To elaborate on the PBO's point, I think, broadly speaking, the position we've had in the office is that the 2012 government operations committee report did represent a consensus among parliamentarians of all political parties with respect to the 16 recommendations to the House of Commons at the time, regarding how the estimates and budget process and the business of supply needed to be reformed to serve all parliamentarians better. Those 16 recommendations, for the most part, as Jean-Denis mentioned, were focused on the content, the quality of the reports being presented to parliamentarians.
In addition to that, it was also a question of capacity in which we play a very limited role, but also the capacity in training available to parliamentarians and the time available to them. There's a question of time devoted by committees to look at the work, but also how much time you are provided to examine the work, taking the example of the timing around which main estimates are tabled and how quickly the first appropriation bill has to be approved. You're currently waiting for supplementary estimates (B), which will be the fourth appropriation bill, and how many weeks or how many days you have to devote to scrutinizing the additional billions of dollars' worth of expenditure.
It's not for us to advocate a specific position to the House. Consistent with the PBO's mandate, our only role is to analyze and research the estimates. It's up to the members around the table and the members in the House to determine what makes the most sense, but going back to the last time parliamentarians spoke on the 2012 report, it's a very good starting point.