:
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome everyone here to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Bienvenue à tous. I want to welcome our witnesses here today.
From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, of course we have the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. With Mrs. Fraser are Douglas Timmins, Assistant Auditor General, and Frank Vandenhoven, principal.
From the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we have the Comptroller General, Charles-Antoine St-Jean, and Bill Matthews, senior director.
From the Department of Finance, we have Chris Forbes, director of fiscal policy division.
I don't believe there is anyone else.
I want to extend to each and every one of you a very warm welcome.
Mr. Williams, you have a point of order. I recognize you.
I was in the House today at routine proceedings, which, of course, start after question period. I had some petitions to present that are very important for my constituents. The meetings are now starting at 3:15, and I have a conflict between presenting petitions and being here at the committee. Why are we now starting at 3:15 rather than at the normal time of 3:30?
There were some points of order and privilege in the House after question period. I was caught in the conflict, but here I am, and I still haven't had my petitions presented.
Do we have to start at 3:15, Mr. Chair?
:
It's something that the committee can take back to the steering committee, Mr. Williams, but I can tell you where we were coming from.
It's been our experience that a lot of members try to schedule other events at 3:30, whether it be interviews, meetings with people, or going back to offices. On a lot of occasions, which you as former chair know, it's very difficult to get started at 3:30. In fact, many times we start at quarter to four. We thought we would try to start at 3:30.
If it presents a major problem for members of the committee, we can certainly revisit it. That's the reason behind it. As you can see, we're starting now and it is very close to 3:30.
But again, I'll put that on the agenda, Mr. Williams, at the next meeting of the steering committee, and we'll see what the views of the members are.
Is there anything further?
Before we ask the Auditor General for her opening remarks, I want to note a point of information.
We approved by motion the report on the Department of Public Works and Government Services that deals with the leasing of government office space. Of course, we circulated it to each and every member. According to committee practice, we gave everyone 24 or 48 hours to comment. We did not receive any comments. The report will be finalized and translated, and it will be presented in the House at the first opportunity.
If time allows, perhaps we could spend the last 20 minutes in camera, reviewing the most recent draft of the gun control report. As members are all aware, we spent a considerable amount of time on the report; however, certain amendments were made. Those amendments were made in both official languages and circulated to the committee. We want the committee to have one last look at the report. We will do that later today at the end of this meeting.
Having said that, I am now going to ask our Auditor General for her opening comments.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are pleased to be here today to brief the committee members on our report on the audited 2005-06 financial statements of the Government of Canada.
With me today are Doug Timmins, Assistant Auditor General, and Frank Vandenhoven, principal, both of whom are responsible for the audit of the financial statements of the Government of Canada.
I am pleased to see that the committee was able to hold this hearing on the day that the public accounts were tabled. The public accounts are a key accountability report of the government.
The Comptroller General will be explaining the main points in the government's financial statements to the committee, and I will talk about the highlights of my audit opinion and observations.
[Translation]
My report on the 2005-2006 financial statements is included on page 2.4 of the Volume I of the Public Accounts.
My opinion provides Parliament with the assurance that the government's financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with Government's stated accounting policies, which conform with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
My opinion can be referred to as a “clean” opinion. Our Office has been able to issue such an opinion on the Government's financial statements in each of the past eight years.
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that this is the first year in which our audit opinion indicates that the government's financial statements conform with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. This change was made because the standards of the Public Sector Accounting Board were recognized as generally accepted and auditors are now required to opine against those standards.
Given our legislative mandate to report against the Government's stated accounting policies, my opinion indicates assurance in that regard as well.
I commend the Government for producing financial statements that are fairly stated in conformity with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. Parliamentarians and all Canadians can be assured that the financial statements provide sound financial information, and in our view, Canada continues to demonstrate leadership in financial reporting for national governments.
I would like to discuss two key accounting issues that we dealt with during our audit.
[English]
Firstly, this year the government applied the Public Sector Accounting Board's revised standard on the government reporting entity. Under this new standard, organizations are considered to be part of government if they are controlled, and controlled in an accounting sense, by the government. In essence, these organizations are treated as part of the government reporting entity, and as a result their assets, liabilities, expenses, and revenues are included in the government's financial statements.
