The committee met at 1:02 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Good afternoon on a beautiful, sunny Thursday. I know everyone is really excited to be inside right now, working with public accounts for the meeting today.

Today’s meeting is to review and consider the Public Sector Accounting Board’s proposed changes to their financial statements. I’m really glad to have Michael Pickup, our Auditor General, and his team here, as well as Carl Fischer, our comptroller general.

Michael, some of us on the committee were talking beforehand. We’re very excited to have you today. Not just out of normal, because we enjoy all your reports, but this one here we definitely need some input, advice and your expertise. There’s a lot of information that was shared with the committee but, obviously, little outside the realm of some of the things that we normally would consider. So we’re looking for, again, your ideas and advice and any answers as we get into some questions.

With that, I’ll maybe turn things over right away to you, Michael. Thank you again for taking the time with us today.

Public Sector Accounting Board
Proposed Changes to
Financial Statements

M. Pickup: Thank you so much.

On this nice, summery, sunny June day, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m coming from our office in Victoria, the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ, the Songhees and the Esquimalt nations as well.

I think of that daily as I’m out for my walks, as you well know now, getting into our probably 14th or 15th Public Accounts Committee meeting this year. It continues to be important, particularly as we think of this being National Indigenous History Month and having had Indigenous Peoples Day earlier this week, and the unfolding events we continue to see daily. Of course, as an Indigenous person myself, these issues will always be very important to me personally and professionally as well.

[1:05 p.m.]

I also want to acknowledge, before moving things along, that June is Pride Month in British Columbia and in Canada. It’s a time to celebrate the diversity of LGBTQI2S communities and folks, and to acknowledge the history and certainly the hardships that have been endured, but the progress that has been made and the good things that are ahead as well.

Also being a member of that group, it is important to me, personally and professionally as well, to recognize that and to offer hope to those who may look from the outside in, to say: “Those of us in these groups can get to these positions in Canada and in British Columbia as well.” It is not just for people outside of these groups as well. I do want to acknowledge that, given that June is Pride Month.

More onto our topic today, before moving along, I do want to certainly thank and recognize both Russ Jones, Deputy Auditor General, whom you know well, and somebody you don’t know yet. I think she tells me it’s her first time. I don’t know how that has happened, but she tells me it’s her first time at the Public Accounts Committee. That is Bridget Parrish. Bridget is from our professional practices group. She’s an executive director in that group. She’s going to walk through a presentation soon.

At the risk of embarrassing Bridget, part of why I chose to accept the offer to come to B.C. to be Auditor General is because I get a chance to work with smart people like Bridget. I really enjoy that and respect that. I think you’re going to see, as she walks through her presentation, just the level of knowledge and practical approach that she will bring to this, particularly for non-accountants. But she even helps those of us who are accountants have a different perspective on this as well. I didn’t want to embarrass you, Bridget, but did want to mention how appreciative I am that you’re a part of this group and what you contribute as well.

Of course, I want to thank the comptroller general. We’ve been cooperating on this. As co-professional ac­countants in this country, we all have a real interest and stake in all of this working well for the benefit of people on the committee and for all Canadians as well. We continue to cooperate and share, and go back and forth, as I think we should as well.

You may — just on this topic, before I turn it over to Bridget — know that the public sector accounting standards, of course, are used by all governments across Canada, including First Nations as well. I did just want to acknowledge that, and the work that PSAB — the Public Sector Accounting Board — is doing. Also, on somewhat of a personal note, the individual who chairs that Public Sector Accounting Board was, at one time, one of my supervisors, coaches and mentors many years ago at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, in the ’90s, when we worked together as well.

On that note, Bridget, I’m going to turn it over to you for the presentation.

B. Parrish: Thanks, Michael.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about proposed new accounting standards.

I don’t have anything to put up on the screen. I’m just going to walk you through what we did give you, and give you a few more little pieces of information as we go.

The public sector accounting standards board, or, as we like to call them, PSAB, has issued an exposure draft and is soliciting feedback from the community on a proposed new reporting model. We are very happy to know that they are soliciting feedback from public accounts committees across the country. We are very pleased that you are interested to learn more about what they are proposing and how it will impact you.

