We can agree to disagree, Mr. McCallum. I don't have a fundamental mental block. I just don't see what it adds to the parliamentary supply process to have a budget that mirrors the estimates, or vice-versa.
I know how the cycle works in the bureaucracy. I don't imagine that the Treasury Board ministers—and you've been there—have gone through every element of that $250 billion with a fine-tooth comb. The most powerful bureaucrat in the country is the Treasury Board analyst—the young man or young woman who's interacting with the government departments or parts thereof and saying, “I don't think we can put this before ministers.” They're the ones who have more influence than parliamentarians right now.
So in the context of a budget that should mirror spending, it has to do it by the supplementary (C)s at the end of the year. There's a dynamic that flows through Parliament with supplementary (A)s, (B)s, and (C)s, which flows from the budget—and some of it is not even in the budget. So what do you do as a government if you want to do something and you didn't put it in the budget?