Yes, it does.
The reason I'm curious about this is that I was speaking with the Auditor General this morning, and some others, about the role that Environment Canada is meant to take on with the challenges that Canada and the world are facing. I think sometimes it bears an objective view as to what the expectations of a ministry are from the public and from government. Correlate that to the funding sources, in comparison with those for Public Works, let's say, which has an enormous budget and many, many staff, which almost no on knows about in the general public. For Environment, I think that oftentimes the expectations might be oversold as to what authority and power and capacity the department has.
I want to get back to the criteria of how money is spent and how choices are made, because there's a whole suite of options available for reducing greenhouse gases--too many to name some days. I'm trying to understand if the government actually applies--and this was a struggle I had with the previous government, as well--these criteria to say that the best bang for the buck is to do operation X instead of Y.
You mentioned earlier, Ms. Ruta, that there's something looking to the future, but there hasn't been anything to this point. Did I understand you right?