As Hugh was pointing out, I think we tend to work in various offices, in various points on the map, so to speak. If we're talking about a rapidly unfolding event that is the concern of the international community, there will be a lot of attention paid to this in New York City. The UN and our mission on the ground would work with other countries to identify and influence the course of action on how things are materializing.
Once the UN acts, for example—and perhaps to tie the knot on a question the chair was pointing out—and once the UN decides that there are going to be sanctions, if they can agree, then we, under the UN act, are compelled to do so, and then we implement. The discussions at the UN will tend to be at a sufficiently high level in terms of the breadth with which they'll identify the types of actions that should be taken. We will work interdepartmentally to identify just what makes the most sense within a Canadian context in terms of the types of sanctions or the elements of the sanctions that we'd like to pursue.
At the same time, there may be instances where an area or an issue of concern isn't playing out at the UN because, for example, one of the Security Council members won't agree with the others. Within that context, the conversation will be pursued in different venues. It could be in the Commonwealth. It can be in other such venues where the international community will come together, so there's a degree of like-mindedness that often characterizes the way we behave with others and how we behave among others, and that is in trying to pursue a harmonized approach.
Invariably, what that means is that it takes a degree of entrepreneurial spirit on the part of Canada's diplomatic corps and the diplomatic corps of other countries in the way that they'll make their arguments and have positions brought forward—that is, the arguments and positions of their governments.