Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important to note we're at an impasse. There's a philosophical argument here more than a technical one with regard to the bill. For me, the use of data in the system that financial institutions currently employ is inefficient for the economy. It is certainly to the disadvantage of the consumer, and that's one of the things I'm looking to change with this bill.
I joked about automobiles when Mr. Williams mentioned some of the location issues that he referenced. He's actually very astute in saying that, because the value of automobiles in the future will be as much about gathering information as it will be about producing, manufacturing and distributing them back into society. It's going to be about the value of the consumer, who needs to have some choice.
This rights a social injustice and an economic dependence model we have when it comes to financial institutions. That basically puts consumers and small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage in our economy. It's pretty abhorrent that some of the information gathered right now by credit card companies is routinely distributed and sold to give a financial institution leverage to use against its own customers.
What I want to see this amendment do, from where I'm standing at this point in time, is strengthen the path forward so people have a calculated ability to use their information to quantify that, even economically if they want, by consent. I think some of the fear coming out of this is that if you do anything on your phone, you're going to be crippled, because we've gone ahead with this type of amendment. However, it can be quantified so that if you, for example, want to sell or give access to your information in an empowerment model, it can be for reduced fees and costs or for financial incentives, which could be granted to you through the changed system of information.
I don't really have a question at this point in time. I'm not sure how far the government wants to go down this road if they don't have support from other parties for their particular position. I understand where it comes from. I understand some of the arguments that have been made. It really comes down to a determination of how long they want to prolong this bill and prolong this process, because I'm not moving off the spot. It's of definite benefit to the social and working class to have empowerment models for their financial information and otherwise. It's up to businesses to come forward with a model that works for them. It comes at the expense of having better supports for the consumers and supporting their customers.
Where we go at this point, I'm not sure. I think there's a philosophical impasse at the moment, and we can continue to have more questions and comments. However, I would like to see the privacy component of this bill move quickly. At the same time, I'm looking for a philosophical change. That's where the NDP is at this moment. We're using the leverage we have at this point in time as an opportunity to turn the financial institutions back to where they should have been historically, which is serving customers. Information is everything in this day and age, so taking more opportunities to leverage it for the working class is what we should be doing, because the fees, the costs and the financial way this country has been endorsing these policies are very inefficient for productivity.
I'll conclude with that because it's very important to understand that our money management and information systems are very much tied at the hip. Why would we undermine consumers or individuals being able to exercise their rights? That would be a mistake.