We begin by giving you a bit of context. First, in September of 2020, PSAB made the decision to adapt international public sector accounting standards principles when developing future standards, the idea being that we want our standards here in Canada to be a little more consistent with those used around the world. PSAB chose an approach that is a small step towards better consistency with international standards.

Second, it’s important to understand that along with the proposed new reporting model, PSAB is proposing a new conceptual framework. The conceptual framework is the north star that will guide PSAB in the creation of all new accounting standards. It’s also where accountants go for guidance when we don’t have a particular standard that we can follow for a particular transaction or event.

[1:10 p.m.]

Within the conceptual framework, PSAB is proposing that the objective of financial reporting in the public sector is to provide information for accountability purposes. This is a slight change from the existing conceptual framework, which has a stronger emphasis on the information being useful — and useful for decision-making purposes. PSAB’s perspective is that complete, transparent information provided for accountability purposes contributes to and informs decision-making.

One interesting thing to note is that when PSAB puts this conceptual framework in place, there is no transition period. It is effective immediately. Thankfully, it is largely consistent with our existing conceptual framework, so we are very hopeful that this will not result in significant changes.

For example, the framework remains an asset-and-liability model. This is consistent with all other widely-used frameworks around the world. There is no significant change to the definition of liabilities and assets. Those are the building blocks of the model. That gives us some comfort that we won’t have any significant changes coming when that goes into effect.

So what is changing? First off, PSAB is proposing to split liabilities into two categories: financial and non-financial. We already classify assets between financial and non-financial, and they are proposing we do the same for liabilities. They want to display this on the face of the statement of financial position, the balance sheet, which brings us to the next change, a change to the layout of the statement of financial position.

Now, you will see assets at the top, financial and non-financial, followed by liabilities, again differentiating between financial and non-financial. Then finally, at the bottom, you’ll see net assets. We think this is more familiar to users and more consistent with other reporting models, including those that are used in the private sector.

One impact of this new layout is that net debt is no longer showing on the statement of financial position. Currently, net debt is financial assets minus liabilities. But now that PSAB is proposing to split liabilities into two categories, they’re also proposing to redefine net debt. So now it will be financial assets minus financial liabilities, and they won’t be calling it net debt anymore. They will call it net financial liabilities or net financial assets, as the case may be.

That brings us to our next change, which is a new statement of net financial liabilities. Because net debt will no longer be displayed on the statement of financial position, PSAB is proposing to create a whole new statement called the statement of net financial liabilities or net financial assets.

The term “net debt” may not be terribly familiar to you, and you may be wondering why PSAB has specifically asked about the proposed change towards having a new statement of net liabilities. Here in B.C., we haven’t really focused on this particular indicator on the financial statements. If you were to look back over the past decade, I don’t think you’d see any reports from our office or from that of the comptroller general that place any emphasis or draw any attention to this particular indicator.

That is very different from other jurisdictions in Can­ada, especially in jurisdictions where there may have been concerns about the sustainability of borrowing activities. Net debt may have become a key indicator for them, and that is regularly reviewed. You can imagine that in those jurisdictions, this sort of change to the reporting model could have significant impacts. Here in B.C., we don’t believe this is going to cause any significant issues, but it is useful to know why PSAB is asking you about it.

One thing they didn’t ask you about but that we think is interesting is the proposed new category within net assets called accumulated other. There are currently no standards that allow the use of this new category — so you’re not likely to see this anytime soon on the financial statements — but they are laying the groundwork for future improvements. They have even hinted that this category could potentially be used to address certain accounting challenges that we all have with endowments. But we also wonder if they might use it to capture assets and liabilities that have never before been captured on the financial statements, like certain natural resources.

[1:15 p.m.]

There is a move internationally to create standards for reporting on sustainability. So perhaps PSAB is looking for ways to accommodate that in the future. Either way, we’re very interested to see where they’re going to go with this and how they may propose to use this new category in the future.

Overall, we think the new reporting model is an im­provement. We like the look of the new statement of financial position. We like the layout. We think it’s more consistent with those used in other frameworks, which we think makes it easier for users to understand. But PSAB wants to know what you think, and they would like to know whether their proposed changes are hitting the mark for users other than accountants.

