The Budget and Estimates are described. The incompatibilities
of their various parts are noted. The Main Estimates are then
used to calculate the 1995-96 federal cultural budget relative
to 1994-95. Definitional difficulties are assessed and, a call
is made for all government spending to be made accountable and
transparent to public scrutiny -- in one place, at one time and
at a reasonable cost.
En cette période de réduction budgétaire et de
transition vers une économie globale fondée sur la
connaissance, le Canada affronte des défis et changements d'une
importance jamais vue depuis la dépression des années '30.
Dans cette transition, l'obligation de rendre compte et la transparence
des actions du gouvernement sont essentielles è la planification
par toutes les communautés d'intérêts. L'instrument
traditionnel, rendant les principaux gouvernements justiciables et
transparents, est le cycle des comptes publics débutant avec le
budget et le budget des dépenses pour l'exercice à venir et
se terminant deux ans plus tard avec les rapports des dépenses
effectives annuelles des Comptes Publics.
Le budget et le budget des dépenses sont décrits. Les
incompatibilités de leurs pièces variées sont prises
en note. Le budget des dépenses principal est ensuite
utilisé pour le calcul du budget fédéral
alloué à la culture pour l'année 1995-96
relativement à l'année 1994-95. Les difficultés
définitionnelles sont évaluées et l'on exige que
toutes les dépenses publiques soient justiciables et transparentes
à l'examen du public -- à un endroit, à un moment et
à un coût raisonnable.
In this time of government retrenchment and transition to a global
knowledge-based economy, Canada confronts challenges and changes of a
magnitude not seen since the "Dirty '30s". All parts of the
community and all regions of the country need to muster their energy and
creativity to pass through these turbulent times and dock in some more
prosperous and contented tomorrow. The cultural, no less than other
sectors of society, has a role to play in this great voyage of our day.
In confronting change, accountability and transparency of government
actions is critical to all communities of interest. The traditional
instrument holding government, at the federal and provincial level,
accountable is the cycle of public accounts (or CPA). The cycle begins
with submission of an annual Budget to the legislature as
well as a set of spending Estimates by agency, department and
program. Together, the Budget and the Estimates
form a government's financial plan for the coming year. The cycle ends
with publication of the Public Accounts reporting actual
spending about two years later.
In theory, CPA permits one to assess if a government is "putting its
money where its mouth is!" Words and numbers are cheap, especially in the
heat of political debate and media glare. All sorts of promises and
threats may be made -- but does government keep its word? CPA holds
government accountable by making its actions transparent to the
legislature, the general public and all communities of interest including
the cultural and financial communities.
In this article I will explore the 1995 Budget and
Estimates of the Government of Canada to unearth the 1995-96
federal cultural budget. I will use a broad UNESCO-derived definition of
culture adapted to the Canadian context. This, in turn, defines the
"cultural policy sphere" in Canada, a sphere in which many federal
departments and agencies are engaged. This is, of course, true of other
policy spheres like science and technology. In future, I hope to explore
the 1995-96 Public Accounts to assess the variance between
actual and planned spending. Application of policy analysis of the forces
at play may then be used to explain variations.
The 1995-96 CPA begins with seven separate documents in two distinct
sets: the Budget and the Estimates. The
Budget presents the government's financial strategy and
consists of four documents produced by the Department of Finance:
The Estimates represent tactics which support the
government's strategy. Produced by Treasury Board, the
Estimates report to the House of Commons by Vote, Activity
and Program for most, but not all, federal departments and agencies.
Furthermore, the Estimates define the logistics behind the
government's tactics using dollars, person years, and (less frequently)
federal standard objects of expenditure.
The 1995-96 Estimates consist of three documents, one of
which (Part III) comes in multiple volumes:
The Budget and the Estimates are complex,
self-contained documents drafted by two related but distinct departments
of the federal government. Each has its own objectives, perspectives and
priorities.
Often similar information appears contradictory and/or at variance when
reported in different documents and even different volumes of the same
document. Thus, with respect to the Estimates, there are
variation for which there are apparent and sometimes substantive
variations.
First, with respect to Part I - Expenditure Plan and
Part II - Main Estimates:
Thus according to 1995-96 Part I federal savings and
lapsed spending, not reported in Part II, will increase
slightly more than $2.6 billion relative to 1994-95. If, however, planned
reserves are included then this figure falls to less than $0.7 billion.
