Thanks for that. I'll just try to supplement it.
I'll just take a step back to maybe anchor it in the definition of “financial crime” and build on what Mr. Stewart has said.
The definition is certainly broad in scope in terms of the investigative authorities that would be provided to the agency. That investigative scope and investigative authority provide a bit of a foundation for the prosecutorial authority. As I think was said in the first hour, none of what is contemplated in the legislation is meant to replace existing jurisdiction in Canada, so provincial prosecutors are still able to prosecute offences, including financial offences. This is an additional tool that, as Mr. Stewart says, allows the Attorney General of Canada to step in and prosecute concurrently—they'll have concurrent jurisdiction—in appropriate cases.
The diversity of experience across Canada will also inform how jurisdiction would unfold in practice were this legislation to be enacted. Smaller jurisdictions with fewer resources may be less able to respond to complex financial investigations and prosecutions, whereas larger jurisdictions have greater resources and greater capacity to do it. It is another tool and another system that is meant to operate in parallel with existing investigation and prosecution frameworks.