Madam, regrettably, I have to inform you that I'm not up to speed on the precise contours of what the other.... I'll use the phrase “Five Eyes”, because that's what it is. It seems that we've heard this from those who have spearheaded this bill: that, really, we're talking about the Five Eyes.
I'm afraid that I just don't have the knowledge about what other countries are doing, but with respect to the culture of privacy, I would suspect that's something that's shared across the Five Eyes. I'm drawing that inference because there's been a robust history of co-operation for many years at this point, but I can't give you a more fulsome answer.
I know that from the Canadian perspective—and I'd like to again highlight the non-partisan character of our organization—our concern is a general one. It's a concern about the sheer overbreadth of this proposed legislation. If criminals are the ones that need to be targeted, there's a way to do that in a more targeted way. That doesn't appear to be the case with this bill. It seems that far too many people who have absolutely no connection to criminal activity would be caught up in this.
I can't speak for our Kiwi, Australian, British or American friends, but I would hope that they're not interested in investigating innocent people. What they're doing precisely, I can't say.