Evidence of meeting #39 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alex Lakroni  Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
David Good  Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will open the 39th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Welcome back, everyone, from your two-week sojourn.

We're going to continue the examination of the estimates process. We welcome two substitute members for the NDP today. I should inform you that there will be changes to the permanent members of the committee. That won't be happening today. We'll be introducing folks later on.

Today as witnesses we have Mr. Alex Lakroni, chief financial officer of the Department of Public Works and Government Services; and Diane Hall, manager for estimates. We thank them for appearing.

We've asked Mr. Lakroni specifically to give us a tutorial and walk us through the process as he sees it. I think we would all benefit from that, especially at this stage of the examination as we are all a little bit better versed in matters of the budget cycle. I think we would benefit from hearing again from Mr. Lakroni. We've asked him to give us a presentation of about 20 minutes and then we can either go to the traditional rounds of questioning or, if we choose to, we can just go to questions as they come up.

Is it the will of the committee to continue with the normal five minutes per party or, given the limited amount of time we'll have left, would you rather just have a free go-round of questions?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Let's have a go-round of questions. As long as they are not all about five minutes each, so we won't have somebody taking up all of the time.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

How you do feel about that, Denis? Instead of going five minutes for this party and five minutes for that party, given the nature of the presentation and the non-political nature of it, we could just ask questions as we see fit.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Okay.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Then we'll ask the clerk to keep a list of people interested. The only condition is that we try to keep the questions down to a reasonable time so that nobody dominates the questions.

That said, Alex, you are most welcome and the floor is yours.

3:30 p.m.

Alex Lakroni Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting me here today to participate in this review of the estimates. I am here in my capacity as a CFO representing Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC. I am joined by Diane Hall, Manager of Estimates.

The history of the estimates is rooted in legislation and parliamentary tradition. This committee launched its review of the process for considering estimates and supply, and l am pleased to be part of your review along with the other parties that have appeared before you with a view to improving the effectiveness of the supply process.

As you will recall, our minister was here a month ago to present PWGSC's 2012-13 main estimates. My objective today is not to repeat the minister's presentation or to discuss the programs of my department, but rather to cover the estimates cycle from beginning to end with a view to informing this committee about the large and varied amounts of information now being provided by departments.

In addition I will overlay the timelines of the estimates documents with those of the federal budget and the public accounts, using PWGSC as a reference. That said, as the Treasury Board Secretariat is one of the stakeholders for this review, I want to emphasize that questions touching on potential changes and implementation arising from this review should be addressed directly to the secretariat. TBS manages many of the systems and procedures in the supply process at the government-wide level.

At this point I also want to acknowledge the secretariat's efforts to improve the estimates process.

I appreciate that the context for this review is to provide views on the form, content, and cycle of the estimates document. My understanding is that this committee is primarily interested in Parliament's accountability and control over expenditure, thus in voting by expenditure type versus voting by program; the timing of the estimates vis-à-vis the federal budgets; the type and format of information presented; and the usefulness of cash versus accrual information.

Any changes contemplated by Parliament to the existing estimates process dealing with timing, voting, and the type of information provided would require an examination of the pros and cons. Parliament must also be mindful that the request for additional information as a means to exercise more or better control may produce unintended consequences in terms of complexity and confusion. Therefore, Parliament may wish to take this opportunity to review the estimates and streamline information that it deems less useful and/or that causes confusion.

In principle, controls are essential to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are directed to priority programs, that they are spent as intended, and that results are achieved. Hence, the following questions remain for your consideration: what is the right level of control and what does Parliament want to control? Is it programs or the types of expenditures with their corresponding authorities?

Now, let me describe the PWGSC funding structure for the 2011-12 main estimates.

Last fiscal year, PWGSC set out to spend $6.1 billion to fulfill its mandate as a common service provider to government departments.

Parliament ultimately approved a net appropriation of $2.5 billion, as PWGSC anticipated earning $3.6 billion, or 59% of its budget, in revenues from client government departments.

PWGSC's funding structure is more complex than that of many other departments. In 2011-12, PWGSC had 13 different funds, served over 100 departments, one of which is PWGSC, and presented information in at least six different ways to Parliament, at seven different junctures.