That’s why we’ve left you with those few questions. Does the new reporting model meet your needs? Does it support government’s accountability to you? Is the statement of net financial liabilities useful? And does it improve accountability?

I hope that we’ve been able to assist you in understanding the proposed changes and how they will impact you. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Bridget.

I think, Chair, that was going to conclude our opening comments.

Russ, you weren’t going to add anything, were you? No? Okay.

M. Bernier (Chair): Yes, thank you, Bridget.

Is there anybody on the committee who wanted to start off with questions on this right away?

I’ll go to MLA Anderson first.

B. Anderson: Thank you so much. There’s a lot in there.

I was just really curious if you could go into a little bit more with what you’re sort of…? You know, you’ve hinted at this but, in the future, looking at natural assets, what do you think that this could look like? What might be included? What might be excluded? I know that this might be a bit of a crystal ball question, but I’m just really curious, because I do think that it will be the way of the future. So I’m glad to see there are these steps that we’re moving towards that.

I would love, from an accounting purpose, to hear where you think this may go.

B. Parrish: Thank you for the question. That is a really interesting question and certainly a crystal ball, for sure. I am not sure where they might go with it, but it does offer the opportunity because, of course, you wouldn’t want to suddenly recognize a massive amount of revenue associated with a resource you’ve always had.

This new category may give you the opportunity to capture a very large asset into your assets so that people know you have it, so that you can then measure whether it is going down, without impacting your income statement, because it may be able to just be smushed right into your net assets through accumulated other, for lack of a better description.

I hope that that answers the question, sort of.

M. Bernier (Chair): Anything else at this time, then, Brittny?

B. Anderson: No. I recognize that it is a crystal ball question. So I do really appreciate the answer.

M. Bernier (Chair): Actually, before I get into my question — it might be a bit more of a governance-style question — maybe we’ll ask Carl if he has any advice for us, as well, as a comptroller general, or any flags that he might see.

C. Fischer: Now, I’m fully aware that I’m government’s accountant, so I’ll try very hard to steer away from any place that could be perceived as a conflict or trying to influence you in any way. My office responds to all stan­dards-setting requests — nationally, internationally; public sector, private sector — and we also lead a number of working groups across the country to help support those smaller jurisdictions that may not have the resources to do it.

This conceptual framework project — well, the conceptual framework and the reporting model — have been bouncing around for, I want to say, nine years. I’ll look to see if Russ nods. Yes. He nods. So it’s been a significant piece of work involving all of our community: government communities, the audit community, as well as interested parties like stakeholder groups representing subsections of the government enterprise. The not-for-profit sector has been interested, as well as rating agencies.

[1:20 p.m.]

I’d love to say it’s been a smooth and delightful process, but there have been a lot of zigs and zags along the way. At this last response that I prepared on May 12 — I hope it will be the last response on this issue — we’re generally in support of PSAB’s recommendation. The changes to the reporting model are seen as significant by some, but we point out that all those numbers are still there, so all of those special purposes and special interests that need to be served can still be served.

We recognize that the most significant change, which we’d been strongly advocating for, is for the accounting standard to amend the conceptual framework to better represent the impact of non-exchange transactions. Non-exchange transactions are a peculiarly government or public sector thing. If you are a company or a private enterprise, you’re dealing solely with exchange transactions. Right? You wander up to the Birdcage and purchase a box of their fantastic Terrible Truffles. You exchange your money, you get your box of chocolates, and that’s the end of it.

Governments have a much more involved relationship with participants, be they other governments or the public. We have taxes and penalties, which are very much unilateral. We have government transfers, which are also the transfer of cash from government to a recipient without the expectation of a direct return of service. So there are different conceptual elements that need to be addressed. One of the big ones is assets.

For many, many years, up until 2001, government ac­counting did not contemplate capitalizing assets. The reason was that unlike the private sector, where the investment in property plan for equipment was for the purpose of generating cash — returning cash back to the shareholders — in the public sector, our investments in schools and hospitals and highways were solely for the purpose of service delivery. So it wasn’t until 2001 that PSAB recognized that, yes, we have to account for the service potential of those investments in highways, schools, hospitals. That’s very important for legislators like yourselves to be aware of so that you can monitor government’s stewardship from period to period.

