As the government prepares to shut down debate on lawful access and push Bill C-22 through committee without even discussing or debating dozens of potential amendments, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree responded by saying it was time for opposition parties to “choose” whether to stand with law enforcement and victims of crime. The response was telling as it evoked a similar response to another lawful access debate in 2012. At that time, the Conservatives were in power and Vic Toews was the Public Safety Minister. Toews infamously had the following exchange with Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who is now the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):  

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to read Canadians’ emails and track their movements through cellphone signals, in both cases, without a warrant. How can we trust the Conservatives with such sweeping powers when they use Facebook to keep law-abiding Canadians out of a public meeting? Is this 2012 or 1984? How can we trust them not to use private information to intimidate law-abiding Canadians gathering, for example, to protest a pipeline or to protest pension cuts?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to tell him that every province unanimously supported moving forward with the legislation, legislation that was introduced first under the Liberal government, by his party. As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier. We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need. He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.

Toews’ remark set off a firestorm of media coverage and days of discussion in the House of Commons. Indeed, today’s Liberal government would do well to remember how they reacted to the remark in the House:

Toews never recovered politically from the remark. He later sort-of apologized (ironically on a CBC radio program hosted by Evan Solomon, now the AI Minister) and when he resigned from politics a little over a year later, the issue figured prominently. About a year after that, the Supreme Court of Canada issued the Spencer decision, itself a child pornography case, which reminded everyone that no amount of name calling will salvage a law that violates the Charter.

Anandsangaree’s remark may not be quite as incendiary as Toews’s, but it runs from precisely the same playbook. Critics of his bill have included privacy commissioners, security experts, and privacy advocates. They do not side with criminals, but rather have concerns about the legislative choices the government is making in Bill C-22. These choices deserve to be fully debated with the shared goal of equipping law enforcement with the necessary tools to address criminal activity while preserving privacy and security. Getting that balance right takes time, and the government’s top priority should not be to get the bill through the House within the next three days, but rather to ensure that it works with all parties to craft a balanced bill that can pass Charter scrutiny. To do that, Anandansangaree and the government should withdraw the motion to cut off debate, stop with the character assassinations, and commit to taking the time to get Bill C-22 right.