[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
.1540 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning everyone. Order please.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (3), we are examining draft reports on chapter 18 (Pensions) of the 1993 Report of the Auditor General, on chapters 29, 30 and 31, and on chapters 32 and 33 (Revenue) of the 1994 Report of the Auditor General.
We will proceed sequentially, in the order in which the reports have been drafted. Following your comments, the researchers will provide us with drafts.
We will begin with chapters 29, 30 and 31, which make up the eighth report.
The ninth report deals with chapter 18, on pensions. Chapters 32 and 33, on revenue, make up the tenth report. We will begin with the eight report, then go to the ninth report, and, finally, we will go to the tenth report.
We will proceed as usual. I will give you the page number. So, in reviewing the eighth report, I will say: ``page 1, are there any questions or comments?'' and Brian and Michelle can answer. I will then go to page 2, 3, 4, and so on, as is our practice.
I would like to remind you that today's meeting is a public meeting and it is being televised.
We will begin with the eighth report, of which you have a copy. Are there any comments?
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, you have a point of Order?
Mr. Fillion: When we get to the draft of the final report, I believe that out of respect for the House we would have to hold that meeting in camera.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, some reports have been examined in camera, while others have been reviewed in public. There has been quite a bit of discussion on that. The decision is up to the Committee. Today, we are meeting in public. Recently, you raised some objections in that regard. Today, we are operating contrary to our usual practice.
Mr. Fillion: The objections we raised related to the briefing sessions. Since those meetings were intended to allow officials to provide us with information, we didn't feel it was really necessary that they be held in public. Of course, we agreed to sit in public for the purpose of hearing witnesses or deliberating as a committee. It's just a question I'm asking. Do you think that we should be dealing with that in camera, since we will be submitting the report? It's just a question of what's proper.
The Chairman: Rather than sitting in public as we are doing today, should we go in camera to put the question to the Committee? I will refer the question to the Committee, but, first of all, I will hear a second Point of Order.
[English]
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): The member hasn't put forward a motion to either have it in camera or not. Until he does so, I do not think we should be discussing it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Would someone like to move a motion? Mr. Cannis, you had a point of Order, or was it Mr. Peric?
[English]
Mr. Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mine was a different point of order, Mr. Chairman, in that it is with respect to the vacancy for the vice-chair for this committee. I was going to put forth Mr. Telegdi's name for consideration and a vote if it is appropriate at this time.
[Translation]
The Chairman: There was a comment but no motion for us to sit in camera. I accept Mr. Cannis' proposal.
[English]
Are you going to move a motion?
Mr. Cannis: Yes.
The Chairman: Yes, formally move a motion.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): I second that motion, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is the Committee in favour of the motion?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to be on record as saying that I am quite disappointed that we have a vacancy on the committee for the vice-chairman in the first place.
.1545
We had a situation where a member was exercising his parliamentary prerogative and representing his constituency in a vote in the House, and the following day he was stripped of his responsibilities as a committee member. I think that is disgraceful and quite distasteful to the democratic process in this country, whereby each and every one of us is elected to represent our constituencies. That is why we are here. To find out that a member was doing exactly what he was paid to do and was removed from his responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, is quite despicable.
Mr. Peric: Mr. Chairman, I respect the opinion of my colleague across the floor, but since there is a vacancy we shouldn't get into the reason for that. That is a completely different issue. There's a vacancy and that vacancy should be filled. We have a motion and we should vote on that motion.
Mr. Williams: Are we going to hear the credentials of the person who is being nominated for the position or is this another railroad situation where we railroad somebody off the committee and the Liberals now want to railroad somebody on? I would like to hear the credentials of the candidate.
Mr. Cannis: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the credentials are very specific in that he's a democratically elected member of Parliament and that gives him the right to stand for this position.
I don't think we're here to analyse what happened in the past. We're here to address the vacancy, with all due respect to the member of the Reform Party.
The Chairman: We'll discuss the reason next time.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Are we talking about replacing someone permanently or just for today's meeting? Is this a permanent replacement?
The Chairman: This is to replace Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Fillion: Okay. So it's a permanent replacement.
[English]
All those in favour of this nomination?
Mr. Williams: I want a recorded vote.
The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Williamson has requested a recorded vote. I will now proceed to a recorded vote on the motion that we just had a hand vote on.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will now go on to chapters 29, 30 and 31 of the 8th report.
Page 1, are there any comments or remarks?
Page 1 agreed to
The Chairman: We will now go to page 2.
Mr. Fillion: Is paragraph 17 included in page 2 or page 3?
The Chairman: In French, it begins at the bottom of page 2 and continues on page 3.
Mr. Fillion: I have an addition to make after paragraph 17.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Fillion: Can I make it now?
The Chairman: I would like to conclude page 2 first.
Mr. Fillion: Okay.
[English]
The Chairman: Any comments?
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): It's on our page 2.
[Translation]
Page 2 agreed to
The Chairman: We are now on page 3.
Mr. Fillion.
.1550
Mr. Fillion: On page 3, after paragraph 17, I would like to suggest that we add a point (b) that would be called ``information for parliamentarians'', which would provide for the following.
First of all, include in the Finance Department's Part III of the main estimates the total amount of unpaid taxes, broken down according to the value of the accounts receivable.
Secondly, include the amount of uncollectable taxes and also include it as a percentage of unpaid taxes.
Thirdly, include the amount of uncollected taxes and distinguish between those where litigation is underway and those where there is no litigation.
Fourthly, include the amount of taxes recovered as a percentage of the value of accounts settled, as well as performance objectives for the government in this area, for instance, a penny recovered for every dollar of tax to be paid.
These suggestions follow on the questions we raised when considering that part of the report.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, I will allow the addition for discussion purposes. But in future, in order to ensure better understanding on the part of Committee members, when adding a few lines, it might perhaps be easier to understand if we could see them. When adding several lines, or a few paragraphs, as you are doing now, it would be better to submit them in writing, in both official languages. Let's just say that I will allow it in this instance.
Mr. Fillion: There is no need for me to defend myself, except to say that I will be suggesting additions of about the same length to the other reports we will be studying. However, I must point out - and this applies to me - that the reports were not provided to us in a very timely manner...
The Chairman: We just received the report today.
Mr. Fillion: So, in that case, we apologize for not having a written text as well as a translation, but there was insufficient time.
The Chairman: I agree with you. I am quite open for discussion purposes. This will no doubt happen again in the future, but generally speaking, if at all possible, when suggesting additions consisting of several paragraphs - I know that you read them slowly, that they were very well interpreted, so that there was no problem understanding them - it's always easier to visualize it when you have it on paper.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wish it to be recognized that if the member can at all possible have the amendments in writing and in both official languages, that is desirable. But at the same time, let us also recognize that each and every member has the right and the opportunity to make verbal amendments and changes that need not necessarily be in writing or in both official languages.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I share your view, Mr. Williams, but it would be preferable, if at all possible, to submit them in writing before the meeting.
Are there any comments, reactions to what is on page 3, including the addition suggested by Mr. Fillion?
