You're not wrong in using the contribution agreements—that's fine—but you have to evaluate the efficacy of the contribution agreements.
Frankly, Peter, you've just proven my point. You've given Ms. Senior's group $13 million, $3 million of which she's programmed, and she just told you that she's two-thirds of the way through the $10 million. When you calculate the amount of time it's taken—and I'm sure she's done an effective job with it in getting aid to their network—it proves the point. It's going to their network; it's not going to outside agencies that may be doing really good work. So there are people on the outside looking in who are not getting those funds.
The other thing to consider now is that she's talking about $13 million. I'm talking about $350 million to three parties, as opposed to $13 million to one party. Respectfully, if we had gone with an approach to multiple parties to do multiple contribution agreements, perhaps regional, perhaps sectoral, I would say you'd have better value for money. The public service could have done that.
If you take the approach of using multiple ways of doing this, so contribution agreements plus innovative funds plus regional response funds—and this is all in the document I presented to you—you would have a better holistic approach to helping Canadians in need.
I'm not saying that what you've done is horrible. What you've done is good, but it could be better.