[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 20, 1997
.0944 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.)): I call to order this meeting of the subcommittee on the business of supply.
I will ask Mr. O'Neal to direct us to those areas where, based on our discussion on Tuesday, he's made some revisions.
.0945
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Subcommittee members are asked to start by looking at the last section of the paper that lists the recommendations. The committee asked me to make a change to the first recommendation by adding the words ``and related matters''. That has been done. I also point out that I have gone through the recommendations and removed the word ``propose'', since I've been told that's not necessary.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Did someone forget to renumber the recommendations?
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry that wasn't done. I think it was assumed by the people who were producing this that this would be pretty well the version that would be accepted. That's why they haven't done them. However, members did ask at the last meeting that page references be put in indicating where these recommendations can be found in the text and that will be done in the final version.
The Chair: This will be as it comes from procedure and House affairs.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. As this text has been modified, the pagination has also changed. I just wanted to reassure you that for people who are reading the report, they will be able to make reference to the places in the actual text where the recommendations are located.
The Chair: Will we be numbering the recommendations as well.
Mr. O'Neal: I could ask them to do that if you wish.
The Chair: Yes, I think so.
Mr. O'Neal: The next change you asked me to make was at recommendation 7, which has to do with the review of the role, mandate, etc. of crown corporations. I've added the words ``either collectively or individually''.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I'm sorry, but on what page is recommendation 7?
Mr. Brian O'Neal: On the first page.
The Chair: On the second page of the recommendations.
Mr. René Laurin: Recommendation 7 does not match that at all.
Mr. Brian O'Neal: Together or individually.
Mr. René Laurin: Oh, all right.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I'll go now to the next change you asked me to make.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): I have a point here that I just noticed regarding the agreement, cooperation and participation. By the nature of time constraints, other committees are involved in other studies and could not participate in a joint fashion. What is meant by participation there?
The Chair: Let me comment. We kind of envisioned that from time to time the estimates committee might set up subgroups that involve members of other committees just so they're not operating in the dark from the work of the subcommittees. Again, given the time constraints, that's why we haven't tried to define this to the nth degree. Participation may simply mean the environment committee, for example, being asked to comment if they don't feel that they have the time to actually participate, or it may mean assigning one member to an ad hoc joint committee.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: So it's not necessarily a conjoint committee study.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Is it in the text?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if I may add to what you've said and respond to Dr. Pagtakhan, again the concern here was that the estimates committee would not possess the necessary expertise in and of itself to take a look at individual departments or agencies. Therefore, were it to conduct a study of the proposed expenditures of several departments, agencies or programs that are conducted by several departments or agencies, it would be highly advisable for them to have members of the standing committees who are normally responsible for these areas assist them in their work. This is why the word ``participation'' has been used.
.0950
Again, this is just my opinion or assumption, but I might add to this that there's only so much that can be done in terms of setting forth what this estimates committee will do. Its members will have to determine for themselves a lot of what it is that they're going to do. So in terms of what form that participation will take, I think those members are just going to have to work this out between themselves and the members of the individual standing committees involved.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Okay, as long as it's clear that way, it's very flexible.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, as flexible as possible, Madam Chair.
The next change that you asked me to make came at the eleventh recommendation. It has to do with the scheduled review of the mandate of the standing committee on the estimates. You asked me to change the word ``years'' to ``supply periods''. That has been done.
You also had a discussion at your last meeting regarding whether or not the chair of this proposed estimates committee should be a member of the official opposition. You asked me to draft some text to say that this discussion had been held; that opinions were divided; and that, since there is no consensus on this issue, it is one you felt ought to be looked at when the mandate of the estimates committee is reviewed in two years' time.
I was also asked to say something about taking this possibility into consideration when the estimates committee is established. This has been done in a new paragraph that appears on page 57 in the English version. In the French version, it should come as the third paragraph after the section that is headed ``Assessment of the Proposed Committee's Mandate and Performance''.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): I don't think I would suggest changing the draft at this late a date. On the assumption that it is tabled in the House, though, perhaps those who are reviewing the report may want to consider leaving the Standing Orders such that the committee chooses its own chair. That would therefore allow the possibility of one from the government or otherwise.
