacKinnon said that Quebeckers are also concerned about crime and that these were tools law enforcement asked for (which is not something you should give them).

Continue reading →

Ham-fisted programming motions on bad bills

Posted on by

As the spring sitting of Parliament winds down, the government has decided to be maximally ham-fisted in order to ram through several bills for no good reason at all. In the Commons, they put through a programming motion to speed through the lawful access bill (which, to be clear, is a very bad bill that is going to get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada), but this motion was full of procedural fuckery, including retroactive deadlines on amendments, and no time to debate the amendments that they did have prepared, so they were going to be straight up-down votes, because they insist that this pass the Commons before they rise, even though the Senate is not going to look at it until the fall. Why the rush? Because they are reaching the kinds of arrogance that is the usual Achilles heel of the Liberals, and it’s going to cost them.

This is exactly the Liberal arrogance that always, without fail, comes to bite them in the ass.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-17T01:19:27.773Z

Over on the Senate side, they have also put through a programming motion on three bills that the government insists they need passed before the summer, but this motion essentially gives these complex pieces of legislation a single day of study at committee at which point they are deemed to have passed, no matter if they vote or not. That’s absolutely insane, and quite frankly abusive, and is contemptuous of the job the Senate is supposed to be doing. But this is how Carney and his crew have decided they want to treat Parliament. I would say it’s unbelievable, but no, we’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour, and it needs to be callsed out.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-16T19:08:17.950Z

Continue reading →

QP: Ministers not proving their ability to know their files

Posted on by

The PM was still at the G7 in France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, and for some reason, Branden Leslie led off with a shouted recitation of the “recession” script, and François-Philippe Champagne suggested that the Conservatives were not happy but he bought good news about the highest level of foreign direct investment and the second-fastest growth in the G7. Leslie cited people turning to GoFundMe pages to afford to live, and Champagne assured him that Canadians don’t want another clip, they want action, and he listed measures the government has taken. Gabriel Hardy took forward in French, read a weeks-ago talking point about the prime minister talking about the level of affordability before reading today’s clip-bait about GoFundMe pages. Champagne accused the Conservatives of hypocrisy for their voting against programmes to help people. Hardy suggested that people want the government to stop what’s not working, and that government spending was driving the country into recession. Lightbound suggested the number of people in Hardy’s riding getting that GST credit would disagree. Shannon Stubbs picked up the metaphorical baton to angrily read the day’s script, including the GoFundMe mention, and this time Tim Hodgson listed programmes that are getting underway. Stubbs railed about the prime minister’s in-flight catering and meandered into the “inflationary spending” talking point. Steven MacKinnon got up to wonder what the Conservatives are for if they vote against all measures to help people.

Yves Perron led for the Bloc, and complained about the programming motion on Bill C-22 and time allocation on Bill C-30. MacKinnon took a swipe at the Bloc for opposing the high-speed rail project and all of good things it would bring. Perron kept up his complaints about these “gag orders” that prevent MPs from doing their jobs, and to keep civil society from realising the abuse in those laws. MacKinnon said they would not apologise for working on the priorities of Canadians, like high-speed rail. (Erm, lawful access is not this, guys). Claude DeBellefeuille took her own crack at complaining about the motion on Bill C-22, and Lightbound said he wouldn’t apologise for taking action on things like transit…which again, is not lawful access.

Continue reading →

Canada Strong to help MAGA?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney was in New York yesterday to address the Economic Club of that city, and as part of his speech, gave the line that “Canada Strong™ will help Make America Great Again”—a line that was sure to get a reaction from the White House as much as it got a reaction from the American ambassador. Carney continues to believe he can outmanoeuvre Trump and company, and that he can be so clever as to keep with the talk about “ruptures” and diversifying trade while still trying to get “fortress North America” and even deeper integration with the Americans on other files. You want to assert sovereignty, but keep finding excuses to try and get even closer when the money is just right? Eventually something is likely to give, and it just might be Canadians’ patience.

