This would be so that social media doesn't accept ads that.... It goes on through NDP-17, NDP-18 and NDP-20 to capture the full range of who would be buying ads. It's that a social media platform.... Again, the large ones I'm actually not as preoccupied by; I think they have entire legal departments. It's the smaller ones. If the smaller ones accept money to boost an ad and to place an ad on social media that's going to pop up on a news aggregator—if National Newswatch suddenly has ads popping up—and if they don't seek identification of who paid for the ad, they're in violation of the act itself.
This one covers off parties. The next one does third parties in the pre-election. The third one does third parties in the general election. It's just trying to let people know, because we've seen some variance on this—and that's a kind word for it—especially on third party advertising when they're using social media to boost.
What we've heard from witnesses is that there is the ability to use the algorithms to hyper-target voters, and the effect of those ads is much greater than what was taken out in the Toronto Star 20 years ago and said that so-and-so was a great candidate. These are extremely hyper-targeted AI ads that get right into the heart and mind of a voter on the issues they're motivated by. They're powerful. I guess that's what we heard through testimony. This is about identifying when that ad comes to a voter why it's coming to them and who paid for it. I think it's very important for that to come across.