Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all I want to thank all of the witnesses who came to submit their views to us today on this bill, which, in order to be well drafted, practically requires the wisdom of Solomon.
On the one hand, of course, we want to get rid of spam as it is very harmful, as everyone agrees, but on the other hand, we don't want to prohibit legitimate electronic commerce communication. For a bill to make good sense, I think that two different philosophical approaches can be adopted. In one case, we impose all sorts of restrictions, but in the final analysis, these may be excessive and this could hinder electronic commerce. Consequently, those who use electronic means to do business are forced to prove that some important exceptions have been forgotten.
On the other hand, we can choose a much more open approach, with few restrictions, and then realize over time that a great deal of spam is still getting through and that the bill has to be applied in a much stricter manner. In short, this isn't easy.
Today, I have the impression that you have found arguments to prove that the bill should be amended because it will interfere with commerce and legitimate communication on the Internet. That is clearly what your presentation led me to conclude.
I would like to put a question to Mr. Morency or to another representative of the Desjardins Group.
You took issue with clause 2 in particular. You mentioned that Bill C-27 affected electronic commerce and needed to be readjusted. I understood your arguments.
Do you have any concrete suggestions to make to us in order to bring about this balance and allow you to continue to do your work in a legitimate fashion?