Transfers to such organizations are not treated as expenses until these organizations use the funds for their intended purposes. This was a challenging standard to implement and resulted in the following entities being included in the government's financial statements for the first time: the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.
This issue has been a long-standing item of discussion with government, and in fact the public accounts committee recommended that the government address this issue. The implementation of this new standard resulted in a reduction in the government's opening accumulated deficit of $5.1 billion. More details of the impact of this on the financial statements are found in note 2 on page 2.11 to the financial statements.
I am pleased to report that I believe the government followed a reasonable approach in implementing this standard and that it addressed this difficult issue. This results in a more complete and accurate picture of the government's financial position and results.
Secondly, the government's financial results include $3.6 billion in expenses pursuant to authority given to the government through . Of this, $3.3 billion related to transfers to provinces and territories. The government created this obligation prior to March 31, 2006, by communicating its intention to transfer funds to provinces. The actual amount of the transfer was dependent on the size of the surplus.
[Translation]
The Government's accounting treatment was acceptable for these reasons: the Government obligated itself to pay the funds; it did not stipulate any conditions on the transfers; and it had authorization from Parliament to make the payments.
These matters are discussed in more detail in our Observations, which are found starting on page 2.29 of the Volume I of the Public Accounts. In these Observations, I have also provided an update on issues raised in previous years. I am pleased to report that the issue of “netting” has been resolved. The Government continues to work on the other issues, which while important, were not so significant as to affect our audit opinion. We will continue to monitor progress on these issues.
In conclusion, I would very much like to thank the staff of the Office of the Comptroller General and of all of the departments involved in this work. The actual tabling of these accounts reflex many hours of painstaking work.
Mr. Chair, we would now be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
:
Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee to discuss the public accounts.
[Translation]
The preparation of the financial statements for the Government of Canada is a challenging task that requires sound judgment in the application of professional accounting standards. This process also requires the frequent and thorough discussion of issues with the Auditor General and her office. We are extremely pleased that, for the eight consecutive year, the Auditor General has issued an unqualified opinion on the Government's financial statements.
Canada is one of only three countries in the world, the others being Australia and New Zealand, to have such a track record of unqualified audit opinions on its consolidated financial statements. This is an accomplishment of which we should all be proud.
[English]
The government reported a surplus of $13.2 billion last year, which resulted in a reduction of the accumulated deficit from $494 billion to $481 billion. This is the ninth consecutive year that a surplus has been recorded.
The surplus of $13.2 billion was more than the forecasted surplus of $8 billion, as announced by the Minister of Finance in the May 2006 budget. Revenues were $1.3 billion higher than forecast, primarily as a result of a $1 billion foreign exchange adjustment on Canada's investment in the International Monetary Fund, which was reflective of the strengthening of the Canadian dollar. Program expenses were $4 billion lower than forecast, primarily related to lower-than-expected program spending and year-end adjustments.
[Translation]
This is also the first year that the Government's financial statements include the results of four foundations that met the revised definition of control for financial reporting purposes. This adjustment resulted in a $5.1 billion decrease to the opening accumulated deficit.
[English]
I would like to stress that accounting standards are evolving both nationally and internationally. The pace and complexity of these changes are not without their challenges for both preparers of financial statements and auditors. Currently on the horizon are new standards related to segmented reporting, government transfers, and financial instruments, which will significantly impact the government's financial statements.
The international scene is also changing, with movement to harmonize standards for the private sector. One can assume that the public sector standards will eventually follow this trend. It was announced earlier this month that the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board will be relocating its offices to Canada. This is a significant event, and it further solidifies Canada's reputation as a world leader in public sector financial reporting.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we have tabled a presentation outlining some of the key financial results for last year. That presentation is now available.
[English]
Before starting to make the presentation, I would like to thank the Auditor General and her office for the continuing professional working relationship we have enjoyed.
I would also like to publicly thank all the many government officials in Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, all departments, and my office for the very long hours and great work in enabling the tabling of these accounts.
Thank you very much. I look forward to our discussion.
:
Good afternoon, Ms. Fraser and Mr. St-Jean.
In the report tabled today, and specifically in the part with respect to Employment Insurance, I see that the year-end balance is now at $50,816,000,000 which, compared to last year, represents an increase of $2,269,000,000. Indeed, the amount then was $48,500,000,000. In addition, there was an increase last year of $2,000,000,000 over the previous year. Basically, what we have been observing for several years now is an increase of about 5% per year in the consolidated annual surplus.
