Keep in mind that there are federal investigations into financial crime today. The agreements that are reached between federal and provincial or municipal law enforcement, as the case may be, are something that they are accustomed to and have the ability to work through.
I don't think it's as clean as it could be, particularly when the federal authorities who are involved in these investigations are not necessarily working collectively in a single agency. The expertise isn't necessarily as strong when separated as it will be together. The same process that plays out today in terms of collaboration between different levels of government, or I should say, law enforcement that reports to different levels of government, will take place in a different and more streamlined way.
Just maybe, too, on this point, to clarify a response I gave to an earlier question, this is not going to be a political conversation that plays out between elected officials at different levels. These are going to be decisions that are taken by law enforcement on the ground, or in the instance where a fiat power may be used, for example, by the independent director of public prosecutions. These are people who have deep experience in collaborating with different levels of government to understand who is best positioned in a given set of circumstances to deliver a fulsome investigation that leads to a prosecution when a crime has been committed and to a conviction.
Like everything else, you work through relationships based on a set of rules that set the table for a productive conversation. That's what this bill seeks to do.