I've been called worse; don't worry.
I looked at the Library of Parliament summary on the history of this section and at Senator Banks' amendment. It talks about essentially providing the same kind of protection to personal information that you provide to corporations or businesses. Why is it so difficult for you to draft it in a way that provides the same protection? When you first share it with a person, or a government in the position of having an obligation for the protection of health and the like, why couldn't you have the same prohibition that it not go public? And if it does go public, Banks' amendment provided you at least six months to notify the person, not just one day, because you had no agreements with the individual.
I'm wondering why it is that you can't provide that protection. The scenario that you paint, Mr. Ianiro, isn't the only scenario wherein you might be sharing information about people. It's not just a six-year-old child who has some problem and you simply don't give their address or name and just share the information. The scenarios could be extremely difficult and complicated.
I'm not satisfied that Banks' amendments are unreasonable, and if you can't satisfy me, we may end up introducing those amendments here.
When you came to brief me, I hadn't looked at the provisions. I simply thought that what you were saying was eminently reasonable. Now I look at the provisions and I look at what he was seeking, and it's not unreasonable. He's not preventing you from sharing information; he is simply saying to you, please give them the same protection: that first you share the information, if it's not that serious, with the proviso that it not be made public, as you do in clause 16, and then, if you have to share it, you have not just one day but six months to notify the person.