2013-05 Amendment To The Introduction RESPONSES

r-\Hydro
~Qubec
Hydre-Qubec 75, boulevard Ren Lvesque ouest Montral (Qubec) H2Z 1A4
s tage
Montral, le 23 avril 20 13
Tl. : (514) 289-2211-4180 Tlc. : (514) 289-4702 Croteau .lise@hydro.qc.ca
Monsieur Tim Beauchamp Directeur Comptabilit du secteur public 277, rue Wellington Ouest Toronto (Ontario) MSV 3H2
Objet : Commentaires sur l'expos-sondage Modification de la Prface

Monsieur, Le Conseil sur la comptabilit dans le secteur public (CCSP) propose de modifier la Prface des Normes comptables pour le secteur public quant l'applicabilit du Manuel de comptabilit de l'ICCA pour le secteur public diverses entits du secteur public. Nous sommes d'accord avec les modifications proposes et nous profitons de la publication de cet expos-sondage pour proposer un ajout la dfinition d'un organisme sans but lucratif du secteur public. Nous sommes d'avis d'exclure de la dfinition d'un organisme sans but lucratif du secteur public ceux qui sont sous le contrle d'une entreprise publique. Cette exclusion permettra aux deux entits d'utiliser le mme rfrentiel comptable soit le Manuel de l'ICCA- Comptabilit. Nous avons inclus notre proposition la question 4 de cet appel commentaires. Veuillez agrer, Monsieur, l'expression de nos salutations distingues.
Lise Croteau, FCPA, FCA Vice-prsidente - Comptabilit et contrle Hydra-Qubec p.j.
963-1551 (07-12) E GAB
Appel commentaires
1. tes-vous d'accord avec la proposition d'exclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfmition d'un organisme public? Dans l'affrrmative, y a-t-il des rpercussions prendre en compte?
+ Nous sommes d'accord.

2. tes-vous d'accord pour que les composantes du gouvernement se conforment en gnral au Manuel du secteur public, complt par d'autres mthodes comptables s'il y a lieu?
Nous sommes d'accord.
3. tes-vous d'accord avec les propositions visant clarifier l'applicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats?
Nous sommes d'accord.
4. tes-vous d'accord avec les modifications de formulation qu'il est propos d'apporter aux paragraphes actuels de la Prface? Dans la ngative, quels sont les changements avec lesquels vous n'tes pas d'accord et pourquoi?
+ Au paragraphe .07 a) Nous proposons l'ajout suivant: il constitue une entit

distincte ayant le pouvoir de passer des contrats en son propre nom et d'ester en justice. Il n'est pas contrl par une entreprise publique. Cet ajout a pour but d'viter l'utilisation de deux rfrentiels comptables diffrents pour un OSBL SP qui est contrl par une entreprise publique et viter des ajustements de consolidation avec sa socit mre. Les entreprises publiques sont tenues de se conformer aux normes du Manuel de l'ICCA- Comptabilit. Nous sommes d'avis que l'utilisation du Manuel du sectur public pour un OSBL SP qui est sous son contrle ne serait pas justifie. De plus, des modifications devraient galement tre apportes aux paragraphes .16 et .18 ainsi qu'au tableau prsent l'Annexe A pour prciser que les OSBL SP qui sont contrles par une entreprise publique doivent suivre les normes du Manuel de l'ICCA- Comptabilit. 5. tes-vous d'accord avec les modifications corrlatives proposes? Dans la ngative, pourquoi?
Les modifications corrlatives apportes aux autres chapitres devront reflter la modification que nous proposons la question 4.
6. Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?
Outre notre commentaire la question 4, nous n'avons pas d'autres points considrer.
963-1551
Click here to submit
Response Questionnaire
To be considered, comments must be received by
May 3, 2013 Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Armand Capisciolto, National Accounting Standards Partner BDO Canada LLP acapisciolto@bdo.ca
General comments: We believe the amendments are an improvement on the current Introduction, however as outlined in our responses below we do have some concerns with the proposals.
1.
Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered?
We agree with the proposal to exclude government components for the definition of a government organization. We believe there are potential implications that need to be considered. Refer to our response to question 2 for details.
2.
Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate?
In general, we agree that government components would follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies. We believe it should be clarified that these other accounting policies should be consistent with the sources of GAAP as defined in PS 1150, Generally accepted accounting principles. However, we are aware of some government components that have characteristics of business enterprises. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for these types of government components to follow the CICA PSA Handbook if presenting separate financial statements. We believe government components that have characteristics of business enterprises have a choice similar to what is given to other government organizations in paragraphs .19 and .20 and be allowed to choose the standards that are the most appropriate to meet the needs of the users of the component's separate financial statements.
3.
Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships?
In general, we agree with the proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships. However, we would like to point out that the proposals result in situations where the accounting for arrangements between a government/government organization and a private sector partner is dictated by the legal form rather than the substance of the arrangement. For example an arrangement that involves public private sector partners set up in a separate corporation may meet the definition of government business enterprise and therefore be required to apply IFRS, however if the arrangement was set up a partnership a choice exists as to what standards should be applied. 4. Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why?
We agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction. We find the new layout of the Introduction to be much easier to read than the previous version.
5.
Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why not?
We agree with the consequential amendments being proposed.
6.
Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?
In regards to Phase II of this project, referred to in the Issues Analysis document, ideally these terminology changes would be made at the same time as the amendment to the Introduction to avoid confusion in applying the standards. If this is not possible, perhaps a footnote should be included in the Introduction that includes the information in paragraphs .29 and .30 of the Issues Analysis document so users are aware of these upcoming changes.
Finance
Comptrollers Division
Comptrollers Office 715 401 York Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P8 Phone: (204) 945-4919 Fax: 948-3539 E-mail: betty-anne.pratt@gov.mb.ca
May 3, 2013
Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2
Dear Mr. Beauchamp: Re: Exposure Draft: Amendments to the Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Exposure Draft (ED): Amendments to the Introduction. The Province of Manitoba (Province) has included responses to the Boards specific questions in the attachment. The Province agrees with the EDs proposed amendments to the introduction. It was necessary to differentiate government components from government organizations. Otherwise preparers and auditors could reasonably conclude that departments, ministries and funds are government organizations, subject to the standards for government organizations. A government component is an integral part of the government. It would not be reasonable for a government component to adopt accounting standards that are different from the government. The Province currently does not have any involvement with a government partnership. However at the local government level, many municipalities provide a significant portion of their services to the public through partnerships with one or more other municipalities. The local government partnerships are clearly part of the public sector and should be following the CICA PSA Handbook. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the ED. If you have any questions or concerns related to these comments please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Betty-Anne Pratt, CA Provincial Comptroller On Behalf of the Province of Manitoba
1) Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition
of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered? Even prior to the amendments being proposed the Province did not view departments, ministries and funds to be government organizations. The Province agrees with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization. The Province has indicated in the letter the implications if government components are not excluded from government organizations. The Province is not aware of any implications if we do exclude government components from the definition of a government organization.
2) Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA
Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate? The Province agrees that government components should generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate. Government components are integral parts of the government. It would not be appropriate for government components to follow PSAB with the 4200 series.
3) Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for
government partnerships? The Province agrees with the proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships. The partners in most partnerships are public sector entities. While a government partnership is not a government organization, government partnerships with public sector partners are clearly part of the public sector. Some local government partnerships are in the nature of a government component. Regional planning districts are an example. Many other partnerships are more in the nature of a government not-for-profit organization (GNFPO). They are organized and operated exclusively for social, educational, recreational and cultural purposes. Regional libraries are an example. While not controlled by a government, the nature of many government partnerships is no different in substance from a GNFPO. Government partnerships with public sector partners should be able to select either the CICA PSA Handbook or the CICA PSA Handbook for not-for-profit organizations. A government business partnership (GBP) is no different in substance from a government business enterprise, except that it is a government partnership, rather than being under the control of a government. The Province agrees that GBP should follow the accounting standards for publically accountable enterprises. The Province agrees that if there are private sector partners involved in a government partnership, the accounting standards to follow should be determined by the partners. A government partnership, with a one or more private sector partners, would be extremely rare.
Page 2 of 3
4) Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in
the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why? The province agrees with the changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction.
5) Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why not?
The Province agrees with the consequential amendments being proposed.
6) Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

The Province is not aware of any additional matters that need to be considered.
Page 3 of 3
Cliquez ici pour soumettre
Formulaire de rponse
Pour tre pris en considration, les commentaires devront tre reus le 3 mai 2013 au plus tard.
Modification de la Prface Expos-sondage

