Evidence of meeting #2 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
There are some jurisdictions that have decided not to do accrual budgeting and accrual appropriations. I'd ask my colleagues to jump in here and help jog my memory. For example, France, I believe, has decided not to do the accrual budgeting and appropriations.
I'm not aware that anybody has actually gone that way and reversed.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm not aware of it, although Australia seems maybe to be thinking about it.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Government Accounting Policy and Reporting, Treasury Board Secretariat
Let me add one comment concerning Denmark as well. The message back from the parliamentarians was that they find this accrual appropriation stuff really confusing. They have not yet reversed it, but they may be headed in that direction as well.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Is this a trend, or do you think these are one-offs? I won't hold you to it.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm not sure it's a trend. And don't get me wrong; I think there are some very important management things that accrual appropriations do that are right. I just think there might be another way to get there that's easier to do, without going down that route.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's fine. The only reason I'm asking is that you raised it, and until now, since I came on this committee almost five years ago, it has been motherhood. Suddenly, maybe there are some questions. Anyway, thank you for that.
Further to questions Mr. Kramp was asking, I have one more. Under the internal audit policy, are at least the audit committees up and running in all the departments? Is that feature at least in place?
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Right now we have about 30 audit committees up and running. It's just the big departments that have them. I think we're shooting for 46, and they're supposed to have them in place in the next couple of months. The latest report I have had is that by the end of March we will have 42 out of 46, or something like that. So we're pretty much—
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
A lot of it is just matching, getting the right people. These are people external to the government—
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
—so you're trying to get the right sort of mix. You want to have someone who understands finance and statements, someone who maybe just knows the business but may not be a financial expert, maybe someone who knows nothing about the business.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
It came in place in April 2006, I think.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Really? We're coming up to three years to put a committee together. Usually Parliament is pretty good about putting committees together—it is done to avoid issues. Anyway, hopefully this will get on track.
My last question, Chair, concerns the text under the heading on page 2.39, “Clarity”, which is what I'm seeking. The opening paragraph is all I will read, and then I will leave the questions with you.
The government continues to call its accumulated deficit “federal debt” in some of its publications. I understand that the government uses this wording to eliminate confusion about its annual surplus position. However, I
—meaning the Auditor General—
remain concerned that Canadians could misinterpret this expression, which may leave an incorrect impression about how the annual surplus is actually used.
So my question concerns the text under the heading of “Clarity”.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could address that one very briefly.
As has been discussed today, the surplus for last year was $9.6 billion. Sometimes one reads in the press that the entire $9.6 billion was used to pay down the debt. The numbers I would call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, appear on page 2.6 of volume 1. This is the Government of Canada's “Statement of Financial Position”.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, it's page 2.6 of volume 1.
I will give the member a moment to find page 2.6.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
No, I'm sorry. I'm getting to page 2.39, and that's the end.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Let me refer you to page 2.6 of volume 1 for a second.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
The way that surplus number of $9.6 billion works its way through this statement is that the accumulated deficit, on the bottom of that page, went from $467 billion to $457 billion. If I call your attention to a point a little further up the page, to the line that says “total interest-bearing debt”, you'll find that the total debt of the Government of Canada on which we pay interest in fact declined by $18 billion.
That's the reason for the Auditor General's concern. To say that the surplus automatically goes to pay down debt isn't technically correct, because in this particular year the interest-bearing debt of the Government of Canada went down by an even further amount. In other years it could go up, even though you had a surplus.
5 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It arises because--