The Chair: Are we satisfied to leave it as an unresolved issue?
Mr. John Williams: Just for the record, I propose that potential alternative, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, we had asked that it be noted that opinions on this issue were not only divided, but divided 50- 50. "Divided" can mean one against and three in favour.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I had originally put in the words ``equally divided'', but someone suggested an editorial change that takes out ``equally''.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Yes. It's the word "equally". Opinions on this issue were equally divided.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I think it's not too late to add that if the subcommittee wants to see it there.
The Chair: Okay, ``evenly'' or ``equally''.
Mr. John Williams: That would go along well with my proposal that the committee chair could alternate too, you see.
The Chair: If you want to weaken a chair of a committee, that's the best way to do it - alternate or co-chair. I will never agree to be either.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Only one of the...[Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I think the next couple of changes were really minor in nature.
The next one comes at the recommendation that has to do with reallocation. It's the fourteenth recommendation. You asked me to say, ``within each of the estimates referred to them''.
Mr. John Williams: I'm losing track of my numbers. We now have this new heading ``New Tools: The Ability to Reallocate Funds''. Starting from there, what motion are we talking about?
Mr. O'Neal: The first one under that heading.
.0955
If I might move on to the next one, Madam Chair, you asked me to change the word ``support'' to ``justify''.
The Chair: That's to avoid repetition.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. That has been done.
The Chair: I'm going to ask Dr. Pagtakhan to take over right now so that I can be in the House at 10 a.m. Don't try to put anything over on him. We've been very collegial up to now, and I hope that will continue for the last half hour or so.
Mr. John Williams: You can rest assured. We keep partisan politics for the House.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Everything will get done, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Rey.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan): Go ahead, Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chair, if I may continue, the next change the committee asked me to make comes under the heading ``Long-Term Review of Existing Programs''. You asked that it read ``to undertake reviews of and reports on broad areas of existing programs and program spending''. There was some disagreement among committee members about whether or not this cycle ought to be defined, but there was no consensus.
I therefore added this sentence:
- The Subcommittee discussed whether the length of these cycles should be specified. Since
consensus was not forthcoming, we suggest this issue be given further consideration by the
proposed Estimates Committee.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan): Did you say we endorse the report?
Mr. O'Neal: No. I will read it, Mr. Chairman. In the English, it's on page 100. It's the sentence immediately before the first recommendation.
I was asked to add a sentence regarding the length of the review of statutory programs. The new sentence reads:
- The Lambert Commission proposed that there be a review, conducted over a ten-year period, of
all statutes underlying statutory expenditures; we endorse this approach.
Mr. O'Neal: Your recommendation follows, and uses approximately the same wording. It says:
- That the Government establish a schedule for the review, over the next ten years, of all existing
underlying statutes that affect the size of statutory expenditures.
Mr. John Williams: I thought we were going to take ``ten years'' out of the recommendation because we felt the ten-year timetable may cause the government to ignore the recommendation in its entirety, as it may have done in the past with the Lambert commission, because the government did not follow through on that recommendation.
There is an awful lot of legislation on the books. To review it all in a ten-year period would be a major commitment by any government. Of course, we also know ten years exceeds the life of any Parliament.
.1000
We recognize and support the Lambert commission's proposal. We are doing that in the text. But I thought we were going to take ``ten years'' out of the recommendation in order to give the government greater latitude. We would want the government to recognize that a review is desirable, but I'm not sure doing it all in ten years is something any government could commit to.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan): I agree with that. If we were to follow that, then the text may read to the effect that -
Mr. John Williams: ``That the government establish a schedule for the review of all underlying statutes that underlie statutory expenditure.'' Delete the five words, ``over the next ten years''.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan): Yes, I'll go with that.
René.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I was checking something else. I wasn't following you. I'm sorry. What recommendation are you on?
Mr. Brian O'Neal: Recommendation 5.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: As I was saying, Mr. Laurin -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Are you afraid it won't be long enough?
