I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to take, and I would agree totally with it, both as a taxpayer and also as the deputy minister of the department. If I'm wasting money in one area, that means I have less money to spend on equipment or readiness or training for the armed forces. As I said earlier, I think there are key lessons learned. How do we do better planning upfront? Do we need to lock in a certain level of availability, hours per year on an aircraft, or how do we get more flexibility to move it up and move it down, recognizing that there will be a premium for some of that flexibility? Where's the balance there? How do we do better life-cycle costing? I've spoken today about the steps we've taken, and actually I believe we have taken significant steps in the last 18 months to improve how we do costing in this department. How are we going to measure and track our performance? I agree with everything the Auditor General has said. How do we get to do that better? It is a big, complex beast. It operates around the world 24-7, hundreds of platforms, millions of parts. We're running an airline, a trucking service, a hospital, the works. Yes, we need to do better, and that's what we're trying to do with our system.
You should see what the navy has done. They can go to any ship, anywhere in the world 24-7 and know what the repair status is, know what maintenance has been done, what's scheduled, what needs to be done, what parts they're going to use; and that's the future direction we want to go. As much as you talked about your hand-held device, we're doing that now on ships, and we want to do it around all the rest of the fleets. The directions are there, the work is there, but I think it's always going to be that you're going to want to do better and better, and there's never a final destination on this.