I understand you are interested in a walk-through of the estimates process from a PWGSC perspective. For that I have a presentation deck addressing the three key themes that have emerged from discussions with previous witnesses.

This presentation will take about 20 minutes. If you prefer, I could present it in an abbreviated fashion. Either way I would be pleased to address your questions at the end.

I understand, Mr. Chair, that you prefer the complete version. With your permission, I would now like to go to the deck presentation.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Yes, please.

3:35 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

I understand that everyone has a copy in French, English, or both languages. I will start by saying the following.

The goal of this presentation is to provide the committee with a walk-through of the estimates process and documents from PWGSC's perspective.

On page 3, you can see what I am going to cover. I will briefly describe the estimates and supply cycle. I will discuss the main documents listed in points B to H. Then I will summarize the facts and differences.

Also included are four annexes on PWGSC's program architecture, the structure of the department's votes, the matter of gross versus net expenditures and lastly, cash versus accrual information.

Moving on to page 4, you'll see that this slide provides an overview of the cycle. It may be familiar to you, so I'm going to summarize it at a high level.

Basically, although you see four arrows, it shows three supply periods. I'm not going to go into the details as they are all in front of you in the documents. The message here is that departments produce about 11 documents every year, eight of which are tabled. “Tabling” doesn't mean just for vote purposes: some are tabled for vote purposes and others are tabled for information purposes. We're going to go through them one by one later on in the deck.

The page 5 slide bring us back to the basics: what are we trying to achieve? The purpose of the supply cycle, we have to keep in mind, is to ensure that taxpayers' money is directed to government priorities and programs; that due diligence is exercised by departments, central agencies, and parliamentarians; that departments have sufficient expenditure authority or flow of cash in a timely fashion; and that there is transparency and accountability and the measurement of results. The goal here is to ensure that the cycle remains practical, effective, and efficient.

Moving on to page 6, you can see that the slide shows the five major exercises. To produce the 11 documents I talked about earlier, eight of which are tabled before Parliament, there are five major exercises in addition to the federal budget and the public accounts. These are the main estimates; the reports on plans and priorities; the supplementary estimates, of which there are three; quarterly financial reports three times a year; and lastly, departmental performance reports, which are built from the three quarterly financial reports.

On page 7, we have a pictorial view of the tabling order of these documents. Under each document, you have a box that starts with an arrow and either a V or an I, which stand for “voted” or “information”. You should note that what provide spending authorities to departments are numbers one and three, those being the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C). Each of these documents has specific coverage in terms of time, so the coverage varies from one quarter to three years.

In essence, each document brings something different to the table. I will go through them one by one later on, after we look at the timelines and the sequence on the next page.

We'll turn to page 8, please. This is a key slide because it shows the sequence and the overlap factor of documents over two fiscal years. At the top, we took 2010-11 as an example. At the bottom of the horizontal line, we took 2011-12 as an example. In the middle, you have a red mark. That is the end of the fiscal year and the beginning of the next.

So while departments are working in supplementary estimates (B) and (C) for a given year, they are also working at the same time on the ARLU—I will come back to what ARLU means—main estimates, and the RPPs, those being the reports on plan and priorities, for the new year. So there is an overlap in terms of documents over two years.

The federal budget is tabled in the February-March timeframe. Interim supply is issued before or at the beginning of the fiscal year. Then departments continue working on the DPR and public accounts for the old year.

Right now we are in April and we're working on the DPR and the public accounts for the year that has just finished. At the same time, we're working on supplementary estimates (A) and supplementary estimates (B). Later on in the year, we'll be working on supplementary estimates (C).

So these exercises work based on a tight calendar between central agencies and departments and on cut-off dates. Needless to say, there is a significant workload behind the cycle to produce these documents on time with the information required or prescribed.

Now let's dive into these documents one by one. In doing so, I'm going to talk about what each one of these documents does—what it is, what it does, and what it doesn't do. I will start with

the main estimates on page 9.

The main estimates are the department's planned financial requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. They represent the first year of the approved departmental Annual Reference Level Update, or ARLU.