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Nancy Klein Ministre des Affaires municipales, des Rgions et de l'Occupation du territoire nancy.klein@mamrot.gouv.qc.ca
Commentaires gnraux :
1.
tes-vous d'accord avec la proposition d'exclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition d'un organisme public? Dans l'affirmative, y a-t-il des rpercussions prendre en compte?
Nous n'entrevoyons aucun impact dans le monde municipal cet effet.
2.
tes-vous d'accord pour que les composantes du gouvernement se conforment en gnral au Manuel du secteur public, complt par d'autres mthodes comptables s'il y a lieu?
Nous sommes en accord. Ces entits voluant dans le secteur public, il convient que les normes du Manuel du secteur public constituent la base de leur rfrentiel comptable.
3.
tes-vous d'accord avec les propositions visant clarifier l'applicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats?
Nous sommes en accord avec le fait de clarifier l'applicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats. Toutefois, nous sommes en dsaccord avec certaines indications relatives aux normes applicables aux partenariats. Voir cet gard le document annex au prsent formulaire.
4.
tes-vous d'accord avec les modifications de formulation qu'il est propos d'apporter aux paragraphes actuels de la Prface? Dans la ngative, quels sont les changements avec lesquels vous n'tes pas d'accord et pourquoi?
Nous sommes en accord avec les modifications de formulation sauf en ce qui concerne l'lment soulev la question 3 et en ce qui concerne la dfinition d'organisme public. Voir cet gard le document annex au prsent formulaire.
5.
tes-vous d'accord avec les modifications corrlatives proposes? Dans la ngative, pourquoi?
Nous sommes en accord avec les modifications corrlatives qui sont proposes.
6.
Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?
Nous avons un questionnement concernant l'absence de dfinition des termes "gouvernement" et "administration locale". Nous considrons que l'utilisation de ces termes dans la prface et ailleurs dans le Manuel amne la ncessit de devoir les dfinir. Voir cet gard le document annex au prsent formulaire.
Expos-sondage du CCSP Modification de la Prface - Fvrier 2013 Annexe au formulaire de commentaires soumis au CCSP par le ministre des Affaires municipales, des Rgions et de lOccupation du territoire (MAMROT) du Qubec Commentaires complmentaires concernant la question 3 : applicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats Les indications proposes par le CCSP amneront des disparits entre organismes exerant le mme type dactivits, affectant ainsi la comparabilit de linformation financire. Prenons par exemple le cas de la gestion municipale des dchets. Une municipalit peut soccuper de cette gestion elle-mme ou la confier un organisme. Celui-ci peut tre : un organisme dont elle achte les services (entente de services avec un fournisseur); un organisme quelle contrle; un organisme quelle contrle de faon partage avec dautres municipalits; un organisme quelle contrle de faon partage avec dautres municipalits et une ou des entits du secteur priv. Les activits dun organisme soccupant de la gestion des dchets sont considres tre de nature commerciale, car ses revenus sont constitus de services rendus et de la vente de produits issus du recyclage des matires. Selon la dfinition donne par le CCSP, lorganisme peut tre considr entreprise commerciale ou partenariat commercial sil tire lessentiel de ses revenus de sources non comprises dans le primtre comptable de la municipalit qui le contrle ou des partenaires dans le cas dun partenariat. Selon lexpos-sondage, les normes pouvant sappliquer aux partenariats varieraient ainsi : partenariat non commercial entre entits du secteur public Manuel du secteur public; partenariat commercial entre entits du secteur public uniquement les IFRS; partenariat commercial ou non commercial entre une ou des entits du secteur public et une ou des entits du secteur priv choix entre le Manuel du secteur public, les IFRS ou les normes pour les entreprises capital ferm. Rfrentiel possible Manuel du IFRS Normes pour secteur public les entreprises capital ferm
Organisme non contrl (entente de services) Organisme contrl non commercial (autre organisme public) Partenariat non commercial sans partenaire priv Partenariat non commercial impliquant un partenaire priv Organisme contrl commercial (entreprise publique) Partenariat commercial sans partenaire priv Partenariat commercial impliquant un partenaire priv
Ce tableau dmontre que le rfrentiel comptable peut tre fort diffrent entre organismes exerant un mme type dactivits. Si lorganisme ne constitue pas une entreprise publique ou un partenariat commercial, lexpos-sondage propose que le Manuel du secteur public doive ou puisse tre utilis. Sur ce point, nous sommes daccord car cela permettra aux municipalits qui contrlent (intgralement ou de faon partage) de faire en sorte que lorganisme suive les normes du secteur public, facilitant la consolidation. Si lorganisme constitue un partenariat commercial, lexpos-sondage propose que le Manuel du secteur public puisse tre utilis ds lors quun des partenaires est du secteur priv mais ne puisse pas ltre si tous les partenaires sont uniquement du secteur public. Cest un non sens. Nous suggrons fortement que le partenariat commercial impliquant uniquement des partenaires du secteur public puisse aussi utiliser les normes du secteur public. En complment, nous suggrons de permettre quune entreprise publique puisse aussi utiliser le Manuel du secteur public lorsquelle exerce ses activits principales dans un domaine dactivits o il existe des pairs qui constituent des partenariats impliquant des partenaires du secteur public. Au Qubec, il existe plusieurs rgies intermunicipales dans le domaine de la gestion des dchets et dans dautres domaines. La majorit des rgies constituent des partenariats non commerciaux, mais il existe une dizaine de partenariats commerciaux. Or, toutes les rgies intermunicipales doivent produire leurs tats financiers sur un formulaire standardis bas sur les normes du secteur public. Les indications proposes dans lexpos-sondage feraient en sorte que certaines rgies ne pourraient plus produire sur le formulaire du ministre, rendant la comparabilit de linformation financire des rgies entre elles moins pertinente et la compilation des donnes de lensemble des rgies intermunicipales par le ministre plus difficile. Commentaires complmentaires concernant la question 4 : modifications de formulation proposes Certains organismes sont crs par le gouvernement du Qubec en vertu de dispositions lgislatives dintrt public mais ne sont pas considres comme tant contrls par le gouvernement ou par une administration locale selon les indicateurs de contrle du CCSP. Prenons par exemple le cas de la vingtaine de confrences rgionales des lus (CR) existant au Qubec. Les CR ont t cres en vertu de la Loi sur le Ministre des Affaires municipales, des Rgions et de lOccupation du territoire. Elles grent des fonds provenant essentiellement du gouvernement ou dorganismes publics. Leur mission consiste coordonner les interventions des ministres du gouvernement et celles des administrations locales et rgionales sur un territoire donn. La loi prescrit que le conseil dadministration dune CR doit tre compos dau moins les deux tiers dlus municipaux provenant du territoire de la CR selon une rpartition prvue dans la loi. Lexpos-sondage dfinit quun organisme public est un organisme contrl par le gouvernement. Comme mentionn prcdemment, les CR ne sont pas contrles par le gouvernement ou par les municipalits daprs les indicateurs de contrle du CCSP. Elles ne constituent pas non plus des partenariats car elles ne sont pas cres en vertu daccords contractuels entre partenaires comme le sont les rgies intermunicipales par exemple.
Ainsi, les CR ne seraient pas des organismes publics et ne pourraient pas appliquer le Manuel du secteur public. Elles nauraient pas dautre choix que de se considrer en tant quOSBL du secteur priv, ce qui fait un non sens tant donn leur caractre minemment public. Nous proposons que la dfinition dorganisme public soit largie de la faon suivante : organisme contrl par le gouvernement ou cr par le gouvernement des fins publiques . Ainsi, les CR seraient considres tre des autres organismes publics , tant donn quelles ne sont pas des entreprises publiques ni des OSBL du secteur public puisquelles nont pas dhomologues dans le secteur priv. En tant quautre organisme public, elles auraient ainsi le choix dappliquer le Manuel du secteur public et cest ce quelles feraient logiquement. Commentaires complmentaires concernant la question 6 : autres points considrer Nous trouvons que le fait de ne pas dfinir ce quest un gouvernement ou une administration locale est susceptible de laisser des zones grises quant linterprtation de la porte du Manuel du secteur public. Est-ce quun gouvernement ou une administration locale doit tre uniquement une entit devant rendre compte des lus qui ont t lus directement par la population pour exercer leur rle dans le cadre dune assemble ou dun conseil auquel doit rendre compte le gouvernement ou une administration locale? Quen est-il des entits, comme les municipalits rgionales de comt, dont le conseil est compos dlus qui ne sont pas lus directement par la population et qui agissent en tant que reprsentants de municipalits? Rappelons cet gard que les anciens chapitres SP 1700 et SP 1800 contenaient une dfinition dadministration locale qui englobait expressment les municipalits rgionales de comt. Nous estimons que le CCSP devrait dfinir ce quest un gouvernement et une administration locale , pour viter des problmes dinterprtation. Toutefois, une telle dfinition deviendrait moins ncessaire si le CCSP acceptait la dfinition dorganisme public que nous proposons en commentaire la question 4, soit organisme contrl par le gouvernement ou cr par le gouvernement des fins publiques . En effet, une telle dfinition permettrait dviter par elle-mme bien des problmes potentiels dinterprtation. Direction gnrale des finances municipales MAMROT
Montral, le 3 mai 2013
Tim Beauchamp, directeur Comptabilit du secteur public 277, rue Wellington Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5V 3H2
Monsieur, Vous trouverez ci-joint les commentaires du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public Comptabilit dans le secteur public de lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec concernant lexpos-sondage Modification de la prface . Nous vous serions reconnaissants de nous faire parvenir une copie de la traduction anglaise de nos commentaires. Veuillez prendre note que ni lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec, ni quelque personne que ce soit ayant particip la prparation des commentaires ne peuvent tre tenus responsables relativement leur utilisation et ils ne sont tenus aucune garantie de quelque nature que ce soit dcoulant de ces commentaires, comme dcrit dans le dni de responsabilit joint la prsente. Veuillez agrer, Monsieur Beauchamp, lexpression de mes sentiments distingus.
Reprsentante du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public,
Annie Smargiassi CPA, CA
p. j.
Dni de responsabilit et commentaires
DNI DE RESPONSABILIT
Les documents prpars par le Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public de lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec (Ordre) ci-aprs appels les commentaires, sont fournis selon les conditions dcrites dans la prsente, pour faire connatre leur opinion sur des noncs de principes, des documents de consultation, des exposs-sondages prliminaires ainsi que des exposs-sondages publis par le Conseil des normes comptables, le Conseil des normes daudit et de certification, le Conseil sur la comptabilit dans le secteur public, le Conseil sur la gestion des risques et la gouvernances et dautres organismes.
Les commentaires fournis par ce comit ne doivent pas tre utiliss comme substitut des missions confies des professionnels spcialiss. Il est important de noter que les lois, les normes et les rgles sur lesquelles sont mis les commentaires peuvent changer en tout temps et que, dans certains cas, les commentaires crits peuvent tre sujets controverse.
Ni lOrdre, ni quelque personne que ce soit ayant particip la prparation des commentaires ne peuvent tre tenus responsables relativement lutilisation de ces commentaires et ils ne sont tenus aucune garantie de quelque nature que ce soit dcoulant de ces commentaires. Les commentaires donns ne lient pas, par ailleurs, les membres du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public, lOrdre ou, de faon plus particulire, le Bureau du syndic de lOrdre.
La personne qui se rfre ou utilise ces commentaires assume lentire responsabilit de sa dmarche ainsi que tous les risques lis lutilisation de ceux-ci. Elle consent exonrer lOrdre lgard de toute demande en dommages-intrts qui pourrait tre intente par suite de toute dcision quelle aurait pu prendre en fonction de ces commentaires. Elle reconnat galement avoir accept de ne pas faire tat de ces commentaires reus via le Groupe de travail dans les avis exprims ou les positions prises.
COMMENTAIRES DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL TECHNIQUE SECTEUR PUBLIC - COMPTABILIT DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC DE LORDRE DES COMPTABLES PROFESSIONNELS AGRS DU QUBEC RELATIFS LEXPOS-SONDAGE MODIFICATION DE LA PRFACE . MANDAT DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL Le Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public de l'Ordre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec a comme mandat notamment de recueillir et de canaliser le point de vue des praticiens exerant en cabinet et de membres uvrant dans les affaires, dans les services gouvernementaux, dans l'industrie et dans l'enseignement ainsi que le point de vue dautres personnes concernes uvrant dans des domaines dexpertise connexes.
Pour chaque expos-sondage ou autre document tudi, les membres du Groupe de travail technique mettent leurs analyses en commun. Les commentaires ci-dessous refltent les points de vue exprims et, sauf indication contraire, ces commentaires ont fait l'objet d'un consensus parmi les membres du Groupe de travail ayant particip cette analyse.
Les commentaires formuls par le Groupe de travail ne font l'objet d'aucune sanction de l'Ordre. Ils n'engagent pas la responsabilit de celui-ci.
COMMENTAIRES GNRAUX Les membres du groupe de travail ont soulign que les clarifications qui sont apportes dans le cadre du projet de modification de la prface sont bienvenues.
COMMENTAIRES SPCIFIQUES
1. tes-vous daccord avec la proposition dexclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition dun organisme public? Dans laffirmative, y a-t-il des rpercussions prendre en compte?
Les membres du groupe de travail se sont montrs en accord avec le fait dexclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition dorganisme public. Par contre, ils se sont questionns au sujet des exigences applicables lors dun changement de rfrentiel qui pourrait rsulter de cette proposition. Il nest pas clair pour les membres consults si le chapitre SP 2125 devrait tre appliqu ou si dautres exigences pourraient tre considres. Ils auraient apprci connatre les alternatives possibles.
2. tes-vous daccord pour que les composantes du gouvernement se conforment en gnral au Manuel du secteur public, complt par dautres mthodes comptables sil y a lieu?
Les membres sont daccord pour que les composantes du gouvernement se conforment en gnral au Manuel du secteur public.
Par contre, ils sont davis que lutilisation dautres mthodes comptables (sil y a lieu) , est encadre par les critres noncs au chapitre SP 1150 Principes comptables gnralement reconnus et quelle ne devrait pas tre reflte dans la prface propose sans en expliquer le contexte. Comme ces situations ne sont pas uniques aux composantes du gouvernement, un manque duniformit risque dentrainer de la confusion. Ainsi les membres proposent que cette prcision sur les autres mthodes comptables (sil y a lieu) , soit ajoute aux recommandations concernant les autres catgories dentits du secteur public ou tout simplement retire des recommandations applicables aux composantes du gouvernement.
3. tes-vous daccord avec les propositions visant clarifier lapplicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats?
Les membres sont davis quil est utile de clarifier lapplicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats, car celle-ci permettra une application plus uniforme pour ce type dentits.
Par contre, concernant les partenariats non commerciaux avec des entits du secteur public uniquement, les membres sont davis quune cohrence devrait tre maintenue avec les normes applicables pour les autres organismes publics, telles quelles sont nonces au paragraphe .19 de lexpos-sondage. Ainsi, pour les partenariats non commerciaux, les membres proposent que le rfrentiel comptable applicable soit le Manuel du secteur public ou le Manuel de lICCA comptabilit pour les entreprises ayant une obligation dinformation du public, si elles rpondent mieux aux besoins des utilisateurs. Ils souhaitent quun paragraphe additionnel traite de cette question dans la prface.
4. tes-vous daccord avec les modifications de formulation quil est propos dapporter aux paragraphes actuels de la Prface? Dans la ngative, quels sont les changements avec lesquels vous ntes pas daccord et pourquoi?
Les membres sont daccord que certaines mentions dans lancienne prface pouvaient tre limitatives quant aux structures quil est permis de considrer comme faisant partie du primtre comptable des gouvernements, notamment les mentions gouvernement fdral, provinciaux, territoriaux et les administrations locales .
Par contre, ils soulignent labsence de dfinitions pour des entits cls du gouvernement, comme les administrations locales, dfinitions qui sont utiles en pratique et sur lesquelles les membres auraient aim se rfrer dans des circonstances prcises pour dterminer le rfrentiel applicable certains types dentits.
Ainsi, ils proposent que soit incluse une dfinition pour les administrations locales dans les dfinitions et que les prcisions de lancienne prface (gouvernement fdral, provinciaux, territoriaux et les administrations locales) soient conserves comme des exemples dentits faisant partie du primtre comptable des gouvernements, plutt que de les liminer totalement.
5. tes-vous daccord avec les modifications corrlatives proposes? Dans la ngative, pourquoi?
Les membres se sont montrs en accord avec les modifications corrlatives proposes.
Ils ont indiqu que des modifications corrlatives additionnelles devraient tre apportes, entre autres aux paragraphes suivants du Manuel du secteur public : SP 1300.28, SP 3060.07, SP 3070.03b). Ils ont not quune analyse plus approfondie devrait tre effectue par le groupe de travail, car cette liste nest pas exhaustive.
6. Y a-t-il dautres points considrer?
Les membres ont indiqu les points additionnels considrer qui suivent.
Ils ont indiqus que les alinas a qui sont proposs dans les paragraphes .06, .07 et .08 ( il constitue une entit distincte ayant le pouvoir de passer des contrats en son propre nom et dester en justice ) apportent une redondance dans les dfinitions. En effet, les entits vises ces paragraphes sont dfinies dabord comme des organismes publics, et la dfinition d organisme public inclut dj cette caractristique. Ils proposent de supprimer les alinas a des dfinitions proposes aux paragraphes .06 .08.
Ils se sont questionns sur la prsence de ladjectif juridique dans lalina a du paragraphe .08 de la version franaise de la prface propose, car ce qualificatif est absent de la version anglaise et galement des autres dfinitions. Ils proposent de supprimer cet adjectif de la dfinition cite cidessus.
Les membres sont en dsaccord avec linclusion du paragraphe .13 dans la prface. Ils sont davis que le Manuel du secteur public, incluant sa prface, est un rfrentiel usage gnral et que la problmatique des rfrentiels usage particulier ne devrait pas y tre aborde. Ils indiquent que cette problmatique est traite dans le Manuel de lICCA Certification et que le libell utilis dans la prface, soit vocation spciale est incohrent avec la terminologie utilise dans les textes des normes en certification. Ils proposent donc de supprimer ce paragraphe.
Les membres ont critiqu linclusion de la dernire phrase de la note de bas de page #2. Ils sont davis que les notes de bas de page ne devraient pas contenir dexigence particulire et que les normes du secteur public ne devraient pas singrer dans les informations fournir en vertu dautres rfrentiels comptables. Ils estiment que linclusion de cette phrase laisse prsumer que les exigences dIAS 1 de la Partie I ou du chapitre 1501 de la Partie II pourraient tre modifies, car lutilisation du verbe doivent dans cette phrase, semble rfrer une exigence. Ils ont not galement que les notes de bas de page #3 et 4 utilisent aussi les verbes doivent et doit , ainsi ils proposent que les exigences soient prsentes dans le corps mme du texte de la prface plutt quen note de bas de page.
Les membres croient que le paragraphe .18 devrait tre clarifi. Le libell propos laisse croire que lorsquun OSBL applique les chapitres SP 4200 4270 il na pas appliquer les autres chapitres pertinents du Manuel du secteur public. Ils proposent plutt que le texte suivant soit utilis : les OSBL du secteur public appliquent les normes du Manuel du secteur public avec ou sans les chapitres SP 4200 4270 .