[English]
Mr. John Williams: - in the text, immediately before the recommendation, you will see that we endorse the Lambert commission's recommendation that a review be conducted over a ten-year period. In our recommendation, however, we think it may be advisable to remove the reference to ten years. As we know, the government did not take up the recommendation of the Lambert commission, and that may have been because a review of all legislation in a ten-year period is a major commitment. It's perhaps too onerous for any government to accept, and such a review spans the life of at least two parliaments.
In order for the recommendation to have a greater chance of success, we would want the government to put forward a schedule of review, but we wouldn't necessarily want to tie its hands and have it done strictly within a ten-year period. We're therefore asking that it establish a review. We want the government to recognize that we endorse the ten-year period suggested by the Lambert commission; however, on our actual recommendation, we would remove the reference to ten years.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I think we're being overly anxious if we're afraid that the government will not have enough time in 10 years. In other words, we're telling it to take all the time it wants. That's not a great incentive, especially as we're saying that the government should set a timetable. We can set a timetable. If a ten year period is not acceptable, the government will indicate 12 or 13 years. Ten years is a very long time. When you assign the staff necessary to revise legislation, ten years is the duration of two and a half governments, almost three. I think we're being fearful. What do we fear, I don't know. We're afraid to demand too much of the government. Usually, people in the Reform Party are more aggressive.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chair, perhaps I could add a couple of comments that might help to clarify the debate a little bit.
First of all, I think it's correct to say that since you've added this sentence endorsing the approach recommended by the Lambert commission, it's effectively an instruction from the committee that this take place over a ten-year period. On the other hand, I'd point out that the Lambert commission tabled its report in 1979. Things have changed since then, perhaps having become more complex.
I think the commission made its recommendation for a ten-year schedule based on the vast bulk and complexity of statutes that underlie statutory expenditures. The commission wanted to make sure that if there was a review, it would be done under a reasonable timetable, one that would give sufficient time to study the statutes thoroughly.
.1005
I personally don't think there would be any harm in removing the ten years from the recommendation. I would also point out that at the end of this report, the government will be asked to respond to it within 150 days, I believe. If it accepts this recommendation, it will probably have to say something about the schedule.
That may address some of your concerns. Personally, I think the ten years could come out of the recommendation.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: If we're told that this will be noticed when the government responds to our recommendation, it will be noticed if we leave the words "over the next ten years". The government's reaction may be to tell us that this cannot be achieved in 10 years and they need15 years. The government will then tell us that we should just leave it, since we will have to know the government's reaction. It any event, whether we delete it or not, the government will respond. Therefore, I would prefer that the committee leave the reference to ten years, because that indicates to the government that we're hoping that this be done rather quickly and not drag on for 30 years.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: The first important thing is that we'd like the review to be done. The second important thing is that we'd like it to be done quite quickly. We've given them a ten-year period to do so. They did not accept the Lambert commission's recommendation to do it in ten years. The government's response may very well be that since we cannot do the review within ten years we are passing up on the recommendation and will therefore miss out on priority one, which is that there be a review. If we don't give a specific timeframe, the government will have to address the issue of whether there shall be a review, or whether reviews are required at all.
I would really like to see the government accept our recommendation that there be a review. I wouldn't want to give it the opportunity to duck out of the review by saying, ``We can't do it in10 years, therefore we're passing up on the recommendation completely''.
That's the danger I'm talking about, Mr. Laurin. It's not that I'm not prepared to put pressure on the government. The government may turn its back on the entire recommendation and walk away from it completely by using the reason that if it cannot be done in ten years, it will not be done, period.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: If you wish, I would suggest a compromise. I would say, "The government set a timetable for the review, preferable within the next ten years". Are we being gentle enough now?
[English]
Mr. John Williams: We would like to see them accomplish it within ten years, preferably.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: That's right.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Pagtakhan): That's what I wanted to suggest, René; you read my mind. That reconciles everything.
Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chair, if I could move on to the next change you asked me to make -
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Pagtakhan): We have been called to the House. The meeting is suspended.
.1009
.1117
The Chair: For those of you who are members of the subcommittee on the business of supply - the rest of you can observe - we had just finished the recommendation on page 135 in the English copy.
What page is it on in the French version?