Ms Salvail has an interesting comment about Mr. Fillion's addition, and she might have an interesting amendment to suggest. I will give the floor over to her. In any case, the matter is open for discussion.
Ms Salvail, you have some comments to make?
Ms Michelle Salvail (Committee Researcher): I only have a point of clarification, because I believe you talked about the Department of Finance Part III at the beginning of your motion. It should be the Department of Revenue, since that is the department that is responsible for collecting taxes. It's just a correction.
Mr. Fillion: I will accept the amendment inasmuch as we have the required information.
.1555
The Chairman: Are there any further comments on page 3, including Mr. Fillion's addition?
Mr. Williams.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I have an amendment on the recommendation on page 3. You're asking is there anything more on page 3?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: On the recommendation that the department report to the committee in February 1996 on the progress made in responding and so on, the last line reads:
- It should determine whether it had succeeded in reaching its goal of having accounts receivable
represent 4% of total revenue.
I would like to question the researchers on ``4% of total revenue''. I'm not exactly sure that we are talking about 4% of total revenue because revenue is about $120-odd billion. Four percent of that...well, that's right. It would be about $5 billion. It is 4% of total revenue.
Therefore, I would suggest that we delete the word ``represent'' and replace it with ``reduced to'', because we wouldn't want it static at 4% if we can get it below 4%.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are members in agreement with the correction made by Mr. Williams? If I understood correctly, this is to ensure better understanding.
Mr. Fillion: In the same paragraph, it says, in the fourth ling in French: ``In its progress report the departament should describe what the results of its initiatives have been''. In fact, those initiatives had been established; there were 13 of them, and I would like to delete the words «its initiatives» and replace them with «the 13 measures mentioned in its action plan.» So the wording would be clearer. Instead of just the initiatives, we would talk about the 13 measures mentioned in its action plan. It would be clearer.
The Chairman: I think it could indeed be made clearer in both texts.
Are there any comments on the amendment proposed by Mr. Fillion?
[English]
Ms Brown: He made a proposal earlier that had three or four parts to it. I couldn't tell you what it was about now. I understood it at the time. In presiding over this meeting, I don't know whether you've accepted this long suggestion he made at the beginning, whether it's going to be in the next draft report or not. We haven't voted on it.
I understood Mr. Williams' amendment and when we vote I'm willing to support it. I do not understand what Mr. Fillion wants to do. Does he want to amend the same recommendation that Mr. Williams just suggested an amendment to?
The Chairman: No.
Ms Brown: For me, the dart at the top of page 3 is the recommendation.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I will ask for further clarification on the last amendment he wishes to make.
[English]
Ms Brown: And where it goes in. He wants to create a section (d)?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes. It's on page 17.
[English]
Ms Brown: I don't know if I agree with that. But this is a second thing, is it?
The Chairman: A second thing, yes.
Ms Brown: Okay. Can we hear about the second thing?
[Translation]
The Chairman: This is how I proceed. Whenever a suggestion is made, I ask members if they agree, if they have any comments, and then, whether or not they agree with the entire page.
Mr. Fillion, could you provide us with further clarification?
.1600
Mr. Fillion: It's paragraph 18, in the recommendation. I move that we change the fourth line: ``describe what the results of its initiatives had been'', so that it reads: ``the 13 measures mentioned in its Action Plan.'' There is no contradiction with Mr. William's suggestion which didn't even deal with that. So the word ``initiatives'' is replaced by ``the 13 measures mentioned in its Action Plan.'' Thus, an explanation is provided as to what those initiatives are, so that, instead of having to go and find them in another document, they would be right there in our report.
The Chairman: Do members agree with that?
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I don't have a problem with that. I was more concerned when you talked about whether or not it will achieve its goal of having the accounts receivable represent 4% of total revenue. You can correct me if I'm wrong in this, but when your presentation was made that was the goal for two years. Is it going to take two years to achieve the 4%? If I recall, it's on a declining scale and 4% is the goal for two years; it's not the goal for this year. I think that should be clarified because there's no way they can reach that by February 1996. We're going to be asking them to report on something they won't have reached.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are members in agreement with what Ms Whelan has just said?
Mr. Williams.
[English]
Mr. Williams: First of all, we're asking for a report from the department in February 1996. We're asking for progress at that particular time. While we have here that it should determine whether it has succeeded in reaching its goal of having accounts receivable reduced to 4% of total revenue, we may want to put the progress in there. I would still want to see that report of February 1996, so I will go along to the point that the last sentence may be amended by adding ``the progress it has made in reaching its goal'' and deleting the words ``whether it had succeeded''.
Ms Whelan: I'm just not sure if that is enough to signify the fact it's a two-year goal. I don't want to mislead people when they read this report down the road that it was a goal to be in place by February 1996. I don't know if it should be over three years or at two years.
Ms Brown: Reduced to 4% of total revenue over two years.
Mr. Williams: I'm sure the public record will quite amply demonstrate what the department's goal was or is. I think the way it's reading right now is perfectly acceptable. If the department wishes to come back and say it's a two-year goal, the public record will already show that; therefore it's quite appropriate.
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): I would amend the amendment to recognize the two years, to be very clear. I would make that amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Williams: The only problem I have, Mr. Chairman, is I don't particularly recollect the two-year situation, and now it's being read into the record as if it's exactly two years. I would rather let the public record stand as it is with the evidence that has been read in by the department officials rather than make some determination, through some hazy recollections some months after, that it was two years. I don't recall the two years. Maybe it was two years, but let the public record stand and let the recommendations stand; they're not incompatible.
Mr. Telegdi: It seems to me the confusion on the part of the member is probably a very good reason for us to put the two years in, to make sure there is clarity.
Mr. Williams: I'm only trying to point out that the previous speaker, if I recall, wasn't even in attendance at the time the comments were made by the departmental officials. He cannot tell me whether they specifically said it was two years.
.1605
We are depending on the recollection and memory of another member of the government, who again doesn't have anything specific before this committee to say about whether it was two years. I'm just saying we're asking the department to report on its progress.
The public record, based on the meeting at that particular time, will show the length of time they were expected to require to meet their particular goal. Let us leave it that way rather than giving them something...maybe it was a two-year goal, a four-year goal or a one-year goal. I'm just saying since this is not incompatible and not in conflict, let it stand the way it is. No one has the exact proof of what the goal or timeframe was.
Ms Whelan: What did the minutes say? I'm talking about the way it's reflected in the estimates now, but perhaps the minutes can clarify it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I will ask our researcher to tell us exactly what was said to the committee. Do you have something on that?
Ms Salvail: I'm trying to find it in the proceedings deliberations. I can't find it, but I can check. I seem to remember what was said, but for greater certainty, I will check. If it was effectively two years, we could modify the recommendation.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, is your sub-amendement on the two year period? While we're looking for it; would you like to move your sub-amendment?
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: I basically want to reflect the two-year timeframe, and I think we should be able to find it on the record and have it clarified. Obviously we don't want to have arguments about the recommendations once they come forward. They should be as clear as possible.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Be that as it may, if I understand you correctly, whether two years was mentioned or not, you would like us to vote on it. I will hear a last comment.