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Michel Samson, vrificateur gnral par intrim Vrificateur gnral du Qubec michel.samson@vgq.qc.ca
Commentaires gnraux : En gnral, nous sommes en accord avec le principe.
1.
tes-vous d'accord avec la proposition d'exclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition d'un organisme public? Dans l'affirmative, y a-t-il des rpercussions prendre en compte?
Nous sommes en accord avec la proposition d'exclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition d'un organisme public.
2.
Nous sommes en accord pour que les composantes du gouvernement se conforment au Manuel du secteur public. Toutefois, nous ne voyons pas la ncessit de prciser que les normes peuvent tre compltes par d'autres mthodes comptables s'il y a lieu. Il est dj prvu au paragraphe .05 du chapitre SP 1150, Principes comptables gnralement reconnus, que lorsque les normes ne traitent pas de la comptabilisation et de la prsentation dans les tats financiers d'oprations ou d'vnements intervenus dans l'entit, ou que des indications additionnelles sont ncessaires, l'entit doit adopter des mthodes comptables et fournir des informations qui sont cohrentes avec les sources premires des PCGR et les fondements conceptuels. tout le moins, si la prcision "complt par d'autres mthodes comptables s'il y a lieu" est conserve, il faudrait ajouter que les mthodes comptables adoptes doivent tre cohrentes avec les sources premires des PCGR et les fondements conceptuels, tel que requis au paragraphe .05 du SP 1150, Principes comptables gnralement reconnus.
3.
Nous sommes en accord avec les propositions visant clarifier l'applicabilit du Manuel du secteur public aux partenariats.
4.
Nous sommes en accord avec les modifications de formulation qu'il est propos d'apporter aux paragraphes actuels de la Prface.
5.
Nous sommes en accord avec les modifications corrlatives proposes. Toutefois, nous sommes d'avis que l'ensemble des autres chapitres du Manuel devraient tre revus afin de s'assurer de l'exhaustivit des modifications corrlatives requises. Par exemple, les modifications faites aux dfinitions d'entreprise publique, de partenariat et d'organisme sans but lucratif du secteur public n'ont pas t refltes aux endroits suivants : -SP 1300.28 -SP 3060.06 et .07 -SP 3070.03b) - SP 4200.02a) Aussi, la rfrence la prface du Manuel qui est cite au par. 01 de la Prface des OSBLSP doit tre ajuste.
6.
Dfinition d'autre organisme du secteur public Au paragraphe .08a) de l'expos-sondage, la dfinition d'autre organisme public contient le terme "juridique" alors qu'il a t enlev dans toutes les autres dfinitions. Afin d'tre logique et cohrent, ce terme devrait galement tre enlev de ce paragraphe. (Il semble y avoir un problme de traduction ce sujet.) tats financiers vocation spciale Le paragraphe .13 de l'expos-sondage traite des tats financiers vocation spciale. Puisqu'il est clairement tabli au paragraphe .11 que le Manuel du secteur public est un rfrentiel usage gnral, nous ne voyons pas l'intrt d'introduire le concept d'tats financiers usage particulier puisque ce n'est pas l'objet de ce rfrentiel. Ce concept est trait dans les Normes canadiennes d'audit et nous ne voyons pas l'utilit de venir le dfinir dans la Prface. De plus, les prfaces des autres parties du Manuel de l'ICCA - Comptabilit ne viennent pas introduire ce concept alors nous ne comprenons pas la pertinence de le faire dans celle du secteur public.

