As I outlined, the choice to not legislate it happened because we don't feel necessarily that legislation is going to produce any better gender-based analysis at this time. It doesn't mean that we're not open to examining legislation, but in fact, when I draw on my experience in public health and behaviour change, what we know is that first you need to create an awareness of the problem. Then you need to do the education of whoever has the behaviour you're trying to change—in this case the federal government—and then you need to make sure that there are supports in the environment so that people can actually choose that preferred behaviour. Then finally, the legislation can be applied, and you need to have a capacity to enforce that legislation. What happens if you break the legislation, for example?
As I said earlier, what we are trying to do is shift the culture, and we're focusing our efforts right now on the awareness, education, and supportive environment stages, if you will, of changing behaviour, which is to say that what we're trying to do is make sure that people have the awareness to do GBA, the education to do it well and thoroughly, and the environmental supports such as Status of Women, which has better capacity to actually support departments in implementing that gender-based analysis. We're open to looking at whether those things will produce the kind of change that we're hoping for, but at this point we know that it will take more than legislation.