If I brought this up at the start of the meeting, it is just because the subcommittee met and did its work. I saw that the chair of the ad hoc committee was very open to the matter of accrual accounting. His assistant attached the Auditor General of Canada's letter, which I did not agree with at all. That letter has been sent.
The subcommittee had no decision-making power, it was a working committee. Before I arrived, the members of the committee had already begun to study the accrual accounting. The budget will soon be tabled. So I feel that it is very important that we be able to use accrual accounting. However, I notice that it is mainly the departments that are having a little difficulty in applying it.
I would like you or the members of the committee to tell me two things.
First, since accrual accounting is already used in reports presented by the Treasury Board, does it mean that the work done by the subcommittee and by our committee will be of no use because the departments will be required to use the accrual method?
Secondly, on many occasions, I tried to show the committee that you cannot have accrual accounting without strategic planning. Each time, it was like I was jumping out of a box of Cracker Jack, but that is fine. Strategic planning means the three-year planning we are used to. It does not mean much to us, but it requires time and performance indicators.
Is our committee now going to hold off asking for planning that will be just like it normally is so that strategic planning and accrual accounting can be combined?