Thank you very much, my esteemed colleague. I appreciate it very much.
I'll start again. The passage reads as follows:
When considering the Government's proposals, it is essential to compare them against core principles of parliamentary review of spending, which enhance Parliament's ability to hold the government to account.
According to Her Majesty's official opposition, any reform that would impair the allotted time, which has been a three-month period for almost 150 years, would hamper this basic principle of accountability on the part of the government.
I will read you the last quote and stop there, which will please my government colleagues. So here is another quote from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that I think is fundamental:
That said, Parliamentarians will need to determine whether the cumbersome workaround of creating a new interim estimates, appropriating money based on the previous year's financial estimates, releasing a new main estimates in May and eliminating the spring supplementary estimates, is the best approach to meet their needs.
You have to understand that we're talking about 13 pages here. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer has managed to use 13 pages to outline the problem of two fundamental premises that are at odds with each other, it is imperative that he appear before our committee and explain to us in more detail what exactly he means and what his most obvious conclusions are, notwithstanding what is written here.
Thank you for giving me this time, Mr. Chair.