In English it's the ARLU.

What is the departmental Annual Reference Level Update? It is an internal exercise undertaken by departments with the Treasury Board Secretariat. It is a technical or accounting exercise that begins with a base budget that is adjusted to take into account all the decisions that have been made and approved by committees, by Treasury Board. The ARLU is simply a multi-year update of approved Treasury Board submissions.

So it covers multiple years.

The first year of this planning exercise becomes the main estimates, which are tabled by March 1. House rules stipulate that they be tabled no later than March 1.

The main estimates support the government's request to Parliament for authority to spend public funds.

Moving on to page 10.

The main estimates allow parliamentarians to see the department's budgets by vote, by program and by standard object. They explain year-over-year variances and provide the information on a cash basis. They focus on two fiscal years: the upcoming one and the previous one. They are used as a basis for interim and full supply.

This does not appear in the presentation, but the main estimates set out statutory initiatives for information purposes only. The main estimates do not capture new federal budget initiatives or cabinet authorities that come after the departmental ARLU.

The members of Parliament must vote on the main estimates appropriation bill.

Now on to page 11.

It illustrates the page proof. That is basically what you see in the blue documents. I've put here four pieces of information for your information. First are the types of expenditures, or basically the votes on which Parliament is expected to vote. The second view is by program activity. The third view is year over year. I ran out of space, so I put here the distribution by standard object.

Therefore, we have at least four angles of information in the main estimates. Each is relevant on its own. The question here is that if someone wants to draw the full picture they need to connect the dots and draw conclusions. Sometimes it gets into a thorough analysis, or endless analysis and reconciliations.

I'll move on to page 12.

We all know what the federal budget is: the annual blueprint for how the government wants to set its annual policy agenda. It serves as a vehicle to implement the government's priorities and sets out the government's economic and fiscal outlook.

Page 13 now.

The federal budget includes both revenue and spending measures. It provides financial information on an accrual basis, unless stated otherwise. The budget has a multi-year scope ranging from 2 to 5 years. The federal budget is not fully reflected in the main estimates, nor does it provide spending projections by department.

It is important to understand that the government is under no obligation to table the federal budget on a specific date. Members of Parliament vote on the federal budget implementation bill, once it is introduced in Parliament.

The next slide is about the RPP, the reports on plans and priorities. The purpose of the RPP is to provide departmental details to support the main estimates.

On page 15, in terms of the details it allows parliamentarians to see the planned spending by program activity. It provides information on a cash basis and has a four-year scope: the current year plus three planning years. It highlights the planned departmental expenditures and outcomes and may include cabinet approval after the ARLU. It also includes the future oriented financial statements on an accrual basis with a two-year scope, the current year and one future year. It includes supplementary information via hyperlinks, including revenues and capital transfer payments.

The RPP does not always capture the federal budget announcements, depending on the budget timing. It does not provide information by votes and standard objects, and Parliament does not vote on the RPP.

On page 16, I included two tables to contrast the transition from the main estimates to the RPP and to show you the difference. We took as an example at the 2011-12 main estimates.

If you look at the bottom line of the main estimates, in the circle you will see there is a plan to spend $2.581 billion on specific program activities. In the RPP, that number became $2.717 billion. It's explainable. These are approvals that occurred post-ARLU or post the main estimates. In this case specifically, they include the long-term vision plan, the homelessness program, and the financial interoperability stewardship initiative.

Here I would note that an item could be known but be in the process of approval and therefore not be reflected in the RPP. The question I pose here is whether the RPP provides a full and stable picture of the planned spending. The answer is probably no, but it gives the best information of the plan at the time of the tabling.

With regard to the supplementary estimates, page 17 shows that there are three supplementary estimate exercises in a fiscal year. They seek approval for additional spending authorities for the planned spending or against the planned spending for things that are not in the main estimates, including Treasury Board submissions after the main estimates and transfers between departments. The question here is, are three supplementary estimates exercises needed? We used to have two not that long ago.

