That's your time. Thank you very much.
The next questioner, from the Conservatives, is me. I'm taking the slot. I have apologies from the chair. He is actually ill. He's not going to be able to make it. We hope he'll be here on Wednesday.
I'm going to stick to the agenda, which is supplementary (C)s, and not go to what future things may happen. I'm going to ask you questions about the supplementary estimates from this year and about the planning and priorities document you put out.
Ms. Doucet, I know that you're relatively new, so if you're not able to answer, the two gentlemen beside you should be able to.
I apologize in advance. You are the first group to deal with this. My question does not deal with just your particular office. It has to do with the general way estimates are presented.
I look at the main estimates. The main estimates have an estimate, in real terms, of $140 million approved. And, you know, you have small numbers. You didn't have supplementary (A)s. You had supplementary (B)s. I see authorities to date of almost $147 million. This is not just for this section. I'm under vote 1c, vote 1 in each section. If I look at all the different sections, what's happening is that supplementary (C)s says that authorities to date are $166 million, up from $140 million in the mains.
Maybe you can explain this to me. How come, if it's in the column for authorities approved, it changes from one document to the next? I don't see any footnotes. I don't see where it's explained how or why that has happened. Why is there a change? If the authorities were approved through the appropriations bills, why would the amounts be different in each book?
That's my first question.