Or it would be in the Canadian context. Part of the challenge is that this right has been created in lieu of having a serious civic conversation about when information should become opaque to users.
If we have a requirement for administrative decisions to be made public in a specific context, the right to be forgotten tries to create an end run around that by obscuring that information again, rather than having a fulsome conversation around whether there should be a time limit on making that administrative judicial information public, and around whether bankruptcies should have an expiry date in terms of publicity as well as relevance to your credit record.
That's why, in my admittedly short remarks, I made the observation about it needing a full dialogue. It's not just a question of a deliberation as an element of a possible revision to PIPEDA. It's actually a full dialogue around what we expect in a democratic society around free expression, the retention of records, and the retention of information about people in the context of both legal and public proceedings.