I can't say enough: This isn't simply a reduction exercise. By going about this in a way that is methodical and that relies on evaluation rather than just cherry-picking or targeting from somewhere within senior ranks of what programs or services we think might not provide value, that is not the way to make an evidence-based decision about good government value. That is exactly why we want to go department by department, why we want to actually look and do that inventory as to what is, in fact, being offered and then involve the frontline workers to ensure that we understand the true value and benefit of all the individual programs and services that we offer. This is a way to be, in fact, evidence-based when we're making decisions, and not just say that we're evidence-based. We're going to go out and actually gather the evidence that shows the government what we do, what we do well, and where we have duplication.

This is actually a chance to plug one other thing that matters deeply to me, and that's the GBA plus, gender-based analysis plus approach to making decisions within the government. You will recall that I had said that all decisions are now going to be analyzed with that lens of GBA plus, which looks not only at gender but all identity factors. Although we have that now, it's happening, it is working its way through, I still think there is a lot that can be done there. As we go through this process, that lens can continue to be brought forward. I am confident in saying that we're going to be looking at how government renewal, how the programs and services we offer are impacting different people in different ways, and doing so, as I've said, I believe, in the budget speech, so that we are more equitable across the Northwest Territories.