Chair, we've called for, and I will continue to call until the end of my mandate...I think there need to be longer fiscal projections. We see the Parliament buildings, but there are also a number of other challenges facing government fiscal pressures that are going to come.
Almost every review that we do of crown corporations points to funding rusting infrastructure, be it the ferries to Newfoundland or postal modernization, and when we talk about IT systems in government, there are going to be needs there. So there has to be I think a really clear portrait drawn of what are all these requirements that are going to be coming over the next few years. How is government planning to deal with that, in addition to an aging population and climate change, which are both going to put pressure on the fiscal situation? So I think longer-term projections and engaging in a dialogue with Canadians about how government is going to pay for all of this....
Then, on the mechanics of all of this, this committee in the past actually undertook a study of accrual appropriations--certain members will recall that--and actually made a recommendation concerning multi-year appropriations. I really think that's the way to go. On some of these very large projects that are going to span several years, there needs to be more assurance of the funding. It doesn't mean, of course, that a subsequent government or Parliament can't come in and then stop it. But there needs to be more stability in funding.
The committee might wish to go back and actually look at some of the really good work that was done on the whole question of accrual appropriations and multi-year funding. That would have been done about three or four years ago, probably.
I think there needs to be a change in the way we look at some of the challenges that are coming and the way these projects are funded.