In the section of the report that provides supplementary information, you stated in 2004 that the Chief Actuary for Human Resources Development Canada had said that a reserve of $15 billion was adequate. Based on the figures available at the time, you concluded that the government had not complied with the spirit of the Employment Insurance Act. However, that increase has continued, and more money is being accumulated on an ongoing basis. And yet you are not expressing the same opinion this time around.
Would you make the same comment today?
:
As you say, we are not expressing the same opinion. Under the previous legislation, rates had to be established on the basis of an economic cycle in order to ensure stability, which meant taking into account any accumulated surpluses. For five or six years running, we expressed concerns about the fact that the surplus exceeded the amount recommended by the Chief Actuary, and the Government was unable to justify that additional surplus.
In 2005, the legislation was amended. That amendment meant that surpluses are no longer taken into account for the purposes of rate setting. It is considered that every year, the account must be self-funding--in other words, that the premiums paid by employers and employees should be roughly equivalent to the amount paid out in benefits.
Page 4.17 of the English version presents detailed information with respect to revenues and expenditures for the Employment Insurance Account. The amount of $1.3 billion reflects interest credited to the account. That is not actual money; rather, these are book entries. That amount is not taken into account as regards self-financing. There will always be a surplus that is at least equal to the amount of interest, in a self-financing scenario. This year, the surplus is a little higher.
Normally, we would still expect there to be surpluses, albeit not as large as the ones we've seen in the past. Of course, if there were a surplus of $10 or $15 billion, we would have to say that the legislation is not being complied with, because revenues from the Fund would exceed the amount paid out in benefits in the course of the year.
:
We didn't think it was complex.
Talking about surprises, Mr. Chairman, look at volume III, page 2.18. The bottom line says, “Sponsorship contract”--doesn't that ring a bell?--“$1.2 million under losses of public money due to an offence, illegal act or accident--occurrences or discovery in 2005 - 2006.”
Now, I thought, Mr. Chairman, Madam Auditor General, and Mr. Comptroller General, that we had beaten this thing to death. Mr. Guité is off to jail, and there have been a few other things along the way, and we're still finding that it's raising its ugly head again. On the next page, 2.19, in the footnote it says, “The amount of reported loss”--$1.2 million--“is the confirmed loss to date. It is still preliminary to estimate a total amount of loss to the Government”.
Now, this is a surprise, Mr. St-Jean. This sponsorship scandal--is it finished or is it going to be dragging on for years, with more to be unearthed in the years to come?
:
No, you just say this is the amount expected to be recovered; you don't say that you have recovered it. Does Mr. Guité have this kind of money?
Okay, I'd like to move on, Mr. Chairman, to some random thoughts here.
On volume I, page 2.32, this is the Auditor General with her observations. But before we go there, there was another one I wanted to raise--back to volume III, page 2.14. Again, we had an interview with the CRA, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that on page 2.15 of volume III, under “Cases before the Court (CRA's estimate of the amount of tax evaded or fraudulently obtained)”: income tax, almost $82 million; goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax, $102 million. Combined there is $200 million in taxes, Mr. Chair. That is CRA's estimate of the amount that's been evaded or fraudulently obtained.
Do you have any comment on that, Mr. St-Jean?
:
Now I'm going to move to volume I. It's volume I, page 6.13, on capital leases.
I thought we had a good credit rating, Mr. Chairman. It's the Government of Canada, triple-A, and our borrowing capacity is pretty good, I thought. I'm taking a look under capital leases, Public Works and Government Services. At 269 Laurier Avenue West in Ottawa, the implicit interest rate, according to this, is 71.38%.
I hope there's a good explanation for this, because I think we're being taken to the cleaners, or somebody has got us over a barrel.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
The plan is that by 2009 the 22 or 23 largest departments will be subject to an annual audit, and we're making progress in having some of those departments go through this process. Many of them are going to an audit readiness process. One of the departments, the National Research Council, obtained a clean audit opinion this year, and there's a lesson learned on how to go about it, so work is under way to bring it up.
