Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
As a citizen and consumer, I like your products and I use them. As a person always lost while driving, I am especially happy that your services exist. You spoke ad nauseam of all the advantages these services offer to us. We like them. What can I say? That’s how it is.
I’ll come back to the question from my colleague, Mr. Sorbara, because I found it very interesting. We are talking about high-impact, low-impact, high-risk and low-risk systems. We are talking about rapidly evolving technologies. I understand that some technologies can have different uses, which makes the situation a little complex. I understand your message about very set definitions in the bill on what does or doesn’t have a high impact, and that in certain respects, you differ on those definitions. That’s entirely legitimate.
Isn’t it normal for legislators, who are elected by the public, and the government, which wants to protect the public, to have definitions that differ from the industry’s when it comes to the terms “high impact”, “low impact”, “high risk” and “low risk”?
Given that our roles are not the same, isn’t it legitimate for us not to have the same definition?