That was a great first step. But the accounting model is a very simple logic model. It’s a Euclidian model. And if you add non-financial assets on one side but fail to add non-financial liabilities, you no longer have the kind of triangle you can be proud of, and you wind up with decades of arguments amongst accountants and auditors that wind up occupying a lot of people’s time. So the big change that they have made is recognizing that, yeah, there are additional concepts of stewardship or accountability that need to be represented. In this case, it’s non-financial liabilities.

Down the road, I think that’s a very positive move, because it does also open the door to having accountants think more technically about the implications of environmental, social or governmental considerations that might impact a government or any other organization. So going back to MLA Anderson’s question, much more than any category or line item, I think opening the idea that we have a multi-factored bottom line rather than just a financial one is an important move for governments.

[1:25 p.m.]

We’re broadly in support of this model, I think, on two fronts. They’ve improved the framework to deal with a problematic gap that, in our case, caused a long-standing qualification that we hope to be able to resolve over time. But also because they are recognizing that…. At some point, we as accountants have a tendency to amuse only ourselves. Coming up with concepts like net debt doesn’t really strike a chord with anyone. Except for Russ, Bridget, Michael and me, who might delightfully spend hours contemplating the different characteristics of net debt, it doesn’t help anyone, right?

What we’ve seen, year after year — in my case, over the last 20 years — is that the public’s interest, good, bad or otherwise, is on: did government balance the books? What they mean by that is: were expenses less than revenues of the year? Now, as accountants, we hate that concept. I’m very comfortable saying that for all of us. It’s not ideal, because what that means is that you are basically taking service capacity off the table every year, in small amounts, and you never get to access that to deliver programs and services.

There are better measures, and that’s what PSAB is after. They are working on developing the model to expose different things like net debt, net assets or — the one that I prefer — accumulated surplus. That’s good for British Columbia. More importantly, it provides a bit more of an option for different provinces in Canada, which have different economic situations, to better engage with their legislatures and, hopefully, their public. I’m very happy that PSAB actually reached out and asked someone that they’ve identified as users whether this would be helpful or not. What I can say is that I don’t think it’s any worse than the last one.

Back to you, Chair.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Carl. Between you and Bridget explaining it all, it’s starting to become a little bit more clear. To your point, though, Carl, I can see at least four people on the screen that get really excited about this stuff. Then others of us on the committee still have to ask a few questions.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): It is, I guess, challenging for some people to follow what’s going on here. I just wanted to kind of approach it, again, from the perspective of a real-life example, and see if any of this is going to change because of the recommendations here.

In a previous meeting, we talked about how when a school gets funding, then that’s listed as a liability. I think Mr. Jones was saying that school boards were challenged with this because they were saying, “Well, we don’t have a net debt,” but on the books it looks like a net debt. I understand that that process and how that was categorized was not necessarily generally accepted accounting principles. Does any of this change any of that, for that example?

M. Bernier (Chair): Maybe, Carl, I think you can….

C. Fischer: I think it does, and I think it does it in two important ways. First, from the perspective of the school districts, they now will reclassify their obligation for school contributions from just the general liability category to be able to describe it as a non-financial liability. They do have the obligation to use that money to build the school and deliver education, but it’s not the same thing as a financial liability.

That’s an important refinement in the accounting model. It’s also better than the alternative of just letting it flow through the income statement and plugging it in the equity. Many of you come from a school district background. The last thing you would want is a big $1 billion equity position so that stakeholders, teachers and parents could say: “Hey, well, why don’t you use some of that $1 billion?” You don’t really have it; you can’t use it for other purposes and build a brand-new school. Those are some of the challenges that are dealt with from the school district perspective.

[1:30 p.m.]

From the provincial perspective, we have a more balanced balance sheet. We’re able to show not only the non-financial assets that we get from contributions from the federal government or local governments but also that non-financial obligation we have that recognizes that that money that we received is not available to be redirected in programs or services. It has already effectively been spent on that school or hospital road and, therefore, we are showing you the effect over time.

