Thank you.
That's a very good question in terms of understanding how we approached this pilot.
There were two primary risks identified with moving from a big aggregate vote to smaller votes, and we've touched on those. They are the increased complexity and the rigidity or challenges in managing cash flow between demand-driven programs, challenges that could negatively impact the delivery of programs and services. We also considered the cost and practicality of making changes to financial systems and business processes.
Above and beyond those risk factors, we looked at a number of other criteria, including the number of programs within an existing vote and the existence of unusual patterns or spikes in activity that could bump up against a vote ceiling during the fiscal year.
These were the principal reasons we limited the pilot to grants and contributions. There are a number that have very regular spending patterns and that easily fit within an existing purpose. On that basis, we approached Transport Canada in 2016-17 to undertake a pilot in that grants and contributions space.