Sure.
I have certain legal obligations, and one of my legal obligations is to not offend Parliament. If Parliament has passed budgets in previous years with, in some cases, long hang times, I do have to implement those.
Some other honourable members commented that there were ways to ensure that the $16 million in cuts to the Public Health Agency had not taken effect in 2005, 2006, and 2007. That's true. But eventually the clock does tick and eventually we have to live up to the parliamentary requirements.
That's what I'm doing. I'm trying to do so in a way that is least disruptive for Public Health Agency programming in every area, including HIV/AIDS. I identified, I thought, through this plan...and the Public Health Agency identified this $7 million Canada Health Network website, where we could go from three websites down to two websites and accomplish the same mission but save $7 million.
I agree that I was obliged to make that choice, but I actually agree with that choice. I'm willing to defend that choice. I think that's the right choice to make, so that other programs can continue on.
We're continuing with that exercise. There will be more reductions that will be coming. I'm not trying to hide anything. But that is the reasoning behind it. My commitment is, whether it be the HIV/AIDS programs or other programs within the Public Health Agency, that we don't want to get to core initiatives, we want to ensure that all the good work being done in the community continues to be done. But I have this obligation to Parliament, which I am going to fulfill.