Okay. However, I have a problem with that argument, which may apply to larger municipalities. But municipalities with under 3,000 people—such as those in my own riding—have caisses populaires and no banks. Banks do not invest in those municipalities, but caisses populaires do.
Based on the description of additional deductions, those caisses populaires benefit from them. Therefore, they can invest more in the community, while banks have decided to close their branches there.
So the idea of a level playing field can work in urban areas. However, when it comes to rural areas, that notion puts caisses populaires at a disadvantage and will actually make them invest less in the community.
Could you comment on that?