Moving on to page 18, the supplementary estimates allow parliamentarians to see the department's budget by votes, by items and by standard objects. They are on a cash basis. They focus on one year, the current fiscal year, and they capture the federal budget announcements. The departments supply the Parliamentary Budget Officer with departmental budgets by program activity five days after their tabling. The supplementary estimates do not include or show information on a gross basis, but on a net basis. Therefore, the revenues are not reflected in the supplementary estimates. Parliament votes on the supplementary estimates appropriation bill.

On the next page we're going to talk about quarterly financial reports, or QFRs. They are financial tables comparing planned and actual expenditures, and explain variances for both the quarter and year-end as well as comparative information for the preceding fiscal year. QFRs must be prepared for the first three-quarters of each fiscal year. Key components of these reports are financial highlights, risks, uncertainties and significant changes to operations, personnel and programs. QFRs supplement year-end reporting, they're entering a view of spending. I think of QFRs as mini departmental performance reports. The only difference is that they are based on types of expenditures, not by program.

On page 20, QFRs are published on the website. They allow parliamentarians to see the budgets by votes and by standard objects. They are on a cash basis. They cover two years, the current year and the previous year, and they reflect cabinet authorities. They do not, however, reflect the full fiscal year and there is no report in the fourth quarter of a fiscal year. They are not audited or tabled in Parliament and therefore are not subject to votes.

On page 21 you have an illustration using PWGSC. Be mindful that 2011-12 was the first year these reports were introduced. On the left we have a display of type of expenditures by votes. On the right you have the distribution by standard objects in these reports.

On to page 22 and public accounts.

The accounts of each individual department and agency are rolled up into the Public Accounts of Canada.

The public accounts are tabled by the receiver general and are presented in three volumes. The public accounts represent the complete set of departmental financial statements for the Government of Canada in its entirety. The public accounts show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues and payments, assets and liabilities and so forth.

The public accounts are reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and not by this committee.

Moving on to page 23.

The public accounts provide information by vote, by program activity and by standard object. They give members of Parliament the information they need to understand the financial affairs, resources and transactions of the government. They have a 2-year scope: the fiscal year just closed and the previous year, for comparison purposes. They provide information on an accrual basis, and I am referring to Volume I. However, Volumes II and III provide information on a cash basis.

The public accounts do not capture departmental performance, simply the facts.

Members of Parliament do not vote on the public accounts.

Some of you may be wondering what Volumes I, II and III cover, so here are a few details. Volume I is a summary report of the financial statements of the Government of Canada. Volume II provides the details of expenses and revenues for each department. Volume III provides additional information and analyses, such as the financial statements of revolving funds.

Page 24 now.

refers to the departmental performance reports.

The purpose of the DPR is to present and report on results and accomplishments by comparing actual spending to the total authorities given in a fiscal year. Specifically, the DPR presents results against the main estimates, the RPP, the total authorities, and actual spending. It is normally tabled in the fall following the end of the fiscal year. It could take up to seven months after the year end.

Page 25, in terms of the details, shows that the DPR provides a financial summary of the estimates exercises that occurred in the fiscal year that just closed. The DPR allows parliamentarians to see the department's actual spending by program. Also, it provides information on a cash and accrual basis.

It has a two-year scope: the year just closed and the previous year. It includes departmental financial statements, on an accrual basis, with a two-year scope, and it links to the public accounts.

The DPR does not provide information by votes and standard objects. Parliament does not vote on the DPR.

Page 26 is an example extracted from PWGSC's DPR for 2010-11. It displays multiple stages of the budget cycle, from plan to results.

In the main estimates, the department was planning to spend $2.5 billion on a net basis. In the planned spending for the RPP, that number moved to $2.538 billion. The total authorities by the end of the supplementary estimates (C), that is, what the department had authority to spend, were $2.963 billion. The actual spending against that total authority was $2.743 billion. This shows the evolution of the planning, the authorities, and the spending.

I am nearing the end of my presentation.

Page 27 provides a summary of the facts and differences. On this page, what you see in the left column are all of the documents I talked about. As I mentioned at the beginning, departments produce 11 documents. Eight are tabled and five are voted on. There is significant work behind producing these documents. Yet there are challenges with respect to the availability and clarity of the right information needed to exercise due diligence.