Furthermore, such savings and lapsed spending is not attributed to
individual departments and agencies in 1995-96 Part II.
Second, since 1986 Part II reports only main estimates for
both the current and forthcoming year. But in any given year a government
introduces Supplementary Estimates increasing or decreasing
proposed spending. These changes are no longer reflected in Part
II. Similarly, government may not spend all monies voted by
Parliament. These differences too are not reported, year over year, in
Part II.
Prior to 1986, these adjustments were reported under "forecast
estimate" for the year finishing. While not an actual figure, the
forecast allowed some sense of this year's estimate relative to last
year's likely spending. In fact, previously Part II provided
five years of data including three years of actual spending, one year of
forecast and next year's estimate. This change may, or may not, reflect
the ascendancy of commercial chartered accountancy (reporting two years of
data and adjusting definition of expenditure items required by changing
circumstances) and traditional practice in both registered industrial
accountancy (up to ten years of data with constant definition) as well as
public sector accountancy (at least five years). Nonetheless, credible
statistical trend analysis can only be conducted with at least five years
of data.
Third, Part III (introduced in 1986) reports for each of
78 individual departments and agencies in separate volumes. In many cases
Part III displays five years of data including estimated
spending for the forthcoming year, forecast spending for last year and
actual spending for the previous three years. But these are reported only
department-by-department, i.e. no single figure for the federal government
as a whole is available in Part III.
Fourth, federal programs with which communities of interest are most
familiar are usually not reported in the Budget and may not
be reported in the Estimates. Thus, the
Estimates report "Votes" of the House of Commons. For
example, grants and contributions under "Cultural Initiatives" (a program
very familiar to the cultural community) are part of "Vote 10 - Grants and
contributions: Canadian Identity Program, Canadian Heritage". This means
distribution within the Canadian Identity Program is, to a great extent, a
ministerial or bureaucratic prerogative and priority. Thus latitude is
provided to officials permitting "back-pocket" budgeting whereby ministers
or bureaucrats may, if they wish, play one group against another without
published information by which they can be held accountable.
Fifth, there are in excess of 25 consolidated specified purpose federal
accounts reported as a single entry in Part II in the
"General Summary" to the Main Estimates. In 1994-95, these
accounts amounted to some $19.9 billion or 12.4% of all federal spending
of $161.1 billion; in 1995-96, $14.8 billion, or 9% of all federal
spending of $164.8 billion. In fact, estimated reductions to these
specified purpose accounts represented the largest single decrease (25.6%
of the reduction between 1994-95 and 1995-96) in federal spending. But
these accounts are not described or even named in Part II.
An accounting of these funds (reduced as planned or not) will be available
only in the 1995 Public Accounts to be published in two
years.
It is important to appreciate the "wiggle room" provided by these
limitations within the federal Budget and
Estimates. The government can, in effect, quote different
numbers to suit different purposes. Consider, for example, global federal
spending. According to Part II - Main Estimates, total
federal spending for all departments, agencies and specified purpose
accounts will increase 2.3% from $161.1 billion in 1994-95 to $164.8
billion in 1995-96. Excluding specified purpose accounts, spending by all
federal departments and agencies will increase by 6.2%. But if one then
excludes the Public Debt Program of the Department of Finance, then
spending by all federal departments and agencies will increase by only
1.7%.
And if one uses Part I and considers only federal
transactions with outside parties (including public debt payments) and
includes planned savings (requiring parliamentary approval) and
anticipated lapsed spending (allowing for reserves), then total federal
spending will increase by only 0.4% over 1994-95.
In fact of 25 departments and agencies reported in the "General
Summary" of Part II, eleven will increase and fourteen
decrease. Thus the Department of Finance will experience a 19.1% increase
while the Public Debt Program will increase only 17.3%. Accordingly,
excluding the Public Debt Program, the Department of Finance budget will
increase 28%.
In the Budget Plan, however, the Minister does not provide
data directly comparable with the Main Estimates. Rather he
claims departmental spending will decrease 19% over the next three years.
Because such cuts include "out years" they are subject to more uncertainty
than cuts proposed this year. Accordingly, one can say federal spending
will go up 2.3%, 6.2%, 1.7% or 0.4%, or it will decline 19% over the next
3 years. Which statement is "true"? Does the current format for the
Budget and Estimates provide accountability and
transparency of the Government to public scrutiny?