That would bring about 94% of all government spending subject to a direct audit on an annual basis, but it's going to be tough. It's going to be a lot of work. By 2009 we should start seeing a lot more of those departments audited. This year, for the first time, they all report their financial statements in their departmental reports, but they're unaudited; in 2009 we hope to have all of them--the 22 or 23--audited.
:
Well, we do it; it's at the consolidated level.
It really depends on the strategy that was adopted in the prior years. Different countries will do it starting by department, and then they go to the consolidated level. The strategy of governments was to do it at the consolidated level and get the audited opinion at that point in time.
The materiality level for the consolidated department is $1 billion, if I recall. As I say, at the departmental level, the materiality level will be much lower. It would take a lot more work to do the proper accounting for the fixed assets, the liability, and there would be much tougher work in the cut-off routines. We're not there yet. We don't have that maturity as yet, but we're making progress.
Back in 1990, the U.S. had the CFO Act that mandated that the 25 largest departments be audited. Some 15 to 16 years later, they still have 16 departments with a clean audit opinion; they have eight departments with a qualified audit opinion, and some of them also have a denial of audit opinion.
It takes many years. We hope we're going to be able to ramp up fast, but we don't have the system capacity to do that yet. We're working hard to build it.
:
I'd also like to add, Mr. Chair, that until about seven or eight years ago, the accounting systems of the Government of Canada were largely centralized and all the departments fed information into this one central accounting system. The decision was made to move the accounting back to the departments, so each one has its own accounting system. But there are still certain amounts that are managed centrally. Until fairly recently, things like environmental liabilities, land claims, big lawsuits and things like that were managed centrally. That responsibility has to go back to the departments if you're going to have a proper departmental financial statement.
It's part of that management decision about where balances are managed. It also affects the departmental financial statements. When we do the audit of the summary financial statements--and there's a great deal of difference in the audit--as we said, we have a materiality or what we call a relative importance of $1 billion.
Quite frankly, there are some departments we will only visit once every few years because it would be almost impossible for them to have an error of $1 billion in their accounts. When we start auditing them, it won't be $1 billion anymore, it will be much, much lower, so the level of precision they have to have in their own accounts will go up.
It's about changing systems, changing people, and changing the attention and discipline that they pay to their account balances. It has been very challenging in the ones we have done. Over the years, there have been three agencies--the Canada Revenue Agency, Parks, and the Food Inspection Agency--that have been required to have their financial statements audited. In the early years, and even yet, there are problems with the quality of data and the capacity of the people to produce really good financial statements.
To do it for the 22 departments is not an insignificant exercise.
:
I'm going to try to stay away from this tough accounting stuff and stick to something I might know a bit more about.
I take it that the response to Mr. Williams is that we don't have any of these creative accounting features in there. I'm still mystified by the terminology of a recorded or unrecorded liability, and I'm hoping we don't have any of those things in these financial statements anywhere. If there are, I think there's cause for concern.
However, I do want to go to a matter, and I went through the court awards. I notice under court awards there's an awful lot of law firms in this country receiving payments for fees and disbursements. Oh, I guess you could go to page 832; there's a whole slew of them right throughout the whole section. “Social development”--I see one there right off the bat.
:
Okay. I'd be interested.
I also notice there's a section in volume III that goes through what I would call money that was lost by the government because of illegal activities--things like, in Canada Revenue Agency, illegal use of credit cards and what I would call embezzlement, money taken out of accounts and so on. It seems like every department has some of these occurrences. The credit card one jumped out at me.
I'm assuming, sir, that people who would misuse credit cards, abscond with other people's money through credit card usage.... First of all, I'd assume they were charged under the Criminal Code, because to me that's a Criminal Code violation. Secondly, I'm assuming, as a matter of discipline, that they are no longer working for the Government of Canada. Are those safe assumptions?
I have three questions for you.
In the presentation, you said that for nine years in a row we've had a surplus and we are one of three countries that have had an unqualified opinion from the Auditor General.
As a member of the public accounts committee...if I were in private life, I know what an unqualified opinion would be—everything is audited and materiality is much lower. So how does the Auditor General give an unqualified opinion, and help me be comfortable that the accumulated errors are not going to be a problem? I think all members here want to ensure that we look after the funding of the government.
