I think there are some things that we can learn from the GDPR. I'm not even sure that European privacy experts have a really concrete understanding of how it's really going to operate in practice. What does it mean for news organizations? What does it mean for technology companies?
I think what it does point to, though, is that a lot of these tech companies are based in the United States or are based internationally, so in some sense, each domestic state has lost control over some of the conversation around elections. It's not just CTV, CBC and the other domestic broadcasters. I think that it's incumbent on each of the states to try to....
We shouldn't rely on the GDPR, on laws in California or on U.S. federal law. We, as Canadians, have to come up with our own set of rules. I think Professor Bradshaw made the important point that we want to facilitate political expression. We don't want to restrict that. Some of the potential laws you could come up with might restrict political expression. It's a charter-protected right—paragraph 2(b)—and we don't want to restrict that.
Where the charter considerations are lessened, though, is in the area of foreign interference, or foreign actors, individuals or entities expressing views on Canadian politics. Regulating Internet companies or voter privacy in a way that restricts foreign interference, I think, stands on much firmer theoretical and legal constitutional statutory grounds.