All right. The way I understand that court case is that when the Trangs defaulted on their mortgage, they went to another bank and it said, “No, we can't share this information; it's sensitive.” However, the Supreme Court ruled they had given implied consent when they signed with the first bank and provided their personal information. Therefore, in the context of the sensitivity of information with respect to their mortgage, a bank was allowed to have access to that information because they provided implied consent when they signed up and got money from the bank in the first place.
I state that because I ultimately believe the argument being made by the department right now is factually incorrect. To state that you would have to provide express consent to buy an apple undermines a complete commercial relationship that exists already between every banking customer in Canada and the banks. Frankly, I think it's a bit of an irresponsible argument that's not well backed up.
I'll just make that point, and I say it with the most respect, because the interpretation bulletin on sensitive information—