Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support the FCAC and what it's doing. In fact, your work screams why we need to do more work to reach consumers and people. It's not the fault of the FCAC; it's the fault of the legislation and the way we approach engaging consumers about this issue. I want that to be clear. Your tools, when someone goes on your website and looks at them, if they can get to them, are quite useful. They're important. The problem is that we're not doing our job, in my opinion.
I'll go to Mr. White and to anybody else who wants to chime in. When you look at gaming addiction, for example, if you're gaming, a percentage has to go to handling addiction. Should we look at credit cards and other financial institutions like that and put some money aside in a separate entity, one that's independent and deals with that? That's not even the greatest suggestion, but it's one of the things we have to consider in how we deal with some of these things.
The hard case, really, is a political decision about restricting the percentages and the capabilities of debt financing to certain behaviours that are or are not allowed by the government. That's basically a political decision at the end of the day. It's the same with the regulation of interchange fees. That can be done tomorrow. You can walk down to the Minister of Finance's office and she can make the changes right now in regulation. A lot of things can be done.
What do we need to do, as something different and out of the box, to break the mould, if you believe in breaking the mould? Should people be allowed to have 20% to 30% to 40% in their borrowing practices, especially when we have a predatory market of upselling people all the time?