Actually, I don't—
Evidence of meeting #25 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was analysis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was analysis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Just one country. Just one country out of the 187 countries that belong to the UN.
4:35 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sir, if you'd like, we can do an analysis for you that looks at the experiences of countries that have had financial crisis, that have not had financial crisis, where they are now, how big their output gaps are, where—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Jean, you should give Mr. Page an opportunity to answer your questions.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I mentioned at the beginning, Mr. Chair, that I just wanted short answers, and quite frankly, most of the answers were not answers; they were about the outlook and analysis, which I can see online.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I only have a few minutes and I have several questions to get through.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Well, that's my advice as chair, but it is your time, you're correct.
Go ahead.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Finally, I'm interested in the Perimeter Institute and something that was published online. I know you're aware of this. I'm just curious, because the NDP brought to our attention that the public accounts site and your website had different information on them.
I'm just wondering if you could clarify that, whether it was a clerical error or what the situation was, concerning the Perimeter Institute.
4:35 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
We've had some discussions with the NDP on this issue, on the Perimeter Institute.
On the numbers that we prepare, we get the numbers from the Receiver General. I think they were coded correctly. They highlight expenditures against authorities for the Perimeter Institute, plus other community action programs.
I think there was some misinterpretation by some of your colleagues as to how that was interpreted. I don't think it's a coding error, per se.
Sahir, you may want to just—
4:35 p.m.
Sahir Khan Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
In our view, there's not actually a material financial issue—this is an internal, relatively minor, coding issue between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Receiver General. Our understanding is that it's actually being resolved as we speak.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Can I just have a clarification, Mr. Chair, of what a coding issue is?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
It's just a question of the level of aggregation of the financial reporting, a couple of categories between the report the Treasury Board Secretariat provided and the information received by the Receiver General and Public Works. There was an aggregation of a few categories.
By the time that feed was reported to us, those categories were collapsed a little bit, so….
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Correct. There was no actual material issue, financially. We've contacted them and they've resolved it.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
November 2nd, 2011 / 4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I think it's very important that we get to the bottom of this, because there's a history of the NDP making statements using numbers and figures. In fact, last night in an agriculture committee the member for Churchill talked about Cargill's share value going up, which I find very interesting since Cargill is a privately held company.
I think we need to get to the bottom of this. In the analysis of funding, is the NDP right in saying the Perimeter Institute received $127 million from the Government of Canada since 2007, or is that a wildly inaccurate number?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I think the $10 million that was in the reporting is correct. The $100 million is for the full category.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
It's due to a different level of aggregation of that cost category.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
When you receive the public accounts, do you trust that the numbers are accurate?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sir, the public accounts are audited by the Auditor General.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sir, we receive the information for our database from the Receiver General. Frankly, when there are anomalies, we have an opportunity to discuss it with them, with the departments, and it's a normal process.
When it was brought to their attention, they promptly worked to resolve the issues between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Receiver General. In our view, it was not a material financial issue.
