Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses—those were great presentations. This has been a fascinating bill and discussion so far, so thank you very much. There were lots of good, new approaches, too, and reinforcement of others we've heard....
My first question will be for Mr. Lamb. You won't be surprised to learn, if you've been following, that my belief is that this bill actually puts the interests of large corporations ahead of individuals' right to privacy.
Starting in proposed section 5, even if it's changed to “fundamental right”, it still has the word “and”, which puts it on par with an organization's right to use the data.
In my view, “fundamental right” is further watered down by proposed subsection 15(7), which allows implied consent, which I think is a thing that should have gone out with the dodo bird. I don't think there should ever be implied consent.
Then there's proposed subsection 18(3), which you referenced, which says it has restrictions. When I read it, though, it says I can use somebody's data “without their knowledge” even if it harms them. I have to understand that I'm a marketer—I've been elected for only two years. I liked to push the envelope for the large corporations I did marketing for on data. I know a bit about how I use data in the retail space.
I'd like to ask you if you really believe that putting a fundamental right and purpose on par with everything else doesn't still skew the bill totally towards large corporate exceptions in this bill to allow businesses basically to do the things that marketers want to do, which is use everything as an exception to use individual data to sell more product.