Just to respond to Kelly, it's obvious that the Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn't think he has sufficient information. That's why he's taking the government to court.
I'd like to ask a question to the Department of Finance. I don't understand the logic of the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate is to study money that is spent, rather than cuts. You can't know how much money is actually going to be spent until you subtract the cuts from the previous number. How can you have a true statement of expenditures without knowing what the cuts are? It seems to be logically impossible.