I will say two things very quickly.
I am not a data expert. When I was invited to appear before the committee, I did some due diligence. I asked some expert colleagues here, at the faculty of law, whether it's true that data can be completely anonymized. In both cases, they gave me skeptical smiles.
There's no such thing as completely “unpersonalizable”.
If there is a risk that what was initially used in a perfectly aggregated and anonymized fashion could then have personalized information reintroduced into it, then a precautionary approach must be used and measures must be taken to address the risk. The worst‑case scenario needs to be used rather than the best‑case scenario, if I can put it that way.
Once again, I am not at all hypothesizing that the current use of data by the government is wrong and reprehensible. I am simply wondering about the conditions that can inspire trust among the general public.
It's one thing to find out information from a National Post article that leads to Dr. Tam being called before the committee. It's quite another if the Prime Minister or Dr. Tam addresses Canadians ahead of time in an effort to be frank and open, expressing their view that significant public health objectives can be achieved by collecting these data, while ensuring that provisions limiting duration and use are put in place.