I think that's just it. The complexity was actually a barrier to being able to understand the business of government. One thing that we did in implementing the new policy was to rationalize a lot of those subprograms and sub-subprograms into programs that made more sense and were more directly linked to departmental results and their core responsibilities.
Just to give you a couple of stats around this, we kept transparency relatively the same, but in terms of the number of higher-level core responsibilities, we moved to about 162 core responsibilities versus 117 strategic outcomes and 262 higher-level programs, writ large, under the old policies. Suddenly we had a much smaller unit of understanding or a set of frameworks that we could wrap our heads around and pose important challenge questions to departments and to facilitate reporting to the public and to Parliament.
We kept the number of programs and departmental indicators relatively the same, though. We went from about 1,100 programs to about 800 programs with 1,200 indicators. This meant that we were clearly able to focus on the important business of departments—and reporting on that—and on important indicators that meaningfully spoke to the results that those departments and their programs were trying to achieve.