Front Burner - Politics! Surveillance backlash, separatism drama

Episode Date: May 29, 2026

CBC parliamentary reporters Aaron Wherry and Catherine Tunney are back to talk about the big political stories of the week including: Prime Minister Mark Carney losing high-profile MP Steven Guilbeault over climate policies, digital surveillance blowback from Bill C-22, and how Carney will handle Alberta separatism.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

D-Day will be the largest seaborn invasion in history. Based on the untold true story. We are faced with two aggressive storms. If you invade tomorrow, they're going to be washed away. From the producers of Darkest Hour. If we delay, the enemy will slaughter every single last one of us. Starring Andrew Scott. We must face the Vats.

And Brandon Fraser. The final decision will be mine and mine alone. Pressure. The Untold True Story of D-Day. Only theaters May 29th. This is a CBC podcast. Hey, everybody, it's Jamie. Lots to talk about today on the federal politics front.

Mark Carney lost high-profile MP Stephen Gilboe over climate policies. He is navigating a referendum on separation in Alberta. To do that, Aaron Wary is here with me from our Ottawa Bureau. Aaron, hey. Hey, Jamie. But before we do all of that, our colleague Kat Toney is also joining us because I do really want to talk about the government's lawful access bill, Bill C-22, that is just generating a ton of controversy.

Kat, hey. Hey. Thanks for stopping by as well. So why don't we start with you? This bill has been so controversial that you're now reporting the government is planning to change it. But before we get to that,

the current version of the bill had created all this blowback because it would require telecoms, internet providers, and digital companies, so meta, Apple, etc., to make these changes to their systems to give our police,

and intelligence services, the power to surveil Canadians' data. And just flesh this out for me a little bit more. I know it's a very complicated bill, but what does the bill give the police and CESIS, for example, the power to do exactly with our data? Yeah, so there's two kind of main parts of the bill. So I find it helpful in my own head to kind of go through the two parts. So part one, in many sense, it's a less controversial element,

although, of course, people still have problems with it. So part one would give police and, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ceases warrantless access to what's being called basic subscriber information. So that's like your name, your telephone number, your email address. So in theory, you know, police thought that Aaron, who's sitting next to me is doing something sketchy, they would be able to go to say, Rodgers or Bell or whatever service and say, hey, is this, number, can we connect this to Aaron? And is it yes or no answer? And the service provider would have to say, yes, but we do provide him service. So if it passes that,

part would be done without a warrant, which does, I think, concern a lot of people. But to be clear, it's not the actual messages. That would come later. They would have to go get a warrant to then, you know, a production order to find out more about what Aaron has been doing. The part one, you might have heard people kind of make the comparison to the phone book, where it used to be that police could get a jump on their investigations by going to a phone book. Remember those? And it would have, you know, your name, your number. even your address. So there's an argument that this, what kind of brings is this, the updated phone book. Part two is a much more, I think, controversial part of the bill. And that's what, as you talked about, would put a demand on what's called electronic service providers, which is yet to be defined. They're still working on that through the regulations, but has largely been accepted to mean,

you know, your telecommunication companies, as you mentioned, your Apple, your met as basically most internet-based companies. It would make them have to update and change their systems. so that when police and ceases do come knocking with a warrant, that is easier and smoother to hand over Canadian information during these investigations. There's also, the minister would have the power to issue orders. They would go through some oversight, but an order on any of these companies to perhaps intercept communication as well. There's a lot of concern around that.

And then finally, an issue that gets flagged over and over is the pretension of metadata. So this is data about data. But it could, you know, if you carry your phone around in your pocket, that data could include, you know, your location. It could include what number you're in contact with constantly. Corporators would have to retain that metadata for up to a year. And that's also raised a lot of concerns. Yeah. And just elaborate for me a little bit more on why law enforcement feel like they need this. Yeah. I mean, this has been called, or at least compared to, like, one of the most significant changes for police since DNA. evidence. That's how important this is to police and CIS. So you think of any, you know, any crime.