Amortizing the non-financial liability over time will also turn out to be a very important element when we take the next step in thinking about: how does public sector accounting support stewardship requirements of a government? For many years, we’ve been talking about: how do we know — or how do you know, as legislators — that government is reinvesting enough in our assets? Do we have enough hospitals? Do we have enough schools? Do we have enough highways? Or have we been starving the province of that infrastructure in favour of other pursuits? That discussion has been a very real thing in other provinces, mostly in eastern Canada.

Non-financial liabilities provide an opportunity to re­think that question of how we mathematically measure government’s long-term investment in and stewardship of the asset base that we rely on for the delivery of programs and services.

M. Bernier (Chair): Anything to add, Rick?

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the re­sponse. I was just….

Does Mr. Pickup have any comment on that?

M. Pickup: Maybe I would invite Bridget or Russ, if they want to comment. I think Russ is leaning forward. I’m not sure if he’s ready to jump in there or not.

Bridget or Russ, do you want to add anything?

R. Jones: I think maybe both of us can.

I must admit that I was at a health meeting last week — one of the health authorities. They asked the exact question you did, Member, around: “Can you explain the net debt number to us again?” Their books showed that they had a net debt because of the way the money that they receive for building hospitals is recorded — of over $1 billion. When you back that out of there, they actually were in a net asset position.

Really, what a net debt position meant…. When you see it on the current balance sheet, it means, in theory, you need to raise revenues, going forward, that will cover that net debt. This is totally wrong. They don’t have any net debt, because they don’t have any debt for the building they just finished building.

The one thing I think we have to remember is that the definition of a liability doesn’t change in this new framework. Still, the fundamental question is: is that money that they received to build a hospital still a liability? I don’t think our position would change much, because according to what we consider PSAB saying, these are not liabilities.

Bridget, you can jump in too.

B. Parrish: Thanks, Russ.

I think the other important thing to remember is that, yes, we do have new categories of liabilities. The first hurdle, just as Russ said, is: is it a liability?. When you receive a large amount of money for an infrastructure project, once you’ve completed the infrastructure project, you have no further obligation. You have no call on those re­sources.

The public sector accounting standards are designed to reflect that the liabilities are performance obligations. You have to do something if you have a liability. You have to either pay someone or do something to satisfy that obligation.

[1:35 p.m.]

Once you’ve satisfied your obligation to build the school or the hospital or whatever it is, you don’t have a performance obligation anymore. It wouldn’t be fair to show one, because you don’t have one anymore.

At that point, although it is not always easy to explain it to people, it is appropriate to recognize the transfer as revenue now — to say: “Hey, we got some money. We used it appropriately, and we’re recognizing it as revenue now, because we did the thing we were supposed to do with it. So we’ve earned it.”

Even if that means you would have a big surplus that would then end up in accumulated surplus, you could just explain that and say: “That money was used to build that building. It has been spent, and the building is there on our assets. That’s why you can see the net assets.” As opposed to a liability that suggests that, perhaps, you have things you have yet to do, perhaps you have obligations yet to fulfill, when you don’t.

That’s why we’ve always got this little bit of a push-pull, because the explanation to users about, “That money has already been spent,” is very difficult. As Carl pointed out very clearly, you don’t want to have to say: “That money was used on the school.” You don’t want to have this big accumulated surplus, because it’s difficult to explain it to people.

Sadly, the accounting standards are challenging and difficult to explain to people, because that’s what we’re here for today.

I hope that maybe helps a bit.

M. Pickup: I think, Chair, if I could just add, to some extent, I guess, summarizing what Bridget and Russ added to what Carl had to say.

I don’t think we want to leave here today with the impression that this is all going to make those discussions go away or make that analysis go away. I think we’re still going to have to have more discussions around this and continue to look at this. So I don’t want us to think that this is the way out.

I think that was at the heart of your question, Rick: “Does this make that qualification, that issue we talked about before, go away?” It’s not going to be that simple. I think that is what I hear Bridget and Russ and Carl saying, really — the same thing.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Just to close off on that — and just, again, for my own benefit — what year did that change happen where that money was recognized as a liability? I’ll just leave it at that.

C. Fischer: There’s never been any change to the accounting. That has been the practice for decades and decades and decades. We just haven’t adopted the recommendation the Auditor General made — in 2009, I think it was. Russ, was it 2009 or ’11? One of those two.

None of these issues are short term or current. We have been hammering away at each other for a quite a consistent amount of time.