This being said, I also noted the list of people that Carney met with, and it’s a lot of big money bosses, like Blackrock and JPMorgan Chase—the kind of money that is unconcerned that America has devolved into outright fascism. I will note that is also while the Canadian military signed an agreement with the Canadian branch-plant of an American techno-fascist’s digital asbestos firm, but justified it as being a “legitimate” procurement process. So much of this is starting to feel like the casino scene from The Last Jedi—a look at the monied class that is unconcerned that there is a war going on (or that the capital was obliterated days ago) because they are profiting by selling to both sides. Carney sucking up to this monied class in New York feels an awful lot like that right now.

The list of who the PM met with in New York today.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.770Z

IYKYK

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.771Z

effinbirds.com/post/8132596…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-28T13:08:05.261Z

My Latest:

My column points to the crisis in grassroots democracy that is brewing in the Ontario Liberal Party that the Scarborough Southwest nomination contest revealed.

Continue reading →

Amending the lawful access bill?

Posted on by

This government’s utter ineptitude on the lawful access file would be farcical if it wasn’t so serious. After years of opposing it because it’s unconstitutional, the Liberals did an about-face and suddenly supported it once Carney took office, and they immediately insisted that this was crucial for law enforcement. Then they had to redraft the provisions into a separate bill because there was a tonne of pushback, tacitly admitting they got it wrong, but still would say in Question Period that the opposition should have helped them pass it months ago. You know, when it was flawed. Then the minister insisted that the pushback was “misinformed” and that they simply didn’t do a good enough job communicating around the bill, and had Public Safety’s media team aggressively trying to push journalists around if they didn’t publish the government’s line, and would send the RCMP and CSIS out to media to make the case for it, while they contradicted themselves along the way. (It’s not about expanded surveillance—but we need to ensure that they have the capability to have that surveillance when we say so!)

I lived in Romania shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was rumored that the Securitate could remotely activate the microphones of any phone to turn it into a listening device. That was chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.364Z

Under Bill C-22 Lawful Access, the Minister of Public Safety can secretly order every phone manufacturer to embed that same capability into the phone in your pocket. That's also chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.384Z

Would the current Minister do that? Don't know. Would a future Minister do that? Don't know. I know that the police currently get warrants to implant spyware on phones. They'd love to have that capability without a warrant, and would put pressure on the Minister to enable that.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.406Z

And now after even more pushback, they’re saying they will be introducing amendments, again admitting that they still got it wrong—but again, still chiding the opposition that it should have been passed months ago. We’ll see what those amendments look like, but the minister is not exactly instilling confidence in what he’s proposing. I worry that they plan to use their majority to bully this through regardless, but after so many admissions that they keep getting this wrong, I have zero confidence that this won’t blow up in everyone’s faces, and eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada because they ignored all of the warnings.

Meanwhile, at the moment when the Minister should be most familiar with the details of his Bill, he flubs up something pretty basic and important.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-27T23:25:37.244Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

Setting the terms of the referendum debate

Posted on by

As the Alberta referendum “debate” starts to heat up, you are seeing a lot of places where separatists or their proxies are trying to set the terms of debate on the federalist side, whether that’s demanding to be platformed so that they can spout lies and distortions, or treating emotional appeals as “flamethrowers” when they are allowed to use absolutely unhinged rhetoric with no consequence. They have become used to the kinds of egregious both-sidesing in legacy media that allowed MAGA to flourish in the States, or that allows Conservatives in this country to lie with wild abandon because they know they won’t be called on it, and if federalists don’t want to play that game, they cry foul.

The thing I am most concerned about, however, is federalists conceding that the invented grievances of these Alberta separatists are somehow legitimate—particularly when it comes to small-c conservatives advocating on the federalist side. And it’s going to be nigh impossible for them to actually argue against the invented grievances because they rely on them to this day to make their points. Max Fawcett made a very trenchant argument in that Albertans have become addicted to grievances politics (true!) and that Conservative politicians and pundits need give that up if they want to save confederation. That’s also true, but might be an impossible-level challenge for them to do, because that kind of grievance politics are all most of these Conservatives have ever known, and they don’t know how to argue in any other way. And this is why I worry about the Pandora’s box that’s been opened, because the people who are going to be counted on to save confederation are going to be unable to do what is required of them, because nobody will actually call bullshit on these grievances after Albertans have been force-fed them for so long that they’ve internalised them. That could wind up being a fatal flaw in the federalists’ arguments.

