Okay. We were into the generalist versus specialist discussion.
In our travels and fact-finding studies in other countries, we discovered that Canada is by no means alone in this. You can have a specialist, for example, on arms control or on nuclear safety, which can get very specific, and on development, human rights—you name it. Then you have linguistic expertise, too, in foreign languages. If a person wants to build a career with various assignments to China, for example, then obviously, you have to invest in keeping that foreign language capacity current. That means after assignment, training to keep it up. There are a lot of factors in there.
The advantage on a generalist.... When I was in the foreign service, I was a generalist, but I had a Latin American phase and a European phase, and I did other things. The advantage is that generally a generalist will be more nimble and can adapt more quickly. You will want some people who have a specialization, who do not necessarily want to be managers, who do not necessarily want to be ambassadors. There was an attempt a few years ago to create another foreign service category, the FS-04, where the salary range then went into the EX-01 category but with the understanding that these were seasoned professional experts. Over time, that too has eroded. I would recommend in the internal review, which, of course, you're part of, Mr. Oliphant, to really have a look at that and see what makes the most sense.