I'll just echo what Diane said earlier. We also met, and without political pressure by somebody who could inflict some pain on these companies.... There wasn't movement; there was some disclosure, but again, if you get handed a monstrosity of a handbook with all kinds of fine print and so on--and often the contracts our constituencies are signing look like this. They're very difficult to get. So you can say the information is there, but it's presented, to my mind, in a deliberately confusing way. They've only really been forthcoming since the Senate and now this committee agreed to have hearings.
On those contracts we were talking about earlier, conditions can change. It's the acquirers who are the meat in the sandwich, the middlemen. Fees can change on those contracts the merchants have signed, and if the merchants don't like it, there's usually a big fat exit fee to get out of them. This market, really, because it has no oversight--and it does have oversight in just about every country around the world, by the way--has basically had it all to themselves. There hasn't been any push-back. And you're right. We don't typically call for regulation at all, but this isn't a competitive market. We effectively have a duopoly, and they're also foreign-based multinationals, where Canada is never going to be their top priority.
We have a banking system that's very concentrated, but I think it's advantageous that those are Canadian banks because at least they do have some stake in what happens in the Canadian economy.
So I think for all of those reasons, yes, it's atypical, perhaps, for us to be calling for...whether it's regulation, whether it's better oversight. We're recommending maybe an agency somewhere. In Australia it happens to be the central bank that is tasked with overseeing. It could be the Bank of Canada. They've already done some research on this issue. So it could be the FCAC, potentially, as well, but in any event, some regular reporting is required on these companies.