The legislation has two triggers in it. One is when there is a call by an international body, such as the Financial Action Task Force or perhaps the United Nations. It would be a situation in which a particular jurisdiction has been deemed to be high-risk because it lacks effective or sufficient anti-money-laundering or anti-terrorist financing measures: it hasn't criminalized money laundering, it hasn't criminalized terrorist financing, it doesn't have a financial intelligence unit, it doesn't require mandatory suspicious transaction reporting—all of those things that make up the comprehensive set of standards that most jurisdictions have agreed to implement.
That's the first trigger. We would take from the Financial Action Task Force, for example, a sense of the gaps in that regime. For example, the FATF does comprehensive evaluations of jurisdictions, and we would see that.
The other trigger is a domestic trigger: maybe the FATF hasn't come out with a call, but there is a jurisdiction of concern, and Canada, maybe with a number of other like-minded jurisdictions, has decided that given the need to safeguard our financial sector, we should take action independently.