This is a very important question, and I'm glad to have a chance to speak to it today.
The way the U.S. is able to simplify that initial reporting for SARs and then subsequently allow their authorities to go back to banks is really effective, and it is good in terms of reducing burden. It is different from the situation in Canada because of the way that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is structured. Specifically, sections 7 and 8 of the charter are really quite pertinent here, and they speak to search and seizure, the rights of Canadians, and how their information could or should not be used in prosecuting them. That's something that prevents us from being quite like the U.S.
Can we do better in that space? We have a range of discussions under way right now with Canadian financial institutions as well as with different parts of the academic world. The Royal United Services Institute in the U.K. has been working with us and the private sector to look at best practices from other countries that would align with our charter. We're very much seized with that and we look forward to thoughts and advice from the committee.
You raised two other points. One was on user-friendliness and how we can take in information from any number of private sector entities through alignment with their IT systems. I believe you heard the director of FINTRAC saying that's something we understand, and that goes to doing a range of work to be able to take in that information in a way that aligns with businesses.
Then the third point of communicating better with businesses as to what their requirements are—the how, why, etc.—is also very much within the objective set of our FINTRAC colleagues.