Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank our guests for being here for the study.
We have listened to your recommendations and we appreciate the fact that your position is to adopt most of the points that concern you. I think that the complexity of the situation justifies our motivation to clarify the whole document.
Measures are being taken now, but I have a bit of trouble understanding why your response to our proposal to have a fixed date is that it is too complicated, when you have agreed to sit down with us to help us fully understand every aspect.
Here is my first question. On the one hand, the government says that it wants to reduce the administrative burden, but it will actually introduce another type of complexity. In fact, two accounting systems will be needed, given the reforms of the pension plans of public service employees that the government is planning to carry out. On the other hand, the government is talking about increasing transparency, but is not able to make a commitment to align the key estimates documents to ensure this transparency because of the duplication of accounting systems.
How do you explain that paradox? It is all very well to advocate a position, but then you have to follow through on it.