Thank you.
I will move on to another question, which concerns another weakness. I refer to a letter prepared and sent by the Canadian Bar Association, which calls attention to a few weaknesses of Bill C-28 that we have also pointed out. I think one of them is especially relevant. I will read it quickly:
[...] the activities of the Financial Literacy Leader are intended to be broader or different in scope than those of the Commissioner. If they are not related to the activities and communications of financial institutions, we do not believe that financial institutions should be subject to an assessment. Further, funding by financial institutions with respect to regulation of their activities is not conducive to an independent objective approach.
When I spoke to the minister, during his appearance on Monday, I mentioned that there could be some confusion regarding the role of financial institutions, that this was perhaps an attempt to create good consumers for financial institutions and banks. Don't you think there would be something of a conflict of interest or contradiction in asking financial institutions to make contributions for the kind of training or mandate that will be given to the leader?