Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 20th, 2013

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

The other area of interest that is at the top of my mind, as a new member of the committee, is the preparation of these public accounts. I want to ask you in a moment to just tell me how your department meets that monumental challenge.

But before I do, I should just clear up one thing that's still bothering me. Which department is actually the author of the discussion and analysis that I have been referring to? It didn't seem to be your department; you referred me to Mr. Robidoux. Does the finance department write this discussion and analysis?

[Jim Ralston]

Yes, to the extent that much of it is the interpretation of the numbers rather than the compilation. Their expertise is in that area.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, time has expired, sir.

Thank you.

I'm advised by the official opposition that this being an NDP speaking slot, and in light of staff having a response to Mr. Giguère's question, I'm going to permit that response to be given now in this slot. Mr. Giguère can then pick up the discussion for the balance of the time allotted.

With that, I turn the floor over to whoever is going to provide an answer.

[Michel Vaillant, Senior Director, Public Accounts Policy & Reporting, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Merci, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Giguère, you're quite correct in the sense that the exact difference you are referring to is $3.3 billion. What happened is that we should have actually put a little memo at the bottom of this to state....

If you recall in the public accounts last year, what actually happened is a lot of the GBEs converted to international financial reporting standards. As such, there was an adjustment of $3.3 billion that was booked in the prior year. Essentially, the biggest component was Canada Post, where they basically had some $3 billion. They fully recognized their pension obligation on their books. That restatement was done in the prior year. When you look at the closing number at the end of 2011, that is exactly the number that we closed with.

Last year, because of this restatement, the $616 billion became $620 billion once we had the adjustment. To make this more clear, we should have actually made a note of it to disclose the fact that the $620 billion was a restated amount, taking into consideration that one-time adjustment that was done in the prior year.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Giguère, you have the floor, sir.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, I was just given a figure that doesn't appear anywhere and that I can't check. Regardless, even if you add $3.3 billion, you get about $620 billion. Of course, it is possible. But I would still like you to confirm the figure you just pulled out of your hat, a figure I can't find anywhere in the financial statements.

[Michel Vaillant]

The reality is it's an adjustment that was done in the previous year. In the Public Accounts I have in front of me, I can clearly show you the adjustment that was done. It's just that, in carrying it forward this year, we used the new balance as the basis, and we didn't show the $3.3 billion. I can, nevertheless, show you the amount here.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I'm satisfied, Mr. Chair.

May I ask another question?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You still have the rest of your time if you wish it, sir.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I want to ask you about section 6, which is entitled “Interest-Bearing Debt”. In table 6.1, under debt, bonds are listed as $469.038 billion and change. The problem is that it refers to table 6.2, and in that table, the $469 billion becomes $477 billion. Here, again, we have an amount that just appears or disappears, $8 billion in this case. This is the same problem. Was some piece of information not provided?

At the top of table 6.1, in the far right column, the amount listed under March 31, 2013 is $469.038 billion. That amount does not, however, appear again in table 6.2. The figure that does appear at the very bottom of the table in the far right-hand column is $477 billion.

[Michel Vaillant]

The amount appears a bit higher up in table 6.2. On page 6.4, the $469.038 billion you're referring to actually appears three rows higher.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, that's $468.860 billion.

[Michel Vaillant]

Is it $469.038 billion you're talking about?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No.

[Michel Vaillant]

On the next page, the amount that appears under the heading

Total marketable bonds payable in Canadian currency

is $469.038 billion.

[Sylvain Michaud, Executive Director, Government Accounting Policy and Reporting, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I think there's a discrepancy between the French and English versions, because we're looking at the English version. You're right; in the French version, there seems to be a difference. That's an error we'll likely have to correct. In the English version, however, the figures do line up.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Fine. So you will make the correction.

[Sylvain Michaud]

In the French version, yes.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Similarly, you're going to make the correction for the amount we were discussing earlier, the $4.678 billion that isn't listed.

[Sylvain Michaud]

We can add a note.

[Michel Vaillant]

We can add a note explaining the adjustment so it's clearer.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Okay. I have finished.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Your time is finished. I have to tell you that it's not very often they make mistakes, and it's even less often that they get picked up. Well done. You get full marks. That's good work.

We'll go over now to Mr. Carmichael.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I'll be a little less technical. I'm on page 1.7 or section 1.7. You have a chart and a graph on the revenue ratios. As I look at it, I'm looking for clarity and perhaps a brief explanation. I presume this question is for Mr. Robidoux, but I'm not certain.

In that section, could you explain why the government is taking in what appears to be significantly more tax revenue despite there being a reduction in the revenue-to-GDP ratios. We're down to 14.1%. I think I understand the ratio, but I wonder if you could explain that for us.

[Benoît Robidoux]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?