I can start.
It's an excellent question, because the way we deliver this or where the money flows is absolutely crucial to the impact we're going to get out at the other end. I've heard the same sorts of comments that you've heard, Mr. Pearson.
I'm going to use the example of Ethiopia, because I think it is telling, in terms of how it was funded and is supported.
In Ethiopia they have a willing health ministry, a health minister who is very motivated, and a pro-poor health agenda. What they have done is train 30,000 young women, grade 10-educated at least, with a year's training in the leading causes of death. They have gotten a couple of extra months of training in support. It's not enough, but it's 14 months training in the leading causes of illness and death among the poorest people. They go back to 15,000 health posts in rural Ethiopia that they've built, no bigger than your living room, that are equipped in a comprehensive way with the interventions that can have impact. It's an amazing story and one that I encourage anybody to go and see.
It is funded from a number of different entry points. It is the Ministry of Health in Ethiopia that funds it, with bilateral support. Canada's contribution is the Catalytic Initiative to Save a Million Lives, because those are the core tenets of that UNICEF sort of initiative model. It is also funded through Global Fund support, because the Minister of Health there understands that the Global Fund, when used correctly, can be a health system strengthening sort of mechanism.
So there are those three core funding entry points; they'd be able to build up that end of the continuum of care so that it has impact.