I'm not the expert on employment insurance. The council's position is that it's something that really needs to be fixed. I would also mention, just to substantiate your view on this, that when we did a major online questionnaire about poverty and insecurity in 2006, we got tremendous individual and organizational response. We asked people about programs that were important and how well they thought they were working. The top two that were considered most important and most broken were social assistance and employment insurance. So I think most people consider that employment insurance worked much better in the past. Obviously the lesson there is to go back to see what worked in the past.
I also know that particularly around maternity and parental benefits there are many organizations of women on the ground who live these situations, and they have made some very practical kinds of recommendations. Some of them are not even going to cost that much. There's so much out there to look at; it just takes the commitment to do it.
On what Hélène was talking about--the business of GBA and the integrated feminist framework--to be really blunt about this whole thing, the problem is that there are no clear objectives. There is no clear vision. When departments go into an analysis, it's not clear what they're expected to come out with, and that's a political thing. There has to be a general consensus that we're aiming toward something, and that's the only way you can hold people accountable for getting there. The analysis is a tool.