Based upon previous experience, it's unlikely. We found with the previous Auditor General report that announcement spending in some cases was quadruple what the actual dispensation was.
The reason I bring it up is it's a broader question and a concern that many have. The implications of a piece of legislation like this in terms of where government will have to spend money and allocate resources can be significant. To achieve some of these goals the number is not known. It can't be known until the government hands down a directive. As the current federal government has been restricting and pulling back more and more of its ability to collect revenue, there's a growing and I think legitimate concern about being able to fiscally face the next challenges that come for the federal government. In a sense, the government is in the position right now of hampering itself quite intentionally to make sure that government becomes smaller and less effective.
As a final question, it seems that as we've gone through the number of plans and iterations from government, time and again, the ambitions are occasionally lofty, sometimes not even lofty, but the follow-through is not. The feeling within the bureaucrats--and we deal with them both here at this table and on other issues--is that there is no immediate impact on requirement.
I would suggest to the committee and to Mr. Godfrey that the one- or two-line references in here to the consequence side of things is not nearly sufficient, considering that the preponderance of evidence has said that it is the consequences and the follow-through that have been the problem. They haven't been the lofty goals. They haven't been the announcements and the ribbon-cutting--that's been well taken care of by the politics. It's been the sense of responsibility by those who are actually going to carry it out.