Thank you, Chair. It's an honour and a privilege to join this committee today.
I think this may be perhaps the most important thing I've done here personally as a member of Parliament so far in my time here. I am more concerned about this bill than I have been by any bill that has come forward in my time as a member of Parliament.
Through you, Chair, I'm here, really, to implore the Liberal members to take this motion seriously and to consider what is at stake here. I am not speaking to the particulars of Bill C-22 as my colleague, Mr. Lawton, already has.
I want to talk about the function of the Privacy Commissioner and the history of his office. Anyone can shout it out if they know, but does anyone know which prime minister instituted the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada? I won't wait too long for the answer: It was Pierre Trudeau. Which prime minister appointed the current Privacy Commissioner? It was his son, Justin Trudeau.
This is an office instituted by Liberals. The current holder of the office was nominated by Liberals, and his office has a $40-million budget every year that is paid for by the Liberal government to do important work, such as investigate, consider and advise the committee about Bill C-22.
It is shocking, then, and this committee ought to take very seriously the fact that the public safety committee has prevented him from testifying and has not allowed him to depose his amendments to the committee for their consideration. This is a rush job, and that's very peculiar.
One other thing I wanted to say about the history of the Privacy Commissioner's office is that I was looking at the commissioners who have been in this office in the past. One name that was familiar to me was that of George Radwanski, and he was known to me because he had an expense scandal.
What I didn't know was that he was a speech writer for Jean Chrétien before he took the office, so he was very much from the Liberal PMO. He was very much perhaps tied to this expense scandal thing that he had, but he is credited—if you look at his Wikipedia article—with stopping in 2023 the ability for law enforcement to read letter mail.
This lawful access business has been a going concern for 25 years. Liberals, with then justice minister Anne McLellan, tried to get it through. There was a public outcry. There was criticism from the Privacy Commissioner, and it did not go through. Conservatives, under then justice minister Vic Toews, tried to do it in 2013. There was a public outcry. There was criticism from experts. It did not go through.
We're repeating the same thing now. What I'm trying to show to the members opposite, many of whom I've come to know, like and respect during my time here—and Ms. Chagger, of course, whom I've known for longer than that because she's my parents' MP—is that this issue of privacy rights in Canada has required both parties to defend against the other party over the last 25 years. It's so critical that we have to ask the question: Why would the public safety committee try to prevent the Privacy Commissioner from coming to testify?
If asked, I think the Liberals on those committees would say that it's a rush job and that we've got to get it done in the next two weeks. That's just not true, Chair. As I said, it's been going on for 25 years. Every time it comes up, the public rises up to stop it. There's nothing about this that should go forward. It won't go forward.
I will say that when I watched what unfolded in 2013 when Vic Toews tried to get this through, I was scandalized. I'm very happy that I met the woman who became Stephen Harper's director of policy in 2013 and whose very first act in Harper's office was to withdraw legislation very similar to this. Conservatives can oppose it when their government is doing the wrong thing. The Liberals across from us can oppose it when their government is doing the wrong thing. I implore them to do that.
I would not be sitting here today as a Conservative member of Parliament if the Conservatives had not withdrawn that bill back in 2013. Whether this goes through or not, whether the Privacy Commissioner is invited or not and whether this committee raises it with the other committee or not, they should think about the sort of legacy that this can leave 10 years later.
Those are my comments.
I really urge them to vote for this motion.
Thank you, Chair.