I guess there are two parts. The one part was a statement around temporary moving to permanent, and I guess from our perspective there are two opportunities for the government to evaluate whether government feels it's getting value for money. There is an approval required for the resources before it comes to the committee. The government has assessed that there's a perception that there's value for money or there's a task that the government feels our department is uniquely able to fulfill.
On value to Canadians, again, it's a policy choice. The government has made a policy choice that there is an absence of sufficient analysis of large corporate assets in its holdings and has asked our department to undertake such analysis. I think the fact that there's a perceived absence is a reflection of a lack of capacity in the government to undertake that activity on a regular basis. It's for that reason that there are additional resources requested for the department to do that.