Beyond general technical limitations, another question arises about the
Budget and Estimates. What should be included
to encompass any given federal public policy sphere such as science,
industry or culture? How many and which departments and agencies share
responsibility?
For purposes of this article, the federal cultural budget is examined.
But issues that will arise in culture will probably also surface in
examination of other public policy spheres. In this way, this article is
a case study of the broader question of definition of relevant spheres of
public policy and budgeting.
Using a broad UNESCO-like definition adapted to the Canadian context,
culture is inclusive of the arts, the so-called cultural industries,
heritage and heritage sites, multiculturalism and heritage languages,
native culture, official languages, parks, recreation and sports.
With creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage, there now exists
a bureaucratic structure that, on the surface, corresponds to this broad
UNESCO-like definition. But before reviewing its Estimates,
what other departments or agencies share in the federal cultural budget?
The Main Estimates reveal that at least eleven other federal
departments
and agencies are "culturally active", i.e. some or all of their
programs fall under the broad UNESCO-like definition. These are:
And with so many departments and agencies, one faces a further
definitional problem -- what constitutes administration or management? If
by management we mean activities not delivering goods or services to
clients outside a department and agency then the Main
Estimates use many different names, e.g. Administration, Corporate
Services, Operational Support, etc. Standard Objects of Expenditure do
not clarify the question; nor does netting out grants and contributions
from a department's total budget. Thus readers are advised that in
measuring the federal cultural budget there exists no standard definition
of administration or management.
No matter what economic or political rationale, the Department is
cultural in nature in that it acts as the intake valve for official
multiculturalism. From language training to resettlement of refugees, the
activities of Citizenship and Immigration have profound cultural
implications. The Main Estimates show that the budget for
the Department and its agency (the Immigration and Refugee Board) budget
will increase 1%. Excluding the Board, the departmental budget will
increase 2% in 1995-96 while the Corporate Services budget will increase
134%.
The Department, in addition to its own activities, is responsible
for five agencies: the Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA); the Export Development Corporation; International Development
Research Centre (IDRC); International Joint Commission; and, the
NAFTA Secretariat. An unestimated share of CIDA's budget of nearly
$2 billion is spent on cultural activities abroad.
The budget for the Department, excluding agencies, will decline 7.4% in
1995-96 while its Communications and Culture budget will decline 47.1%.
Communications and Culture-related transfers will decline 34%. Buried in
these figures is the budget for the Higher Education and International
Culture Bureau which projects Canada's cultural image abroad. At the same
time the Operational Support, Human Resources and Administration budget of
the department will increase 11.9%.
While the Governor General plays a mainly constitutional role many
activities are cultural in nature. In the Main Estimates
such cultural activities fall under "Honours", the budget for which will
decline by 5.1% between 1994-95 and 1995-96. The overall Governor
General's budget will decline by 2.6%. All other activities will
experience a decline of 1.9%. No identifiable item is reported concerning
the administration or management budget of the Governor General.
In the Main Estimates there is an unidentifiable budget
for support of cultural studies and as well as an identifiable budget for
the recently created Canadian Artist and Producer Professional Relations
Tribunal. While the overall Departmental budget will increase 2.2%
between 1994-95 and 1995-96, Corporate Services will increase 18.6%.
In the case of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, one can argue
that the whole of the department's Indian and Inuit Affairs activities are
cultural. Native peoples have distinct cultures that set them apart from
mainstream Canadian society (including official multiculturalism) and from
one another. All programs designed to aid and assist First Nations people
are thus, at root, cultural in nature. The Main Estimates
show that the budget of Indian Affairs Northern Development will increase
6.5% in 1995-96. The Indian and Inuit Affairs part of the Department will
experience an 8.8% budgetary increase. The Administration Program budget
will, however, decline 6.2%.
In addition to its own activities, the Department is responsible
for nine agencies of which four have at least some cultural policy
implications. These are:
Internally, the Department conducts at least four activities with
cultural consequences. These include:
Through these internal programs the Department provides
culturally-related grants and contributions, which will decline 31.9%.
The Department's overall budget will decline by 4.5% while the Corporate
and Advisory Services' budget, the closest to a management line item, will
decline 4.3%.
The Privy Council is the department primarily responsible for
the operation and support of central decision-making. It is also
responsible for eight agencies, one of which is culturally-related, the
Commissioner of Official Languages, whose budget will decline
6% between 1994-95 and 1995-96. The overall departmental budget
will increase 6.6%. There is no identifiable item for management
within the Main Estimates.
