Sure. I think with the banking industry, as I set out in my opening remarks, a lot of the measures required by the bill and the regulations are already in place, so it's lucky that way, but to echo what Mr. Dorval just said, that was in a sense always the obligation, and banks take some proactive steps to have policies and processes in all the things I mentioned earlier.
In terms of costs, there are of course always going to be costs of compliance with new rules, whether that's on the reporting side or whether it's audit functions. Whatever is put in place, to meet the letter and the spirit of the law there will be additional costs, which might be more burdensome for our smaller banks that have fewer resources than the largest.
I have two things to suggest there. First is that to the extent possible, the regulations be streamlined and made clear, so that not a lot of money is spent on lawyers on how to interpret them—and I'm a lawyer, so I can say that. The second is flexibility, so that those employers who do have practices and policies in place could leverage off them. It would be good if there could be some recognition that the way you do this, the way you meet the objectives of Bill C-65, doesn't have to be exactly prescribed either in the legislation or the regulations, but managed and understood by the labour program and others so that we don't have to replicate what we're already doing.