M. Bernier (Chair): MLA Sharma, did you still have a question? I saw your hand up a while ago.

N. Sharma: It was partially answered. I just wanted to know, in a real, practical sense, if somebody from the public is looking at this, and there’s a new category of non-financial liabilities, what would they attribute that to? We had a really good discussion here, thanks to Carl and Bridget and Russ, to really fill that in. That was really my question.

M. Bernier (Chair): Carl, did you want to add anything else to that?

C. Fischer: Sure. The financial statements are supported by notes to those financial statements. In our case, there are about 45 pages of narrative description and additional detail that’s provided.

Particularly in a case where there is a change in presentation like a new item, our practice is to work with OAG well before implementation, to think about how we best provide clear, unambiguous explanations to the users of the financial statements. Then we’ll also support it, in the year of change, by express notation in the financial statement discussion and analysis.

[1:40 p.m.]

That doesn’t mean it’s going to be any easier. I’ve heard about plain language in accounting for a very, very long time. I’m not confident that we’ve met the average person’s expectations in that regard. There’s still a ton of work to do. But together, a good part of our effort every year is spent on thinking about: “How do we best inform the users” — and in our case, we identify that as the public — “and their representatives, the MLAs?”

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. Thanks, Carl.

When we talk about the accountability perspective, how does this change, if any — probably to Carl — how government themselves, through the ministries and government, will do their budgeting, budget presentations?

I’m thinking, even, not only from a committee but as MLAs and as a public…. Then we have government, through the Ministry of Finance, doing quarterly reports, and now they do all of that public release of the documentation. Is this going to change any of that in any way? When I look at it — I mean, we’re talking about when we’re looking at the financial statements — obviously that’s one component of it, but those are also used as part of the budgeting process and then also on the accountability aspect of public release.

I’m just trying to see if there are any changes in there that the public will see.

C. Fischer: Thank you for that question.

As you’ll recall, since 1999, when we received the Enns review panel’s report on the budget process, British Columbia has kind of pre-empted a lot of these accountability discussions by the introduction of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the formal adoption of an accounting standard that will be used consistently across all financial reports, including budgets, quarterly reports and the public accounts, as well as having directly related presentation. So you can take our financial statements, budgets, quarterly reports and forecast updates and directly link them back, over time.

When we do make a change to the financial statements, particularly the introduction of non-financial liabilities, when we work through that long process, that will also be reflected in budgets and quarterly reports. So there will still be the same linkage and also the same issue of: how do we make sure that legislators and the public and stakeholder groups that show up on budget day are supported to understand what we’re talking about when we talk about non-financial liabilities, what the implications are and how that fits into their individual accountability construct? Because opposition members, stakeholder groups and rating agencies all have different constructs of what they see government accountability is all about.

I think that one of the real arts of public sector reporting is trying to anticipate all of those different interests but not pander to any particular individual group.

M. Bernier (Chair): If these PSAB changes, as they go through as they’re suggesting here…. Will that trigger any legislative review of the financial accountability act to be in line? Or are those two separate things? That’s a little outside this committee. I’m just…. More out of curiosity.

C. Fischer: No. That’s part of the analysis that we do when we receive exposure drafts and comment documents from PSAB. We look through the legislation, and we get together with our Treasury Board staff colleagues. We argue and spin around in circles quite often, quite frankly. Eventually, we get to a place where we’re pretty comfortable with what the implications are, not just for accounting.

You’re quite correct. All parts of our financial system, from budget and financial legislation to the annual reports, are all inextricably linked.

In this case, we haven’t identified the need for any legislative changes, and we have not identified any impacts that constrain transparency. We actually find that this change allows us to be marginally more transparent.

[1:45 p.m.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Carl.

MLA Glumac, did you have another question? I see your hand up.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Yeah. With these recommendations, it was introduced that Public Accounts Committees could give feedback on this. Is the Auditor General looking for an endorsement or just kind of taking some feedback in terms of the comments and questions that we’re making?

M. Bernier (Chair): I do know that we have about five, six days left to submit any questions or concerns or ideas that we have as a board. I do know that if there are any changes that we would recommend, we have a little bit of time to maybe have that discussion.

