Evidence of meeting #6 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was year.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Can you comment on that, Mr. Robidoux? Do you follow what I'm saying?
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes. The government has for a number of years decided to put an adjustment for risk, a provision in the fiscal framework of $3 billion per year to hedge against unexpected economic shocks. Effectively in 2012-13, as I was mentioning before, nominal GDP has been reduced significantly through the year because of global development and fairly weak commodity prices and weak domestic prices.
What this paragraph is saying is that in principle our revenue is down by $3 billion. If the shock is within this $3 billion, our revenue will be in line with what we expected. In this case the fall in GDP was important enough to go beyond the $3 billion, which forced us to reduce our forecast for revenues. I guess in itself it speaks to the fact that the $3 billion in some years is not enough to cover the potential high risk that we face.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Is it safe to say it's in fact prudent management and budgeting when you're in uncertain economic times?
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I would fully support this.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
This is a prudent approach to budgeting. It's supported by the IMF, the private sector economies we consult for, and the OECD. This is always viewed as a very appropriate and prudent approach to budgeting.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Next, I'd like to draw attention to the chart on page 1.7.
I'll stick with you, Mr. Robidoux, about that.
Sometimes we hear the accusation that the government is slashing government transfers and expenditures and seriously impairing government operations. Yet when I look at the total expenses comparison from 2011-12 to 2012-13, I see that there's been in fact an overall very modest or small increase.
Does that suggest to you that there's no wholesale slashing going on in the government?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The government has a plan to balance, and part of that plan is to control spending. There is some control of spending for sure. I will not comment on the word “slashing”. If we go into detail and we look at transfers to persons and transfers to other levels of governance, that spending has been growing year after year. The part that is more stable or slightly declining is direct program spending. Overall, you are right, that spending has been stable. In fact, in terms of...it has been increasing. It's a fact of life that public spending is not falling.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Sorry, Mr. Woodworth, your time has expired, sir.
We'll move over now to Monsieur Giguère.
November 20th, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of you for being here to help us understand these fairly complex financial statements.
On page 1.19, table 1.3 shows something rather odd. It lists a net debt at the beginning of the year in the amount of $616 billion and a $29-billion increase in the debt, for a total of $651 billion. The problem is that the amounts for those headings add up to $646.857 billion, meaning there's a discrepancy of $4.678 billion.
Could you please explain where that $4.678-billion discrepancy in the financial statements comes from? We're not talking about a few pennies, after all.
Mr. Robidoux, that question is for you.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Maybe my colleague can answer.
4:20 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. If I understand the question, we did mention there were a couple of accounting policy changes that resulted in adjustments to prior figures. I think the member may be seeing the impacts of those.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I understood that and I checked what you said. In fact, the correction appears on page 2.13. The correction appears at the top of the table: $1.341 billion. The work was done properly and the entry is right.
I come up with a discrepancy of $4.678 billion that I can't find anywhere. Normally, there are minor errors and typos and, sometimes, misprints, and I correct those. But I can't find that $4.678 billion anywhere.
As I said, the correction appears on page 2.13, and the $1.341 billion is indeed recorded at the top of the table.
4:20 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'll be one second, please.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I just want to make sure we're looking at the right year. Are we talking about 2012?
4:20 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm sorry. Would it be possible for us to do a follow-up and respond to that? We're having a little difficulty following the numbers.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Let me put it to the member.
Monsieur Giguère, the witnesses are asking if it's okay if they come back later with an answer, or you can continue to pursue it now, it's your choice.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Could you repeat your question slowly? It's just that I don't see anything off in that column.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Let me see if I can help.
Is there some difficulty being clear on the question? Is that part of it?
All right, let's take another stab at that.
Mr. Giguère, if you could explain it once more, succinctly, in the hopes that they'll grasp the essence of your question. Then I think they'd like to respond. Do you want to try again with your question?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Basically, the problem is that you're giving us numbers that don't add up. There's a mistake in the amount of $4.678 billion. For 2012, you should be adding $616.908 billion and $29.949 billion. Strangely enough, the table shows the result as $651.535 billion, but if you add it up correctly, the answer is actually $646.857 billion. The difference between your result and the correct calculation is $4.678 billion. Where does the difference come from?
If it were just a simple error such as a typo, a misprint or a calculation mistake, I would understand and just correct it.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Let's get the question clear first, and then hopefully an answer that's as clear. Do we understand the question? Yes, I'm seeing heads nodding. Do we have an answer? You're working on it. All right, stop the clock.