At this juncture, I would suggest going back to the basics and would ask the following questions: What does Parliament want the controls to be on? What is the level of the controls? What information is needed to support these controls?

Right now, controls are on the type of expenditures, with a huge amount of information supplied at different times. Each type is relevant on its own. The challenge is connecting the dots and performing the analysis to extract the full picture.

The second column, the votes or the funding mechanisms, is where the controls are. That's what drives the supply. The information is what you see following the second column: program activity; standard object; cash versus accrual; gross versus net; and time scope, from a quarter to three years.

In the column before the last one, you will see what Parliament does and doesn't vote on, and the tabling dates.

On the last slide, slide 28, I would like to offer other considerations supporting this review. I grouped them into three categories. Under timing disconnects or timing challenges, in the category of main estimates versus budget time lag, I note that the DPR is tabled approximately seven months after the beginning of the new fiscal year.

On the budget versus RPP timing, a ministerial reference could be made to budget items. I'm referring to the federal budget here. I also refer to the relationship between the main estimates and the RPP.

The second category has to do with control of departmental spending. The vote is on the type of expenditure versus the program activity or outcome. The vote is on a net basis and not a gross basis.

The third category is on the accounting methodology. Votes are on a cash or accrual basis.

That concludes my presentation. I have a few annexes here that I don't intend to go through unless you want me to. They are related to how we manage this internally, including on a gross versus net basis, and accrual versus cash basis.

Merci.

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, Mr. Lakroni.

I don't know how the committee feels. Do we want Mr. Lakroni to walk us through the annexes, or would you rather proceed to questions?

4 p.m.

An hon. member

We could go to questions and use the time.

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

I think that's generally accepted then.

Thank you, sir, for walking us through this. I can see that you've put a great deal of time and effort into guiding us and making this as simple as humanly possible. The final comments you made hit the nail on the head. How do members of Parliament apply scrutiny, oversight, and due diligence ultimately if we can't understand the information we're given?

So that's our challenge, and that is why we're undertaking a very comprehensive study to try to introduce more plain language into the interpretation of these very complex financial documents.

We've put together a list. I wonder if we could keep the questions to one minute or so, and one-minute answers. If there's a supplementary question from the same person, maybe they can have 30 seconds for clarification. That way we can work through the seven or eight people who have expressed interest, because we only have about half an hour.

John McCallum is on the list. The first one to indicate an interest is Denis Blanchette.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lakroni, thank you for clarifying how all of this works. I would say all the committee members are quite appreciative of that. The bottom line here is that this is overly complex. Nothing can be added to it. As parliamentarians, we have a tough time wading through everything, and I am absolutely certain that, on your end, doing the follow-up is not without problems.

Something occurred to me while you were speaking. I wondered whether we, as parliamentarians, vote on the right things, meaning, when we vote on the budget, we are not really voting on what the government spends. As for departmental spending, the Report on Plans and Priorities more effectively captures the reality.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

4:05 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

I will try to answer your question.

You are not wrong when you say that the Report on Plans and Priorities is closer to the reality. That is true when it is tabled, but we work in an environment where things are always changing. Numerous initiatives that are being refined do not appear in the report, although they are implemented afterwards. In any case, this report is the document that most accurately captures the reality at the time it is tabled.

As for whether parliamentarians vote on the right things, I would say yes. There is, however, a need to address how that information is structured for parliamentarians. There is no denying that all the necessary information is there to make the right decisions. The issue is figuring out the level of analytical skill necessary to connect the dots and understand the big picture. Looking back, I can say it started with a need for a specific piece of information. If a piece of information is relevant, it gets added. Every time a piece of information is added, it is in response to a specific need, but it further complicates the big picture. That is why, at the beginning of my presentation, I said that things had changed and we needed to get back to basics.

What does Parliament want to control and to what extent? What information does it need to do that?

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you.

I'm wondering if we're going to run into difficulty. It's hard to give short answers to such complex questions. It's hard, and we have very little time.

Do you have a brief supplementary, Denis?