Mr. Fillion: In fact, the recommendation reflects exactly what was said in committee. That being the case, it will be difficult to find these words ``two years'' anywhere. It will be up to the department, when it makes its report to mention it then.
The Chairman: We haven't yet found a mention of ``two years''.
Mr. Telegdi, you have moved a sub-amendment that would make it two years?
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I just wondered if we had a copy of the 13-point plan that we are referring to. Do we have that available? Do we all have a copy of that?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, could you rephrase your sub-amendment and then, we will vote on it.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I want to put in that they represent 4% of total revenue over two years.
[Translation]
The Chairman: All those in favour of the sub-amendment - before we go any further, I would have one last little comment to make on what the researchers have just given me.
In the Action Plan, it says: ``In 1995, Revenue Canada will continue to improve collections which will allow it to reach its objective which is to lower accounts receivable from 4.6% to 4% of gross revenues over two years. To this end, Revenue Canada is taking steps in the following areas:'' And there follows a list of areas.
[English]
Mr. Williams: If I can clarify, it is in the letter addressed to the clerk dated March 14 from the department. In the first paragraph it talks about reducing it from 4.6% of total revenue to 4% within, and not by, two years. We note there is a significant difference and hope it could achieve that in less than two years. Obviously if they're using ``within two years'', that is their desire as well. That's their own particular plan.
.1610
Therefore, if there is to be a timeframe it shall be within two years.
[Translation]
The Chairman: A last comment from the mover and then we will vote on the sub-amendment.
Mr. Telegdi, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, if the mover of the motion wants to make it within the period of two years, that's fine with me. It can be in the main motion, or if he wants us to amend it we'll amend it.
Mr. Williams: Am I the mover of the motion?
Mr. Chairman, I will make the following recommendations. The last sentence of the recommendation shall be changed to read: ``It should determine the progress it has made in reaching its goal of having accounts receivable reduced to 4% of total revenue within two years''.
[Translation]
The sub-amendment is carried
The Chairman: I think there is concensus on this page, except perhaps for -
Mr. Fillion: After paragraph 20, I would like to add something.
The Chairman: Before we go any further, Mrs. Brown had asked for clarification of your proposal.
Mr. Fillion, we looked raher quickly at your proposal to add a paragraph (d). For the members and following Mrs. Brown's question, could you read again what you wanted to add in ``Information for Parliamentarians''?
Mr. Fillion: My colleague's question has to do with recommendation 18. I wanted to suggest that the Department report on the results coming from these steps. I want to replace ``by'' the ``13 measures mentioned in its action plan''. I think that's what's important.
The Chairman: I think I understood there was consensus there. Agreed.
Mr. Fillion: Agreed.
The Chairman: Let us come back to your first recommendation aimed at adding a paragraph (d) entitled: ``Information for Parliamentarians''. Mrs. Brown asked a question about that. So that Mrs. Brown and all of us may get a better understanding of your proposal, could you read and more what it is you want to add at the end of paragraph 17, just before the recommendations to that paragraph?
Mr. Fillion: We would have a paragraph (d) entitled: ``Information for Parliamentarians. It would go on to say ``Include in Part III of the Main Estimates under Revenue Canada the total amount of accounts receivable broken down by dollar value; include the total non collectible accounts as well as the percentage of total accounts receivable; include also the total of non collected accounts specifying those amounts that are being appealed and those that are not; and include the amount collected compared to accounts paid as well as the government's objectives in this area''.
For example, did the Department in fact collect 81 cents on every dollar of tax to be paird? As a matter of fact, when the officials from the department appeared, they brought a document with this type of information.
The Chairman: Have you finished, Mr. Fillion?
[English]
The Chairman: Any comments on that? Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: Is there a copy of this so we can take a look at it? I'm not sure what's in the estimates now and what's not in the estimates. Before I make a decision on adding something to the estimates I'd like to know what's in the estimates versus what's not. If I can recall, this wasn't something that was discussed by this committee, so I don't think it should form part of this report at this time.
.1615
[Translation]
The Chairman: The Committee is discussing what Mr. Fillion has proposed. As Mr. Williams pointed out previously, a member may, during the course of discussing a report, table any change he deems necessary. The discussion is open on Mr. Fillion's proposal.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I'm not disputing the open discussion; I'm giving you my opinion, and my opinion is I'd like to see it in writing. I can't contribute to this discussion because I can't tell you accurately what's in the estimates right now, so I don't know what changes we're proposing. I don't think this is the time or the place. When the Department of National Revenue was here we didn't bring this up. If we did, correct me.
I'm sorry. I don't read French.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We have the French version of what Mr. Fillion is proposing and we could always give it to you. Otherwise, we'll have to do it another time.
[English]
Ms Brown: Is this the final draft or could we say that when this matter comes back before us in its final draft a copy of Mr. Fillion's suggested new paragraph will be appended to it and we could consider it at that time? In the meantime, if the researchers could look into the current estimates to see what kind of an impact this suggestion would make and have that accompanying Mr. Fillion's paragraph, I think that would be helpful and that would make sure we deal with it in a suitable way.
[Translation]
The Chairman: In theory, this is the final draft. However there is a proposal here to translate and include the recommendation.
Mr. Fillion: I'll give you the same reasons we gave before. We didn't have time to have it translated because we got the reports too late. Therefore, with regard to the other chapters we still have to examine, I'll proceed in the same manner. If my colleague is ready to accept this, we'll come back to it at a later date. It will be written in and they'll be able to examine it then.
[English]
Ms Brown: The next time we go over this.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I find the suggestion interesting. We could discuss and accept the report as tabled today. We could vote on that with the minor changes added by Mr. Williams following Mr. Telegdi's subamendment.
As for the slightly wordier additions, so to speak, we could have them translated into English and come back with them during another meeting. We would then just come back to the slightly more elaborate changes suggested by Mr. Fillion. At that time, we could vote for or against whatever additions there may be.
Mr. Fillion: On a point of Order. At the beginning of this meeting, you explained the procedure to be followed and you accepted that I officially table my amendments for immediate discussion to include them in the final report as quickly as possible. Now you're coming up with further delays that mean that even though I may table the amendments, the people across the way might not necessarily want to debate them. I'd like to see a debate now. At the beginning of the meeting you accepted that procedure. I think we should continue along those lines.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, I don't think the delay will be that serious. I accept the tabling of your amendments today. The members themselves don't want to comment them today. Ms Whelan has reservations. Maybe other members would like to discuss them today like Mr. Williams or others on this side. We can discuss them, but I think we have another meeting tomorrow to examine chapter 12. Tomorrow or Thursday, after we've examined chapter 12, we could come back to this. Your additions could be translated by tomorrow.
I don't think that will delay the tabling of this report in the House. There are just a few changes. You have one already and you have others a bit further on. We could discuss only those proposed changes tomorrow. That could be done rather quickly as soon as tomorrow.
.1620
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman, if you're guaranteeing that we'll discuss this tomorrow, I'll accept your suggestion. It has to be tomorrow because I won't be here Thursday. It's a question of availability.
