It's a long story.
The private sector has been using accrual accounting for many years, while governments across Canada were using cash accounting.
It was cash accounting then, versus accrual accounting. For the non-accountants around the table, here is a very simple example. With cash accounting, if you buy a car you have an expense of $20,000 on the day you buy it. Under accrual accounting, you would depreciate that vehicle over ten years or five years, or however long you're using it, so you'd have an amortization expense. It's more complicated than that, but that's a simple example.
This change was good in that it helped us to understand all of the government's assets and liabilities. It focuses on assets and liabilities, which was not the case in the past.
I think that was a positive change.
That said, it was a massive change, and any change such as that requires an awful lot of work. It was not done overnight; it took many years of preparation. It helps us follow best practices, and the standards are independently set, so it was a good practice.
That being said, Parliament still votes funds to departments on a cash basis. That subject comes up frequently for debate, as the estimates.
The government's estimates still function on a cash basis, because it is easier to understand. That is the first reason.
That still exists, then, on a cash basis, but the budget of the government and the public accounts are based on independently set accounting standards for the public sector. They're accrual-based, comparable in a sense to what has happened in the private sector.