Like, obviously, we're hearing a lot of extortion in the news lately. You know, there's horrible cases of revenge born, missing children, terrorism. Any of those cases, you can just picture the sheer amount of information that police would need or would want to have access to in order to lay charges or, for in the case of CIS, you know, the sheer amount of digital evidence that they would need in order to get a sense of the threat that's going on in Canada. And they've argued they've done. don't have access to that data without what's called a lawful access regime, which is what Bill C-22 would bring in. Right.

Okay. Let's deal with the pushback now. So these digital companies have all been pushing back really hard against this, but let's do the straight-up civil liberties critique. First, we have seen broad critiques from many groups, but the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, for example, has said that this bill would represent, quote, the broadest expansion of government surveillance powers in recent Canadian history and break down for me the big high-level red flags that they have been raising. Yeah, and the overarching concern from

these groups is the increasing of the surveillance state, that the government is turning to tech providers to these companies to maintain and change their systems in the name of helping police and spies. You know, two groups that they would argue were here to make Canadians safe, but, you know, let's be honest, if you go through their history, there's a reason. and why perhaps many Canadians are skeptical of their intentions here. You know, there's been questions about, you know, these orders that the public safety minister would have if the bill passes, you know, could they order my Google home to listen into me?

You know, that's a big concern. And on the metadata front, you know, we've heard from, you know, a privacy advocate, Michael Geis, who's probably one of the most vocal critics of the bill. And, you know, he's made that case that if you're carrying your phone around and is pinging your location, essentially the government has created a surveillance map of where. you've gone. And there's, you know, I think a consensus on this side that that creating that mass of pool of metadata is very attractive to hackers and foreign adversaries as well. Right, right. Vulnerabilities there. And researchers at the Toronto Citizen Lab, I know,

are also worried that this could potentially lead to unfettered surveillance of Canadians in Canada by Americans, too, right? Am I right about that? Yeah, there's a piece in the Walrus. They're connecting Bill 222 to the fact that Canada and the U.S. are in the midst or at least stalling negotiations around the Cloud Act, which is, you know, around American access to information. Yeah. For what it's worth, the liberal government is rejecting the premise of the article. They point that in this bill, you know, the idea is that you need a warrant to get most

of this information. That means it should know that the bill does talk about cooperation. That's because it's in many sense in Canada's interest to cooperate with with our allies. We import a lot of intelligence. We get a lot of tips from the FBI. So there is a part of the bill that talks about making that system work a little bit easier. But should be noted that it does talk about when a foreign government is seeking information, there is a process they have to go through through the court. So again, I think it is very important as we talk about the Cloud Act, as we watch what Canada and the U.S. are going to do on that front to keep that piece at top of

mind. But she'd also know that the BILC-22, which what we're talking about today, does have some safeguards that would make sure that it goes through the court system as well. Tech companies are also very strongly objecting to this. They've been making similar privacy arguments, similar arguments to the Civil Liberties group. When you build a backdoor into an encrypted device, anyone can walk through. And because so much depends on encryption, we can't take that risk. This could give the government the power to secretly force companies to redesign products, to include invasive surveillance capabilities, and to do so without sufficient safeguards

or oversight. Apple is saying that health data could be compromised, for example, right? But they were making these other objections, too, and just talk to me very briefly about what they're saying. Yeah, they're arguing that the bill would create backdoors and weaken their privacy protections, including encryption, right, which is, you know, a key, if you and I are texting, if we're using encryption, only you and I can see our messages, right? And they argue that the technological demand that that part two, a Bill C-22, would not just create a window that the police and

thesis could use to get information when they have a warrant, but that, you know, the so-called bad guys could also use that window and that it would put, you know, basically the whole system, all of our privacy, all of our information, at risk. You know, at one point, Google raised concerns with remote access, you know, that that might be something that a foreign adversary would be looking at as well. This is the second attempt that this government has made to pass lawful access. This version of the bill does include a line that says you may not, you cannot introduce a systemic vulnerability. But big tech has argued that that's not enough, that the intentions aren't enough and they've been seeking some more

