Thank you.
It seems to me there's a strong connection between the proposal to go by programs and the $3.1 billion of missing money, because I think the secretariat said that one of the possible reasons for it was that money was transferred to other programs without being tracked properly. It seems to me that under a program-based model, any change from one program to another would have been known and would have helped prevent this outcome with the $3.1 billion, because there would have been a paper trail all the way to Parliament.
If we don't want problems of this nature to reoccur in the future, is this not an additional argument to go via the program-based route?