If I may, you raised a number of issues. I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that the Federal Accountability Act be watered down. I'm suggesting we make sure it's effective. I'm saying take the time to get it right.
Similarly, I don't want to overemphasize the direct comparisons between Sarbanes-Oxley on the corporate side, because it was a U.S. law, and what is going on in terms of public accountability here. But that said, if we look at the Canada-U.S. comparisons, Canadian legislators and regulators looked at what Sarbanes-Oxley had done; they looked at the implications and the fact that the law that was drafted in the United States was unduly burdensome on smaller companies; and they said, well, we've got an awful lot of smaller companies in Canada, so we'd better make sure that our rules reflect the realities of our marketplace and not just automatically copy what they're doing in the United States.
The second point I'd make is that on both the legislative level and the voluntary level, Canadians have gone further than the Americans in some respects. I refer to practices like the splitting of the positions of chair and chief executive, which was not addressed by Sarbanes-Oxley and which wasn't even on the agenda. The Americans consider splitting those positions to dilute leadership. They consider it bad practice. Canadians have said no, we think that's important, and at company after company that has been happening.
So the overall point I'm trying to make here is that Canada has unique circumstances. We're not Americans; we do things our own way. And certainly that's the position our organization advocated on the corporate governance side. All I'm suggesting here is not on the substance of the bill, but let's make sure we've thought it through and done it right, and that it meets the needs of Canadians, and that it deals with the very real concerns Canadians have.