I am at a little bit of a loss to understand how someone could say that a transportation strategy does not have to have an objective. There is no problem in getting a road to nowhere as long as someone else is paying for it. The reality is that we are paying for it as we are all taxpayers. We either pay it here or we pay it somewhere else, but we are all paying for it somehow. To make a statement that it does not matter whether you have an objective or not, as long as we do not get stuck with the bill, it would be a very difficult thing to sell that we want a road because we like roads. We just happen to like the look of a road, whether it is going anywhere does not make any difference but we like them. So, if you have some money, give us the money so that we can build those things we like to have, without any objective. It could be a road from point A to point B, and it will look good from the air. It would be a wonderful thing to be able to see that road when you fly from point A to B. The fact that it has no objective is immaterial, it does not matter. Is the Minister, again, teasing us? Is he, in fact, being light-hearted about this business of whether a road or transportation system should have an objective because he has been light-hearted with us before? He said he was only fibbing, or he was only teasing us. Is he serious about it not being necessary to have an objective for a transportation system or strategy?