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Andr Miville CPA, CA, directeur gnral de la pratique professionnelle et Vicky Lizotte CPA, CA, directrice de la Normalisation Contrleur des Finances - Qubec andre.miville@cf.gouv.qc.ca et vicky.lizotte@cf.gouv.qc.ca
Commentaires gnraux : Bien qu'une norme sur les restructurations entre entits non apparentes puisse tre utile, nous sommes d'avis qu'une norme sur les restructurations entre entits apparentes serait plus pertinente puisque ces oprations surviennent plus frquemment et que les diverses parties prenantes ont besoin d'un cadre afin de comptabiliser celle-ci d'une manire uniforme. 1. tes-vous d'accord avec la proposition d'exclure les composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition d'un organisme public? Dans l'affirmative, y a-t-il des rpercussions prendre en compte?
Oui, nous sommes d'accord avec l'exclusion des composantes du gouvernement de la dfinition d'un organisme public. Le fait qu'une entit qui ne peut ester en justice ne soit pas un organisme public est un lment pertinent servant clarifier la faon de classifier nos organismes. Nous ne voyons pas dlments particuliers prendre en considration pouvant avoir des rpercussions importantes.
2.
Oui, nous sommes daccord pour que les composantes du gouvernement utilisent le Manuel du secteur public comme rfrentiel. Toutefois, nous ne comprenons pas la pertinence dajouter au paragraphe .15 que ce manuel est complt par dautres mthodes comptables sil y a lieu, puisque le paragraphe SP 1150.05 du chapitre traitant des principes comptables gnralement reconnus fait dj cette prcision.
3.
Oui, cette clarification permettra une interprtation et une application uniforme entre les partenariats. Toutefois, en ce qui concerne les partenariats non commerciaux avec entits du secteur public seulement, nous sommes davis que le rfrentiel comptable utiliser devrait tre spcifi de la mme manire que celui utiliser pour les autres organismes publics (voir le paragraphe .08 de la Prface du Manuel du secteur public), soit que les normes nonces dans le Manuel du secteur public rpondent habituellement aux besoins de leurs utilisateurs. Toutefois, si ces normes ny rpondent pas, lutilisation des normes applicables aux entreprises ayant une obligation dinformation du public nonces dans le Manuel de lICCA Comptabilit doit tre envisage.
4.
De faon gnrale, nous sommes en accord. Nous souhaitons toutefois vous apporter certains commentaires. Le CCSP a propos de ne plus prciser les types de gouvernements ou dadministrations auxquels le Manuel du secteur public sapplique. Ainsi, la mention les gouvernements fdral, provinciaux et territoriaux et les administrations locales du paragraphe .03 de lactuelle Prface a t enleve en raison que cela pouvait tre limitatif quant aux structures quil est permis de considrer comme des gouvernements. Nous sommes davis que ces types de gouvernements doivent continuer dtre prsents. De plus, nous navons pas trouv dexemples autres que ceux-ci pouvant tre inclus dans la dfinition de gouvernement. Il est important de dlimiter les comptences du CCSP puisque la Prface du CNC exclut de son champ de comptence les entits pour lesquelles le Manuel de comptabilit de lICCA pour le secteur public sapplique. galement, puisque le chapitre introduit maintenant la dfinition de ce quest un organisme public au paragraphe .02, il est redondant de rpter dans les dfinitions dentreprise publique, dorganisme sans but lucratif du secteur public, dautre organisme public de mme que dans le partenariat commercial, la notion de constituer une entit distincte ayant le pouvoir de passer des contrats et dester en justice.
5.
Oui, toutefois le CCSP devra sassurer que les modifications corrlatives dans les autres chapitres du Manuel du secteur sont galement effectues, par exemple aux paragraphes SP 3060.07a) et SP 3070.03b i). Par ailleurs, nous sommes davis que le paragraphe .13 devrait tre enlev puisquil traite dtats financiers usage particulier (tats financiers vocation spciale ) et que cela est dj spcifi au SP 1100 OBJECTIFS DES TATS FINANCIERS. Aussi, le paragraphe .12 devrait tre modifi comme suit Les entits du secteur public qui dcident, ou qui doivent par le biais dune lgislation ou dun rglement le cas chant, publier des tats financiers usage gnral, doivent se conformer aux normes comptables qui leurs sont applicables en vertu de cette Prface. Si des modifications doivent tre apportes au texte, le CCSP devra sassurer que celles-ci sont cohrentes avec les normes de certification qui traitent des tats financiers usage gnral et particulier.
6.
Puisque la Prface rvise prcise au paragraphe .11, par le biais de la note de bas de page affrente, que lensemble des
normes du Manuel du secteur public sapplique toutes les entits du secteur public qui adoptent les normes publies par le CCSP, sauf quelques exceptions, le CCSP devrait spcifier dans la base des conclusions que le CCSP a finalis son projet de rvision terminologique. En effet, lors de son expos-sondage de juillet 2011 RVISION TERMINOLOGIQUE, le CCSP avait mentionn les chapitres pour lesquels la rvision terminologique ne s'appliquait pas. Le paragraphe s'nonait ainsi Un certain nombre dautres chapitres qui ne sont pas viss par le prsent expos-sondage sont galement applicables aux organismes publics, mais doivent faire lobjet dune plus ample rflexion avant que la rvision terminologique ne soit effectue. Ces chapitres sont les suivants : SP 1000, SP 1100, SP 1201, SP 2400, SP 3050, SP 3230, SP 3310 et SP 3410.
PROV I NC lAl. Al JIM

