I don't mean to cut you off, but my time is limited and I have several questions.
I recognize those audits. However, there's much more that the legal community could be doing to address money laundering than just identification and cash. Oftentimes it's a lawyer setting up a corporation, setting up articles of incorporation, setting up all of the parameters around things that may actually be the tools for money laundering and financing of terrorism. So my questions about audits are important not just in terms of the cash and identification points.
If law societies are essentially self-regulating this based on the Supreme Court decision around money laundering and anti-terrorism legislation, how can they demonstrate to governments and the public, that the legal community is adhering not just the idea of no cash, but to preventing any suspicious behaviour that could be in the realm of money laundering and terrorism financing? How can we, as legislators, feel comfortable—and I read the Canadian Bar Association brief, and I recognize that's not in your submission—in saying that the majority of lawyers are following these regulations? How do we know that, if there's no data to suggest that the audits are being done as specifically targeted by this legislation? How can we know this, and why have other common law jurisdictions been able to have more of a microscope and focus on the follow-up in regulations to ensure that this is actually being done, and not just in those two areas of identification and cash?