The Chairman: What you've suggested so far wasn't very long, but how many pages do your recommendations run? A few pages?
Mr. Fillion: I think it's three.
The Chairman: I have no problem. Requests for translation are sent from my office in the morning and they're faxed back at 7.00 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, will the chair please make a ruling on the situation so we can proceed, rather than having a debate with a member of the Bloc?
[Translation]
The Chairman: We'll wait for the translation and discuss this tomorrow.
Mr. Williams.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, will the chair please make a ruling on the situation so we can proceed, rather than having a debate with a member of the Bloc?
[Translation]
The Chairman: I accept having them tabled and they'll be translated by tomorrow. We'll continue examining the report we have before us. Of course, we're always open to small changes.
As for more elaborate changes, I'm quite open to the fact that there are members for whom it's very difficult to see what's going on when faced with an addition several paragraphs long especially once translated.
We'll continue our examination of the report as tabled and by tomorrow all of Mr. Fillion's recommendations will have been translated and we'll discuss them then.
[English]
Ms Whelan: When will we have the translated proposals?
[Translation]
The Chairman: We'll table them during tomorrow's meeting and we will proceed...
[English]
Ms Whelan: That doesn't give us the chance to review the estimates as they now exist, which is what I just asked for. I said earlier that I'd like to compare the recommendations with the estimates.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mrs. Whelan, in any case, all the parties have their caucus meetings tomorrow morning. We'll have the translation done on a priority basis tomorrow morning and you'll have the translation as early as 1.00 p.m. and we'll discuss this at the 5.30 p.m. meeting after the usual meeting that I could prolong. I think there's a chapter to examine and that will take about an hour. Normally, we should start our consideration by 6.30 p.m. or 6.45 p.m. tomorrow evening.
These are Mr. Fillion's additions and the translation will be available in your offices at the latest around 1.00 p.m. tomorrow.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Are we distributing them in French now? If so, I can have them translated by my own staff before 1 p.m.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Certainly. We can give you the French version because we have several copies. We'll proceed this way then.
Mr. Fillion: Do we consider what we're doing as legal, then? We're giving her French copy to have it translated and everything is all right. We can't reverse that.
The Chairman: We'll discuss that tomorrow at our usual meeting which should go along quickly. We're giving them the French copy right away. In any case, we...
[English]
Ms Whelan: You're talking about extending the meeting past 7:30 p.m. tomorrow? Some of us have other commitments.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Normally, our Wednesday briefing lasts about an hour. Tomorrow, the meeting is at 5:30 p.m. and should wind up around 6:30 p.m. or 6:45 p.m.
I imagine that between 6:30 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. at the latest... We'll discuss this at our 6:30 p.m. meeting tomorrow and we should be able to wrap it all up by 7:30 p.m.
.1625
We will just come today to a decision today on what has been tabled. If you have any minor changes like the ones suggested to date, we will discuss them. If there are bigger changes, we will table them right away; we will accept them in French and they will be translated by noon and distributed by 1 p.m. to all the members for discussion after examination of the chapter on tomorrow's 5:30 p.m. agenda. We should be finished at around 6:30 p.m. and then we will consider Mr. Fillion's proposed additions. We will have them in French and in English. Agreed?
I will repeat my request. We will accept them in French and I'm taking notice of the comment made by Mr. Williams. It is always preferable when we are dealing with the changes of more than one or two lines to table them in both languages because whoever may be opposed to them, in one language or the other, can always argue that it is missing in one or the other language.
So even though legally you have the right to table them in one language only, I would invite you to always table them in both languages so that we can discuss them right away and thus avoid criticism from the other party on the subject.
So we will carry on with the examination of page 3. Are there any other changes suggested?
Mr. Fillion: I would simply like to announce that after paragraph 20, there are two additional paragraphs. Would you like me to read them out?
The Chairman: Yes, read them out, but we will discuss them tomorrow.
Mr. Fillion: After paragraph 20 there would be a two-paragraph addition reading as follows: «As early as 1989, the Auditor General of Canada deplored the low level of auditing concerning the old federal tax. That level was 7% of all registrants. Presently, for the 1993-94 year, that level is only 3% of registrants for the GST. For the same number of registrants in the United Kingdom, that is 1.6 million, the government has carried out 378,000 audits. Faced with these facts, the committee questions the objectives the government has set.
Each employee assigned to income tax recovery in the failure to declare area costs $35,000 a year on average and brings in $492,000 a year on average. Thus the committee is of the opinion that it is in the taxpayers' interests that the government examine the possibility of hiring more personnel to effect a higher rate of recovery of unpaid sums due.»
The committee recommends:
- That for all activities of income tax and GST recovery, the government examine the possibility
of hiring staff on a cost-recovery basis. Moreover, recovery objectives of these unpaid sums
must be included in Part III of the Estimates.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, as I said before, you are tabling this two-paragraph addition today. We will not debate it today and when we adopt page 3, your two paragraphs will not be included.
We will discuss them tomorrow and, as the case may be, we will add them to the report. We will ask for a vote to know whether people agree to them or not.
.1630
If it's tabled, we'll discuss it tomorrow. Any more comments before voting on page 3?
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm asking for clarification here. You're talking about adopting the report and then amending the report tomorrow?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Today we'll go ahead with what we already have in the report unless there are some minor changes. We'll carry on our examination of the report and we can already adopt page-by-page what's being presented to us today. As for the minor additions that were proposed by Mr. Fillion, we'll get back to those tomorrow afternoon.
If there are final questions on the report tomorrow, then we can discuss and vote on them. Today, we're just adopting what's already in the report.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I understand that. It's just that we're talking about amendments to paragraph 20 that we're going to vote on tomorrow, and we're going to accept paragraph 20 as it is today. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't think we should be adopting the report and then amending it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I asked Mr. Fillion to read the more important amendments that we'll be discussing tomorrow. If you have a French copy, it will be translated tomorrow morning and by 1.00 p.m. you'll have the English version of those amendments.
For the time being, however, I simply asked that they be read for purposes of tabling. Today, we'll only vote on what's already in the report we have in front of us. What Mr. Fillion read for us will be debated tomorrow.
Mr. Fillion: Just so everyone understands, I'm not tabling any amendments to paragraph 20, it's as is.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Fillion: I'm adding something between paragraphs 20 and 21. So 20 isn't being amended nor is 21 but there will be something added in between the two of them.
The Chairman: Just for our better understanding, Mr. Fillion, considering Ms Whelan's comments, concerning the addition of paragraphs like section d), maybe we'd better wait till tomorrow because they can then be tabled.
Perhaps you could distribute a French copy to everyone. I think it is creating a bit of confusion. Maybe we should just discuss the report as it stands. Unless you have some comments on a line or two just to change a word here or there. Like we did recently in the case of a motion, you could table the French copy of those additions and they'll be translated tomorrow. Perhaps it would be easier for our discussion as there will be an English version tomorrow afternoon.
