I'd like to speak on it first, please. This is a very important issue. I'd hate to be calling the question on $7 billion of spending without any parliamentary oversight.
We've heard from many experts. We've heard from Kevin Page, the previous parliamentary budget officer, who has called it out as lacking transparency and taking away oversight from Parliament and the real reason we're here.
Mr. Garrison also brought up some very good points, and that we have a lot of time.
We've heard from the present Parliamentary Budget Officer, who actually put out a report on the issue of whether we're willing to sacrifice oversight for the expediency of, basically, a false claim of aligning the estimates. Let's be honest, we're not actually aligning when we don't have the answers to so many questions.
We heard at this very committee from the Privy Council Office about their spending, whether they'd even looked at it yet, and their comment that they hadn't developed the plan; they were simply told to put it in. It's difficult to expect us to do our job as parliamentarians, to justify spending and see what the results are, when in fact the departments that are asking for the money have stated that, “Well, we're putting the money in, and you need to ask the Treasury Board what that money is for,” even though in this case it was $1 million for the Privy Council Office.
We heard earlier today that there is detail in the budget. For example, “simpler and better procurement, $52 million”. The quote was, “there is more detail”. It says $52 million for simpler and better procurement, but there are no details that that is on providing, as we've heard, set-asides for first nations.
We talked earlier today about some of the first nations procurement. We've heard repeatedly, from witness after witness representing first nations indigenous groups, that the way the government does procurement is very flawed, and that we need to pursue other avenues from the way the government is doing it.
I'd hate to think that the government—
Sorry?