0/
S0Skilit 11011'1111
May 3, 2013
Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director Public Sector Accounting The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants 277 Wellington Street West TORONTO, ON M5V 3H2 Dear Mr. Beauchamp:
Re: Amendments to the Introduction (February 2013)
Overall, we do not support the proposals in the exposure draft. We are unclear why PSAB is proposing different accounting treatment for government components as compared to governments or other government organizations. In our view, the reporting objectives for general purpose financial statements are essentially the same for governments, government components and other government organizations. Neither the exposure draft nor the issues analysis present compelling arguments as to how the proposed changes will improve public financial reporting. Introducing another type of public sector entity only adds another layer of unnecessary complexity. We are concerned that allowing government components the ability to adopt supplemental accounting policies to the PSA Handbook will in fact weaken public financial reporting as allowing this increases the risk that a government component's general purpose financial statements may not be relevant, reliable, comparable or understandable to the users of those financial statements. We also question the timing of these proposed changes given PSAB's ongoing project related to the conceptual framework. We suggest that PSAB reconsider moving forward with this proposal at this time until the project relating to the conceptual framework has been finalized. Following are our responses to the specific questions raised: 1. We do not agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization. As noted above, we have significant concerns with this proposal. Government components that prepare general purpose financial statements should follow the PSA Handbook similar to other government organizations who adopt PSAB. Rather than excluding government components from the definition of government organizations, we suggest that government components as defined in the exposure draft be considered another category of government organization (e.g. under paragraph .16 in the exposure draft). 2. We strongly disagree that government components should be able to supplement the PSA Handbook with other accounting policies. If government components prepare general purpose financial statements, the PSA Handbook should be followed without exception in order to meet the objectives of general purpose financial statements for the public sector as outlined in PS 1100. As mentioned above, we view the objectives as outlined in PS 1100 as appropriate for governments, government components, and other government organizations. Government components should use generally accepted accounting principles as defined in PS 1150. By allowing supplemental accounting policies, this increases the likelihood that different accounting practices may be followed for similar transactions which negatively impacts the relevance, reliability, comparability, and
el BP0 Broad 100 C Oilcan Tol I Wry tia .a( Beck, ol ti

t . f s0(..7P7
into
"tidlor
wunassutlitor.sk.ca
Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director May 3, 2013
Page 2
understandability of public sector financial statements. As a result, we disagree with paragraph .11 where it states "unless specifically directed to alternative standards". We also disagree with the second sentence in paragraph .15. Where the PSA Handbook is silent, PS 1150 should be used to determine the appropriate source of GAAP. Also, we are unclear why the last sentence is needed as whether or not components are "directed" to prepare general purpose financial statements or they choose to do so should not have an impact on what standards are used. As auditors we are also concerned that if we consider that the supplemental accounting policies used by government components are not appropriate, we may be unable to conclude that the financial reporting framework for those entities is unacceptable given the presumption that Canadian public sector accounting standards are acceptable frameworks (under CAS 210 paragraphs A8 and CA8a). 3. We do not agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships. We find paragraphs .21 and .22 confusing as it appears to be inconsistent with the definition of government partnerships in paragraphs .09 and .10. Paragraphs .09 and .10 indicate that government partnerships are between a government or a government organization and parties outside the reporting entity. Paragraphs .21 and .22 refer to partnerships between "public sector entities" which might be interpreted to include government organizations that are within the reporting entity. 4. We do not agree with the editorial changes proposed - see responses #1 and #3 above. 5. We do not agree with the consequential amendments being proposed - see response #1 and #3 above. We are also concerned that the Exposure Draft provides no detail on the editorial changes to be made throughout the CICA PSA Handbook. In order for respondents to effectively consider the impact of changes to the standards, details of all proposed changes should be provided for comment. We also note that the exposure draft does not include any transitional provisions. PSAB needs to provide clear guidance on transitional provisions for the adoption of the revised standard. 6. We provide the following additional comments: a. Paragraph .04 - we suggest that the definition of a government component should explicitly address the concept of control. b. Paragraph .13 while we acknowledge that the CICA PSA Handbook is not required for the preparation of special purpose financial statements, PSAB should encourage the use of the PSA Handbook for these financial statements where practicable. c. Footnote 1 on page 3 of the exposure draft: i. PS 2125 this should also apply to government components applying the PSA Handbook for the first time ii. PS 2700 this should also apply to government components iii. PS 3510 this may apply to government organizations (e.g., school boards) Yours truly,
nnie Lysyk, MBA, CA Provincial Auditor /br
Wayne Morgan, PhD, CA, CISA Office of the Auditor General of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
May 2, 2013
Tim Beauchamp, Director Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario
Dear Mr. Beauchamp, Our response to PSAB Exposure Draft Amendments to the Introduction is below. In general, we support the amendments to the Introduction. Our main comment is that PSAB, in making these amendments, has recognized that government components and organizations are different from the consolidated government reporting entity itself, and that this logic should be followed through, with the result that some standards, such as net debt presentation, are only applicable to the government reporting entity. Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered? Yes, we have always considered them to be different from government organizations that are separate legal entities. There are several implications that need to be considered, which we discuss below. The relevance and application of the net debt model to entities other than governments needs to be reconsidered. The objectives of the net debt model are likely not applicable to a component of an entity, nor an other government organization, only the entire entity i.e. the government. It is not a matter of general or special purpose financial reporting objectives; it is a matter that within a component, which has limited financial and operational scope, the basic premise of the net debt model to measure future revenues to be raised by an entity is not relevant, because it is only at the summary level that all the separate components or segments are brought together to arrive at a measure of net debt or net financial assets that is meaningful and interpretable. PSABs logic of defining components as integral to a government supports the argument that the net debt model does not apply to these entities within a government reporting entity (and by extension it does not apply to OGOs as well). In other words, it is not meaningful to present whether a component of government is in net debt, because a component is integral to a much larger entity, and net debt is an integrated concept, not a segmented one.
A definition of government may be necessary to identify what a component is an integral part of, and also to allow the definition to be used recursively. For example, a ministry may be an integral part of government, and a department (or OGO) in turn may be an integral part of a ministry. This matters especially if there is differential reporting (as footnote 1 suggests) between governments and components. PSAB should consider the implications for PS3250 and multi-employer accounting in particular. It may be that defined benefit accounting is still appropriate for some of the components but not all. There may be difficulty in attribution of transactions or events to particular government components. The definition implies that government components are not contracting in their own name nor involved in litigation, yet in practice government components may be involved in both. An unintended consequence may be that some may argue such an entity cannot incur salary expense, for example, because it cannot contract in its own name with employees. Some guidance on what events or transactions are attributable to a particular component would be helpful. Regarding the characteristic that such an entity cannot sue or be sued, PSAB should consider whether this implies that PS3300 does not apply to government components, because by definition they cannot be sued. We do not believe that paragraphs .11 or .15 imply that government components or organizations can apply whatever accounting they want. However, footnote 1 of the exposure draft should be modified to specifically identify that some standards are not applicable to entities other than the summary level financial statements of government. PS2700 has established a precedent for this. The net debt presentation and statement of change in net debt is not applicable to entities other than the summary level (consolidated) entity, as we noted above. Application of PS2700, 3250, 3300 and perhaps other standards (such as PS3410 in the matter of whether appropriations are transfers) is unclear. The exceptions would generally apply to both components and other government organizations. Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate? Yes, as adapted as noted above. Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships? Yes. We suggest that PSAB consider whether .09 definition of a government partnership be expanded to include not only contractual arrangements but also arrangements arising from legislation or regulation. It is also unclear in .09 what the term reporting entity refers to it may be read as the entire consolidated reporting entity (to preclude government partnerships among government components and government organization). We also note that this definition of government partnership seems to preclude a government component from entering into a government partnership. While this is logical because a
government partnership arises from a contractual arrangement, and government components are defined as not being able to contract in their own name, it may be that government components are involved in government partnerships as well, which should be appropriately included in the financial statements of the government component. Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why? Yes. Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why not? Yes, with the additional observations as noted above. However, because of the importance of the use of the terms government or government component or government organization etc., we suggest PSAB should expose for comment all the consequential amendments. Are there any additional matters that need to be considered? The definition of a government organization could be expanded to include entities that operate under a governments legislation that do not meet the definition of a controlled organization. For example, an entity may be created by legislation and operate under a government appointed board or official, but the use of the assets of the entity may be restricted by legislation or equitable obligations such that the government may not access or direct the use of the entitys assets. Entities of these types are neither governments nor government organizations nor government components (e.g. they are more like trusts) yet PSAB GAAP may still be applicable to them, but .02 of the exposure draft seems to be an exhaustive list. PSAB may consider whether PS1201.132 and .133 are still necessary. In particular, it may no longer be clear if what is being presented in a note or supporting schedule (due to a different scope or basis as contemplated under .132 and .133) are the results of a component of government, or the entire government, and therefore which specific standards should be applied. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely,
Wayne Morgan, PhD, CA, CISA

