I served a very brief period of time in the federal government as the chief of enforcement at Environment Canada. I went through this process of having to explain your programs, strategic outcomes, blah, blah, blah. There's always new language that's used every year. It's a struggle.
One of the things that concerns me is, if you are pushing for the voting on the strategic outcomes, does that mean some programs are going to be off the table because they can't be quite fit in that way? If they can't be, if we are only voting in the order of strategic outcomes, does that also become a bit of a struggle?