Well, you can understand where it would raise an alarm on our side, but I appreciate that.
Our research says that if the Treasury Board approves the department's request, it forwards the funding to the department. I think we know that. But it says that Parliament does get an opportunity to examine the request for funding when the next supplementary estimates are published, and that Treasury Board details the reasons for giving the money to the department outside the regular funding cycle of the supplementary estimates. However, the details are included for information only, since the funding has already been spent.
That accurately outlines how it goes, doesn't it? We get our opportunity to criticize or compliment what has been done after the fact, much like the public accounts committee does with finance department spending.
Where do we get our opportunity to scrutinize whether or not it's a good idea to spend it at all, to see the business plan, to see the justification for the spending?