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, it's not that I didn't understand. I understood quite clearly that he wants to amend paragraph 20 tomorrow. I just didn't think it made a lot of sense to approve the report one day and amend it the next day. I thought it made more sense to wait until we were done all the amendments before approving the report. That was my comment. I understood perfectly.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms Whelan, I think were of a same mind on that. I think we'll go on with the clause by clause examination. We can vote them today and amend them tomorrow. I agree with you. It would be simpler to go on with our examination and we'll vote the whole report tomorrow. I think it's more consistent and I agree with you.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Are we going on paragraph by paragraph then?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, we'll discuss Mr. Fillion's more substantial additions but we'll wait for tomorrow's meeting to vote on the report.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Fine. Paragraph 22 then? Are we that far?
[Translation]
The Chairman: That's it. Paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 and are there any comments?
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Well, first of all, on paragraph 22, I thought that.... Just clarify this for me. Did we not discuss this report in principle at the last meeting? This is the second time we're discussing this report. Am I correct in this?
I just wanted to make sure I was correct in that. It's the second time.
I thought at the last meeting I talked about how we should reflect the fact that we noted the department was making improvements in the area. You can correct me on that. But the department did make that commitment when they appeared at the meeting, that they were making improvements and would continue to make improvements.
.1635
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do the researchers have anything on that?
[English]
Ms Salvail: Do you mean on that particular issue or in general?
Ms Whelan: No, on this particular issue. I know when we went on we talked about things in general, so I'm not sure if it got that specific or not. I don't have the notes from the meeting.
Ms Salvail: I'm not sure if we mentioned it in particular. I would have to check on exactly what was said.
Ms Whelan: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, the first option for a draft report that we discussed at the previous meeting - I have it here. If I may quote chapters 30 and 31, which is what we're talking about here under these particular paragraphs...the draft report said:
- At the end of the meeting on these two chapters, the chairman asked the deputy minister to send
the committee a work plan for the measures to be taken over the coming year to improve audit
and special investigation activities with respect to the GST and the detection of non-filers and
special investigations with respect to income tax. The deputy minister responded by elaborating
somewhat on the initiatives already announced in exhibits 30.7 and 30.7(1). See Mr. Gravelle's
letter for further details.
Ms Whelan: If you look at the draft report at the top of page 4, the comments there are that ``the deputy minister responded by elaborating somewhat on the initiatives already announced''. This doesn't reflect that there was any...I just don't know how we went from that to this.
Ms Salvail: If you could just look at paragraph 24, maybe it responds to your concern.
Ms Whelan: It doesn't acknowledge any of the initiatives it has already taken. It talks about a commitment.
Ms Salvail: In 23 you can see what the deputy minister said about improving his practices.
Ms Whelan: But paragraph 22 talks about the ability to select returns for audit effectively, and there have been improvements in that area in particular. That's the area I was talking about.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, in the Auditor General's report, exhibit 30.7, which is the initiatives the department has under way to improve verification, enforcement and compliance research, it says that they have a move to a more analytical and less case-by-case approach to audit using a core audit program to better identify non-compliance and possible solutions. That was to be completed by June 1995. So that should be wrapped up in a couple of months, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Salvail: I can make it more specific in paragraph 22.
Ms Whelan: I'm going back to the draft report, where he talked about 30.7 is what Mr. Williams just quoted. In the draft report you refer to the fact the deputy minister responded by elaborating somewhat on initiatives already announced in 30.7.
.1640
I thought it should reflect the fact that the department has taken initiatives in the area of selecting audits more effectively. That's what I thought was missing from 22. I didn't think anything was missing from 23 or 24.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will make a change here in order to take that into account. You will have it tomorrow. I don't think there's anything else on page 3. We'll come back to that tomorrow.
[English]
Ms Whelan: In paragraph 25, before that it says the department should say whether this goal has been achieved or not, and if not, what it proposes to do about it. At the meeting with the deputy minister didn't we talk about how we would seek alternative solutions? It sounds as if that's suggesting there were no solutions presented. I thought one thing we talked about was withholding taxes at source. I thought that was discussed quite clearly at the committee.
Ms Salvail: Are you asking whether we mentioned it at the meeting we had on April 5?
Ms Whelan: No, at the meeting on the 21st.
Ms Salvail: The meeting with the officials. I would have to check again on that. I'm not sure.
Ms Whelan: On the 21st we specifically addressed whether it fell short of the 90% target, if I recall correctly. You may want to check that for tomorrow. That's fine.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The researchers will look at that, and if there's anything to change, they will do so and will give us a copy. Are there any other comments on page 3?
[English]
Ms Whelan: In paragraph 26: ``In addition to working to improving its compliance program, the department should also, in your committee's opinion, set up specific objectives for audits and special investigations''. The way that is worded it suggests the department doesn't have any objectives. I mean, it does have established objectives right now. I think it would be more accurate to call for improvement of its specific objectives.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Let's talk about specific objectives.
[English]
Ms Whelan: The department has specific objectives.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We know that there are objectives, but we would like them to be more specific.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I just said to call for the department to improve its specific objectives.
Ms Salvail: Yes, I think it's correct to say that. Now that the GST is in place they should have improved objectives to reflect how the GST is working now.
Ms Whelan: Is there a way to amend the first sentence on the second line to say ``improve specific objectives'' rather than ``set specific objectives''? Would that be okay?
Ms Salvail: Yes.
The Chairman: Page 4.
Ms Whelan: Paragraph 28 suggests there is no information available right now. It says: ``The department should also try to determine how many detected non-filers file voluntarily thereafter''.
The data available through the department right now show that close to 80% of non-filers file voluntarily after they have been detected. The remaining 20% are persuaded to file. Those data are available, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
.1645
Ms Salvail: What would you suggest?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms Whelan, what would you propose as a replacement formula?
[English]
Ms Whelan: I'm going back to the draft report we originally discussed and I'm trying to understand how we went from that to this. I don't want to make it complicated. I just think we need to acknowledge that they do have information.
The department knows that statement is incorrect. It knows right now how many voluntarily file. I don't know whether we want to remove that. Maybe we should remove the example.
[Translation]
The Chairman: It is the way it is written that is misleading, because it is taken into account in the previous sentence: For instance, the Non-Filer Detection Program must surely bring additional sums. That is probably in reference to the 80% previously mentioned. However, the Department should also try to determine how many faulty non-filers file later... In this case, the sentence refers to the remaining 20%. If you wish, it can be set clearly by adding the percentages.
[English]
Ms Whelan: No, because the statistics I just quoted were that 80% of detected non-filers file voluntarily. There's only 20% that, once detected, do not file voluntarily. I'm just not sure whether that example even needs to be in there. I don't know whether you even need ``increasing compliance through its various programs''. The fact that the department evaluates effectiveness is a good recommendation, and I don't know if you need to have the example in there.
Ms Salvail: I will check it.
Ms Whelan: Why don't you check, because the statistics I have available to me are there and that suggests there are no statistics, when they know in fact how many comply and how many don't comply once detected.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Any other comments on page 4? Very well.
I will ask the researchers to make the corrections that have been asked for and accepted by the committee. Tomorrow, after our regular meeting, around 6:30, we will go over Mr. Fillion's additions. We will also make a decision on the corrections asked for in page 3 and 4.
