Mr. Pat Leahy:

We can certainly co-operate in looking at the Bill to see what we can do. I suggest that rather than getting into the detailed drafting of the Bill, we might agree on the broad outlines of the way in which the Bill will go. The drafting could then follow that. I am just trying to be helpful in at least understanding the structure and if it is to change.

I agree with respect to the timeline. I suspect there are issues and that the record-keeping of the banks, the further back one goes, is probably limited enough. Items may been deposited in good faith years ago and it may be impossible to determine a timeline there.

Our concerns on the register were that we thought it was more a question of the cart following the horse. It would be much better to have the banks do an examination of what they have and perhaps have a register done that way, rather than having a register of every single thing, noting every time there were changes in it. It seems very detailed and the information may not be available. The BPFI pointed that out that as you go further back, there may not be detailed information. There is also the point that of the items put into safe deposit boxes and storage, there is a difference between items of value and historical items.

I am encouraging the idea that we first have a broad idea of what the structure of the Bill will look like with drafting thereafter, rather than trying to redraft the Bill now without having a template to follow. Others may have a view on that.