I'm talking about the issues that will have to be investigated and the criteria for determining those issues. That's where I have a problem. I think clause 17 acknowledges that this is not clear. I respectfully suggest that perhaps things should have been clarified in the bill.
The consequence is not insignificant, since this definition allows the Attorney General of Canada to issue a fiat, thus deciding he will have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute. This is something that seems, on the surface at least, to go against the provisions of the British North America Act, the Constitution of Canada, which determines jurisdiction.
Many financial crimes fall under provincial jurisdiction. I'm sure you won't tell me you think provincial attorneys general are not as competent as the Attorney General of Canada. I won't even ask you the question, because I think we'll agree. They are probably equally competent. In that case, what criteria determine if a serious and complex crime would require the Attorney General of Canada to have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute? That seems to me to be at the heart of the discussion we had in the first hour, Minister Fraser and I, and to which I can't get a clear answer.
Respectfully—I may be mistaken—I think we're aiming for supranational crimes or crimes committed in several provinces. It would explain why, in those cases, we wouldn't want the attorney general of two or three provinces initiating prosecutions, and we would prefer to proceed at the national level. It could also be crimes committed abroad or across multiple jurisdictions, including other states.
Is that what we're aiming for, or am I missing something?