It's a procedural question that I don't feel particularly competent to answer. I think what is important for us is that whatever procedure follows--following ministerial approval and assuming the minister's acceptance of the procedure--is the one that we will go with.
I would like to point out, though, that the continuing committee is not the only body at all levels of government that is addressing these issues. Lead departments across town have their own processes for engaging civil society on the policy matters and the policy instruments they are responsible for. We happen to be a point of coordination.
I accept your comments that what we're doing might appear somewhat arcane to people. I think we will take some very strong measures to make it an awful lot less arcane, with simple words saying what we are and what we can and can't do, and that we're completely willing to examine the role and develop options for the consideration of ministers, but it will be those ministers who will decide what they want that committee to do.
That's simply one instrument available to us. We recognize the need to engage civil society in the consultations, and if that isn't the instrument, then we'll have to find another one.