Well, I agree with everything the last witness said. As a QC and a lawyer, I'm subject to those same rules and regulations as well.
I guess my concern--and I can't wrap my mind around how to come up with an accommodation that would be appropriate--is suspicious transactions that lawyers deal with. I think client identification is a very important part of it. Let me give you the example.
A real estate transaction of a large size, which we now understand anecdotally may be the subject matter of a money laundering or terrorist laundering mechanism, takes place. Cash appears, from who knows where, in certified cheques and so on. What responsibility does the lawyer have to go beyond just receiving inordinate amounts of money from sources or places that are unusual? That's a very difficult question. It's super difficult. As a practising lawyer, I'd find that difficult as well, because we tend to just do the transactions and so on.
I don't know the answer to that, I really don't, but I am confident that the lawyers association, when they're pressed to look at these issues....
And I'll give you another one: suspicious life insurance packages. These are all big gaps in the oversight. The question is that some of them flow through lawyers and some of them flow through insurance companies directly.
How do you get at this? I don't know. We know anecdotally that this could be a large gap. And the question is this: how do we do that without interfering with assisting the client? I don't have the magical answer to that, but I would hope the lawyers would look at those questions and see if they can come to grips with it.