I believe in your everyday work you may deal more with programs that are available to individuals and your constituents than a vote structure that is very difficult to explain to anybody. On that basis, as I've argued, I think that more information should be provided on programs. How far down you go is up to debate, but I think more information should be given on programs. There should be an ongoing review of these programs, a cyclical review of these programs, so that you parcel your work out more over the approval process than you are doing right now in considering the mains as a whole.
In the current system, in which the government tables the mains by March 1, everything is sort of automatic after that. You don't have a lot of discretion in changing stuff. You can propose cuts but you can't propose any increases. If you had more detail or more information or more analysis of what these programs are actually doing, and whether they are meeting the criteria set out, then I think you could make more of a difference.