Government Operations committee  We don't know, but as a taxpayer I would think so. As a professional accountant, I haven't looked at it.

Government Operations committee  I can't answer that either.

Government Operations committee  My understanding is when they set up the investment board for the public pension plan under Paul Martin, they did so because they had estimated the future liability and said that unless they did something, trying to manage it on a pay-as-you-go basis as they've done in the past wasn't going to work.

Government Operations committee  Do you mean the employee pension plan?

Government Operations committee  My understanding is that government departments have been managing with accrual-based information since 2001 and are already comfortable with it. That major transition was relatively smooth. The estimates are a different piece of managing your responsibilities, and it's your authority to do things; essentially in this case the authority to use public funds, and under the accrual basis the authority to use public resources broader than cash.

Government Operations committee  I think that's what it is. It's the way it's always been done, and you're right that it's a big ship to turn. My understanding is that a lot of retirements are coming up in the public service and a lot of new people coming in and they may be, if they came from a business background....

Government Operations committee  The other thing Stephenie mentioned earlier was best practices. I would strongly urge Canada not to reinvent the wheel if New Zealand has done it, Australia has done it, the U.K. has done it, and B.C. and Ontario have done it. Learn from them, and maybe that will reduce some of the costs.

Government Operations committee  It must have a lag.

Government Operations committee  I'm sorry. What's the negative impact of not moving to accrual accounting? Is that what you're asking?

Government Operations committee  There are so many different types, that I am not sure I can easily answer that question. The idea that you're providing money one way or the other way, it deserves the same level of scrutiny. I think what is important with the accrual basis is that it is a more fulsome look at the resources of government that are being used than the cash basis.

Government Operations committee  I think it is important to note that the jurisdictions that have gone to accrual-based estimates look at capital spending as well. They all have appropriations for operations, which will include depreciation expenses, but they also have capital spending that they look at. Those are big amounts, as Stephenie said in her testimony, and they still deserve parliamentary scrutiny, but you also want the departments and agencies to manage the full costs of using public resources, and depreciation is one of those costs.

Government Operations committee  Yes.

Government Operations committee  I am not sure I have the expertise to answer that question satisfactorily for you. With the international ones we looked at, it was just one piece of a whole process that was outcome oriented. You establish what outcomes you want, and then you work back and decide what use of resources is needed to get to those outcomes.

Government Operations committee  Arguably, all expenditures of government, whether they're done through the tax system or done directly, should receive parliamentary scrutiny. If tax expenditures receive less, and it's a way to get around the process by which Parliament provides scrutiny of spending, then there's an issue.

Government Operations committee  Yes.