clarity around encryption. And we have seen some real lines in the sand, in a signal, you know, which I use, you know, is an encryption messaging app. It says that it might have to leave with fraud services from Canada. So have some BPN services. And Apple should be noted, they remove some of their top privacy from the UK when the British government made a move around lawful access and, you know, I think has kind of let it hang out. They feel that they might have to do the same if Canada passes Bill 22 because all these companies say we would not build what they call a backdoor. Right. Okay. Minister of Public Safety, Gary and Andandis, Anger, is now considering changes to the bill. What I will say on encryption is that we will

bring in amendments to ensure that encryption will not be compromised. So that will be clearly outlined in the bill. What does that amendment look like? Like, what does it? Because what they're saying is you're asking for system changes. It's being drafted as, as I speak. But it's, It will essentially satisfy the concerns that they have. I also want to say that there is... And Kat Lake, what are they considering? And is it because they're acknowledging that this bill went too far here? Yes, the minister told reporters on Wednesday,

he'll put forward some amendments to ensure that encryption can't be compromised. So whether it's on encryption, whether it's on ensuring that our laws are in line with the Five Eyes partners, including the U.S., we will respond in kind and, ensure that the bill is strengthened and it will go forward in a manner that A protects, has charter protections, as well as it is in line with Canadian values. He has maintained the whole time that, you know, it was never our intention. It's not like we made a mistake. It was never actually our intention to weaken or break encryption like the tech industry

is alleging, but it's clearly in response to this swelling opposition. You know, at the same time that he was saying, we're going to make these amendments, he did take a swipe, I guess, at big tech. We're living in a world where big tech, whether it is Apple, Google, or the range of other big tech companies, are operating without any type of accountability, without any type of protection of privacy.

So when we talk about privacy, there's a real conversation to be had as to what that entails. So the companies that are coming forth in saying, talking about privacy, talking about privacy protection, talking about vulnerabilities, better step up and provide their path to how they're protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. He's talked a little bit short of calling them hypocritical,

but I think you could read between the lines that he was making the argument that it's a little bit rich, that they seem so seized with privacy, but leave that there. He's clearly going to see him move forward with these amendments. They have a majority, so it's not like he necessarily had to do it. But I think as we've seen, there's just, yeah, that this wall of opposition is a crucial bill that really, you know, with high stakes. So perhaps they were worried about some social currency there as well. Now we will also see if the conservatives put amendments forward that the liberals will accept. So we'll ultimately have to wait to see how much this bill will change.

But there is some changes are coming. And I guess for me to say just before we let you go, even if they make those changes on amendments, it's still not. going to assuage all the concerns that we talked about earlier around the expansion of the surveillance state. No, I think there are people who are very concerned with giving law enforcement and ceases more powers. These are, you know, two pillars that already have incredible powers. So, yes, I think people are going to be, you know, upset that this bill is passing no matter what. On the other side, you know, we heard testimony this week from police saying, we're coming to you on bended knee. What's the word being used? saying, like, we cannot keep pace with what is out there and that investigations are at risk.

So I think no one's going to be truly happy on the privacy and civil liberty side if this bill passes. But it does seem that these changes will at least perhaps soothe, we'll see, but soothe or at least attempt to soothe some of the concerns around encryption and that argument that the bill actually would have made cybersecurity at risk for all Canadians. There seem to be trying to take that argument off the table. Okay, Kat, that was great. Super clear. Thank you. I know you have to run to a committee meeting actually on this issue happening on Parliament Hill. So thank you. It never ends. All right. Thanks for having me.

Okay, we're going to be right back. And Aaron, we're going to pick up with you to talk about resignations and referendums. Sounds great. history based on the untold true story. We are faced with two aggressive storms. If you invade tomorrow, they're going to be washed away from the producers of Darkest Hour. If we delay, the enemy will slaughter every single last one of us. Starring Andrew Scott. We must face the vats.

