I'll start with a basic proposition. What we are hearing from clients every day is that, anytime you have uncertainty, you have risk, and that poses a problem. It doesn't completely stop innovation—that would be an overstatement—but it introduces a level of risk in which, in our view, in the vast majority of circumstances, excluding the bad actors, you have to remove the uncertainty. Again, there is so much common ground here, and I think that's something we should really seize upon.
Part of the uncertainty is due to the fact that it's a very complex regime. We do this every day, and it takes us a lot of time to work through with clients to get very innovative types of new products and service offerings through into the digital sphere, which inevitably involves sending, or permitting to be sent, tens if not hundreds of millions of messages on a monthly basis.
None of this is illegitimate; all of this should be done in a consent regime. No one is even disputing that. What we are talking about is having clarity and removing unnecessary prescription. Then, all of a sudden, with the appropriate narrowing of the scope to keep the legitimate stuff outside the scope, focusing on the bad actors. They would be able to get the two remaining in the country, and hopefully prevent others from even thinking about coming to Canada. They wouldn't. That would be the approach.
I can't overstate the suggestion I made to the committee in my opening remarks. We deal with these every day. I urged the committee, and I urged by implication, to go through use cases, because these examples of how to fix it explode at you in their glory. Go through use cases.