There are two things.
Yes, it will help track it, but in addition to some other tools. In terms of the parliamentary control, I do want to emphasize that it is at the vote level. The question is quite accurate in terms of money being moved from a vote in one department to another one, but that does go through Parliament. A vote may be transferred from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to Agriculture Canada, which it often partners with, so you'll see some vote transfers, but that is always run through Parliament.
Below the line of parliamentary control, the vote transfer, you could see money estimated for one strategic outcome, but in fact less gets spent there and more gets spent somewhere else. The most helpful place to look for that is a relatively new invention; it's in the reports on plans and priorities.
This committee recommended that each department, in their reports on plans and priorities, forecast out their program expenditures three years forward and three years backwards, so they would have actuals as well as forecasts. More importantly, you could provide a narrative if the estimates changed on why they changed. You'll actually pick up in the text that not as much was spent in area A because it was moved to area B, or whatever the explanation. That narrative is critical. It is that narrative that the database is not equipped to pick up right now, so there will have to be a little digging outside of the database.