There are a few things there. This was based on best practices from our partners internationally. We've spoken to our counterparts in places like Australia. They said in order to be able to do this much, you'll need this much money. We bumped that up a little bit. So we've looked at it from their regimes.
In terms of compliance, there are a number of vehicles that the three enforcement agencies will be able to take. By having a spam reporting centre, when we receive 25 to 30 complaints about the same spam e-mail, the same individual, we shoot them off a notice of warning to say we've had a number of complaints about them. It says “Cease and desist this type of activity. Should you continue on, you may be pointed in an investigation and you may be served notice of a violation”, etc. That's the type of practice they have in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and they do it in the United States. They've seen a great reduction in home-born spam. Because of that, the Japanese recently at an international event stated that they see a 70% compliance rate, simply with the notices of warning. So they shoot them off a notice and they see that this functions quite well.
A 70% response rate to a notice of warning is an excellent vehicle for us to take, and it doesn't use up a lot of resources in terms of actually completing an investigation. Notably, we've heard from some of the private sector experts in terms of data that Canadian-born spamming has been volatile over the last few months. I think they're starting to notice that this legislation is coming down the pipe. They're moving offshore, they're going further underground. So we've already seen the effect of this legislation.