Thanks for joining us again.
If it makes you feel better, Minister, I'll let you know that, unlike that of my young cohort over there, your time in Parliament doesn't even scratch half my life.
I think we all agree on the need to promote transparency of the budget process and the need for alignment between the estimates and the budget.
I have to say, though, that I am still a bit apprehensive about modifying the Standing Orders before we adjust the corresponding behaviour when it comes to creating the budget and presenting the main estimates. Your predecessor, Tony Clement, noted several times in the discussions of the 2012 budget that reforms didn't require a change in the rules necessarily, but rather a change in the coordination of the budgetary process. I think that's the path I'm going down.
Changing the Standing Orders is quite an exceptional issue, and I think you've now recommended changing a second one to allow time to study the documents. We're now changing two Standing Orders. These rules governing the House are, obviously, very important. They supersede the government of the day. Changing them is monumental and substantial. We just want to underscore the scale of the proposal. Changing the Standing Orders is not something that we should just throw out, that “Oh, we have one day to meet the committee of the whole. We'll just do another change of the Standing Orders.” I think that sets a very bad precedent.
Is it the most proper way to change the Standing Orders so that the budget and estimates can be aligned, when there's nothing that says we can't change the alignment right now?