Thank you very much for that question.
Obviously I do not know the details. I was aware of the roughly $5 million that had been allocated to the office. I certainly support the notion of funding. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in not knowing precisely how the money was spent and was not spent, but as a general proposition I would say that the issue here is the quality of the expenditure of the money. I think it's very important, as I said in my remarks, that this issue, while it must be led by an ambassador such as Ambassador Bennett, who I think is very talented, needs to be a Canada-wide diplomatic initiative. It needs to be spread across the diplomatic service. Now, I say that because I know, having observed my own diplomatic service, from which I came, and having had 16 years since the passage of our own law on this, that this policy is not yet embraced by the American diplomatic service.
This is why I think the answer to your question should not be simply whether we should cut the funding here or there—I would urge you not to do that—but to ensure that the funding is supported by a strategy that will involve the entire diplomacy of Canada. That's where you will, if I might put it this way, make your money. That's where you will make progress against the scourge of Islamist terrorism.
I hope that's a clear answer to your question.