We will now start our examination of the 9th report and leave the 8th report aside until tomorrow. You will be receiving the translation of Mr. Fillion's additions tomorrow at 1 p.m.
Mr. Fillion, as regards the 9th report, would you have recommendations of the same kind or additions to the existing paragraphs? We will be proceeding as before.
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: You are also recommending, that we add some paragraphs to the 10th report. I will have to ask the clerk to make sure that whatever we receive here will deal with all the reports. As I said, we will have Mr. Fillion's additions translated. For today, you only have the French version of Mr. Fillion's additions, but you will be given the English version of all his additions to the 8th, 9th and 10th reports before 1 p.m. tomorrow.
Let us start on page 1 of the 9th report with the minor changes until we receive Mr. Fillion's additions tomorrow. Any comments on page 1?
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Before we do that I just want to clarify that the recommendations Mr. Fillion was putting forward which were distributed earlier were for the eighth, ninth, and tenth reports.
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Whelan: Okay, I didn't realize that.
The Chairman: Are there any comments on page 1? Mr. Williams.
.1650
Mr. Williams: In the last full line of paragraph 6 I have an addition to improve the clarity: ``In 1993, employees contributed 2.5% of their pensionable earnings...''. I would like to add ``to a maximum of'', whatever the figure happens to be, and I don't know it offhand. I think for clarity's sake we should add ``to a maximum of the dollar amount that people contribute to their CPP''.
Mr. Telegdi: That's covered by pensionable earnings. It is a very definite amount that changes from time to time. So whatever the pensionable earnings are, that's where the 2.5% comes in.
Mr. Williams: Not 2.5% of the earnings.
Mr. Telegdi: It's pensionable earnings.
[Translation]
The Chairman: To improve the clarity, we will indicate the maximum.
[English]
The Chairman: Everyone agrees?
Mr. Williams: In the recommendation in paragraph 11, Mr. Chairman, I would like to delete the words ``increase its efforts so that it can''. Let me read how it would be. The recommendation would then read:
- That the Department table its annual report on income security programs no later than six
months after the fiscal year end.
The Chairman: Does everyone agree with that comment?
Mr. Williams: Rather than asking it to increase its efforts, just tell the department to get it done:
- That the Department table its annual report on income security programs no later than six
months....
Mr. Williams: In paragraph 12, the first line of the recommendation, I would like to add three words: ``the cost and''. It would therefore read:
- That, by 31 January 1996, the Department inform the Committee of the cost and the progress
made....
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you agree?
Mr. Fillion: Did Mr. Williams change the dates?
The Chairman: No, he didn't. He just added a few words.
Mr. Fillion: Then, I agree with Mr. William's recommendation on that paragraph.
As for the dates, I would like to replace ``progress made as of December 31, 1995'' by ``progress made as of March 31, 1995''. As for ``implementing its communication strategy by January 31, 1996'', I would like this to be replaced by ``implementing its communication strategy when Parliament resumes sitting in September 1995''.
The Chairman: You are changing...
Mr. Fillion: The 31st of January, 1996 is replaced by ``when Parliament resumes sitting in September 1995''.
.1655
[English]
Ms Whelan: I'm not sure I understand what's happening. I thought the idea was that the strategy would be in place by September 1995. We have to give it time to be effective to report, otherwise there's nothing to report on. What was the date by which it was to be effective?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: It was supposed to be implemented on March 31, 1995.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Fillion: The text then reads: ``in implementing its communication strategy''. Therefore, once the department has implemented its strategy on March 31, it can then inform the Committee of the progress made when Parliament resumes its sitting in September 1995, instead of by January 31, 1996.
The Chairman: Can our researchers clarify this for us?
[English]
Mr. Cannis: Is this a proposal? I'm new on this committee. I'm trying to fill in the gaps. Was this proposed in previous meetings? If it was, why was it not included in here? If the date here was discussed.... Is Mr. Fillion proposing that we should make a change?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: When we met these people, we gave them a very clear deadline. These were the dates that we had given them. However, our report is being published only in May. We had agreed on March 31, 1995 and on a follow-up report. Thus, the deadline allowing us to get a report on the communication strategy had been set earlier.
The Chairman: At previous meetings, the deadline was shorter.
Mr. Fillion: Could you explain this to me?
The Chairman: One of our researchers might be able to clarify this.
Ms Salvail: As for the communication strategy, I could check. When we heard the officials last December, they told us that they were expecting to cover most of their agenda during the following year. Thus one year later brings us to December 1995.
Mr. Fillion: This is your own interpretation. This is how you interpreted their answer.
Ms Salvail: Yes, but that date had been included among the different options and the committee accepted it. If members wish to have an earlier date...
The Chairman: The text we have here had been accepted at the second meeting.
Ms Salvail: You will note that as we proceed we ask the department to report on each one of the items.
Mr. Fillion: And I will speak on each item and ask that the same dates appear each time.
The Chairman: The earlier dates?
Mr. Fillion: Yes. Wherever you read December 31, 1995, I will ask that the date be changed to March 31; and whenever you read January 1996 in the text, I will ask that it be changed to ``when Parliament resumes sitting in September 1995''. Does anything prevent us to do this?
When we met with the officials, they told us that they would be able to give us this information around these deadlines.
[English]
Mr. Cannis: [Inaudible - Editor]...according to the minutes?
[Translation]
The Chairman: From what I understand, what Mr. Fillion is proposing had been discussed previously; he suggests that all the deadlines should be set earlier. Instead of January 1996, he is asking for September 1995. Mr. Fillion is suggesting that we set earlier deadlines than the ones in the draft.
Ms Whelan.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I thought the researcher just clearly stated that it was a policy to be implemented in the next year. They appear before us in December. The next year is 1995. If we don't allow them the time to implement the communications policy and evaluate how it's working, then what's the point of them coming before us? Is it so we can say to them that they didn't do it fast enough?
When they were before us, they told us it would take a year. I think we should give them the year. If we thought it should have been a shorter time period, we should have said that to them when they were in front of us, but we didn't.
.1700
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, how do you react to this?
Mr. Fillion: When they appeared, the officials had told us that they could produce a report meeting the deadlines that I am suggesting, without having to change their workplan or their plan of action.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I think we're talking about two different things.
[Translation]
The Chairman: One thing is sure: we are presently at the end of April and there are eight months left.
Mr. Fillion: Could you check to see if it is possible?
Ms Salvail: Yes. It is indeed possible to ask them to give us a retroactive report as of March 31, 1995, but I remind you that when they appeared last December, they told us: «during the next year». If we ask them for a progress report, they will surely have made progress since the 31st of March, 1995. I had suggested December 31st, 1995 in order to give them a fair chance and to be sure that they could achieve what they had promised to do by December 31st, 1995.
Mr. Fillion: Except that when we met with the officials last December, they did tell us that they could just as well produce the report as of the 31st of March. Since the committee had not published its report, it was difficult for them to do something that had not yet been asked for. We are presently writing up our report, but since the date had already passed, it will have to be a retroactive request. On the other hand, there will henceforth be another deadline for the next period that will coincide with the resuming of Parliament.