In addition to its own operations, the Department is responsible
for three agencies of which two have significant cultural consequences:
In addition, the Department is host to the Old Port of Montreal
Corporation, which is a major national cultural facility and whose budget
will not decline. By contrast, Harbour Front in Toronto, another
nationally significant cultural facility, had its grant eliminated. But
no identifiable line item exists in the Main Estimates.
Internally, the Architecture, Engineering and Reality Service
supervises the visual ecology of all federal construction and its budget
will decline 14.6%. While there is no identifiably management item in the
Main Estimates, the overall departmental budget will be
reduced 5.2%.
There are three economic diversification agencies of the federal
government. Two are stand-alone agencies: the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency whose budget will increase 0.7%; and, Western
Economic Diversification whose budget will increase 5.7%. The Quebec
Regional Development Office is housed within the Department of Finance and
its budget will increase 7.8% between 1994-95 and 1995-96. All three
support culturally related projects as part of their mandates. No
management information is available in the Main Estimates.
The Department of Canadian Heritage was formed just before the last
federal election. Essentially, it was created by merging the former
Departments of Communications and Secretary of State, and the Parks Canada
Program of the Department of Environment. In the process, however,
certain parts of the former Department of Communications including
spectrum management were hived off to a newly constituted Department of
Industry.
In effect, and excepting activities of secondarily culturally active
departments and agencies, Canadian Heritage is responsible for the broad
UNESCO-based definition of cultural policy inclusive of the arts, the
so-called cultural industries, heritage and heritage sites,
multiculturalism and heritage languages, native culture, official
languages, parks, recreation and sports.
In addition to its own activities, Canadian Heritage is responsible for
fourteen cultural and two non-cultural agencies of the federal government.
Non-cultural agencies include the Public Service Commission and the
Women's Bureau (so-called by the author and representing the amalgamation
of the former Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Office of
Co-ordinator - The Status of Women which are reported separately in the
Main Estimates).
It can be argued that the Public Service Commission would more
appropriately be under the Minister of Human Resources Development or
Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the Women's Bureau
could be considered a cultural agency in the same way that
multiculturalism, native culture and official languages are cultural. For
purposes of this article, however, it is assumed that economic and legal
rather than cultural objectives are the primary purposes of the Women's
Bureau.
In the Main Estimates, the Canadian Heritage departmental
budget will decrease by 14.8%. The Department operates three programs:
The program consists of three activities:
In the Main Estimates information is available only at the
activity and sub-activity level. Overall, the Canadian Identity Program
budget will be reduced 21.1% while the budget for Participation
will decline 21%; Official Languages will decline 8.1%; and,
Cultural Development and Heritage 25.1%.
The program consists of three activities:
In the Main Estimates data is available only at the activity
level. Overall, the Parks Canada budget will decline 6.2% while
Operations will decline 1.9%; Development by 20.5%; and, Program
Management and Technical Services 18.2%.
The program consist of two activities:
The overall budget for all fourteen cultural agencies reporting to
Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage will decrease 2%
between 1994-95 and 1995-96. The distribution of decreases among the
agencies is, however, uneven.
According to the Main Estimates, the total Canada Council
grant from the government will decline 2.6% Canceled grants and refunds
will increase, however, 95.1% and Administration will increase 3%.
Support to the arts will decline 2.4%.
The total C.B.C. grant from the federal government will decline 2.4%.
Support for specialty services will increase 58.1% and miscellaneous
revenues by 39%. Advertising revenues will decline 2% and support for
both television and radio services by 2.8%. Corporate Management Services
will decline 4.2% and Corporate Engineering Services will by 6.8%.
According to the Main Estimates, the total C.F.D.C. grant
from the federal government will decline 10.3% while expected revenues
from sales and other commercial sources will increase 57.6%.
Administration will decline 2.6% and support for Investments, Loans,
Promotion and Distribution will decline by 2.7% while the Canadian
Broadcast Development Fund will decline 8.0%.
The total federal budgetary requirements will increase 21.2%
while accommodation will increase 133.1% reflecting transfer of
responsibility from the Department of Public Works and Government
Services. This, in turn, reflects final deconstruction of the
former Canadian Museums Corporation. Research activities will
increase 14.9%; support to the Canadian War Museum by 10.4%; and,
general revenues 4.8%. The Collections budget will decline 0.4%;
Museum Services 8.1%; Exhibitions and Programs by 17.9%; and,
Public Affairs by 29.3%.
