Let me make a few comments on the expenditure management system.
The system we looked at was largely put in place during a period of government restraint after program review. Expenditures were cut, and there was I think a lot of attention given to any new spending proposal, I guess on the assumption that there was this other exercise going on at program review at the same time, which was looking at programs across government.
That system has continued, even though we are now in a period of surplus, and as we mention in the report, a system designed for a period of restraint is not necessarily the best one in a time of surplus. What is happening is that the ongoing spending in fact gets very little challenge or review, except for these ad hoc exercises that governments will go through from time to time. There is no systematic ongoing review of programs, which one would expect.
The other issue is that when new spending is looked at, government doesn't go back to see what existing programs are there and whether there are existing programs that should be modified, cancelled, or adapted to align with the new program.
There needs to be a better look at expenditures as a whole. Government has certainly indicated that they agree with this. They are conducting their own review and would appear to be coming up with many of the same conclusions we have. There has been I think some discussion about introducing a regular, ongoing evaluation of programs.