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Darwin Bozek Alberta Treasury Board and Finance - Controller's Office darwin.bozek@gov.ab.ca
General comments: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. In our view, the exposure draft brings some needed clarity to the applicable accounting standards for ministry, department and fund financial statements. We have, however, some concerns regarding the proposed equal application of public sector accounting standards to all public sector entities - with certain exemptions as identified in footnote 1 to paragraph .11. For example, as we have maintained in the past, the net debt model as recommended in PS 1201 should not be applicable to government organizations. We suggest, therefore, that the proposed editorial changes to CICA PSA be subject to careful review. 1. Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered?
Yes. In our view, government components are essentially segments of the larger government reporting entity that are established by a government for various accountability purposes. One of the implications that can be identified at this stage is the proposed application of SEGMENT DISCLOSURES, Section 2700, to government components. In our view, departments should provide segment disclosures only when their operations are diverse enough to warrant such disclosures. 2. Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate?
Yes, subject to GAAP hierarchy as specified in Section 1150.
3.
Yes.
4.
Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why?
- Paragraph .02 which is in essence a definition of "public sector" should preferably be moved under DEFINITIONS. - Referring to the definition of "public sector", should government partnerships with one or more private sector partners be included in the definition of "public sector"? - Considering the expiry of time lines determined by AcSB, footnote 2 in paragraph .17 does not appear to be required. - Transitional provisions mentioned in footnote 3 to paragraph .18 should be revised or removed. 5. Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why not?
Yes.
6.
We have the following comments: - Paragraph .19 requires "when CICA PSA Handbook standards do not meet the needs of users of other government organizations financial statements, the standards applicable to publicly accountable enterprises in the CICA Handbook Accounting should be considered." However, this recommendation does not appear to be in accordance with PS 1150. PS 1150 does not appear to have given preference to CICA Handbook - Accounting in the choice of accounting standard. - Paragraph .10(c), the phrase "other than partners" should be changed to "sources outside of the government reporting entity" to be consistent with .10(d). One potential consequence of the current wording in .10(c) is that the principal activity of the partnership could be sale of goods and services to public sector entity partners. - Considering that a "government organization" has already been defined in paragraph .05, and "government business enterprises", "government not-for-profit organizations" and "other government organizations" are various forms of "government organization", sub-paragraphs .6(a), .7(a) and .8(a) appear to be redundant or repetitious. - Consideration should be given to see if transitional provisions are required to assist those entities potentially affected by the proposed changes.
PO Box 187 1723 Hollis Street Halifax, NS B3J 2N3 (902) 424-7021 wilesm@gov.ns.ca
Department of Finance
Government Accounting
May 7, 2013
Tim Beauchamp Director, Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2
Dear Mr. Beauchamp, RE: Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft. Our thoughts on the proposed amendments are below. 1. Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered? Yes, we agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization. The main implication is that the new definitions may require certain entities to change their basis of accounting. As noted in the Issues Analysis, the characteristic of being able to sue and be sued is new to the definition of a government organization. As a result, certain government not-for-profit and other government organizations could now be classified as government components. If these entities are not already following the PSA Handbook (without the 4200 series) they will need to transition. As such, an effective date for the Amendments to the Introduction should be exposed for stakeholder consideration. The selected date should provide affected entities with sufficient time to implement the transition to PSA standards.
2. Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate? We agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook supplemented by other accounting policies where appropriate. However the proposed standard does not convey this concept. Instead, it seems to suggest that government components would only use supplemental guidance for issues where the PSA Handbook is silent. In certain cases, guidance in the PSA Handbook cannot be practically applied by government components because the item in question is centrally managed. For example, it would be impractical to measure a sick time liability for a government component as the value of such liabilities cannot be easily attributed to each government component. Likewise, cash flow statements, which are required under PS 1201, are often meaningless
for government components because they hold no cash (i.e., all cash is held / distributed by a central division in government). We recommend that paragraph .15 be reworded as follows: When directed by government to prepare general purpose financial statements, government components apply the standards for governments in the CICA PSA Handbook for purposes of their financial reporting. These standards may be supplemented with policies that reflect the government components nature as being part of a larger integrated entity. 3. Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships? We do not fully agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships. In particular, we have concerns respecting the standards applicable to government partnerships between two or more public sector entities. These partnerships may have characteristics of government not-for-profit organizations (GNFPOs) or other government organizations (OGOs). As such, they should be afforded the same choices available to GNFPOs and OGOs under the control of a single entity. Government partnerships with the characteristics of GNFPOs should be allowed to choose between PSA standards alone or PSA standards plus the 4200 series. Government partnerships with the characteristics of OGOs should be allowed to choose between PSA standards or IFRS. We recommend that Appendix A be updated to reflect this change. The proposed amendments may require certain government partnerships to change their basis of accounting. As such, an effective date for the Amendments to the Introduction should be exposed for stakeholder consideration. The selected date should provide affected government partnerships with sufficient time to implement the transition to the applicable set of standards.
4. Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why? Paragraphs .06, .07, and .08: We believe that bullet (a) in paragraphs .06, .07, and .08 should be removed. The first sentence in all of these paragraphs makes it clear that the entity under question is a government organization. As such, it is redundant to say that the entity is a separate entity with the power to contract in its own name as this is now already reflected in the definition of a government organization. Paragraph .10: The definition of a government business partnership in paragraph .10 does not match the definition currently found in PS 3060. Bullet (d) appears to have been reworded as follows: It can, in the normal course of its operations, maintain its operations and meet its liabilities from revenues received from sources other than the partners outside of the government reporting entity. We believe the existing definition in PS 3060 is appropriate and should be maintained. However, if the change proceeds, a consequential amendment to PS 3060 should be exposed for comment.
Paragraph .11: Paragraph .11 notes that these (i.e., PSA) standards apply to all public sector entities that issue general purpose financial statements unless specifically directed to alternative standards. With this wording, a reader may wonder specifically directed by whom? Presumably the intent is specifically directed by PSAB, but the present structure might allow one to conclude that being explicitly directed by government to another basis of accounting would make that basis acceptable for financial reporting purposes. Since the paragraph applies to all public sector entities, a government could theoretically direct itself to alternative standards, thereby circumventing the direction in paragraph .14. The term specifically directed may also exclude entities that are not required but are permitted to use alternative standards (e.g., OGOs are not specifically directed to use IFRS, but can use IFRS in certain circumstances). We recommend that paragraph .11 be reworded as follows: These standards apply to all public sector entities that issue general purpose financial statements unless:
a) specifically directed or permitted to use, in accordance with the guidance in this Introduction, alternative standards, or b) limited in applicability as outlined in the individual Sections1
Paragraph .20: The term basis of accounting has been replaced with the word standards in the first sentence. We have no issue with this change, but recommend that it also be applied to the second to last sentence in the paragraph. Specifically, that sentence should be reworded as follows: In some situations, a particular factor may provide a high degree of evidence of the appropriateness of a particular basis of accounting set of standards whereas, in other situations, the importance of the same factor may not be as significant. 5. Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why not? The proposed revision to PS 1300.07 appears to exclude government partnerships from the definition of the government reporting entity (GRE). We recognize that the existing PS 1300.07 is similarly worded and feel that this is an opportunity to clearly include government partnerships within the GRE. We recommend the following change to proposed PS 1300.07: The government reporting entity should comprise government components and those organizations that are under sole or shared controlled by of the government. With respect to proposed PS 1300.25A, we feel the usage of the terms governmental unit / government component / government organization may cause some confusion due to the fact that they have similar connotations but very different definitions. PSAB should consider whether the term governmental unit could be replaced with something more distinct from the other terms in the Introduction.
6. Are there any additional matters that need to be considered? Appendix A states that PSAB reserves the right to recommend additional or different information to meet the special circumstances of government organizations. We recognize that this also appears in the existing version of Appendix A, however, the intent of this statement is not clear. We recommend that it be reworded to more clearly convey the types of additional or different information being contemplated. Finally, the word enterprise in the paragraph .06 definition of a government business enterprise should be bolded.
This concludes our thoughts on the Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft. We would be pleased to discuss any questions or comments you may have with respect to this letter. To do so, please contact Jill Devanney (devannjl@gov.ns.ca), Rob Bourgeois (bourgere@gov.ns.ca), or the undersigned.
Regards,
Suzanne Wile, CA Executive Director, Government Accounting Nova Scotia Department of Finance

