I do, as Mr. Williams indicated, believe that some of the head office function that's fulfilled by Treasury Board has to be strengthened. I believe very strongly that Treasury Board should be in a position--and I'm not sure they would accept this--to have a good feel for how well individual departments are capable of coping with what they have to do, or how well they're equipped as organizations to carry out their roles.
I see some organizations that are really well managed, have good continuity, and are strong. Others are not; they don't have good strong financial management. It seems to me the Treasury Board Secretariat should have a strong handle on who's doing well and who's not doing so well so that they can adjust their monitoring accordingly.
That being said, I think you touched on the accounting officer concept. I'm a supporter of the accounting officer concept. I know that not all public servants are; some are contrary, but I certainly am a supporter of it.
It cannot work on its own. It will only work, for instance, if you keep deputy ministers in place a little longer. If they're in place for just a few months, it won't be as effective. It will work if Treasury Board Secretariat itself can actually guide the individual departments in how to live up to these new expectations. Certain other things have to happen if the accounting officer concept is to be implemented really successfully. The main things would be, again, to have Treasury Board playing its leadership role and to have more stability in the leadership of departments.