Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague, I will respond in English. I would refer him to an article that appeared in the Financial Post of October 26, 2007, which stated:
Recent evaluations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank Group have consistently ranked Canada's system as one of the best in the world—ahead of those in the United States and the United Kingdom.
That is the one that exists now.
My colleague has always been very clear, as am I today, that what we want is a result. We will continue to ensure that the best practices in the provinces and the passport system that is in place produces the best results.
Does that mean that the federal government cannot play a role? Of course not. That would be like saying that because environment is a shared field there should not be a federal environment minister, although with the one who is there now it probably would not make a difference. However, the provinces have an important role to play in the environment, as does the federal government.
The provinces have the key role to play in securities regulation, which does not stop them from working together and which would not stop the federal government to the extent that it might have a pan-Canadian vision, especially on the investigation and enforcement side, to lend a hand. There is no problem with that.
There is absolutely no contradiction between our position as announced today and what my colleague has constantly worked for, which is a better result for Canadians than protection from white collar crime and fraud.