According to the Main Estimates, total federal budgetary
requirements will increase 37.8% while accommodation will increase
5,203.5%, reflecting transfer of responsibility from the Department of
Public Works and Government Services. This, as with the Canadian Museum
of Civilization, reflects final deconstruction of the former Canadian
Museums Corporation. General revenues will increase by 33.3%; Research
activities by 10.4%; and Collections by 4.8%. Public Programs will
decline by 3.5%, and Corporate Services by 23.2%.
Responsible for regulation of the public airwaves and
telecommunications, total C.R.T.C. budgetary requirements will decrease
1.1% while support for Broadcasting will decline 3.3%; Executive
Management by 4.7%; and Corporate Services by 9.2%.
According to the Main Estimates, total federal budgetary
requirements will decrease by 1.9% while Administration will increase
13.9%. Services, Awareness and Assistance will decline 2.1%; Holdings
Development & Management by 9.3%; and, Management of Government
Information by 14.8%.
Total budgetary requirements will decrease 10.9% while Building
Operations will decline 2.5%; Commercial Services by 5.7%; Administrative
Services by 8.2%; support for the Performing Arts by 10.2%;
and, Program Support by 14.9%.
According to the Main Estimates, total federal budgetary
requirements will decrease 2%. No additional information is available in
the Main Estimates.
Total federal budgetary requirements will decrease by 7.7% while
general revenues will increase 18.1% and Real Asset Management &
Development by 7.4%. Corporate Services will decline 12.8%; Promotion and
Animation by 19.5%; and, Planning by 31.2%.
According to the Main Estimates, total federal budgetary
requirements will decrease 7.1%, while Distribution will increase by 6.1%
and Training by 5.4%. Technical Research will decline by 2%;
Administration by 6.5%; and, Programming by 9.3%.
Total federal budgetary requirements will increase 20.7%, while
accommodation costs will increase 91.3%, reflecting transfer of
responsibility from the Department of Public Works and Government
Services. This, as noted above, reflects final deconstruction of the
former Canadian Museums Corporation. General revenues will increase
39.2%; Administer 5.7%; Collect 1.2%; and Educate and Communicate 0.6%.
Use of terms like "Administer" and "Collect" highlight the idiosyncratic
nature of reporting by different agencies.
According to the Main Estimates, total federal budgetary
requirements will decrease 7.8%. No additional information is available
in the Main Estimates.
Total federal budgetary requirements will increase 33.6% reflecting,
partially, transfer of responsibility from the Department of Public Works
and Government Services. Support for the National Museum of Science and
Technology will increase 42.6% and support for the National Aviation
Museum by 39.6%. General revenues will increase 7.2% while Common
Services will decline 1.7%.
In this article the component parts of the Budget and the
Estimates were described as part of the larger cycle of
public accounts. The Main Estimates were then used to
calculate the 1995-96 federal cultural budget relative to its 1994-95
level. To conclude, consideration is paid to issues of comparability and
definition.
While the Main Estimates were used to calculate the
federal cultural budget, more detailed data is available in Part III
- Canadian Heritage Expenditure Plan as well as Part
III's or annual reports for other departments and agencies.
Part III provides estimates for both 1995-96 and 1994-95 as
well as forecast data for 1994-95 and actual data for the previous one,
two and sometimes three years.
There are, however, three problems associated with Part
III. First, cost is a problem. Together, Parts I, II
and III (78 separate reports) cost $960.85 plus GST.
Separate annual reports are also be required for each cultural agency not
reporting through Part III. With Budget
documents, the cost (not including time and effort in adding up data for
all relevant departments and agencies) is well over $1,000.00. This is
the minimum price of accountability of federal spending to public
scrutiny. This cost could be significantly reduced if the pre-1986 format
for the Main Estimates was reinstated reporting five years of
data .
The federal government has, however, announced that within a few years,
the Budget and Estimates will be available in
electronic as well as paper format. This does not mean electronic
information will be free. Federal policies are, at present, ambiguous and
subject to differing departmental policies. Treasury Board, for example,
tends to make electronic products available to libraries at no cost, while
the Department of Finance applies a cost-recovery policy in some cases,
e.g. detailed budget papers. Parts I and II of
the 1996-97 Estimates will be provided by Treasury Board in
electronic format.3
Second, Part III for Canadian Heritage presents
compatibility problems. Thus while the Participation and Official
Language Support components of the Canadian Identity Program are reported
for five years, sometimes down to the level of grants and contributions,
the Cultural and Heritage Development component is not. Similarly, Parks
Canada and Corporate Management are reported for only this year's
estimates, last year's forecast and one previous year's actual spending.
