Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Many things have been said about this amendment.
First, the government doesn't want it. The government doesn't want our extremely sensitive financial data, which can be stolen and used, subjected to a fairly high level of consent.
It's deplorable. I can't repeat it enough. We don't know who the minister consulted before tabling Bill C‑27, which ended up generating a ton of amendments because it was poorly drafted in the first place.
We don't even know which banks, which financial institutions, which insurance companies or which private interest groups were consulted. Perhaps consumer groups were involved. We don't know. However, clearly, if we're to again believe the advocates of this bill, we seem to be hearing from people in the industry.
My subamendment has been worded to include the contextual component. When we say that “the individual generally has a high expectation of privacy”, this implies that the Privacy Commissioner can incorporate the contextual component. There's absolutely no ambiguity here.
In Quebec, Law 25 provides some protection for financial data. However, we would like to remind the government that most financial institutions are federally regulated.
Mr. Chair, I would like to share the following quote from a Supreme Court ruling: “… I agree with the Privacy Commissioner that financial information is generally extremely sensitive.” I repeat: “… I agree with the Privacy Commissioner that financial information is generally extremely sensitive.”
This ruling is found in the Trang case. The Supreme Court recognizes that, in some circumstances and business relationships, a certain amount of consent is implied and the courts have leeway when it comes to interpreting that consent.
My subamendment doesn't say that financial information is always sensitive. Nevertheless, generally speaking, that's what it says for cases where the circumstances point to a high expectation. This fully aligns with the Supreme Court ruling in the Trang case. The subamendment was written with this in mind.
I also really want to emphasize that I share my colleague Mr. Masse's view that not including financial information would mean a step backwards from current law.
Once again, we stand by our position.
I also want to quickly address the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Williams.
We're saying that sensitive information isn't limited to the information on the list. Geolocation data is an example of information that could be considered sensitive, if the individual generally has a high expectation of privacy in this area and if the information is read in context.
This shows the importance of providing a certain amount of leeway given that five‑year reviews don't always take place after five years. In some cases, they take place after 8, 10 or 12 years.
I think that the amendment should be passed.
Lastly, consent fatigue must be taken into account. We're told that people will become tired of having to consent to the use of their information. Given this sociological phenomenon, we should refrain from including a person's financial information in their sensitive information.
I have no doubt about the scientific training of the officials here today. However, I took the liberty of consulting the scientific literature to find out about consent fatigue. That's what I read.
I understand that people may ultimately become tired of having to give their consent when alerts pop up every five seconds on their Apple watch—like my colleague Mr. Turnbull's watch—each time a bank wants to use their personal information.
However, apart from the office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the fact remains that no one is currently talking to us about consent fatigue.
People are afraid that their data will be stolen and used.
People are afraid of being located. We know that devices, especially cell phones, contain a great deal of information. People talk to us about it. However, I have never heard anyone ask me to be careful that we don't wear them out when we legislate to protect their personal information. That has never happened to me. I don't accept that argument.