When I saw the proposal, I wondered why we needed a change, because I think PIPEDA, to a certain extent, is clear enough on the fact that you need to make sure that consent is valid and people understand what you're collecting. Then I realized that the concern originally related to minors: maybe it's not stringent enough; how do we get consent from minors; maybe vulnerable groups; aging investors. So my testimony today is saying if that's the concern, maybe we should specifically address these types of issues in the law, not reopen the whole consent issue. That's what I'm trying to say.
Yes, my concern is with the anti-spam legislation; it's providing for a very stringent express consent provision, and some of the information has to be obtained outside of the standard terms of use agreement, privacy policy. So already when people buy something or they subscribe to something, they have to accept the policy, accept the terms of use. Now they have to agree to receive commercial messages and so on. So we're going to go back to the same situation when people are overloaded with information and they don't read it. I'm saying if the concern is minors and vulnerable groups, let's focus on these people and make sure that consent in specific situations is properly addressed.