First, let me say that the legislation as amended, as proposed, is clear in its intent to have entities that are subject to the legislation follow the rules that are set out, and to know that these are comprehensive in their structure, such that they would be the rules to which those entities would follow pertaining to consumer protection in the realm of banks and banking, which is under federal jurisdiction as per the Constitution. That's clear. Even the provisions around paramountcy merely reinforce the clarity that this is a comprehensive set of rules, which we are asking our federal entities to follow.
There is no reference directly to what provincial rules may be structured, what they may do, and where they apply. They will still apply where they apply, and it may, downstream, take courts to determine that.
I can say to your latter point that even with this language, the intent going forward is collaboration, having more co-operation and collaboration between the federal regulator and provincial regulators to avoid these issues. Working with entities on both sides is clearly the path forward and the intent.
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, which is a new agency, is engaging and will continue to engage with provincial counterparts. The way it's designed to work is that if there is a federally chartered institution that does something in a province, a provincial regulator can go immediately to the federal regulator and have that issue addressed.
The plan going forward is for more co-operation and collaboration, recognizing that there is a dedicated regulator for those entities. I think everyone would be hopeful that this clarity makes returning to the courts for various disputes less likely.