I would like to be able to tell you that today, Madam Chair. I will have to defer to the secretary to confirm that, but I can give you the salient points of the study.
If we look at the study itself, on page 11, we asked the consultants to compare the Canadian situation with a number of countries. We asked them to look at where some of the Westminster countries, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K., are in that process. We also asked them to look at France and the U.S. and the Netherlands. It was not a random selection, but these countries are known to be the most advanced in terms of financial management and financial reporting.
The U.S. has no plan whatsoever to implement accrual accounting for budgetary appropriation. Reform there is focused on improved performance measurements and reporting, so the largest country in terms of resources has decided not to go that route.
The Netherlands has decided to go to accrual budgeting and reporting at the agency level, but the appropriation remains at the cash and commitment base, so there is a mixed bag with these countries.
Probably the three closest to pure accrual accounting for appropriation would be New Zealand, Australia, and the U.K.
When we look at page 12, the perspective of selected Canadian jurisdictions, the study looked at the experience of the moment in Alberta, B.C., and Ontario in particular, and we also looked at what's happening in the other provinces--Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. There is no doubt the provinces are ahead of the federal government in that field. B.C. and Alberta, in particular, have the strongest approach to accrual-basis appropriation.
When we look at page 13, the conclusions of the study, in terms of potential benefits, improved transparency is one that comes back all the time, from the perspective of having fewer reconciliations. If you manage on a basis and you report on that basis, you don't have to do that reconciliation at the end of the year because you manage it throughout the year on that basis, which improves transparency. Also, financial statements are better understood, because if everybody is working on the same basis, it makes life simpler for everybody to report on one basis and manage on one basis. There is improved accountability, better information with which to hold government to account. It's easier to compare financial results with plans. There is also improved management, better information on cost of programs, because you then have the full cost of programs.
Looking at the investments in capital assets, when you look at the overall scheme of things in the federal government, our expenses are about $210 billion, we invest about $4 billion to $5 billion a year in capital investment, so that gives you better handling of that $4 billion to $5 billion.
There are also all the other non-financial assets and liabilities. I'm talking about loans, environmental liabilities, land claims. There is a better understanding of these.
What is important also, as my colleague has said, is the separation of cash management from program management. Cash should be managed as a treasury function. The role of the Department of Finance is to make sure the Government of Canada has the cash. We should not be multiplying that responsibility by 10,000 financial officers--