Thank you for that question.
There are two points I would like to mention in that regard.
The notion of a new vote structure based on some sort of program hierarchy is an interesting question, and it is a hierarchy we have to think about.
The top level of our program structure is strategic outcome. Below that you get into program activities and then you get into programs themselves.
One of the key considerations in deciding what a potential new model would look like is the number of votes themselves. By way of reference, under the current system, we have roughly 200 different votes in terms of categories of expenditure. We have under the current system of strategic outcomes about 290 strategic outcomes. So, it's roughly the same number of votes, but some more. If you go down below strategic outcome, you're dealing with a substantially large increase in the number of votes. That's one of the things we would have to think about if we were to propose a new model, that is, at what level do we get too detailed?
If you go one level below strategic outcome, you're into program activities. There are roughly 550 of those, so almost double the current number of votes. You go below that into programs. There are almost 2,000 programs—1,900—so again it's very detailed in terms of the number of votes on which parliamentarians would be asked to vote, and that has implications in terms of how departments manage.
The question of level of detail of vote and control is a key question. We have furnished today a model based on strategic outcomes, which we think is an appropriate level for consideration, but it's an interesting discussion to have as to what is the right level.
The second part of the question about accrual is a separate question. Regardless of whether you vote, as we currently do, on capital operating transfer payments or another model based on strategic outcomes, the other question is whether it is cash or is it accrual. The government has been asked to study this question of accrual appropriations for a number of years. We have now concluded that. Largely for reasons of understandability and some experience of other countries that went to accrual, we don't feel the accrual model for appropriations offers any value. We do feel quite strongly that with accrual numbers for the budgets and the financial statements of the Government of Canada, there's certainly good value there, but to change the appropriation model to that number doesn't help you.