Thank you very much, Mr. Saganash, for the question.
Technically it's an exercise that we do across all programs with defined purposes, and Jordan's principle is an example of that. Over the course of the fiscal year we examine the degree of expenditures associated with the budget allotment, and then, depending upon the degree of usage, we will engage with the central agencies and make a request for re-profiling some months before the end of the fiscal year to ensure that the dedicated pot is used for its intended purposes in future years.
That requires a justification process, and when they approve that—which usually requires the Minister of Finance's approval—then you see related to that a frozen allotment, as was noted in response to a previous question by a member of the committee, and then it gets reallocated. What tends to happen is that when the public accounts get published, you will sometimes notice huge amounts of lapses, which are due to the frozen allotments that have forced those lapses. But what the public accounts lapses don't indicate is the re-profiles that have transpired to keep that money going.
When you look at the gross lapse in the public accounts, you have to understand that there are two aspects to it. There is the planned lapse, and then there is the actual net lapse for which spending did not go. For example, last year the gross lapse for the department was $900 million, but then when you start taking into account all those re-profiled amounts, the net amount was actually $900,000.
That's just a technical response to your question about ensuring that dedicated pots of money are always managed to ensure that they are available in future years for their intended purposes.