Again, I'll try to be very brief.
On the amendments, as I understand, some of them actually address some of the suggestions that have been brought up by my colleague from the CMA. There's the issue of the definition of “person”, which ensures that it does capture all who may be active in the promotion field. It's a clarifying amendment that we think makes it more consistent and actually provides some assurance that all those who are playing in that field are properly captured.
The penalty is just a clarification again. As it's currently structured, it could be read that it's simply the cost of doing business, and there was really no penalty provision there. This allows for both the capturing of the profit and having a real penalty applied in those circumstances.
The last is on information sharing, which again speaks partially to the issue of privacy, inasmuch as it clarifies the information that can be shared. But that's exclusively within the Canada Revenue Agency, not with other parties, not externally. So the information, in terms of how it's currently managed, would not be managed differently.
I have the form with me, and as I said, I filled it out personally. The actual information that's provided and required of the applicant is fairly straightforward. I don't mean to suggest that you can't always look at doing things better. We've reviewed the form a number of times, and if it's time to do it again, we'd certainly look at that. One of the provisions is to look at modifying the form to ask people to identify the use of promoters, so there would be a chance for us to do that.
There's also a provision in the bill that requires that we engage in discussions across the country with promoters and people using the DTC, so that when we make a recommendation to the minister about what a reasonable fee might be, we also take advantage of that process to listen to people talk about the form and other suggestions. That's certainly something we'd be doing as well.
Thank you.