I'm going to have to interrupt you there, because I won't be able to ask my second question.
Thank you for that information, but I guess what we're telling you is that the quality of the information we have is still not sufficient. That is the fundamental issue for us as parliamentarians: to be able to actually understand the information that's given to us.
Anyway, you said something very interesting about program architecture and program activity. I know that there's a review process in place for all the departments to review their program architecture. The problem is that a lot of that program architecture is out of date. A lot of it lacks a lot of detail. A lot of it is strategic with regard to receiving budgets intentionally worded in certain ways in order to be vague.
As for my question, what actually interests me as a parliamentarian is knowing what the sub-activities are within the programs' architecture. It's something that I think would actually add some significant detail to how money is being spent or to how money is intended to be spent. Now, that's a sea change, I know, because every department will have to provide detailed information, but I think it's extremely important when it comes to making sure that our government spends responsibly.
Could I have a little bit of a response to that?