Evidence of meeting #116 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accounts.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
The expenditures have already been recorded.
4:40 p.m.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
Then how do you account for the Phoenix overpayments or underpayments? Is there an accurate payroll at the end of the year, or do we estimate and expect to resolve it in the following year; i.e., do we use contingencies? If we're saying there's $260 million perhaps overpaid, and $300 plus a million underpaid, how do departments accurately calculate their payroll expense for the year? This seems to be a new phenomenon.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Sarai.
Before we go into an answer here, you see that the lights are blinking and the bells are ringing. It's calling us to a vote.
We are in the same building where the vote takes place. They will be half-hour bells. I will need unanimous—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Who witnesses here whether there are half-hour bells?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's a half-hour bell.
Do we have a motion to carry on until 10 minutes before...?
(Motion agreed to)
I'm sorry, Mr. Sarai. Did you finish your question?
4:45 p.m.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
I think I finished it. I just wanted to know how you accurately calculate payroll. Is the Phoenix issue still ongoing? Compared to how it was in the past, is it a challenge?
4:45 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I won't hide the fact that it's a challenge in the sense that there are errors in the pay. Basically, the different organizations have set up some control frameworks to make sure they reconcile the different pay expenditures. As an example, if we owe money to someone, at the end of the year, we do an accrual, payables, to reflect the fact that we owe money. What you're seeing here is accrual accounting. It's not because we haven't paid that person that we don't account for expenditures. Basically, when there's a recognition at the end of the fiscal year that we still owe money because of mistakes in the pay, we will still recognize the expenditure.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have three quick things.
One, when I raised the issue of the GM shares, I had the dollar amount and line item right, but it wasn't the GM shares; it was the Chrysler shares. That's my mistake.
Going back to the 2014 report from the Auditor General, it said, which was just quoted in a recent article, “we found it impossible to gain a complete picture of the assistance provided, the difference the assistance made to the viability of the companies, and the amounts recovered and lost Further on the Auditor General says, “there was no comprehensive reporting of the information to Parliament.” I'm seeking both the backstory and the going-forward story, if there is one, with regard to that.
That's one. I have only five minutes, so I'll lay my questions out and see how far we can get in an answer. That was page 132.
This is on page 161, under “Losses of public money or property—Update to cases reported in previous years' Public Accounts”. When I arrived, the sponsorship scandal was just exploding into the main event that it became for years. By the way, that all started with the Auditor General's report and this committee. That's how that all happened, and it ended with an inquest.
Most of us thought that at least the dollar aspect of the scandal, if not the political stench, was gone. I just need an explanation here, because I don't understand. It says “Sponsorship Program”, and then shows a loss in 2008-09. The amount was a little over $2.1 million. The amount recovered in previous years was $122, I guess, million. The amount recovered in 2017-18 was $15 million. The amount not expected to be recovered is over $2 billion. The amount expected to be recovered in subsequent years is zero. I'd like an explanation. Why is this still going on and what do these numbers mean?
Last, if I can, Chair, I'll just throw my question out there. It was on the RCMP, on page 170 in the section “Professional and special services” under “Protection services”. It says $140 million. I don't understand that. Someone help me. It's in volume III.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'll try to be quick.
With respect to public services procurement, obviously there's a requirement to publish any changes to previous years' losses. I don't have all of the details, obviously, but if this is something that would be completed, we would have to take a look at the reasoning for it being there. However, we have an obligation to report on these previous losses.
On the accounting, we could certainly provide the committee with an accounting of these loans regarding what amount was loaned, what amount was recovered and so on. We have that information.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's not a problem.
On the RCMP one, you said it was on page 170, right?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. It's just about halfway down the page under “Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness”. It shows the RCMP and then, under “Protection services”—which is kind of what I thought they did—which is under “Professional and special services”, there's a line item for $140 million. I just wondered what that is. I thought protection services was what they did.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Honestly, we'd have to get back to you with the details on that. They must contract out different.... Actually, you know what? One of the things that come back to me—and we can validate this—is that the RCMP offers policing services. For example, in Ontario, they have the OPP. In certain provinces, they don't.... That's probably what it is.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's revenue from the agreements they have with provinces...?
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes, and the expenditures relation.... Exactly.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Would you confirm that for me, though, please? Could you send me something?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
Yes. It's on the first two parts of his question.
October 31st, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
On the reference to our report in 2014, what we were looking for, I believe, if my memory serves me, was some sort of an assessment of how much the assistance actually helped the industry. That's different from the collectibility issue. We were looking more for some results reporting.
In terms of page 161, Mr. Chair, just for the record, the numbers on page 161 are in dollars. For example, the amount recovered in 2017-18 is $15,000, not $15 million. The amount not expected to be recovered is $2 million, not $2 billion. As you can see at the top of the table, this is shown in dollars, not in thousands.
That's just to make sure people understand the magnitude of those numbers.