Evidence of meeting #30 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was majority.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Again, I think it's important, as facts have not yet revealed themselves, for me not to be speculating on what the legal opinion would be on the result of a referendum that has not yet taken—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Sorry to interrupt you, Minister. I don't mean to be rude. However, I set the referendum aside for the moment. I have only a few seconds left.
When it comes to Parliament, in the House of Commons, 50% plus one is a clear majority. Do you agree?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
When you're calculating a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, yes. I think the terms of the Clarity Act are specific in how they are framed.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I understand. However, I just want to ensure that I can make reasonable comparisons.
I gather that you agree that a result of 50% of seats plus one gives the governing party the right or opportunity to decide on just about everything in Parliament. However, you hesitate when it comes to whether the provinces benefit from the same interpretation of clarity.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's only that things can be very heavily fact-dependent. A clear majority of the population in a given jurisdiction obviously is how the Clarity Act considers things, which is different from a majority of members of Parliament, which is also a finite number when you count all of them.
I'm only suggesting that, absent of very real-world facts, I think it would not only be inappropriate but also particularly unhelpful for me—again, an anglophone from Nova Scotia—to insert myself into debates that are playing out in local jurisdictions where people know their communities best.
If I may, because I don't know if I'll have the chance, Mr. Chair, to finish this elsewhere.... In particular, Canada would not be the same without either Quebec or Alberta. I spent five years living in the province of Alberta. It was good to me, to my family and to my neighbours still today. We are better together, and we should all be working ferociously towards a united Canada at every opportunity, in my mind.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We'll move into the second round and begin with Mr. Baber for five minutes, starting now.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Attorney General, the Department of Justice looks at every government bill for charter compliance. Bill C-22 orders various companies to hold on to all Canadians' metadata for up to a year. Names, IP addresses, geolocations, phone numbers, etc., all of it, would be held on behalf of the government and without a search warrant. Your department's charter statement is almost silent on this issue. How does that not amount to arbitrary seizure, contrary to section 8 of the charter?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I have a different view. When I look at the function of the bill, I see that obviously the portions included in part 2, to which I assume you're referring, exist so that part 1 may function. When you look at what can actually be requested under part 1, you see that you first have the connection between a particular number, an IP address, or a phone number to a service and the subscriber information. 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 to help them bust crime is just a good idea.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Where a Canadian hung out in the last year and where they have attended in the last year would not be available in the phone book. You talked to me about the mechanics of the bill, but you failed to address my question, which is this: How is holding the metadata without a search warrant, without an offence having been committed but in the event that an offence is committed, not a breach of arbitrary seizure under the charter?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't view this to be the seizure of information by the government. We had the opportunity....
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
It's held because of a government request. It's the government that's ordering the private sector to hold it. It doesn't matter whether the government is holding it or whether the private sector is holding it for you. The private sector would be an agent of the government.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It would be subject to the charter as always, in which case your right to a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected, subject to reasonable limits outlined in section 1, of course. From my perspective, as long as the use and collection of that information is compliant with the charter, I would not share your concern the same way you've described it.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'm saying that it's not compliant with the charter. It sounds to me like you're already moving in the direction of section 1, trying to rely on reasonability. I believe I've made out a 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 2 “involves the creation...transmission, reception...or making available of information” by “electronic...or other...means”. This means that anyone who sends emails or has a website may be caught in that definition of “electronic service provider”. Did you intend that the local bakery shop may be caught as an electronic service provider, or is that a drafting error?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In my view, 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 an electronic service provider. Someone who sent me an email would not be an electronic service provider. An Internet service provider or cellphone company, for example, would be.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I know that officials say that, but that's not what the definition says. It essentially says that anyone who makes electronic information available, which 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 Bill C-22 defines it that widely.
Is the online harms—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In the initial version of the draft, a significant number of other service providers could have been captured by a much broader definition. We listened to the feedback, including from parliamentarians, to significantly reduce the scope to make it clear that 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 will help investigate and prosecute crimes, where we can work with service providers, at the risk of stating the obvious.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I don't know what you're interested in today or what your government might be interested in tomorrow. I'm saying that right now the scope is very wide. I believe we should be addressing this at committee.
Will online harms be tabled this June?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't have a tabling date, and I don't want to speak for one of my colleagues who will be leading on that file.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I don't understand why the Liberal government is so obsessed with policing speech and imposing censorship. Will online harms include a bringing back of section 13, as existed in its previous version, where anybody who essentially takes offence to something said online can bring a complaint to the tribunal?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I disagree with your characterization of that piece. You should not expect, though, a simple copy-and-paste job of the previous legislation. I think there's an independent opportunity for the minister responsible to look at the work and to advance protections that they think will help make the online environment in Canada a safer place for everyone. I won't prejudge what measures will be included in that legislation. That's something I'll be engaged with, but I'll let my colleague have the space to do their work.