This inhibits trend line analysis which requires at least five years of
data. Furthermore, while total budgetary requirements of cultural
agencies are reported in Part III for five years, data at the
activity level is available only in Part II - The Main
Estimates for last year's and this year's estimates.
Third, even if one used all 78 volumes of Part III, data
will not necessarily agree with the Public Accounts for the
corresponding year. Formats of the Estimates and
Public Accounts are not necessarily compatible. The degree
of difference will be the subject of a subsequent article.
It is clear from calculating the federal cultural budget that
definition of management or administration varies between departments
and agencies. Without a compatible definition it is not possible
to determine resources directed at providing the Canadian people
with goods and services.
For accountability and transparency of government actions to be
accessible to any Canadian or community of interest, government spending
in any public policy sphere such as culture should be reported in one
place, at one time and at a reasonable cost. This would require, of
course, formal recognition of "legitimate" communities of interest not
rooted just in geography or political allegiance but also in "conceptual
space" where, nonetheless, they exist as "real" public policy spheres of
influence.
That this is possible is evident in France with respect to
international cultural relations. Since 1982, the Government of France
has required all departments and agencies to make an annual report
concerning international cultural relations (État
récapitulatif des crédits concurrent à l'action
culturelle de la France à l'étranger, No. 82-126 du
décembre 1982). The results are compiled and published. A similar
approach is possible in federal cultural as well as all other public
policy spheres.
Similarly, spending consequences of all government actions should be
accountable and transparent to public scrutiny by any Canadian or
community of interest. But for this accounting to happen, it should be
reported in one place, at one time and at a reasonable cost.
Reinstatement of the pre-1986 format for Part II - The Main
Estimates would be a useful first step. It would also provide a
timeline supporting trend analysis and therefore measurement of the
momentum of government towards its long term objective, i.e. to fulfill
its democratic mandate. This would require, of course, that actual
spending, not just will-o'-the-wisp promises or threats, be reported.
A significant second step would be the re-design of all three
parts of the public accounts cycle -- Budget,
Estimates and
Public Accounts -- using the same definitions and parameters.
Distortion
between the Budget and the Estimates has been
demonstrated.
Distortion between these and the Public Accounts will be the
subject
of a future article -- in more than two year's time -- after a final
accounting for the 1995-96 federal cultural budget.
[1] May be cited as/On peut citer comme suit:
Harry Hillman Chartrand, "The 1995-96 Federal Cultural Budget: A Case
Study in Canadian Government Budgetary Information," Government
Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Vol.
2, no. 3.2 (winter 1996).
In this time of government retrenchment and transition to a global
knowledge-based economy, Canada confronts challenges and changes of a
magnitude not seen since the "Dirty '30s". In this transition,
the accountability and transparency of government actions is critical to
planning by all communities of interest. The traditional instrument
holding the senior governments of Canada accountable and transparent is
the cycle of public accounts beginning with the annual Budget and
Estimates and ending with the Public Accounts reporting actual spending
two years later.
Introduction
CPA Components
Limitations
Wiggle Room
The Federal Cultural Budget
Cultural Policy Definition
Culturally Active Departments
Citizenship and Immigration
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Governor General
Human Resources Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Industry
Privy Council
Public Works and Government Services
Three Economic Diversification Agencies
Canadian Heritage
Canadian Identity Program
Parks Canada
Corporate Management Services
In the Main Estimates information is available only at the
activity level. The overall budget for Corporate Management Services will
increase 5.2% while the budget for Coordination will decline -1%;
and, Regional Support increase 16.9%.
Cultural Agencies
Canada Council
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Film Development Corporation
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Canadian Museum of Nature
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
National Archives
National Arts Centre
National Battlefields Commission
National Capital Commission
National Film Board
National Gallery
National Library
National Museum of Science and Technology
Conclusions
Comparability
Definition of Management
Public Policy Sphere Definition
Formalization of a Cycle of Public Accounts
Notes
Harry Hillman Chartrand
Cultural Economist
706 Lansdown Avenue
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7N 1E5
telephone (306) 242 1779
[3] See:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tb/estimate/estime.html