Don Stewart

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I mean, largely, it is a best estimate that we can come up with, knowing past events that have happened and those sorts of things. It's not based on a formula, or anything like that. It's just to give us that room that might be needed. I think anything beyond that, you'd want to be coming back for those borrowing authorizations. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. When there is a competition, the client service manager from our department helps the hiring department with the process, but they also work with the applicant. If somebody wasn't successful, then they would give them the information that they would need to know the steps and point out them to the website for the exact steps they might go through for a staffing appeal.

Also, to explain, we have done some plain language work to be able to explain to folks what is appealable and what isn't appealable about competition, so they would give them all of that information and then...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The way the formula works in terms of the grant from Canada is it does look, as you note, around our own-source revenue and those sorts of things, but, to take out the fluctuation, it uses a moving average of a couple of years of critical data in terms of the escalators that are built into the formula. So sometimes you will see it both going up, and sometimes you will see it going the other way, but it is to smooth it out, and that is part of the reason why you would see the scenario that you are talking about. In terms of the grant itself, it is a three-year moving average...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. There were certainly lots of views, not only from people in the department, but when we released the approach to the public, as to whether there should be more that goes to families, whether it should be income-tested, and a variety of other things. Yes, there were different views, depending, probably, on their own family situation, but also recognizing what we were trying to do, which is really offset the impact of the carbon pricing as opposed to any other objectives that might be out there. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Again, I will confirm these dollar values, but it is on a per-person basis. If you have more people in the household, obviously, the value will be higher. If I recall correctly, the value was $260 annually for people who are 18 and over, and $300 for children under the age of 18, dollars a tonne. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. We can get a table, but I will very quickly just sort of remind the Members of some of the things that we are going to be using that money for. First, obviously, is the cost-of-living offset benefit, which will be delivered to residents to help offset the impacts of the carbon pricing. There is the heating fuel rebate so that both residents and small businesses and others will not have to pay carbon tax on heating fuel. Then there are the rebates related to the large emitters, as well, and for electrical generation, but we will provide a table that provides the detailed...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Part of the process that we are going through and one of the first things that we will be working on is we have a rough sense of what should be in an accountability framework and, certainly, departments are very interested to make sure that they don't lose any of the service that they are getting now. We are trying to look at this on a broader sector basis so that we can include accountability around the other components of information systems, but also that information technology and information management as well to come up with a sector-level set of indicators, but we...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, obviously, we're fairly early into days of the legalization. We've done some estimates around the expected volumes for cannabis sales, and, based on the pricing model that was used, we certainly think that it will add to the overall amount that comes back from the revolving fund into general revenues and would be able to cover off these types of expenditures. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is through an appropriation as opposed to through a revolving fund, and this is one component where there aren't federal dollars to offset this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't characterize it as being rolled back in, but it's expenditures that aren't undertaken, so there would be that much cash left over in terms of the draw on our overall revenue. It would affect our overall cash position at the end of the year. It would just be that money would be left and we wouldn't have as large of negative cash position if we had that left over at the end of the year. Thanks, Mr. Chair.