This will be the second question, so I might as well give it to you, so you know where I'm coming from. We were looking at departments, and departments seem to have less accountability, so therefore, when you're consolidating the information, the departmental financial statements may not be as kosher as you want them to be. How does the AG, as the external auditor, have a comfort level? I know you have a billion-dollar materiality, but what else gives you comfort that you can give an unqualified opinion?
:
We do our audits in accordance with the norms and standards that are generally accepted for auditors around the country, so we use the same professional standards that auditors in the private sector would. If there were an auditor in the private sector that had a corporation with revenues of $200 billion, they would be using a materiality, I'm sure, somewhere around $1 billion or more. The way we establish our importance level is based on professional standards that are recognized throughout the profession.
As well, we don't only do our audit at the Comptroller General's shop. We spend literally thousands of hours auditing through departments. I think probably our audit of the public accounts, if we include our audits of Revenue and the agencies, would be 50,000 hours or more—probably even more than that. Just the Public Accounts of Canada, without the Revenue Agency, is about 50,000 hours—
A voice: It's 30,000.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: —or 30,000, and there are another 15,000 or so in Revenue, so we would be up to 50,000 or 60,000 hours of work. And our staff go into all of the major departments and the other less significant ones on a rotational basis. All the significant balances are audited every year.
We take our professional responsibilities very seriously and make sure that when we give this opinion we believe we've done sufficient work to give an opinion on the summary financial statements. But that should not equate to giving an opinion, for example, on a departmental financial statement, because that would be a quite different level of work.
:
There are many challenges right now in producing the year-end summary financial statements. For example, I'd say one of the major ones is the way revenues are calculated. At the end of the year, the government goes through a very extensive calculation of the receivables and estimating all the revenues on an accrual basis, whereas previously it was on a cash basis. There is not a methodology currently in place that would allow the government to do that every quarter.
There are other aspects that are really only reviewed, I think, at year-end, and until that changes in government and there is more rigour—and I think that's one of the purposes the Comptroller General has in asking for departmental financial statements—I personally think it's going to be very difficult for government to produce financial statements on a quarterly basis to the same level of quality as the year-end financial statements.
I think there's a question there about the level of effort it will take and whether parliamentarians and government want to put the level of effort and the resources into doing that or to programs, for example. There's a trade-off there.
We would not have the capacity currently to audit it. We do not in fact now have the capacity to audit all of the departmental financial statements, and we're waiting to see, when the plan comes along, what it will entail. It will certainly require more resources on our part to be able to audit the 22 large departments.
:
Thank you, Mr. Poilievre, and Mr. Chairman.
I'll go right back to the sponsorship contracts on page 2.18.
You indicated, or led me to believe, Mr. Matthews, that this was a loss in a previous year, that now the money is being recovered or expected to be recovered. But this is under the heading, “Losses of public money due to an offence, illegal act or accident--occurrence or discovery in 2005-2006”. That's this fiscal year, the one we're just talking about, not back a couple of years ago, when we were dealing with the sponsorship scandal before the public accounts, as brought to our attention by the Auditor General. So it seems that you're still uncovering more money that has been lost or illegally misappropriated or stolen--whatever word you may want to use.
Am I correct in saying that?
:
Ms. Fraser, in your May Status Report, you referred to reviews and audits you had conducted in a number of departments and agencies.
In your 2004-2005 report tabled last spring, you noted that a number of deficiencies identified previously had not been corrected, which can give rise to inaccurate and incomplete financial information. Basically, that feeds into the audit process you undertake in anticipation of your annual report.
On the one hand, you present these facts in your report, but on the other hand, you say that this probably does not represent a major problem, even though you don't express it exactly in those terms. You audited or reviewed 11 separate departments and agencies.
What is a deficiency as compared to an error?
:
One thing that is very important when producing financial information is the rigour and quality of the systems and controls that are in place, particularly in relation to computer systems. The auditor audits those system controls in order to determine whether they are adequate and rigourously maintained.
For several years now, our systems audits have allowed us to identify a certain number of weaknesses as regards Parliament. For example, control of access is inadequate. Some people have more access than they should to certain things. Normally, if the controls in place are robust and adequate, as auditors, we can rely on the systems that are there and have less work to do in terms of corroborating the information. But because the systems are not as reliable, we must corroborate the information, meaning that we have to test and examine many different documents. There may be a deficiency, but when we carry out our audit, we have to compensate by doing all kinds of other things. If the system meets my expectations, before the end of my mandate, we will be able to rely on those controls and reduce the amount of corroborative work that is required. My sense is that this will be a task for the next Auditor General.