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Greg MacBeth Office of the Auditor General - Manitoba greg.macbeth@oag.mb.ca
General comments: I am replying on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General - Manitoba. My comments are from the perspective of the public sector within our jurisdiction.
1.
Yes. This captures a government segment/department/section where general purpose financial statements are required but for which an applicable financial reporting framework is not clear.
2.
While we agree that the government component should follow PSAS, we think the government component should follow the PSAS hierarchy where the standards are silent. To state that an organization can supplement PSAS with other accounting policies may allow a government to legislate accounting policies which could be inappropriate. 3. Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships?
Yes.
4.
Yes except as discussed in 1 and 2.
5.
Yes.
6.
None.
May 3, 2013
Mr. Tim Beauchamp Director, Public Sector Accounting Public Sector Accounting Board 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2 via: ed.psector@cica.ca Dear Mr. Beauchamp:
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP Suite 2000 National Bank Tower 600 De La Gauchetire Street West Montral, Qubec H3B 4L8 T + 514 878 2691 F + 514 878 2127 www.rcgt.com
Grant Thornton LLP 12th Floor 50 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5J 2Z8 T +1 416 366 4240 F +1 416 360 4944 www.GrantThornton.ca
SUBJECT: EXPOSURE DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION (FEBRUARY 2013) Grant Thornton LLP and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Public Sector Accounting Boards (PSAB) Exposure Draft (ED), Amendments to the Introduction. The changes proposed in the ED are particularly relevant to us due to the large proportion of our clients who are applying Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. We support PSABs decision to amend the Introduction to Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards to clarify the applicability of Public Sector Accounting Standards from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Public Sector Accounting Handbook (CICA PSA Handbook) for various public sector entities. However, while we agree with the intention of the proposed amendments, we have the following responses to your questions and additional comments below: 1. Do you agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization? If so, are there any implications that need to be considered? 2. Yes, we agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization. However, we believe the amendments should include transitional provisions given that they may lead to a change in the accounting framework for some entities. For example, the entities that previously met the government not-for-profit organization definition and chose to follow the standards of the PS 4200 series may no longer qualify if they do not meet the separate entity with the power to contract in its own
Partnership of Chartered Professional Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
name that can sue or be sued criterion. As a result, these possible changes in the accounting framework should be given a transition date. Do you agree that government components would generally follow the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate? Yes, we agree that government components should follow the CICA PSA Handbook. However, we do not agree with the wording proposed in the ED. Paragraph .15 states: Where the CICA PSA Handbook is silent, these standards may be supplemented with policies that reflect their nature as being part of a larger integrated entity. We believe this sentence could lead to confusion for the following reasons: This situation is already addressed by Section PS 1150, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and is not specific to government components; the standard provides guidance on sources to consult when selecting accounting policies for a matter that is not explicitly dealt with in the CICA PSA Handbook; The proposed wording policies that reflect their nature as being part of a larger integrated entity could be interpreted to mean that any internal accounting policy could be appropriate and considered as a generally accepted accounting policy, while we believe this should not be the case. We believe that paragraph .15 should read as follows: .15 For the purpose of their financial reporting, government components should apply the CICA PSA Handbook standards for governments.
3. Do you agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships? Yes, we generally agree with proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook to government partnerships. However, we believe the following changes should be made to the proposed amendments: The CICA PSA Handbook Introduction states that the CICA PSA Handbook generally meets the needs of other government organizations (OGOs) financial statements users; however, in a situation where the standards do not meet users needs, OGOs must assess certain factors, using professional judgment, to determine if the use of IFRS would be more appropriate. We think that government partnerships of two or more public sector entities (excluding government business partnerships) should be provided with the same guidance in the Handbook, similar to that in paragraph .20 for OGOs, in order to help government partnerships determine the most appropriate standards to apply;
Transitional provisions and an effective date should be provided in the Introduction, given that these changes could lead to a change in the accounting framework of a government partnership. We also believe that Section PS 2125, First-time Adoption by Government Organizations should be amended so that a government partnership moving to the CICA PSA Handbook would be allowed to apply this standard in its first financial statements.
4. Do you agree with the editorial changes being proposed to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction? If not, which changes to the existing paragraphs do you not agree with and why? Yes, we agree with the proposed changes. However, we believe the following should be considered: Paragraph .26 and the Issues Analysis document state that the reference to federal, provincial, territorial and local governments in existing paragraph .03 has been removed because it could potentially limit which structures are considered governments. Given that there is no definition provided for a government, we believe these examples should be included in the Introduction, without being limitative; Given that the French version or the ED also refers to local governments (for example, in paragraph .04 and in Appendix A), local governments should be defined in the Introduction. Governments (including local governments) are key entities in the public sector and they should be defined with more clarity in the Introduction, in the same way as the other classifications (government not-for-profit organizations, government business enterprises, etc.). 5. Do you agree with the consequential amendments being proposed? If not, why? Yes. 6. Are there any additional matters that need to be considered? We believe the following should be considered: The wording proposed in paragraph .11 will create a reporting issue in certain provinces (e.g.: British Columbia and Ontario). British Columbia has, for example, legislated the accounting method of the CICA PSA Handbook for certain entities, with the exception of restricted contributions which are accounted for as defined by legislation. Under the CICA Handbook Assurance, the accounting framework used is considered to be a compliance framework and is being
referred to as such; however, these financial statements are considered general purpose financial statements. Paragraph .11, as it currently reads, would require all public sector entities to follow the CICA PSA Handbook for their general purpose financial statements. As a result, these entities would either have to receive qualified audit opinions or to move to special purpose financial statements. Special purpose financial statements are often restricted in use and/or distribution, thus generally not acceptable for public sector entities. We strongly believe that the concepts of general purpose and special purpose financial statements are assurance terminology and need to be considered in a context of general purpose and compliance framework, according to the related information in the CICA Handbook Assurance. Thus, they should not be a part of the Introduction. If the Board does not remove the concept of general purpose financial statements from paragraphs .11 to .13, certain public sector entities would no longer be allowed to issue general purpose financial statements in accordance with a compliance framework without a qualification, since they would now be mandated to follow the CICA PSA Handbook. Consequently, we believe that these paragraphs should be removed. There is redundancy in paragraphs .06, .07 and .08 (more specifically in .06a), .07a) and .08a)) given that these characteristics (i.e. being a separate entity with the power to contract in its own name and sue or be sued) are already in the definition of a government organization, as stated in paragraph .05; We believe that all recommendations included in the Introduction should be included in the main paragraphs. Footnotes should only provide additional information and proposed footnotes 2, 3 and 4, which all include specific recommendations (should follow or should adopt) should be included in the corresponding paragraphs. If you wish to discuss our comments or concerns, please contact Melanie Joseph (Melanie.Joseph@ca.gt.com, 416-607-2736) or Stphane Landry (landry.stephane@rcgt.com, 418-647-5008). Yours sincerely,
Melanie Joseph, CA Grant Thornton LLP
Stphane Landry, CPA auditor, CA Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Stuart Barr, Assistant Auditor General Office of the Auditor General of Canada stuart.barr@oag-bvg.gc.ca
General comments:
1.
No, we do not agree with the proposal to exclude government components from the definition of a government organization as presented in the draft standard. We feel that the reporting objectives related to general purpose financial statements of government components are the same as those for other government organizations. If by contrast the reporting objectives are different, then we would support the proposal for a government component classification. There are two implications we feel the Board should consider if government components are excluded from the definition of a government organization. Implication #1 Potential reporting objectives conflict Without a confirmation that the financial reporting objectives expressed in PS 1100 are appropriate for government components, future public sector accounting standards may need to accommodate different reporting objectives of government components, especially if the reporting objectives of government components are unclear. For example, entities have been communicated as possibly having different reporting objectives in the Related Party Transactions September 2012 exposure draft paragraphs .27 and .28 and these reporting objectives are to be considered in selecting the most appropriate accounting policy. We presume the discussion in paragraph .28 of this draft standard accommodates potential differences in the reporting objectives of a government component.
We struggle with how a general purpose framework such as the PSA Handbook can be sustained as general purpose if it evolves to include individual standards that provide alternatives to accommodate reporting objectives other than those established in PS 1100. In our view, this is going to create significant challenges for PSAB. Substantial agreement on the objectives by both the users and preparers of the financial statements is requisite to setting appropriate accounting and reporting standards. If standards are set without agreement on objectives, there would be no basis for preferring one standard over another or judging the effectiveness of alternative standards in fulfilling the purposes of the financial statements. Government components, defined as parts of government that are not a separate legal entities, can encounter complex accounting judgments when applying the definitions of assets and liabilities set out in the PSA Handbook. Control of an asset and ownership of a liability is not always clear, and users of component financial statements may or may not have information needs about certain balances under the stewardship of the reporting entity. The desire to have a single financial reporting framework for all public sector entities should not lead to a framework that is too accommodating of principal differences in reporting objectives. Rather, differences of such a fundamental nature may be best accommodated by special purpose reporting. Implication #2 Ability to audit a government components financial statements With the introduction of a government component classification, PSAB may need to accommodate alternative accounting policy choices in individual standards on the basis a government components reporting objectives may be different than those set out in PS 1100. This could have the impact of establishing a conglomeration of accounting conventions devised to suit individual preferences which is not necessarily an acceptable financial reporting framework for general purpose financial statements per Appendix 2 of CAS 210. If the PSA handbook evolves to accommodate standards that allow departures from the reporting objectives on which the PSA Handbook is based, the CAS 210.A8 presumption of acceptability of Canadian public sector accounting standards for general purpose financial statements may be at risk. If the auditor does not feel that the accounting policies developed and adopted meet the objectives of the framework but rather meet the unique or specific objectives of the preparer, the ability for an auditor to conclude on the presence of an acceptable framework for general purpose financial statements may be jeopardized. The presence of a special purpose framework and its acceptability for application may be considered.
2.
We do not agree with the proposed model of following the CICA PSA Handbook, supplemented with other accounting policies where appropriate, for two reasons. First, unlike the provisions for other government organizations, the amendments to the Introduction do not allow for an evaluation of what financial reporting framework best meets the needs of the users of government component financial statements. The public sector accounting handbook is communicated as the only alternative for their general purpose financial statements. For example, an other government organization may have previously determined that IFRS was their most appropriate basis of accounting. As government components, these entities would have no choice but to transition to the PSA Handbook after only a short period of time. This means that after incurring costs to transition to IFRS, the same organization would have to incur additional transition costs to transition to PSAS. Further, it is not clear whether PS 2125 is intended to provide guidance for a transition from IFRS to public sector accounting standards. Second, we do not agree with a government component supplementing the requirements in the PSA Handbook where PSAS are silent without more specific guidance regarding the concept and application of supplementation being provided in the standard. In order to ensure consistency of interpretation and application, it is imperative that a concept of supplementation permitted in the application of a general purpose framework be defined in greater detail and be properly integrated with
the application of the GAAP hierarchy found in PS 1150. Supplementation may be interpreted as something performed to address accounting issues not currently addressed in the PSA Handbook (such as accounting for revenue or asset retirement obligations). Supplementation may also be interpreted as something performed to address how allocations or issues of asset and liability ownership should be addressed when the government component is not a separate legal entity from the government. It is unlikely that matters addressed through supplementation would be addressed consistently across government jurisdictions. Transactions and balances with the same underlying economic substance could be subject to different accounting recognition, measurement or presentation. The extent of supplementation used to address practical matters may result in the conclusion that a reporting entity is applying a special purpose framework using accounting policies that, as a practical matter, include reporting concessions which are the policies used to supplement the PSA Handbook to address practical matters such as asset/liability allocations given the entity is not a separate legal entity. The resulting accounting framework may not be a general purpose framework. Finally, government components preparing general purpose financial statements may further interpret paragraph 15 to mean they are not required to follow the GAAP hierarchy guidance in PS 1150, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. For example, when accounting for revenues, an other government organization complying with PSAS could refer to another source of accounting principles in accordance with PS 1150.05 to account for these transactions and balances. A government component complying with the same financial reporting framework may be permitted to develop and adopt its own accounting policies to address these same transactions and balances, potentially resulting in reporting that is not comparable. Should PSAB provide a supplementation provision, with insufficient guidance as to its application, unintended consequences to financial reporting could occur - such as the preparation of special purpose financial statements not identified as such.
3.
Yes, we agree with the proposals to clarify the applicability of the CICA PSA Handbook for government partnerships.
4.
Yes, we agree with the editorial changes proposed in to the existing paragraphs in the Introduction.
5.
Yes, we agree with the consequential amendments proposed in the exposure draft.
6.
We have four additional matters we would like to bring to your attention. First, we believe that the PSAB conceptual framework and reporting objectives should be finalized before revising the basis of accounting for government organizations applied in general purpose reporting. This should occur prior to government components being directed to the PSA Handbook in the manner proposed in order to confirm the applicability and consistency of the reporting objectives on which the handbook is based to those of government components. Second, an alternative model to address government component accounting may be to provide a standard on reporting concessions to be considered and applied in preparing financial statements for government components whose accounting conventions are based on the public sector handbook. Such a standard would improve consistency of application of such concessions and may result in a special purpose framework applicable to government components. Third, we encourage the Board to clearly state transitional provisions and their timing to support adoption of the revised standard. Fourth, we noted that the discussion in the proposed Introduction regarding the importance of neutrality in the accounting standard setting process has been removed. The formulation and implementation of neutral accounting standards is critical to having entities prepare relevant and reliable financial statements. Given the importance of this concept, we recommend that this section be included in the amended Introduction.

