I'll give you a couple of examples.
The benefit for Canada is the same as for some other countries in that it's simple and it's understandable. I need cash to buy a new vehicle or a new building. Everyone knows what that means. When you're dealing with accrual, if you are talking about buildings, you are dealing with concepts of depreciation. Are you voting money to spend on depreciation? No, you don't really have a choice about depreciation; it's an accounting thing. When you get into environmental liabilities—we've already talked about that today—you have a liability on the books. That doesn't obligate you to spend money to clean it up. There's an accounting standard that says you must recognize it. It's more a matter of the focus of the study was around increasing Parliament's scrutiny of the estimates with an acknowledgement that they don't understand the current system today. What I've said is that I can't think of a better way for parliamentarians to get further confused than to go to accrual. It introduces a lot of assumptions, which is fine for accounting, but all parliamentarians aren't accountants.
I've come full circle on this myself. I'll admit that 10 years ago I thought accrual was probably a good idea. Based on a caveat that says Parliament should understand what they're voting on, cash just makes more sense.