And Brandon Fraser. The final decision will be mine and mine alone. Pressure. The untold true story of D-Day. Only Peter's May 29th. At Desjardin Insurance, we know that when you own a nail salon, everything needs be perfect from tip to toe. That's why our agents go the extra mile to understand your business and provide tailored solutions for all its unique needs. You put your heart into your company,

so we put our heart into making sure it's protected. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at dejjardin.com slash business coverage. Okay, Erin, let's talk about Stephen Gilbo's resignation, shall we? We shall. So he is, of course, the liberal MP, former climate minister under Justin Trudeau, a long-time climate activist who left cabinet late last year citing his concerns about the direction that Mark Carney was taking when it came to climate action. These seven years intense, demanding and deeply meaningful have been among the most formative of my life. I leave proud of what we have accomplished together.

We did an episode last week laying out the many ways in which the Carney government is essentially undoing the Trudeau climate legacy. This is also Gilbeau's climate legacy from carbon taxes to EV mandates or emission caps to paving a path for another pipeline. And, Aaron, like, why do you think he ultimately decided to leave the party altogether now? What was the thing that pushed him to do it? Yeah, he himself said in a couple of interviews yesterday, I think I really started thinking about leaving politics when I left cabinet. around the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. He framed his staying on in the last little while

as an attempt to influence a couple policies that were still in development, the nature strategy, which ended up landing very well and very close to what I had worked on before leaving the nature portfolio in November of 2025. Some moves the Carney government made around climate finance, it's international climate finance. But I think the MOU is sort of the starting point for his decision. He has said he thinks the government is backsliding on climate action. And in so many words, I think he said yesterday that he thinks he can have more influence

on climate policy outside parliament, outside government than he could have within it at this point. My reason for being in politics is to be able to continue advancing these issues. And right now I see that on some of them, certainly climate change, it's not a place where I can continue advancing these issues. So I'm not giving up, as Voltaire would say, I'm not going back to my garden. I will continue to work on these issues in one way or the other. Right.

So you were welcome to stay in the party and in the caucus, but just kind of not willing to stay in the caucus at this point because you want to make meaningful change and you need to do that outside government. Yeah, that's a fair assessment. This was a guy that a lot of conservatives and the oil and gas industry love to vilify as being this real impediment to growth. Alberta Premier Daniel Smith said Stephen Gubo, he was the architect of most of that.

I'm glad to see him go. I think that he has done more to damage national unity probably than any other politician. But in Quebec, he was a star candidate. He is being praised by environmentalists across the country right now for his principles. And just how much of a blow is this resignation to, a Kearney government that says climate change is a priority. Yeah, I think it could have or could leave a mark. I think it's useful to go back and remember that when he came into federal politics,

it was to join the Trudeau government at a time when it was facing criticism for its environmental record. It had, you know, just chosen to go ahead with the Trans Mountain expansion. Right. And here was Stephen Gebo coming along to say, no, I'm running as a liberal. I believe in this government's climate agenda. And so I think he bolstered the Trudeau government's environmental credibility. And you can argue now that that doesn't matter as much because Canadian voters are more interested in other things, more concerned about other threats.

But I think, you know, it's a potential proof point for someone to argue now and potentially in the future that this government doesn't care. The Carney government doesn't care enough about. climate change. And I think that's, I think what what people in my line of work will be watching for is, you know, do you see liberal support in Quebec in particular start to slip? Is this, you know, something that kind of jolt people to reassess the Kearney government? And even if it doesn't do it now necessarily, you know, maybe two years from now, if the, if the, the, the public opinion has shifted at all, like, is this something that people look at?

back on and point to as something that, you know, maybe is a problem for Carney. Yeah. Yeah. A moment. Gilbo says that he's not the only liberal caucus member who's upset with the liberal's current environmental policy. Do you think Mark Carney has a brewing problem in his own caucus right now? I mean, he's riding very high in the pools. Like, or do you think that that's kind of overblown? I think he has a potential problem and a potential vulnerability. We know from some reporting from our colleagues at Radio Canada that 14 liberal MPs wrote a letter to Mark Carney expressing some concern with the government's climate agenda. We are led to believe that at least one of those MPs was Stephen

Guboe, but obviously that leaves 13 who are still in caucus or who still will be in caucus. I don't think you're going to see a bunch of defections or a breakaway group and I think it's worth noting that even as this letter has been sent, no one other than Stephen Giebeau has really gone public with their concerns. Looking at what we have in front of us, there is no way we can reach our 2030 targets. Unless there's a significant shift, there's no way we can reach our 2035 targets. And in fact, in the signed agreement with Alberta, it doesn't say we're committed to reaching carbon neutrality. It says something like we're committed to striving.

