Thank you for the question.
There's a long answer, which the chair won't let me give.
So very briefly, on child protection, we have what I would call two streams of accountability. One is accountability to the child protection ministries and ministers in the provinces for the services, and those are delegated authorities that can be withdrawn. They operate under the child welfare legislation of each province.
They are also, quite rightly, accountable to you, as federal parliamentarians, for federal dollars that go to finance them, and you're quite right to ask what results are obtained for the federal contributions. So there's that dual accountability.
On your first point--and you're going to have to remind me of the middle one--there are many departments and agencies involved in services and programs for aboriginal people. I don't think that's a bad thing if the specialists in an area pay some attention to aboriginal communities.
My advice to parliamentarians would be to try not to create little mini specialties within an enormous INAC with 10,000 employees. It's much better to have the people who know skills and training at HRSD pay attention to aboriginal labour force issues, to have people at Public Safety who know policing to work on aboriginal policing issues, to have people at Health Canada who know about substance abuse and drug problems, which exist in wider society, work on aboriginal communities. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
But what you buy for that is the problem that was raised by most of you, which is how do you keep track of all the pieces, and does it add up? That's a real challenge. I'm still going to try to get Ms. Fraser to comment on that, because I think that's a fundamental problem with carving up responsibilities into departments on complex issues.
I probably missed your middle question. Will you remind me?