In terms of all of the work we're doing, obviously money is often at the core of the partnerships we have with many stakeholders. There are a lot of by-products that emerge from those agreements we have. For instance, when we work with a number of provincial governments—I kind of call that seed money—there is a discussion and a change in mindset that evolves. We create what I would call a critical mass of understanding on specific occupations.
Because of those discussions and proceeding with the occupations, we've built a common understanding where there used to be differential barriers. After a year or two of discussion and identifying what the problem is, some occupations have come to us and said that what was not possible a couple of years ago is now possible because of what we've done. Certainly in the medical profession the labour mobility chapter has brought some significant changes that a couple of years ago couldn't have been considered. Now what you have is the whole medical community talking about one uniform standard across the country, which is a remarkable achievement.
There are many examples like this. I'm thinking of some professions that.... We don't force the professions out, but we have a discussion when they are requesting four years of experience plus one year of Canadian experience. Why ask for that when they are assessing whether or not that person is competent? We are working with the profession to try to establish processes that ensure that what we assess are the competencies and not the number of years they've spent in a particular field. That's a much more efficient way. What you build when you do that is good common will going in the same direction.
Jonathan, do you want to handle a few things about this?