I might add a couple of things. Obviously we don't have much control over the development of international instruments. We have somewhat more control over what Canada does internally, and I think the point both Dean and I are trying to communicate is that, if there is criticism of the department, it's intended to be constructive criticism. However, as long as the department acts in this insular fashion and is not open to communicating with people in the area who advocate for Canadians who are involved in these situations, it's difficult to see that there's much fundamental progress that's going to be made in Canada.
The other thing that strikes us collectively, at least on the advocate side, is that Canada has control of its own laws. Parliament is supreme. We do not have a law of Parliament that guarantees or at least provides the legal obligation on the department or the government to provide consular services. Some may say—the department would say, I'm sure—“Well, we work as hard as we can for every Canadians who is caught in this type of situation”, but I think the way things work is that, when there are competing forces and concerns, things move forward and that's how you achieve change, but as long as everything is dealt with in-house in an insular fashion, it's difficult to see how we can move things forward.