Mr. Garon has said that, potentially, consent fatigue is not really a thing. I think if we make this a subamendment, it will become a thing. It will become a much bigger issue for the average Canadian. I trust that the systems we have in place are protective, and I understand that sometimes they break down. Sometimes there are breaches of privacy. Those are things that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to deal with.
Are there aspects of this bill that we haven't contemplated yet that can assure the members of this committee that certain types of information included in paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) are protected but not necessarily always deemed sensitive? I think that's the heart of the issue for me. I hear ideological arguments about protecting information that members want to deem “sensitive” to ensure that it's held close and really protected.
I get the desire to do that. I get the motivation behind it. There's a good motivation behind it. However, think about the ramifications or the unintended consequences of that when not being able to consider context. I think that's really the issue. Also, the bill itself is designing a framework to ensure that paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) still come with requirements that are significantly robust and perhaps more robust than in the past.
Mr. Schaan, can you speak to that? I ask because I feel like this is the missing piece. We're stuck on a definition. We're trying to do something in the definition that the rest of the bill will deal with in due course, but we haven't gotten there yet. I don't mean this in a disparaging way at all, but we're not there yet in the bill. We haven't looked ahead and necessarily gotten to that point.
Mr. Schaan, can you give us some detail on how the bill, in later phases or stages, raises the bar and the requirements for personal information and suggests that not all of it needs to be deemed sensitive for it to be protected?