I'll answer second, then, and continue the flow.
We would agree with some of the comments Mr. Wrobel has made on the regulatory burden. We think of it more in terms of things such as FINTRAC, for example, to which there are millions of filings every year. In 2010 there were more than 20 million filings. Only 500 of them were actually followed up on for action, and we don't know whether any of them materialized into anything.
Things such as that you have to question. We don't question the purpose; we question the effectiveness of that kind of approach, especially when.... I could use the example of Surrey Credit Union in Prince Edward Island. It has 10 or 12 employees and has the same requirement as VanCity in Vancouver or the Royal Bank of Canada when meeting those FINTRAC requirements. This has a disproportionate effect on the administrative costs in that credit union. As far as the burden we work under is concerned, that would be the challenge we face.
Perhaps this is an answer to an earlier question as well. We embrace the rules that are coming in concerning enforcing the safety and soundness of financial institutions in Canada. Mr. Wrobel is right that the Canadian banks did quite well and the Canadian credit unions did very well also. There were no failures as a result of the economic crisis in Canada. That speaks to both the regulators and the organizations that were regulated and the way we operated.