So even the government now recognizes that we won't be able, we won't even be able to reach our 2050 carbon neutrality targets. You haven't seen MPs openly criticizing the government. So I don't know yet what this sort of climate caucus is going to amount to. But I think it's, I think if you're Mark Carney, I think if you're the government whip, you're at least thinking about, okay, do we have a problem on our hands? Is this something we need to be mindful of? Because, you know, is there a point at which we push things too far?

And suddenly we do have MPs coming out and speaking publicly about their misgivings and criticizing the government agenda. And, you know, you have to point out that the liberals don't have a big majority. So all it would take would be two or three MPs resigning in protest to suddenly make things quite complicated for the government. Right. And just maybe worth pointing out here that my understanding is Gilbo's writing, like, it's not a safe liberal bet that they could put another liberal in there and that they would win the duck spy election, right? Like that could go block, no problem. It's certainly not a slam dunk. It was actually an NDP seat before Stephen Giebo took it. It was a block seat before that. So it's not a, it's not a traditional liberal stronghold by any stretch. And, you know, you would look at the current liberal polling numbers in Quebec and say, well, they're still pretty strong. But I don't think you can look at the seat and say, well, that's an automatic liberal win. And a loss there would certainly be a bit of a wake-up call for the government and for, you know, pundits in Ottawa about where things are, where things are for Carney.

So I do think it's something they have to be pretty mindful of in terms of trying to hold that seat. Let's shift to Alberta separatism. We also did a whole episode looking at how this issue is playing out in Alberta this week. And we did, we did touch on Kearney a bit. But I do want to spend some more time talking about how the prime minister has been responding. Earlier this week, he warned that anyone trying to use this referendum on a referendum in Alberta as leverage would be making a quote. Very dangerous bluff. I saw firsthand what happened in the United Kingdom.

when the view was, vote for this, it'll be soft, and then we'll negotiate. And they're still 10 years later trying to undo what people didn't think they were voting for, but what they ended up having. There was also this revealing hot mic situation where Carney said, you know, he's talking to someone and he's saying, you know, what are you doing? This is stupid. You've got an off ramp. Take it.

And lots of people think that he was talking about Danielle Smith there, like saying, why did she not take the off ramp, which was the court decision to invalidate the petition on separation because the government didn't consult indigenous rights? And so what do you glean from these public and really not so public comments? Inadvertently public. Yes. I do, I, yeah, look, we can't know exactly what he was referring to, but he had just moments earlier been asked if he'd had any conversations with Daniel Smith about the referendum and whether he'd given her any advice. And you can certainly look at those comments and say that is the sort of thing Carney might have said to the Premier, you know, take this off ramp, take this excuse to not

have a referendum. And I think you can also view it within the context of the other comments you refer to, you know, the comment about a dangerous bluff, the comment that, you know, the referendum's not helpful. The fact that he pointed out that no party in the last Alberta provincial election ran on calling a referendum. You know, I think these are all sort of little sort of quibbles or criticisms with what's happening in Alberta. I think it was the first time we've really heard him address the topic. There was some, you know, after Daniel Smith's address to the province and her

announcement of a referendum last week, Mark Carney had this photo op in the Library of Parliament. Canada's working. We're working in a spirit of cooperative federalism. to make the country better. We're renovating the country as we go. And Alberta, being at the center of that, is essential. It's essential. It was kind of a pretty low-key opening move, I think, in the referendum.

