Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That, indeed, is correct, Mr. Chairman, that transparency is the question. Although it is a policy one, it becomes political. Mr. Todd talked about that it is a policy of government, not a political policy, but it does become political when you look at infrastructure requirements and as politicians, of course, we are there to make sure that the constituency at large, receives projects and those types of projects create jobs and everything so that is my concern. That is going back to the ground rules and guidelines that we talked about earlier. The Minister, Mr. Todd, talks about bringing them to the committees and that also is a little bit of a concern I have because next week, on Friday, this week, Friday or Monday, if the House is finished, I do not see on any of my planning calendars where there would be any committee meetings until April. We have to come back some time in April to review projects. By that time, because of the time lines with sealift and so on, some projects might have to go ahead. That is a question that has been raised by the public. I wonder if the Minister could maybe explain the mechanism that he is looking at to make sure, indeed, that all projects are screened and the committees have input in those decisions that are brought forward by departments, again, I could use the hard luck bay initiative for the arena. If a committee has a problem with that, is there a veto mechanism that you are looking at, Mr. Todd, or something like that so that transparency, as the Chairman just mentioned, and that hammer, I guess that as elected officials
you would want to have. Maybe Mr. Todd could elaborate a little bit on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.