The Chairman: I might have a suggestion to reconcile both positions. Mr. Fillion, would you agree on an interim report or a progress report that would be submitted in September, when Parliament resumes sitting, with the final report being filed as suggested on January 31st, 1996? Would you agree on a progress report as of March 31st, 1995? This would give us two reports instead of one.
Since Parliament resumes its sittings on September the 18th, we might set September 30th as the deadline.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman, you have the wisdom of Salomon. Your suggestion is accepted.
The Chairman: Consequently, we will ask for a progress report by September 30th and for the main report by January 31st, 1996.
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: Do the other members agree with this? Ms Whelan, do you agree?
[English]
Ms Whelan: That's fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: What do we do with the same dates that are found elsewhere in the draft text? I should not have to speak to it since the change will be made automatically.
The Chairman: Yes, we will make the adjustments.
Mr. Fillion: In paragraph 12, I would like to insert a sentence just before the words: ``the committee therefore recommends''. I would like to add a sentence that would better explain the government's approach.
The last sentence of the paragraph as is and would read:
- About any likely changes to future CPP costs and benefits.
- Since the government, in its February 1995 budget, announced that it intended to reexamine
completely the Canada Pension Plan in the fall of 1995, the committee is of the opinion that the
information should be made available at that time.
I believe it was announced that in the fall of 1995, the government would examine the Old Age Security Program and report on it. My sentence would only serve as a reminder that it will be done.
The Chairman: You are adding a sentence?
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I think, Mr. Chairman, we would be quite happy to accept the dates proposed by the researchers, as this committee is going to be overloaded with studying reports from a chapter we have studied previously.
Here is one of the questions I was going to ask after all these reports have been studied. When will we get the time to go back and analyse all these reports? Mr. Chairman, I know you belong to the party that hopes to be gone by September, if not before then, and maybe that's why you're trying to bring these dates forward. I'm not interested in interim reports; I want a complete and detailed report. January is fine with me and I think we'll find there's consensus that we should wait until that time to get the costs and progress and get the job done. Let's leave these interim reports that we'll never have time to study and follow up on anyway.
.1705
[Translation]
The Chairman: As a matter of fact, that was what I was thinking about. After the recommendation had been accepted by members of the Committee, I started thinking about this. Looking at page 2, I realized that we would be receiving two progress reports, a preliminary report, then a final report...
[English]
Ms Whelan: I agree.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Williams, and I would like to hear the members of the Committee. Ms Whelan, I think that we must avoid multiple reports. We must have a consensus on the date. If there had been a lapse of two years between the two dates, I would not have said so, but it is only a matter of three or four months.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I agree with Mr. Williams' comment. I also want to point out that we gave the Auditor General the power to have more than one annual report, and I anticipate there's another one coming out some time in the next few months or weeks. We're going to have a lot more work to do, so I think we had better stick with what's in front of us.
I also don't think we should be mandating things that are in the budget to come before this committee. That's not our role. This committee's role is to review the Auditor General's reports and that's what we're doing. The Auditor General will report on the budget of 1995 and say whether or not we have met our targets when he decides which departments to analyse, as well as the other committee that has the direct role of dealing with social security programs, which is the human resources development committee. I think we would be overstepping our bounds.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: I had no intention of adding on new reports. I was probably misunderstood. A moment ago, we changed a date but we never asked for more reports than what had been suggested.
The Chairman: No, I am the one who suggested an interim report. Let us backtrack for a moment. We must avoid multiplying reports. You had suggested yourself to bring the date some four months forward. I am listening.
Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion: It is only meant as a means to reiterate the government's intent to overhaul the Canada Pension Plan in the fall. We would like it to be said clearly, but we did not ask for an additional report.
The Chairman: I agree. We are backtracking on what had been previously suggested. Some moments ago, I had proposed an interim report at the end of September and a final one in January. This is what we are discussing. We are back to what we had discussed previously. The Committee must decide if it agrees on one report and wishes to eliminate the interim report at the end of March. Can we agree on a play of three or four months? There are officials that are preparing these reports.
[English]
Mr. Williams: If that's the consensus, Mr. Chairman, let's move on.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I agree that we asked for one annual report. We are asking the report to be filed by January 31, 1996, thus eliminating the interim report at the end of September. I believe there is consensus on that.
[English]
Ms Whelan: With regard to the second comment, are we dropping that as well?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: What's the second comment?
Ms Whelan: The second comment about the budget. Is that resolved?
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We agreed to ask for a report by January 31, 1996. That is resolved. As for the second comment that you referred to afterwards, this is another matter which we have not dropped.
Could you repeat your comments one last time so that Ms Whalen and the other members of the Committee understand?
.1710
Mr. Fillion: In paragraph 12, before ``The committee therefore recommends'', I would add this: ``Since the government announced in the February 1995 budgetary plan its intention to do an in-depth review of the Canada Pension Plan in the fall of 1995''. And ``The Committee therefore recommends'', simply clarifies that.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a consensus because I do not think the others agree with what Mr. Fillion is proposing. Therefore, adding these few words to include the cost of the initiative or the strategy, I would suggest you'll find that there's consensus to adopt the recommendation as is without any addition pertaining to the budget and so on because the budget actually said that in the fall they will start to do an analysis of the pension plans and so on. They will not be ready in September. We know that. We know how fast Mr. Axworthy works. Therefore, we'll just leave it out completely.
Ms Whelan: I agree.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you agree with that, Mr. Fillion?
Mr. Fillion: [Inaudible - Editor]
The Chairman: I will put it to a vote. The researcher suggests something that might meet with everyone's approval; ``That the Committee feels that this information should be available at the end of December 1995''. Everyone would agree with that.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to this before. I guess you didn't catch the fact that I was speaking to both issues at the same time.
The mandate of this committee is not the human resources development mandate. We have a committee specifically set up for that. It is their mandate to ensure that the budget of 1995 is followed and that this report is done and issued. Our mandate is to deal with the Auditor General's report, which is before us now, another report that, as Mr. Williams stated, is due in a few weeks. We should stick to what we're to deal with. Otherwise we don't need to have two committees.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I am going to suggest something that will settle the matter, I think. Who agrees with the amendment suggested by Mr. Fillion?
Motion defeated
[English]
Ms Whelan: Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Paragraph 14, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Paragraph 13 first.
Mr. Fillion.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: On recommendation 13, that ``des programmes de pensions'' be replaced by ``du Régime de pensions du Canada. It's a minor amendment.
The Chairman: It's a matter of wording.
Mr. Fillion: ``Régime de pensions du Canada et du programme de Sécurité de la vieillesse''.
The Chairman: I think that that will only apply to the French version. It is just semantics.
Mr. Fillion: Still in the French version, ``dans des documents officiels du ministère comme la Partie III du Budget des dépenses ou le rapport annuel'' should be replaced by ``dans la Partie III du Budget des dépenses...
The Chairman: It's not in the annual report.
Mr. Fillion: No.
The Chairman: Fine, that makes it easier to understand.
