Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech, and I know he is probably interested in the whole issue of the Canadian securities regulator, which is on page 8 of the English version of the speech.
Certainly Alberta and Quebec and other provinces over the years have been historically opposed to a national securities regulator for a number of reasons. One is that it has been a provincial jurisdiction, and clearly if the provinces are going to give up some jurisdiction, they are going to be getting something in return, so probably some sort of a deal is being made.
My argument has been all along that the structures are really not important. It is who is running the structures that is the key here. So if we make the argument that somehow the local provincial regulators have not been effective and have not been doing a good job for the last few years, and we simply take the same people and put them into a national structure and do not appoint aggressive people who want to do a job, we are not going to be any further ahead by going with a national structure. For example, Conrad Black was put in jail by the Americans, not by the Canadians, and all his white-collar crimes were committed in Canada.
If we are going to have a national securities regulator, then we should have one with teeth, with aggressive people who are not hired from the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.
I would like to get the member's comments on that particular point. I know it is going to be an opt-in situation—