Sure. Just to reiterate some of the opening remarks that I made along those lines, I think we've actually seen a lot of people come forward and express concern about the particular provision. But specifically in regard to the Privacy Commissioner's comments—and I thought it was a good question—as I noted in my opening remarks, I frankly think it's almost an unfair burden to say where's the evidence of harm from Alberta and B.C. when people are kept in the dark about when these disclosures take place.
By definition, we are talking about disclosures that may occur where there is no notification of the person who's affected. We're talking about providing those kinds of disclosures without consent and without further disclosure. So these may well be happening, which I would argue in some instances may well be harmful, but frankly the affected individuals simply don't know. Therefore, I think it is very difficult to reach the conclusion that somehow this hasn't been harmful. These disclosures may well be happening under that regime—and indeed the way that Ms. Lawson described it, it seems somewhat likely that they are occurring—but most people won't even know this is happening. Moreover, if we look at the cases where these kinds of issues do come to light, which is typically when it finally makes it to court, they invariably involve Internet service providers, telecom companies, and the like, cases that go through PIPEDA. The notion that somehow we can get a good sense of what will happen under PIPEDA based on the experience in Alberta and B.C., I think is simply wrong because we don't even know what's really been happening in Alberta and B.C., and even if we did, we can see what takes place under PIPEDA, that being real efforts to try to get disclosure without appropriate oversight.