Merci.
If we look at page 8, at planned spending, we can see that planned spending is done when we do the departmental performance report; it's based on the RPP. We do the report on plans and priorities and the cut-off at that particular point in time of what's known, based on main estimates and the supplementary estimates at that time.
As you can see, the bottom line shows the budgetary main estimates in planned spending for 2008-09 of just over $1 billion, and then the total authorities that were received. During the year, we would have received additional funding, either through the supplementary estimates or through budgetary transfers such as collective bargaining agreements, or for such things that the Treasury Board Secretariat has held centrally, like maternity and severance payments that are received from the departments in year. That's where you see the main differences.
For Industry Canada, we also receive payments for repayable contributions that help support funding for contribution payments in future years. That's why you see a big difference between the planned spending and the total authorities available.
Now, if we go to the actual spending, comparing the total authorities that we had available to spend versus what was actually spent, yes, we did spend less than what our authorities were. If you go up to the line where you see the “Canadian Intellectual Property Office Revolving Fund”, we see total authorities of $140 million, yet in the actuals you see a negative bracket of almost $13 million. It's because of the estimates process and how we disclose this.
Within the estimates, for the total authorities, the Canadian Intellectual Properties Office has a revolving fund and this is what they have available to them to spend. Yet when you see what you actually spend, because of the way the accounting is done, it's on a net basis. So automatically there, you have a difference of $150 million. You're right: it is not well presented here. We could do better in describing the actual variances between those amounts.
Another example of where there was a difference between what was available to us to spend and not to spend was in some of the contribution programs such as the Ontario potable waters program. We had a lapse of about $19 million, but we did ask to re-profile it, meaning that we asked to carry it forward from 2008-09 to a future year, when those expenditures would come in.
The same thing is true for our strategic aerospace defence initiative, for which we had a $24 million lapse. Again, we requested and have an automatic re-profile of 20% for that particular program, so it was available for a future year to be able to cover off contribution programs for those future years.
So for each case within the department, we do analyze what we're planning on spending, why we're spending it, and what's happening within those expenditures.