Attorney General Sean Fraser defends personal data retention powers in proposed bill

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]Attorney General, the Department of Justice looks at every government bill for Charter compliance.

[00:00:05]Bill C-22 orders various companies to hold on to all Canadians metadata for up to a year. Names, IP addresses, geolocations, phone numbers, all of it.

[00:00:17]Held on behalf of the government and without a search warrant. Your department's Charter statement is almost silent on this issue.

[00:00:25]How does that not amount to arbitrary search and seizure?

[00:00:29]Arbitrary seizure contrary to section 8 of the Charter.

[00:00:33]Um well, I I have a a different view. When I look at the the function of the bill, obviously the portions included in part two to which I assume you're referring exist so that part one may function.

[00:00:47]When you look at what can actually be requested under part one, you first have the connection between a particular number, an IP address, phone number to a service, and secondly the subscriber information.

[00:00:59]To me having this information available is akin to what used to be published in the phone book and allowing cops to access a modern version of that tool that helps them bust crime.

[00:01:09]Where may Jill Where a Canadian hung out in the last year, where they have attended in last year would not be available in the phone book.

[00:01:19]You talked to me about the mechanics of the bill, but you failed to address my question, which is how is that holding of the metadata without a search warrant, without a an offense have been committed, but in the event that an offense has been committed, how is that not a breach of arbitrary seizure under the Charter?

[00:01:37]Well, I don't view this to be the seizure of information by the by the government. We have the opportunity It's the government that's ordering the private sector to hold it. It doesn't matter whether the government's holding it or if it's the private sector that's holding it for you. They're an agent of the government. But it would be subject to the Charter as always, in which case your right to reasonable expectation of privacy is protected subject of course to reasonable limits outlined in in section one.

[00:02:03]So, from my perspective, so long as the use and and collection of that information is compliant with the charter, I I would have not not share your concern the same way you've you've described them.

[00:02:14]>> I'm saying that it's not compliant with the charter. And sounds to me like you're already moving in the direction of section one trying to rely on reasonability. I believe that I've made out prima facie case that it violates the charter. I want to talk about the definition of electronic service provider and who may be bound by those ministerial orders. It's anyone who provides electronic service to Canadians in Canada. An electronic service in part two involves the creation, transmission, reception, or making available of of information by electronic or other means. That means that anyone that sends email that means that anyone that has a website may be caught in that definition of an electronic service provider. Did you intend that the local bakery shop may be caught as an electronic service provider or is there a drafting error?

[00:03:04]In my view, it's it's neither. I don't believe the local bakery shop would be scoped in given the definition. In fact, we went through a significant exercise in revisions along these lines by really limiting the definition of electronic service provider. Someone who sends an email to me is not an electronic service provider, but an internet service provider or cell phone company, for example, would be. I I know that officials say that, but that's not what the definition says. It essentially says that anyone that makes electronic information available, so that could be a website, or anyone that transmits or receives information electronically may be caught by the definition. I think it's outrageous that right now C-22 is that widely defined.

[00:03:46]Is online harms Yeah, for clarity, there were in the initial version of the draft a significant number of other service providers that could have been captured by a much broader definition. We listened to the feedback including from parliamentarians to significantly reduce the scope to make clear what we're not interested in the kind of information that might exist in a local health care practice or bakery. This is about the information that's going to help investigate and prosecute crimes that we can work with uh uh service providers no at risk of stating the >> Yeah, obviously. I I don't know what you're interested in today or what your government might be interested in tomorrow.

[00:04:25]I'm saying that right now the scope is very very wide and I believe that we should be addressing this at committee.