Going back to the question of statutory and quasi-statutory and discretionary, is there a way, perhaps, of pulling out that information in supps? We certainly have quite a challenge when parliamentarians do not understand the nature of quasi-statutory programs.
They reviewed their supps in one of our committees, over at VAC, and they were very alarmed to see a reduction in program spending, not understanding what quasi-statutory meant. Try as we might to explain or provide some education as to what quasi-statutory meant, they were convinced—absolutely convinced—that there would be a program reduction, no matter how much we explained to them that it was quasi-statutory and that means that if there are people who need this program, the money will be spent. We simply go back and we update our forecast. These are the numbers that our best folks in our department are projecting. This is the number of folks we think will actually need to use this type of service, and so that's why we've come up with this forecast. If at any point that number is incorrect and we need to go and request a top-up, that will be requested.
Is there a way of highlighting that so that people can feel reassured? So we still have the parliamentary scrutiny of expenditures, but we're not having these inane debates where people just simply don't understand what's being presented to them?