I'd have to think for a bit.
In any working relationship, between a director general and an ADM, between a regional director and a director of operations, or between a deputy and a minister, day in and day out you don't see things identically. You argue it out.
You're in the Department of Transport and you've got a problem with grain transportation. “Well, I think we better go talk to the wheat pools.” “No, Minister, you don't want to do that. The first thing you want to do is talk to the Wheat Board.” That's the bread and butter of being in government.
Regarding bad disagreements, I don't remember ever having any big fights or terrible knock-down, drag-out arguments with ministers. You could have disagreements about the right way of dealing with a problem. This does come up in the field of aboriginal affairs, because that's such an emotional subject for everybody. Collectively, Canadians are not comfortable with much of what they see in the aboriginal world.
A newly appointed minister could come in and feel very strongly that we should do this. Sometimes you have to say, look, we tried that three years ago and here are the results, so think about this a bit before you push us down that road.
Those kinds of things can happen. Even after you've argued things out, and even when you have experienced people on both sides—the minister and the deputy—you can still get quite different views about what ought to happen. That's good; that's part of government. You shouldn't always be agreeing with your minister, nor should your minister always be agreeing with you. Usually you get a better result if you argue these things out.
I'm sure there are various past colleagues of mine who had terrible disagreements at one time or another, because sometimes personalities clash. I must have been lucky. I don't think that ever really happened to me on any significant number of occasions.