I might receive clarification now, but traditionally I've been told to steer away from anything that has to do with finances, as a private member putting a bill forward. If it's an extra service, so be it.
If we go back to where the source of this was--I'd actually, just as a comment, say that this committee has been going on for quite a while--you mentioned Mr. Alcock and his remedies, and I heartily agree with you. Particularly for the people in this town, the effect would have been paralysis to government if they had been enacted, in my opinion, and from what I was hearing from public servants. You did have the Gomery commission, and here we are. So I think, with respect, we've been at this for a while. We had an election on it.
There's a perceived rush. I'm not wanting to rush. We want to make sure good things get done.
But when you look at the public accounts committee and at the estimates process, we haven't talked about that enough, in my opinion. It's strange to me--and I'm wondering if you see it in this bill or another tool--to allow Parliament to be more vigorous in looking at spending at the front end and not at the back end.
In other words, if we look at some of the concerns that came out of Gomery, and before that, other programs, it was after the money had been spent, and voilà, look here, we had some misspending or account problems, and so on. Sometimes, indeed, the problems were exaggerated, and we found that out after the headlines.
Some provinces are much more rigorous in their estimates process. We have the blue book here. I've looked through it. This year was a bit of an anomaly because it came out before the budget. So I'm no stranger to--