It's difficult to say what process could be employed. First of all, if you don't have the information that variances are happening, there's nothing you can do about it, right? The estimates come in; then you have supplementary estimates, and there's some detail in there and some detail in the quarterly departmental reports, but if you wanted to put an aggregate picture together from purely those reports, I think you would be really challenged to do so. Frankly, it would be very difficult, and parliamentarians shouldn't have to work that hard.
If anything, there are too many reports that all go off in every different direction. They're produced at different times, probably by different portions of the department; they end up providing different estimates of what's going on, and they don't agree. This is not an argument for less information. I would argue that more of this information should be compiled in one place so that it all agrees and everybody's on the same page, because if page 1 says you spent $1 billion and page 2 says it was $100 million, then obviously there's a problem. They would be much more likely to be reconciled if the RPP was beefed up, for instance, and looked forward as well as backward and included everything in one large annual report. I think that would make it a lot easier to do a line analysis of a project if you were interested.