Thanks for that.
I'll respond by saying that I do think.... I mean, you're highlighting a number of different things. I would say that COVID Alert does provide you with a better example of ad campaigns, of multiple ways of trying to advertise and communicate so that people are aware of what's taking place. To the extent to which we are accepting that there's some form of consent here, it is informed.
I think the COVIDTrends site could have made and still could make it clear where the mobility data is coming from, so that those Canadians who might be affected by it would know that's the case. I think the COVIDTrends website could include a link specifically to Telus's site, so that people who want to opt out of the Data for Good program would be in a position to do so. I think that they similarly could include a link to BlueDot to allow them to opt out of that.
If you have informed consent, it's about ensuring both: that people understand what is being asked of them or, more particularly, how their data is being used, and giving them the information they need to be able to opt out if they see fit. That, to me, is how you go about trying to ensure a high standard with respect to fostering public trust and complying with people's privacy expectations.
You can say, “Well, listen, we did this, this and this, and we were compliant with the law.” I thought I opened by indicating that this was, in my view, compliant with the law, but I think we'll come back to Mr. Charbonneau's point that compliance with the law doesn't always foster trust.
We want to ensure that we have trust, because this is important information, and these are the kinds of programs that can be critically important. Simply ensuring that we ticked the right boxes without necessarily going that extra mile to give people the kind of information they need to make informed choices and to be able to opt out, which are things that could be done.... To me, that would have been a better approach.