In fact, that would be very much the reason that we would propose to approach this as a pilot, to make sure that we had a measured approach in proceeding and that we could, in a very limited way, test all of our assumptions in the application of this.
Just to make it very concrete, when we talk about purpose-based votes, just using TBS as an example right now, we have $919 million in supplementary (C)s that we're requesting. That is spread through existing votes, our operating vote, and some votes that we administer on behalf of the public service as the employer.
In a pilot of a purpose-based approach, we would take our new results framework, where we have defined roles as the employer, as the expenditure authority, and as the regulatory authority, and we would present the same items, but according to those roles. The vote would be according to our core responsibility as employer. The idea is that, as the president says, it would allow committees and stakeholders to maybe follow the money better in terms of the key responsibilities, the key activities of departments.
When we presented the ideas last year, as I think the committee recalls, there was lots of discussion around timing, and unfortunately, we really never got past a decision on timing, so we would welcome a report or recommendation as to whether this should be pursued. We do have some ideas about how we could do that, but we did not feel that there was any consensus to expand the pilot at this time.
