Thank you, Chair.
I have two questions. One is on the financial results. This is the deck from the Treasury Board, on page 7. The annual deficit in budget 2016-17 was 29.4 and the actual was 17.8. Even adjusted, for the budget it was 29.4, and the actual was 15.9. Not that it's a bad thing at all that there's less debt than anticipated, but for the longest time, there has been discussion, allegations, and accusations against governments that they deliberately inflate projected deficits and then, lo and behold, by magical, wonderful management, they cut that down by half. The PBO was created in large part to try to offset that to give some sense of numbers that people can rely on.
My first question is for both the Auditor General and the comptroller. The difference between 29.4 and 17 or 15 still seems like a pretty big discrepancy. Also, do you have any thoughts on the PBO? Is it being used in a way that is most effective? I want to give both of you an opportunity to comment on the PBO because there is some concern about whether or not we've got that right.
The other question is a follow-up on what you raised earlier, Auditor General, on the reserve force pension plan and your spring 2017 report on that. I'm going to read the paragraph, and then I'm done, Chair.
It reads:
National Defence’s slow progress in resolving this matter is unacceptable.
This is the Auditor General speaking. He said it's “unacceptable”. The paragraph continues:
In the nine years since the Reserve Force Pension Plan’s creation, the Office has been unable to provide parliamentarians and plan members with assurance that the Plan’s financial statements, which include a reported pension liability of—
—wait for it—
—$650 million, are free of significant error. This situation leaves parliamentarians and Plan members without assurance that the Plan’s financial statements present credible information about the Plan’s finances.
I'd like to hear a bit more about that, please.
Thank you, Chair.