2013-05 Amendment To The Introduction RESPONSES

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2013-05 Amendment To The Introduction RESPONSES

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

r-\Hydro

Tl. : (514) 289-2211-4180 Tlc. : (514) 289-4702 Croteau .lise@hydro.qc.ca

Objet : Commentaires sur l'expos-sondage Modification de la Prface

Lise Croteau, FCPA, FCA Vice-prsidente - Comptabilit et contrle Hydra-Qubec p.j.

963-1551 (07-12) E GAB

+ Nous sommes d'accord.

Nous sommes d'accord.

Nous sommes d'accord.

+ Au paragraphe .07 a) Nous proposons l'ajout suivant: il constitue une entit

6. Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?

Click here to submit

May 3, 2013 Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft

We agree with the consequential amendments being proposed.

Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

Click here to submit

Betty-Anne Pratt, CA Provincial Comptroller On Behalf of the Province of Manitoba

6) Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Modification de la Prface Expos-sondage

Nous n'entrevoyons aucun impact dans le monde municipal cet effet.

Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Montral, le 3 mai 2013

Annie Smargiassi CPA, CA

Dni de responsabilit et commentaires

6. Y a-t-il dautres points considrer?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Modification de la Prface Expos-sondage

Commentaires gnraux : En gnral, nous sommes en accord avec le principe.

Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Modification de la Prface Expos-sondage

Y a-t-il d'autres points considrer?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

PROV I NC lAl. Al JIM

el BP0 Broad 100 C Oilcan Tol I Wry tia .a( Beck, ol ti

Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director May 3, 2013

nnie Lysyk, MBA, CA Provincial Auditor /br

Wayne Morgan, PhD, CA, CISA

Click here to submit

May 3, 2013 Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft

Yes, subject to GAAP hierarchy as specified in Section 1150.

Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

Click here to submit

Click here to submit

May 3, 2013 Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft

Yes except as discussed in 1 and 2.

Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

Click here to submit

Partnership of Chartered Professional Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Melanie Joseph, CA Grant Thornton LLP

Stphane Landry, CPA auditor, CA Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP

Click here to submit

May 3, 2013 Amendments to the Introduction Exposure Draft

Are there any additional matters that need to be considered?

Click here to submit

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen