Justice Minister Sean Fraser appeared earlier this week before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, relying on what has become a standard defence of Bill C-22’s privacy implications, telling Conservative MP Roman Baber that the bill lets police access “a modern version” of what used to appear in the phone book. The “it’s just phone book information” claim has been repeatedly recycled by cabinet ministers and MPs alike. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree used the same framing to open the government’s second reading defence of the bill on April 15th, telling the House that “twenty-five years ago, there were phone books that every household had. Bell Canada would deliver phone books to virtually every household” and presenting lawful access as a restoration of what those phone books once provided to police. The problem is that the analogy is plainly misleading as the data captured by Bill C-22, whether subscriber data or metadata, is nothing like the name, address, and phone number that once filled the phone book.

The phony phone book claim is not limited to cabinet ministers. Over the course of the second reading debate, Liberal MPs aligned around the same framing with a consistency that suggests a centrally produced talking point:

• Sima Acan twice described the new subscriber information production order as “the digital equivalent of a phone book”.
• Anthony Housefather drew the analogy explicitly: “When I was young, there was something called the White Pages and the Yellow Pages… If the police was looking for a telephone number, they could find it in a phone book.”
• Julie Dzerowicz told the House that “this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters.”
• Peter Fonseca added: “I remember in the 1980s, and I am one of the older guys here, we could open up a phone book and get all this information.”

If this sounds familiar, it is because the same tired claims have been used for years. In September 2011, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the Harper government’s lawful access proposals by claiming “linking an internet address to subscriber information is on par with the phone book linking phone numbers to an address.” Christopher Parsons, then a researcher at the Citizen Lab, responded with a detailed anatomy of what a lawful access “phone record” actually contained, showing that the three-field directory entry the government was invoking was being used to describe an eleven-field record including IP addresses, IMEI and IMSI numbers, SIM serials, device identifiers, and account information from multiple providers, any one of which could be cross-referenced to build a comprehensive profile of a person’s online life.

The Supreme Court of Canada put the issue to rest in the Spencer decision, holding unanimously in 2014 that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information precisely because the disclosure of such information “will often amount to the identification of a user with intimate or sensitive activities being carried out online, usually on the understanding that these activities would be anonymous.” It returned to the same terrain in Bykovets in 2024, extending Charter protection to IP addresses on the reasoning that an IP address is the “first digital breadcrumb that can lead the state on the trail of an individual’s Internet activity.”

Bill C-22’s new subscriber information production order applies a low evidentiary standard but covers name, pseudonym, address, telephone number, email address, account identifiers, types of services provided to the subscriber, the period during which they were provided, and information that identifies the devices, equipment, or things used by the subscriber in relation to those services. In short, a modern subscriber record is not a phone book entry but rather an index of a person’s digital life and the government is proposing to reduce the standard needed to gain access to that information.

Moreover, the same phony framing is now being stretched beyond subscriber data to mandatory metadata retention. As Conservative MP Andrew Lawton noted to Fraser at committee, the government and its officials have been telling Canadians that requiring electronic service providers to retain metadata for up to a year is “no different than just having a copy of the phone book that someone could leaf through.” That is a laughable comparison, given that metadata includes the date, time, duration, and type of a communication, the identifiers of the devices involved, and information identifying the location of the device. It is as if the phone book would include the details of every call made including location, call recipient, and device. And given retention for up to a year, the plan poses a disproportionate privacy risk that is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, should it survive in its current form.

When the phone book line was deployed in 2011, it was at least addressed to information the government characterized, however unconvincingly, as identifying. Stretching it now to cover a year of every Canadian’s communication metadata is a different category of misinformation. Bill C-22’s subscriber information powers and its mandatory metadata retention provisions need to be defended on their actual terms. What Parliament has heard instead, from two ministers down through the back bench, is a recycled talking point from a decade-old debate the Supreme Court firmly rejected.