If we use the employment insurance account as an example, there was at the time we made those comments a clear definition in the act as to how the rate was to be set. The way the surpluses were accumulating, we believe, was not in compliance with that legislation. We did not say you have to change the legislation, or you have to do this. We are simply stating a fact: that the legislation says it should be established this way and we do not believe you are establishing it according to legislation.
In fact, to complete this point on the Employment Insurance Act, what subsequently happened was that the legislation was changed. The surpluses are still continuing to grow, but we are no longer justified to make any comment, because the legislation has changed and Parliament has agreed that the rate can be set in another way. That's fine.
On climate change, government has an international obligation, and we are perfectly entitled to ask if government is respecting that obligation—