I understand that. There are ongoing dilemmas. There are pros and cons, and we recognize that, but the difficulty I'm having with this is that when you're stuck in never-never land, and you don't have either system--you have a combination of both--you effectively are creating much more work, potential duplication, and obvious oversights, as we've seen from many, many situations, such as Place Victoria, and so on.
I note here the statement in the Auditor General's report that says, “The lack of progress in resolving this important issue and the weaknesses in internal controls are the chief reasons for the unsatisfactory progress in improving financial information...”. This is a very definitive statement to me, and I just don't think we can ignore this. I don't think there is a more important issue before Parliament than the process we're going to use to evaluate our financial information.
Well, if we cannot have accurate information, we cannot make intelligent decisions. We have to get to a system. Now whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, of course, you gentlemen will bear ultimate responsibility for giving us that information. Mr. Moloney mentioned that it has taken seven years to organize data. Excuse me, but there's either an unbelievable level of incompetence or a total lack of decision-making. How can you take seven years to come up with a particular information package on a particular component of the financial structure? That just blows my mind.
Either I totally underestimate the duty and the responsibilities and the complexities--and I certainly wouldn't want to have your job, because I recognize how difficult that is.... What I am suggesting is that nothing will happen unless there's a decision, and to me--and I agree with all my colleagues around this table who have spoken before me--there does not appear to have been a conclusive decision reached by the government and/or the bureaucracy to implement accrual accounting to its fullest degree.
People say that maybe we could, but we should do another study. Study means only one thing to me: delay.
We have a great deal of expertise in-house--Mr. Moloney, Mr. St-Jean, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Timmins--and around the table. We have a tremendous wealth of talent in-house, and, gentlemen and ladies, you have a job to do. To my mind, it's your job to bring forth those recommendations and bring them to us so we can, in our own small way, at least have some input.
If nothing else, we have the vote of public opinion, which in most cases we represent a little closer tie to than you do. We generally have a better feel for what the public is thinking, because that's our domain, and that's very important too. We have to be cognizant of the mood of the country and the direction the country wants to go.
So I think our input is valid, but from a technical perspective, we need you to provide us with the information, and we seem to be stuck. We're stuck. Madam Fraser has put forth a very clear, presentable package on why we should implement accrual accounting. It has been done for years, since back in 2001, and we're still stuck. We're making incremental progress. To me, that is just not acceptable.