.1715
[English]
Mr. Williams: Paragraph 14. For clarity, Mr. Chairman, the second sentence, which currently reads: ``The other pension programs are funded from tax revenues'', is not correct. Delete the word ``pension''. It would now read ``Other programs for seniors are funded from tax revenues''. Delete the word ``pension'', add the words ``for seniors''.
Pension programs are not funded from tax revenues. That's a misstatement completely. Pension programs are paid for by people through contributions.
Ms Whelan: You're saying the other senior programs?
Mr. Williams: That's what I'm saying, the OAS, GIS and so on. Other programs for seniors are funded from tax revenues.
Ms Whelan: Sure.
Mr. Williams: It's strictly for clarity.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will make the required corrections.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Delete the word ``praiseworthy'' from paragraph 16 on page 3. It's totally unjustified, Mr. Chairman. ``The Committee is of the opinion that the Department is making efforts '' - certainly not praiseworthy efforts but efforts - ``to improve the CPP management framework.''
Mr. Cannis: Why don't we use the words ``tremendous efforts''?
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Cannis: I can't agree with that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: No, that has been the committee's policy so far. In previous reports, we've tried to keep an academic language, a more objective language, that is to keep it as impersonal as possible. I think that there was a consensus on that. I might add that efforts are always praiseworthy.
[English]
Mr. Williams: The deletion will stand, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, but I don't think that we should discuss it. In the past, both negative and positive terms were eliminated in order to keep the wording as neutral as possible.
As I was saying, efforts are always praiseworthy. That is a ``pléonasme' as we say in French. I don't know how to say it in English, a ``pléonasme" is when you say "praiseworthy'', and you're in fact repeating yourself because an effort is always praiseworthy. It's a question of semantics.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I'm moving on to paragraph 21 on page 4, unless somebody -
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Regarding the recommendation following paragraph 16, ``That the department provide the committee with details about the content of its business plan.'', we have not specified a timeframe. In the discussions, I thought that we had agreed that this should be provided by the end of the session. So, I think that we should specify a timeframe. I would add; «that the department provide, before the end of the session», because there's nothing that indicates when this should be done.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Perhaps the researcher could take a look at it to see what the department agreed to. I don't know if that's reasonable or not.
Ms Salvail: They are making improvements on that particular issue, but they didn't say when they will be finished. So we can only ask them what they have done at the end of the session.
Ms Whelan: But is the business plan going to be available or not? I don't know if the CPP business plan they're talking about is something that's going to come after the discussion paper from the budget or something that's going to be available....
.1720
Ms Salvail: I think they're doing something about it at the moment, but I could check.
Ms Whelan: Perhaps you could just check the notes.
Mr. Williams: If I recall correctly, they actually tabled a business plan at the meeting last fall, didn't they?
Ms Whelan: It says there was an action plan, but then 15 says ``including the preparation of a CPP Business Plan''. I'm assuming that's what we're referring to. Are we referring to something different in the recommendation?
Mr. Williams: I can't really recall, but perhaps it was an action plan they tabled in front of the committee, a kind of ad hoc thing that called for the creation of a business plan. I'm not exactly sure.
Ms Salvail: I think it was an action plan and then they said they were working on the business plan.
Ms Whelan: Can you check to see if there was a timeframe given?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, it's your addition... in any case, it's on your list. We will certainly come back to it.
Mr. Fillion: Also, at the end of the paragraph, we should add that the department will indicate what progress it has made in eliminating the backlog for the recovery of sums obtained fraudulently by the recipients.
The Chairman: Fine. Is that on your list?
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: We will have the translation tomorrow and we will get back to it.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On paragraph 21, I'm not sure if the department is taking measures at this time on the issue of overpayments, because it was basically saying that until it had the new computer system in place it couldn't resolve the problem. Therefore, I was just going to change the wording to read that the committee wants the department to take concrete measures to resolve the issue of overpayments. It wants to ensure the department does indeed take these measures as planned, which of course is the implementation of a new computer system.
In the meantime, they are trying to make some ad hoc temporary reductions in the overpayment situation, which is certainly not going to resolve it. I'm just not sure whether our terminology in paragraph 21 is correct, but I can go either way.
The Chairman: Do you agree with...?
Mr. Cannis: I don't think it's an issue because it states in its recommendation that the department report on the overpayment situation as of December 31, 1995. Since the department has given us a concrete date to respond, we will then be able to assess what indeed it has accomplished if the system is in place, if direction is effective and so on. I think there's a commitment there on its behalf. If we want to add words we can.
Mr. Williams: Let's leave it, Mr. Chairman. We're going to be running short of time.
On paragraph 22, the second line, delete the word ``mediocre'' and replace it with ``inadequate''.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I think that everyone will agree.
Mr. Fillion: You have a comment on paragraph 23?
Mr. Fillion: it seems to me that we were a bit more practical. The recommendation is very general so I would like to add two paragraphs.
The Chairman: Was that part of your recommendations?
Mr. Fillion: Yes. First, there's a paragraph on voice mail and a second one a number of forms that seniors have to fill out before getting their pension.
The Chairman: We will get back to that tomorrow, Mr. Fillion. I would like to finish before 5.30 p.m. That's part of your additions which will be translated for tomorrow, 1.00 p.m.
Are there other comments on page 4?
.1725
[English]
Mr. Williams: in paragraph 25 at the bottom of page 4, the second last sentence currently reads:
- The Committee is of the opinion that the Department should try to ascertain why the percentage
of appeals against decisions denying benefits increased to 60% in 1992-93 and, in particular,
why most appeals.... I would like to delete the words ``will be granted'' and insert ``are being
granted, but in many cases only at the second appeal''.
We are wasting all kinds of time, effort, money and expense going through the process of denying a person benefits when he gets them in the final analysis.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The paragraph should be redrafted in light of your comments.
[English]
Mr. Williams: In the recommendation on paragraph 25 I would like to delete the words ``try to''. It will therefore read ``the Department should ascertain the causes'' rather than ``should try to ascertain the causes''.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I agree with you. That's what we have done so far. We have made changes to be more affirmative.
Are you proposing to add a paragraph?
Mr. Fillion: Yes, it's a minor addition.
The Chairman: Okay, if it's a paragraph, we will deal with it tomorrow, but if it's only one or two lines, go ahead.
Mr. Fillion: No, I can wait till tomorrow.
The Chairman: Mr. Cannis.
Mr. Cannis: Okay.
The Chairman: No other comments on paragraph 27?
[English]
Mr. Williams: In paragraph 28, the last line of the preamble, delete the word ``until'' and replace it with the word ``before''. The sentence will now read:
- For example, according to the Department's forecasts, $1 billion in benefit overpayments could
exist and not be detected before the implementation is completed in 1997.
The recommendation there should read, ``That the Department develop management practices that ensure'' - not ``encourage'' - ``more efficient service delivery''.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Tomorrow, the researchers will make the corrections requested by the Committee and we will proceed with the 10th report and Mr. Fillion's additions. Thank you. We will adjourn till tomorrow.
The meeting is adjourned.