But I do know, Michael, that it was good to have yourself and Bridget, Carl, everybody here, explaining it to us today.

I know from committee that it’s not something we have to vote on, per se. But they’re asking if there’s any input from us. Maybe I’ll just turn it to Michael on that comment.

M. Pickup: Yeah. What I was going to say — and I stand to be corrected by Bridget, Russ or Carl, or all three — is that they were looking for outreach directly, so not to funnel back through us or not to go back through the comptroller general. But if you, as one stakeholder group, wanted to reply to them directly — I think I got that right? Yep. I’m seeing nods.

M. Bernier (Chair): Yes. Thank you for that. That’s the way I understand it as well. I know that we can talk with Jennifer as well. But it would really be that the OAG and the comptroller were here today to give advice and explain it to the committee, and now it’s up to our committee, as a separate stakeholder, to decide whether we have any thoughts to present.

We’ll be able to do that afterwards. I would send an email out in reminder to everybody on the committee with the timelines and the process.

C. Fischer: Yes. I just wanted to say that I think one thing we all agree on is that it’s a very positive step for PSAB to actually be reaching out to the users of financial statements. Maybe they could’ve given you a little bit more time to respond to a project that’s been out there for nine years, but it’s something that I think the committee might want to encourage.

The best way to do that will be to respond, however you feel is right, even if it’s as simple as: “Thank you for engaging us. We’ve had the presentations. We look forward to more direct engagement from the board.” That would be very helpful.

M. Bernier (Chair): Michael and then we’ll go back to Rick, if you have more.

M. Pickup: Completely agree with what the comptroller general just said. The one thing I would add on top of that would be….

This is not a suggestion, of course. This is something that may be worth considering at some time. Many of us, of the four of us, have spent time on different standards-setters. I recently finished my term on the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of Canada.

Standards-setters love when interested parties, stakeholders, impacted people reach out to them, including if you respond but also if you reach out to say: “When you’re coming west, would you consider coming in and talking to us about topic A, B or C?” They always have budgets built in their boards for this type of thing.

If there was something at some point where you directly wanted to hear from the standards-setters as part of their outreach on topics…. I certainly don’t speak for them, obviously. But having been a standards-setter, it does excite them, in a good way, when people are interested and engaging with them. There’s always, probably, that opportunity, as well, which may be even easier now with technology like this.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Thanks for that. I think I would be supportive of us doing that, reaching out and offering our appreciation for engaging in this and offering our comments.

I mean, from everything I’ve heard, it seems like these changes are beneficial. They do help provide a little bit of distinction between financial and non-financial assets and liabilities, so that s seems helpful. I’d be supportive of that.

[1:50 p.m.]

If there is an opportunity, maybe, to invite them to come speak to us, I’d be supportive of that as well. Maybe to talk about the whole way that we’re handling liabilities here and to give their feedback on that might be a good learning opportunity.

M. Pickup: Yeah. With that comment, I just thought of something else. I don’t know if I’ve said it here, but people internally are used to me saying: “I have an idea. I didn’t say it was good or bad. It’s just an idea.”

You also have the group CCPAC, then we have CCOLA and then we have CCOLA and CCPAC that come together, I think we’re planning, in September. I don’t know if the agenda is set yet for September, but I guess those opportunities probably always exist, as well, to bring folks in or even for a cross-jurisdictional view of CCPAC. What are other public accounts committees doing, and how are we learning? If there’s an opportunity to learn through engagement across the country through public accounts committees with PSAB.

That might be a really efficient way to approach it, as well, because I’ve never asked, but I don’t know if PSAB has met with all the other public accounts committees across the country, if there is particular learning coming out of that that would be very easy to leverage off of and whether that makes any sense.

Like I said, it’s just a random thought that just came to me. I don’t know how useful that might be for you.

M. Bernier (Chair): I appreciate that, Michael. It’s a bit of a segue. Once we’re done this agenda item, I’ll be giving a very quick update, because I just attended another CCPAC meeting earlier this week. I’ll be able to just kind of remind everybody on some issues with that, which was very high level. But I appreciate that advice as well.

