Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank Madam Simson for introducing this motion, which I will support, Chair.
Rather than seeing it as a refusal to pursue new possibilities for privacy reform, as Mr. Poilievre was suggesting, I think it's essentially calling a spade a spade and expressing our disappointment that the minister has rejected all of the recommendations put forward by both the Privacy Commissioner and by the standing committee.
Frankly, Chair, that's unacceptable, given that we haven't had a significant reform of our Privacy Act since it was first introduced back in 1983. The minister would suggest that everything's okay with privacy legislation in Canada, while the reality is that it's not okay. We need some significant attention to be paid to these issues.
In his letter, the minister talks about his rejection of the idea that PIPEDA and the Privacy Act can be brought into some kind of alignment, as is suggested by the commissioner. We know from the commissioner's testimony that other jurisdictions are looking at exactly this. The minister seems to say, “Do as I say, not as I do”, in trying to set up this disparity between the public and private sector with respect to privacy considerations. Frankly, I think that's unacceptable.
We've had long discussions at the committee about the importance of legislating rather than just having policy documents, and about the contribution this can make to effective privacy legislation. Frankly, I just don't buy the minister's argument here and I think we need to express our disappointment that he uses the argument that there's some kind of obligation in policy to say that legislation isn't required. I think it's an unacceptable approach to ensuring the privacy of Canadians.
He spends some time in his letter also talking about some perceived conflict between privacy legislation and effective and efficient law enforcement. Again, Chair, I think that's a red herring. The deputy commissioner was very clear that good privacy policy can actually improve the efficiency of police work, of investigation and law enforcement and security work, because we're not collecting a whole bunch of information that's not important to the actual undertaking.
I think it's again an argument that doesn't hold water. To use those specific arguments to reject the work of the committee, to reject the suggestions of the commissioner, and to say further, once again, that Privacy Act reform isn't necessary in Canada is profoundly disappointing, Chair, and that's why I'll be supporting this motion.
If the minister wanted to bring in two major pieces of legislation in March, that would be a lot of work for the committee, but I'd be prepared to go there, Chair.
So again, I want to support this motion.