I think what's different about this is that we actually are looking at past programs to determine that they are still relevant, effective, and efficient, as we're putting new programs in place. We're emphasizing value for money. That was one of the reasons I pointed out in an answer to one of the earlier questions about the A-base budget doubling in six years from $45 billion to $90 billion.
It's something that I was faced with in my own department as a minister prior to coming to this department. As our priorities as a government changed when we came into office from the past government, when we were then implementing these new measures and trying to put them into place and identifying how much it would cost in terms of resources, the question I kept asking was, “What about the things that we are no longer doing? What has happened to those resources?” There didn't seem to be a particularly good way of handling that.
It has been explained to me as to why there was never that emphasis on examining existing programs in order to ensure that those existing resources are being used properly. One of the reasons was that back in about 1995 when the A-base budget was cut to its bones, it was always assumed that everything that was there was absolutely necessary to make the government run, when in fact I think it's a mistake to assume that if it's relevant at one point in time it will continue to be relevant.
We have essentially set up a five-year review of this and are attempting to put the new system in place in about a five-year timeframe.