I think it's important, again, to take a look at the framework around this.
The Privacy Commissioner's job is to raise any and all concerns that he can see to protect the privacy of Canadians. He's done that in this letter. He's ranged far afield and enumerated every possible objection he can think of, and that's his job.
But, Mr. Chair, the Privacy Commissioner is not responsible for national security. He's not responsible to look at the big picture. He's not responsible to look at all of the pieces that have to be in place in order to respond to an emerging, growing, and evolving threat. That's not his job. He's doing his job, which is a narrow segment of what the government has to look at, and I commend him for that. However, to base the whole of government's response to terrorism on the mandate and viewpoint of one officer of Parliament makes no sense whatsoever. It can't be done.
It's certainly legitimate. I think we should take concerns for privacy seriously, and we do, but the scope of this bill is much broader. The issues at stake that the government has to deal with are much broader in order to protect the security and the safety of Canadians, and that was what we did.
My friends on the opposite side love what the Privacy Commissioner says because privacy is one of their favourite themes. It is a very important theme for the government and for all Canadians, but it's not the only theme. We have to look at the broader framework when we're dealing with this whole issue of terrorism.
I urge all committee members to look at the big picture and the focus on protecting the security of our country because that's what we're trying to do with this bill.