My Latest:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I delve into the Online Streaming Act obligations, and why it's not a "Netflix tax." #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-27T01:34:48.770Z

Continue reading →

The “dangerous bluff” of a referendum

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney made a housing announcement yesterday morning, when he was inevitably asked about the proposed Alberta referendum. Carney invoked his time in the UK and the experience with Brexit, that for people who think that this kind of referendum is just a way to send a message and that there are no consequences are playing a “dangerous bluff” that will have consequences. And yes, he would know, because he watched it happen and lived with the fallout. But will this actually help? Hard to say, but Conservatives have already been seeding the narrative that Carney created a lot of the post-Brexit economic damage with claims that he was “printing money” and fuelling inflation and so on, so the very people who need to hear the message have already been primed to ignore it. So that’s helpful.

Carney was also asked about the fourteen members of his caucus that sent him a letter about his environmental backsliding, and to this, Carney basically swatted the question away saying he has 160 other members of caucus who are just fine with his moves. This, however, starts to sound a wee bit arrogant for a party leader who has been patting himself on the back for listening to his caucus more than his predecessor did. You can pretty much guarantee that it’s not just these fourteen, but there are plenty more members of caucus who aren’t quite as willing to stick their necks out just yet but are similarly unhappy. They also learned a lot of lessons about pushing back against a leader when they started organising against Justin Trudeau in caucus, so the lessons are fresh, and Carney should remember that. As well, he’s betrayed the “Value(s)” he campaigned on and wrote a book about, so he’s already on thin ice with his voters on this issue. He may want to show a bit more contrition than this particular combative stance.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-25T13:08:03.361Z

My Latest:

  • My weekend column on Danielle Smith’s referendum, and why this is the culmination of decades of populism rotting the politics of the province.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take talks about the glut of senate bills hitting the Commons, and why MPs who complain about it have only themselves to blame.
  • For National Magazine, I looked at the appointment of the new advisory body for the next Supreme Court of Canada justice.

Continue reading →

QP: Resurrecting the “Netflix tax” falsehood

Posted on by

The PM was in town but away from the Chamber, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, claiming it was an illusion that the war in the Middle East was raising gasoline prices when he claimed it was Liberal taxes and the weak dollar. (Are you kidding me?!) François-Philippe Champagne, in his usual ebullient manner, praised the “good news” of the actions the government has taken to assure affordability. Poilievre then claimed that they were blaming housing prices on Iran (huh?) and demanded the government cut all gasoline taxes. Champagne reminded him of the statements of the International Energy Agency that we are in the worst energy crisis in the history, and exhorted the  opposition to vote for their budget bill. Poilievre switched to English, and he lamented all of the taxes people need to pay, and that the government is planning to triple the “Netflix tax.” (There is no Netflix tax). Champagne decried that the Conservatives have voted against all affordability measures. Poilievre then pivoted to property rights in BC, and falsely claimed the government was forbidden to defend those rights, and Rebecca Alty read her statement that the government has defended fee simple and that they are pursuing the matter in the courts. Poilievre tried again, and Sean Fraser reminded him of the actions they are taken to protect property rights while advancing reconciliation. Poilievre insisted that he just wanted federal lawyers to make protection or property the primary argument, and claimed that they were banned of doing so. Alty read a script about the litigation directive as to why Poilievre is wrong.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and mocked that the federal government is “reviewing” the referendum question in Alberta, and that the Clarity Act is contempt for people and provinces. Dominic LeBlanc said that how is the time to work together to counter the tariff threats from the US, and they were working to show that Confederation works. Normandin was not mollified and went to bat for separatist referendums, and LeBlanc reiterated that they are focused squarely on economic issues. Rhéal Fortin took over to read his own condemnation of the Clarity Act, and LeBlanc repeated his same assurances.

Continue reading →