We don't keep a specific list. The Treasury Board process is one whereby the department develops the submission. It's very much ultimately that minister's submission.
It comes in to the Treasury Board program analysts, who review the submission. They have conversations with the officials in the department who are responsible for the submission concerning any deficiencies or issues that are viewed in the submission. It's a conversation, it's a dialogue. Sometimes it results in the department making changes to the submission and sometimes it doesn't.
Ultimately, the analyst provides an independent view to ministers on the risks or issues associated with that submission. That independent view is not shared with the department. That's the specific advice that the analysts give to ministers, which is then incorporated into the decision-making process by the ministers.
The difficulty is that I can't talk about specific cases, because it's all wrapped up in cabinet confidences. I'm certainly aware of cases where there have been conversations specifically on whether or not the gender-based analysis was adequate and certainly aware that there have been situations where departments have decided to pull back a submission in order to adjust and incorporate the suggestions that were provided by the analysts.
As to quantum or magnitude, I'm not in a position to be able to give that. We don't track those things on that basis. Because, as I mentioned, it's a regular, continuous, ongoing dialogue as they're actually preparing the submission, it's just not something we can track. But I'm aware that there are examples of cases in which there have been issues and they've ultimately been sorted out one way or another.