Just to comment on the first question, in terms of the role of the Status of Women, I think the system the way it has been designed in terms of the interdepartmental process is intended to get at that very issue. The fact that you have departments around the table to challenge, effectively, and ask questions and understand an initiative that is coming forward is a very important process. We're all better informed as a result of it. Every department doesn't have the capital, the intellectual or program capital, in any one area. So I think the objective is to try to make for better policy as a result of that.
I think the fact of having Status of Women as the experts in gender-based analysis at the table is an important role. Their role also includes briefing their minister so that their minister is aware of issues, and if there are particular concerns in the context of cabinet, of course, the minister is always able to communicate with her cabinet colleagues or someone who's sponsoring an initiative. Certainly if there are issues that he or she wants to ensure are taken into account, I think the minister, in the system, has every opportunity to do that. It's incumbent on her officials to make sure the minister is briefed and aware of that, and then the minister can avail herself of opportunities to make those views known to her colleagues on any concerns there may be on gender-based analysis with respect to a particular initiative. So I think the system has tried to build in that kind of opportunity to ensure that's reflected.
On your second point, I guess I'd have to echo Mr. Wild's view that, to come to your own assessment of all the various presentations that you're having, at the end of the day it all hinges on the issue of accountability, ultimately, in terms of the various players and the pieces in the system. So I think public policy ultimately falls to Parliament as well, that you have every opportunity to ensure that parliamentarians are able to ensure that the accountability is there.