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Of all the documents that the department prepares and that you mentioned, is there one that you could stop producing tomorrow without it affecting anything at all?

4:05 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

If I had to name one, I would say the future-oriented financial statements. They exist for a specific reason, since they include projections for the future, but they are based on accrued items. I have not yet made any decisions based on the information in those statements, which came into force recently. But that does not mean that I won't do so down the road.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, Mr. Lakroni.

That took almost five minutes. I think we'll just go back to the traditional five minutes per party. That way, everyone will get an opportunity.

Jacques Gourde, you might as well just take five minutes and enjoy yourself.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lakroni, you've done some wonderful work. This is complex stuff. I think well-informed people can understand it all without too much difficulty. The general population, however, is in the same boat as we are, in other words, trying to make sense of what we are voting on. We vote on a budget and on votes that tell us how much money will be spent by every department or for every program. As is often the case, the year changes in the middle of the process. Last week, for example, I announced the New Horizons program, which will draw on funding voted on in 2011 for use in 2012. So that money has to be spent in the next six months. So it might be October or November 2012 before we know whether the total amount allocated to the program was spent, but the report for the 2011-12 fiscal year may not come out until 2013.

How can we wrap our heads around that? What can be done to simplify things? Maybe, we need to deal with things individually. To my mind, if the goal is to give Canadians clearer information, we need to figure out how to make things simpler and more effective.

4:10 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

I believe there are at least two possible types of control. What matters most to Parliament? Is it control in terms of expenditures or the programs themselves? So far, the voting is done by expenditure type or the form of the funds. Is it capital? Is it operations, contributions or grants? The other possibility is to proceed by program. Every department presents its programs and Parliament votes on them, which is a more specific approach.

As I mentioned, there are pros and cons to both options. If you opt for control by program, will you be able to analyze the programs by department? Will you be inundated with details? You need to have the right information on each program at the right time.

I think you need to look ahead and have information on the life cycle of the program, even though the vote is for a specific year. When voting on programs, you often vote for a single year without knowing the total impact over three, four or five years, how long the program will actually run. Knowing a program's full life cycle would give parliamentarians the bigger picture and help them make well-informed decisions when approving programs.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

From what you said, I gather that it is up to parliamentarians to choose the kind of documents and information they want to have. So we could turn the whole process upside-down and change how we look at things. That would not be an easy undertaking. We are talking about traditional documents with long histories. It would have to be done in a number of phases.

4:10 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

I am not suggesting overhauling the current process, because it does exist for a reason. However, the information, as it is currently presented, is intended to give two perspectives, the form of the funds or type of expenditure, and the program information. When both are presented, when the focus is on the type of expenditure, when comparisons and analyses are done, that is when things get complicated. Is a total overhaul in order? Or would it be preferable to streamline the types of information and present it more effectively in the right place at the right time? That is the question.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Thank you.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, Jacques. That was perfect.

Matthew Kellway, for five minutes.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Thank you very much.

At the beginning, Mr. Lakroni, you had talked about all departments having different ways of doing the supply cycle, if that's an accurate way to put it. Is what you have presented today applicable across all departments? If so, where do we get into the differences?

I ask my question because I sit on the defence committee and to date I've found that trying to access the estimates through that committee is virtually impossible for me—so far anyway.

Could you tell us please what's common to all departments in what you have presented here.

4:15 p.m.

Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Alex Lakroni

The process is common to all departments and is managed by Treasury Board Secretariat and central agencies. What is different is the nature of the information that exists in some departments and not in others.

I'll give you an example. About 60% of PWGSC's appropriations are revenue dependent. Parliament's vote is on the net appropriation, and so the department presents the revenue information in a variety of documents. That is not common to all other government departments. So those departments not subject to revenue don't present that information at all.

Another example is that there are some departments that are heavy in grants and contributions. It's a key component of delivering their program. So they present that information in a variety of ways. Other departments that are not heavy in grants and contributions, such as Public Works, and don't present that information.

Another thing for instance is that in Public Works we have several revolving funds. It's the way our business is funded, and so we present financial information on those revolving funds. Other departments don't have them.

But the process is the same for everyone.