I would agree that the way it's formulated is intended to rely on the context-based assessment that would be undertaken. When you say something would “generally” be considered sensitive, you're giving an indication of direction. You're setting a policy framework parameter that allows for interpretation to occur effectively.
What is being contemplated before the committee now is to lock in a definition of “sensitivity” in the definitions section and then attempt to rely on it meaning generally sensitive. That becomes a law that is full of ambiguity and is very difficult to interpret and apply. It's not what the OPC has asked for, which is to have a context-specific determination with an indication, potentially, of some areas that could be considered sensitive.
To your earlier question on sensitive information, it's referenced 17 times in the act. I'm happy to reference each, if that would be helpful.