Dr. Yan just told me that in response to the previous question, the distance is 150 kilometres. I apologize for that.
With respect to your question on the alignment of the budget and the estimates, it's fairly easy to see which items were not in the main estimates that could have been in the main estimates. It's virtually all budget items that had expenditures or that have expenditures in the current fiscal year. Because the budget is not and was not tabled before the production of the main estimates by the Treasury Board Secretariat, these items could not be included in the main estimates. There are multiple expenditures that were included in the budget that are not in the main estimates. The list is very long. It's probably a few hundred items.
The impact is that when you as members of Parliament and your colleagues in the Senate look at the main estimates, you don't have the numbers when you look at specific departments or specific initiatives, or even the totals. You don't have the full picture of the government's plan when it comes to spending. You only have the state of the world as it was on March 1, so anything that's in the budget will be reflected later in supplementary estimates (A), supplementary estimates (B) or even supplementary estimates (C). It makes your job significantly more complicated, because you have to approve main estimates that are a very incomplete picture of the government's plans when it comes to spending.
That's why I'm saying, and I've been saying for a little while now, that it would be beneficial for transparency purposes and it would facilitate your work as legislators if the budget items were included in the mains. That would mean either tabling the main estimates later or—and more easily done, I think—by tabling the budget sooner, so that officials in the Treasury Board Secretariat have sufficient time to incorporate these items into the main estimates.