I just think for us because we're under time constraints in terms of our study, and in fact, we have less time to study the estimates than we once did, about six weeks less, and we're being asked to approve over $7 billion worth of funding. It would be nice to have that information earlier. Not only would it be nice, but I think it would be appropriate for parliamentarians to have that information earlier to get a sense of the promise that was made by the President of the Treasury Board that these items would be approved in short order and that Parliament would be informed of that progress.
While I appreciate that the government wants to report to the public and that they have a specific period in which they're going to do that, I don't think there's anything inappropriate about helping parliamentarians make a better informed decision on the timeline. We're being asked to make that decision.
There is some question, under the new framework, about less reporting at the subprogram and the sub-subprogram level. I just wanted to be clear, though, in terms of wording for appropriation bills. When we talk about new programs, I'm just looking for where new programs are defined, or what it takes to establish a new program. I know the language in the appropriation bill is about new grants. I'm just wondering if establishing a new grant is effectively establishing a new program, and vice versa, or if there's a distinction between new grants and new programs.