Thank you very much.
First of all, I would say there's an old Spanish proverb that says that the biggest enemy of the bullfighter is not the bull, it's the applause. That's related to your comment earlier.
We all know that there was a decision of the Supreme Court in December. It was on a very specific statute that had been put forward, and that particular statute did not pass muster, but some very important principles were outlined there. One is that there is federal jurisdiction over key aspects of the securities system. That is now established, and I think that's a very positive base on which to build.
On your point, all the reasons why we would need a single regulator are still there. We have an inefficient enforcement system for individual investors. It's scattered. It's diverse. It's fragmented. A bad actor in one province can just go to the next province and carry on business. That is entirely inappropriate. We find that the process of raising capital is unnecessarily complicated. We think that businesses would be able to raise capital in a much more efficient kind of way.
One of the lessons we've learned from the financial crisis is the importance of being able to have a coherent, unified policy system that can take policy decisions quickly. We have that. We have a single unitary system on the prudential side, we have a single unitary system on the consumer side with the FCAC, but we do not have that with the securities side, and that slows down decision-making. It slows down responsiveness. One of the advantages of the system that we have now, in the areas other than securities, is that you can get the players around the table to talk about the decisions that need to be taken quickly. You cannot do that with a fragmented 13-party system.
So all the reasons why we felt a single regulator was needed are still there. We hope that taking some of the lessons coming out of that decision in December, there is a basis for continued discussions and we hope that does proceed.