One way would be to build in the test stipulating that the activity be necessary and proportionate. The second one is missing. The necessity component is covered in the act. For example, certain provisions stipulate that, if the minister is of the view that it is necessary to do something, the minister has the power to do so. Other provisions refer to relevance.
The principle of proportionality is important. The necessity test is important and helps to meet the objective. Ensuring proportionality, however, means really checking whether the method is the least privacy-invasive. It's similar to the assessment carried out under the charter, in terms of achieving that balance.
This would cover the principles of necessity and proportionality, which are central to the protection of privacy. That's the case in the international community and in countries such as Australia, the U.S. and Great Britain. They have clearer rules around taking privacy into account and examining other options.
The idea isn't to prevent the minister from doing their job—absolutely not. As I said, I strongly support the objectives of the bill, but it's important to build in that requirement, especially when people's privacy is at stake.