I can describe it in very general terms. Each blue ribbon panel, depending on what it's doing, functions in a different way, depending on that panel's mandate and scope, etc. For example, there's a blue ribbon panel right now looking at grants and contributions and obstacles to efficient delivery of those to recipient organizations.
When the idea of a blue ribbon panel was thought of in this context, the thought was that the panel would bring together a variety of expert voices, and that by virtue of that combination, decision-making would be enriched, well rounded, and have a degree of neutrality to it that was important.
Of course, in this zone it's all about striking the right balance--the independence of the agents, the relationship those agents have with Parliament, certainly an important element, and the voice of Parliament in that regard as well as the responsibility of the executive for sound stewardship of resources. There was always a view held, at least at the secretariat, that the executive needed to be part of the triad, or whatever it was you ultimately struck.
If I may, in terms of going to a panel with more teeth, certainly that's a concept that merits consideration. The one caution I would issue in that regard is that there is a difficulty in being asked to make these very particular and important decisions around funding and oversight and the application of policy and compliance and risk that makes that a very weighty responsibility. That's not to say that the panel couldn't take that on or wouldn't be up to the challenge, but it requires a lot of careful analysis and input. Certainly, the panel would not want to go there, in my view, in any way, shape, or form without being assured that they were also going to be getting the very technical support that would be important to their decision-making. That would be the first thing.
The second thing is--