Certainly. First of all, I should refer to the yearly process of determining priorities for the intelligence community. As departments and agencies, we do take a full scan of security and intelligence challenges. We distill those, and on the basis of that analysis we are able on a yearly basis to present to the government recommendations in terms of intelligence priorities. So this is a process that I believe works much better today than was the case in years past.
What we have done as well is we have struck a number of working groups on very specific issues that we believe require specific attention on the part of the community. So we have both very broad discussions around what I would call horizontal challenges from a security point of view—they'd be, for example, the situation today in Afghanistan or Pakistan—and we will also meet and discuss very discrete issues as they relate to national security and intelligence.
My colleagues all work with me in this coordinated structure, and I'm quite confident they would agree that we are working very effectively as a community.
Perhaps one more point that I would like to volunteer is that of course we have here a Westminster style of government. The ultimate accountability for the various ministries and agencies goes to ministers, but the way we have sort of constructed our work around the security and intelligence community is very much similar to, for example, the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand. So inasmuch as they are very important partners for us from a national security point of view, we are also very mindful of the value of exchanging best practices as we seek to ameliorate the way we carry out our duties here.
Thank you very much.