There are a number of aspects to the questions you've just put down.
If I can come back to it, one is that I think in any public policy area I have worked in, civil society today has been seeking everywhere a more active and integrated role. I think we recognize and respect that.
I would point out that the continuing committee is not simply an organism of the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is a federal-provincial-territorial instrument that federal, provincial, and territorial ministers have provided a mandate to. That's why I want to be very careful in saying that it's not a simple matter--and I'm not suggesting it's a simple matter--to get mandates changed, but it's perhaps more complicated because we have to find something that will please all 14 jurisdictions around the table: that they view that as being the right role for the continuing committee.
I would expect that wherever we go with the role of the continuing committee, there will still be some aspects of federal-provincial-territorial work that will be done in camera or in confidence, because it's simply the nature of the business. The question is whether that same instrument is a usable instrument for the other objectives as well, and how do you want to ensure when it's just governments and, then, when civil society is part of that process? It's a delicate balance to find. I'm not saying that it's an impossible balance to find, but it's a delicate balance to find, and we need to kind of do that.
When it comes to whether there have been any changes in reporting, I'll let Liane answer that question.