I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. Certainly my understanding of GBA is that it is performed at the MC stage, so as the policy or program is actually being developed and submitted for cabinet approval. Then, within the Treasury Board context, every Treasury Board submission that comes forward has to have a GBA performed on it by the department that is submitting the submission, and the Treasury Board analysts review the adequacy of that analysis that has been completed by the responsible department.
As far as I understand the way the system comes together, between what finance is doing with the budget when they take it into account at that point, when the departments are doing it as part of the MC proposal stage and developing a new policy or program proposal, and then ultimately when it comes in to Treasury Board to get the specific approvals that are necessary for the allotment funds, or because it's required by policy to come in for Treasury Board approval to implement the particular program or initiative, GBA is embedded in all of those steps. Certainly from my perspective at the secretariat, our approach has been to try to make this part of the normal policy development process that goes on within Treasury Board. It is one of the lenses that we examine all submissions through, and as I said before, we're trying to make it a reflex. We're trying to embed it in the organization so that there's a reflex that all analysts use that as part of their challenge function, vis-à-vis departments that are bringing forward these submissions.