The intent of my question is to get a further understanding of what the document means, Mr. Chairman. I did not talk to any of the people that put the document together, and I did not talk to any of the people who advised the government. I did not talk to any person within the bureaucracy who was trying to make sense of it. The only intent in my asking this question, since the government has had several months to study the document -- they did commission it -- is that my assumption always is that when something is as important as this to the government, they would have studied it; they would have had expert advice on it; and they would have an understanding of it that I do not have. It is not because I am incapable, but because I do not know what thinking has gone into it.
My simple question is, what is the government's understanding of what that means? That you can, in fact, get an increase of effectiveness and there are many ways in which this ratio could be improved. In other words, you can get improved service but still not spend more money; in fact, you could spend less money. What I am trying to get at is, what is the government's understanding of how you do that? I have tried to think -- in fact, I thought a week ago about how you would do this. How would you get a better service but spend less on doing it? I went through a whole list of things to figure out if there was one example I could come up with in my own mind as to how you would do that. Presumably the government would have gone through the same exercise that I went through. How do you get increased effectiveness, if you like, or efficiency of government, with fewer resources and yet not lower the level of service but improve it?