Thank you, through you, to my colleague.
I'm not sure it's not such a bad way to start. I'm just looking at the overall work that we potentially have in front of us. And I'm not disagreeing out of hand that we have some additional help to guide us through. I think that's potentially a good idea. I'm still not sure why we need a consultant for each party, if we've agreed that it's without a partisan approach. I'm not so sure we need that. I don't disagree. I would be interested to see what the mandate of that would be. I'm still having a hard time just visualizing how we're going to take some steps ahead here. We all know generally what lies in front of us.
The other point is, Mr. Pearson, that I wouldn't suggest for a minute that we would want to leave Finance out of the equation. I just think there are other departments that actually work these things up before it gets to Finance. Especially in those key departments, I would still want to have a sense of what steps they're going through...to not only consider the gender implications of the programs, but also to see what they have on the back end of it to measure it.
If we wrote up the mandate or the terms of reference for that consultant and put it on paper, I think it might be easier to understand what we're looking at.
So I'm not in disagreement. I just think there's a compendium of work here, and the better we can scope it down and get some focus to it, the better.