We have 250 financial auditors who work on Crowns and in departments and agencies. At some point in time, they touch the public accounts work, but we have so many others across our office.
However, the compliment for the public accounts goes to public servants. We do not prepare the financial statements. We just come in and see whether they've been fairly presented and whether the accounting is right, so I think it rests with Department of Finance, the comptroller general and the countless public servants who, on a day-to-day basis, try to maintain accurate financial records.
When it comes to capital budgeting, I have nothing to do with the budget, so my office doesn't opine on the budget. We're not involved in it. We're not consulted on the budget. The presentation is one that the government has chosen.
For me, what will be important is that the financial statements continue to follow public sector accounting principles. We will opine against that, and in order to maintain a clean opinion, the statements will need to be presented in accordance with those standards.
The definition of a “capital expenditure” for the budget deviates a little from those standards. As long as the statements then present it fairly, I think it'll be fine.
In my view, it could create confusion for a reader who is trying to crosswalk from the budget promises and commitments to the actuals that show up in the financial statements. I have had many conversations with the Department of Finance and the comptroller general's office about making it clear, going forward, that you can use the financial statement discussion and analysis to do that, but to not create additional confusion with a reader and a user of the statements.