I won't give the rest of this speech, because I do want to get to hockey.
I think there are compelling reasons, obviously, for setting an age.
When I was first briefed by the department on the legislation, this was one of my first questions, because, at second reading, a big part of the minister's speech was about the focus of this bill to protect children and improve privacy for children, which I believe is and was his genuine intent, but it concerned me that there wasn't a definition. The response, I think, of the department at the time was that if we left it as it is, it would be up to various definitions in provincial law. As a marketer—and I can never leave my hat as a marketer—that would worry me because that means I would have to have 10 plus different systems about when the data I have on an individual moves from being totally sensitive, which is what happens currently under this proposal, to having elements of it that can be used for purposes when they leap over that age, whether it's 13, 14, 16 or 18.
Mr. Vis suggested the age of 18. Personally I think that it should probably be 18, but I'm open to a discussion on that. If we pick an age that is going to be across the country, what's the department's view? Age 18, to me, is when you can vote, when you can start to do some things and when you graduate from high school. You can do some other things, but you can't drink and you can't smoke marijuana. You can drive at 16, yes, but you can't drive fully on your own at 16 anymore, like I used to. In Quebec, you can. That's because in Quebec they just have driving guidelines, not laws.
The issue, I think, is whether 18 is the right age. I believe it is. How does the government feel about that? One, should it be defined? Do you agree now that we should define it? Two, is age 18 appropriate?