And this felt like the real start of his active involvement in the campaign. And it felt like his first real attempt at kind of throwing a punch or sort of sending a mess. message to Albertans about about what's going on there, particularly in the context of that comment about a dangerous bluff, which I think you can read as being aimed at not people who are absolutely committed to separating, but people who are maybe thinking, well, I don't want to separate, but maybe I can, maybe we can have this referendum or I can vote for having a referendum and that'll scare Ottawa and now, and then Ottawa will, you know, maybe bend more to Alberta's demands. And I think those are the voters that if you're a federalist, if you're

Mark Carney, you're looking at those voters and trying to persuade them. So this really felt like the start of Mark Carney's active participation in the campaign. I'm going to quote from a piece that you wrote this week. So this is your own quote. National unity is often said to be the first duty of a Canadian prime minister. So I guess maybe you were quoting someone else too. But of course, like any federal leader will come out against a part of the country trying to leave. But how they do it, well, I imagine there is much kind of thought and strategy that goes into that. And just there are only two other prime ministers that have had to deal with actual referendums on secession, Pierre Trudeau, in 1980, Jean-Cretche, in 1995, both in regards to Quebec. And I know you have spent some time

looking at how both men navigated them. And just tell me a bit about what you think they both did and any lessons you think could be taken from this or learned? Yeah. So I think what's interesting about those two examples is when you look back on it in history, the two referendums that they faced, Pierre Trudeau and 80 and Critchin and 95, seem like really defining battles for both those prime ministers, particularly for Pierre Trudeau, but also for for Critchin in the sense that, you know, Canada had this kind of near-death experience in 95 and he gives this very famous national television address on the eve of the referendum to speak to Canadians and speak to Quebecers. What is at stake is our country. What is at stake is our heritage. To break up Canada or build Canada.

To remain Canadians or no longer be Canadian. To stay or to leave. That is the issue of the referendum. But as much as they were defining battles, defining moments for the prime ministers, both of them were very selective about how they directly weighed into the campaigns. Pierre Trudeau in 1980 made three speeches in the referendum campaign. And then Jean-Cretchen had basically borrowed that model in 95 and only made three speeches in the campaign. And I think that speaks to the sense that they were selective about how they could weigh. in and we're looking for maximum impact. They weren't, you know, going to wait into the day-to-day campaigning. They were going to sort of use their pulpit to send messages and make statements in a way that people were going to hear and listen to. And we don't yet know how Mark Carney is

going to approach this referendum. They haven't come out and given us the playbook. But I'm interested to see whether he follows that model of picking a few spots between now and October to make a speech and deliver a message in a way that's going to have real maximum impact, sort of in the way that, you know, you think about his speech in Davos that really was impactful because it was, you know, a moment and it said something crystal clear in it and whether he can sort of have that kind of impact on on this referendum, I think is, is the question. Do you see any big differences that the Carney is dealing with or facing that that Trudeau and Kretchena were not? I mean, obviously, this isn't a clear question on separation, but

like, are you thinking about anything else? Yeah, I think it's, there are some big differences. If you look at 95, there was an official no campaign and an official yes campaign. And the leader of the yes campaign was the leader of the party Quebecwa and the leader of the no campaign was the leader of the opposition in Quebec. And in this case, there's not going to be sort of set distinct yes and no campaigns. And you've already seen sort of multiple campaigns, I guess you could call them, Remain campaigns sort of pop up in Alberta, led from sort of different perspectives with different people joining them. So I think the organization of it's going to be different. I think the media ecosystem is just completely different than it was in 1995. I think the concerns about, you know, foreign influence or foreign interference are very different now.

Fundamentally, the question is the same. Fundamentally, Mark Carney is facing the same kind of fight, but the times are different. And so the circumstances are slightly different. Yeah. Aaron, that was great. That was really interesting. Thank you for doing this. Anytime.

All right, that is all for today. Front burner was produced this week by Matthew Amha, Joitha Shengupta, McKenzie Cameron, Mia Johnson, Kevin Sexton, Kira Outtshorn, and Kristen Dejager. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabbison. Our senior producers are Imogen Burchard and Elaine Chow. Our executive producer is Nick McCabe Locos.

And I'm J.B. Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you next week. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.