:
No. There is planning involved. If the Committee is interested, at some point, we could provide information with respect to our planning and our audit approach. I would be very pleased to discuss that with you.
We audit the 25 or 26 largest departments every year, without exception, particularly Public Works and Government Services, National Defence, Indian and Northern Affairs, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
As for smaller departments--Immigration Canada, for instance--expenditures there are considered to be less risky. Also, they are mainly for wages, and there is no significant litigation involved, as for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Thus the risk level is deemed to be lower, and as a result we carry out a detailed audit only about once every three years. If we consider the systems to be adequate and the figures to be correct, we see no need to go back every year.
As regards even smaller departments--such as Justice Canada, for example--there we are talking mainly about salaries. We audit salary systems for the Government as a whole, and for that reason, do not feel it is necessary to...
:
Yes. Let's take the Department of National Defence, for example. Because we have audited capital expenditures up to the opening balance, we can then audit all significant purchases made during the year. On a yearly basis, we audit the inventory system, because the inventory figure is important.
For the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we audit all legal proceedings to which they are a party. This same department also conducts an annual analysis of all litigation, of provisions, and of expected payables. We then re-audit each of these items every year.
We focus on the most significant items and those that present the highest risk, but at the same time, we do a general survey of the department's expenditures, to ensure that it is complying with the necessary authorizations, that it's expenditures are accounted for, and so on.
:
I think it was determined that the public accounts committee should be recommending to the government that they adopt that, because it's too difficult for them to work on cash appropriations and accrual accounting. So we should discuss that in committee and perhaps report it to the House.
My second question, Mr. Chairman—I know we may want to get on to another issue—is on volume III, p. 2.11. We're talking here about debts, obligations, claims written off or forgiven. It adds up to just under $3 billion, which is a significant amount of money even for the Government of Canada.
Have you any comments on this, Mr. St-Jean? I notice that a lot of the writeoffs, Mr. Chair, are theft of computers and staff defalcations and money stolen from the RCMP—you would think it would be safe there—and border security selling vehicles that they've impounded, and unfortunately, keeping the cash--
:
The last issue that I wanted to talk about goes back to you, Ms. Fraser. It is a contentious issue that this committee has dealt with over the last six or seven years, and that is the entire reporting on the employment insurance account. We've made recommendations, and changes have been made.
Looking forward, you always like to see the financial statements reflect the true economic substance of the transactions in government, but I see that we're still reporting on this $50 billion fund. It's called a fund, but I still find it misleading to the public. You try to simplify things, but we know, and you know, and everyone in the room knows there is no fund out there.
Tomorrow in question period the Minister of Human Resources will be asked a question: what is she going to do with this $50 billion fund that she's sitting on?
I honestly think that the employment insurance premiums should reflect the benefits paid. I know there are economic cycles that you have to take into account, but is it not a little misleading to report on this $50 billion fund every year? Could I get your comments on that?
:
Members, that concludes both rounds.
What I propose to do now is ask the witnesses for any concluding remarks they may have. At that point, I'm going to adjourn this portion of the meeting to go in camera to talk about the firearms report, which has been circulated.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing here today.
Sometimes we take partisan jibes against each other in this meeting, but certainly we have a lot to congratulate each other on. This is an excellent report; it's a clean report. From the comments I received, this country seems to be a world leader in financial reporting, accounting, and auditing.
A lot of credit goes to your office, Mrs. Fraser, and to your office, Mr. St-Jean, and the tremendous staff who work with you, the minister, and the Department of Finance.
At this point, I ask for concluding remarks.
Mrs. Fraser, is there anything you want to say?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank your committee for the interest in this.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think it's encouraging to see the committee holding a hearing on the day that the accounts are actually tabled. There were many very good questions for what I know was a very short period of time to prepare.
As you said, I think the government has a lot to be congratulated for; there is an unqualified opinion.
As well, I'd like to thank the Comptroller General and his staff again, and all the staff in the departments. It takes an awful lot of work on everybody's part to be able to produce this. So thank you.