To go with what the Deputy Chair was saying, I think, following this meeting, it’ll be important that we talk with our Clerk, and we’ll get a reminder email sent out to everybody for the last minute, if anybody has any ideas that came out of today after it was explained a little bit more holistically for us non-accountants, which we appreciate.

Then we can look at formulating — to Rick’s idea there — an address that we’ll send to PSAB with any thoughts or ideas that we have from our committee afterwards. So I appreciate that.

Any other questions from the committee, then, for our Auditor or comptroller generals? No?

Okay, I think Russ has a question for himself.

R. Jones: I was just going to mention to MLA Anderson that I did serve on the public sector discussion group for the Public Sector Accounting Board for six years. I know we talked about green infrastructure and how it might be accounted for, and urban forests and whatnot.

If the committee would like, I can send on to Jennifer the link to that discussion, and it will help you take a look at…. If you think what we talked about today is complicated — yeah. It was a very interesting discussion. You do feel for municipalities and whatnot that have green infrastructure and whatnot and how you account for that. How you measure it is really the problem.

I’ll pass those on to Jennifer, and she can get them to you.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Russ. I appreciate that offer. I see some smiles and some nodding heads. So I appreciate that.

One last time, then. Any further questions? Okay. Well, I don’t see any.

Thank you very much again, everybody, for all the input and the explanation, and Bridget for presenting it as well. Welcome to the meeting, and hope to see you in some other ones, hopefully face to face with everybody later on this summer or fall as restrictions are lifted and people get vaccinated and we get safer in our society. Looking forward to that face to face. It’s a lot more enjoyable, in my opinion.

Carl, as always, thank you for your input and thoughts as well.

With that, I’ll bid adieu. If you wish to stay on, I’m just going to quickly give an update on the next item, which is around the CCPAC.

Canadian Council of Public Accounts
Committees Conference

M. Bernier (Chair): Basically, all I wanted to highlight there is we did have a meeting earlier this week. Registrations are coming along. They’re a little slow. Just a reminder to everybody on the committee to work through Jennifer, if you wish.

[1:55 p.m.]

I know the links were put out for registering for the AGM, which is in September, as we’ve discussed in the past. The first four people from each PAC, including staff, that register are free, and then it’s $50 for everybody else after that. It’s my understanding — I’m looking for maybe a nod from Jennifer — that those will be tabulated if you have to pay it. You’ll be reimbursed through the Clerk’s office, through Jennifer. So there’s no cost to you individually. It will be picked up as part of the committee through the budget, through the Clerk’s office.

If you look at the link that was sent out for the AGM, the program is pretty well finalized, but there are a few other little pieces. They are looking for committee members — if there’s anybody who wants to partake in any of the specific sessions. If you look through the agenda, if you’d like to be a Chair of a session, if there is one that excites you or you have some personal interest in on the agenda that you’d like to be more involved in, they’ve asked me to throw that offer out — if there are any PAC members who want to actually partake as a Chair of a specific part.

The only other thing, really, I guess, of any substance that I could share with you is that we are looking at a memorandum of understanding through the CCPAC that will probably be discussed at the AGM, and this is around the selection and change of conferences for the annual conference — around the venue. It was presented to us that for the next ten years, we have highlighted which province is the next to host the AGM, but because of elections or maybe other unforeseen circumstances, if a venue or a pro­vince needs to change, there was no process, surprisingly enough.

There was no process in place, technically, of how to make motions to move to a different province to host for the CCPAC conference. So I think it’ll be a very simplistic MOU with CCOLA on doing that, on how we’re going to run that through with the provincial and federal government’s components.

I’m not sure if anybody has any questions for me, but that’s basically just the high-level on the meeting we had this week. More importantly, if you haven’t and if you’re able to make it, please look at registering for the conference, because there are some very interesting speakers and information that will help us as a committee, as well, with the work that we do.

Okay. Jennifer, did I miss anything? Is there anything you’d like to add before we look for a motion to adjourn?

No? Nothing? Okay. Well, with that, I just want to thank everyone again. Be careful out there. Put on your sunscreen. It’s supposed to be crazy for the next week or two. But if you have a chance to get outside, go for a nice walk and enjoy the sun, the heat and the outdoors. It’s great seeing everybody.

A motion to adjourn from someone, please. MLA Mercier.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 1:58 p.m.