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I don't have the French version immediately in front of me, but I can tell you that we had progressed as far as the next change I was asked to make, in recommendation 38, which talks about efforts to improve program evaluations. In the English version I was asked to add the words ``articulate the public policy objectives''. This has been done.
[Translation]
I found the French version on page 146. The recommendation states:
- That the government take all possible measures to improve the quality of program evaluations
[...] evaluations must articulate the public policy objectives, address the question...
The Chair: In the English version in this last line is there a word left out? It should read ``whether the program is being efficiently managed and whether there are alternative means of meeting the same policy objectives''.
.1120
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, you're quite correct. It should read ``alternative means'', and I believe in the main text it reads that way, but I will check to make sure it is mentioned here.
[Translation]
The Chair: That's all right?
Mr. René Laurin: Nothing has changed from the French?
The Chair: No.
Mr. René Laurin: I agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Next?
[Translation]
Mr. Brian O'Neal: The next one is the last.
[English]
It comes under the section that deals with tax expenditures.
[Translation]
In French, it's called "dépenses fiscales".
[English]
You asked me to add the words ``and an articulation of their public policy goals''.
[Translation]
I will check the French. It's possible that the French version does not change. It's the recommendation that begins with: "That the annual information on tax expenditures..." and ends with...
Mr. René Laurin: "...amounts of these expenditures."
Mr. Brian O'Neal: That's right.
[English]
The Chair: That is the last one, but in the next one, I think we had also suggested adding to ``a thorough review of tax expenditures'' the phrase ``and whether there are alternative means of meeting the same policy objectives'', or had we not put that in there?
Mr. O'Neal: Not to my recollection, Madam Chair, but we can certainly add that, if the subcommittee agrees.
The Chair: Hi, John. We're at page 137. It's the third recommendation under ``Tax Expenditures.
It seems to me that on the third recommendation, we had agreed to do the same thing we did with statutory expenditures and include ``and whether there are alternative means of achieving the same policy objectives''.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, my apologies. I thought you were referring to loan guarantees.
The Chair: No.
Mr. O'Neal: If you are referring to tax expenditures, I believe you are quite correct -
The Chair: Wow, that's twice I've heard that this morning.
Will you make that correction?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Williams, the only other change we made in your absence was a simple editorial correction on the quality of program evaluations. The word ``alternative'' was missing from the second last line of that recommendation, which should read ``whether there are alternative means of meeting the same policy objectives''.
Mr. John Williams: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Is that the last one?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, that concludes the extent of the changes that the subcommittee requested me to make at our meeting last Tuesday.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on the report or are we ready to adopt the report?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I have one.
[English]
The Chair: Or would you prefer to meet right after Question Period this afternoon for a final discussion?
Mr. John Williams: There was only one minor issue left, Madam Chair, and unfortunately I haven't been able to clarify with the Treasury Board. I think it's A-okay. Perhaps the clerk can give me some assurance.
It's on the subject of the 5% carry-over on budgets that is the policy of today. Are these budget carry-overs in amounts not exceeding 5% tabled in the House as a supplementary estimates at this point in time? I believe they may be, and I thought it might be good for parliamentarians to know that while they approve the estimates and an amount tabled by the government, there is an additional amount that's carried over from the previous year that's being spent and all that it would require is a supplementary estimate to be tabled.
.1125
I think that is, perhaps, the policy as it stands today, but I haven't had confirmation of it. However, in the interests of efficiency - because we always like to promote efficiency - I think we should adopt the report now, and perhaps the procedure and House affairs committee may want to consider that issue at a later time.
The Chair: We have to leave some things for the new estimates committee to discover and deal with on their own.
Mr. John Williams: Of course.
The Chair: We can each write them our own letter of things we think they should be looking at.
Mr. John Williams: Very good.
The Chair: I have a motion from Mr. Williams to adopt the report and to table it with -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, one thing had not been settled, and that's the recommendation concerning pages 73 and 74 of the French version, where we refer to a study being conducted "on a three to five years cyclical basis". You replaced that with "cyclical".
I would like to point out that when we agreed on "a three to five years cyclical basis", we were bearing in mind the testimony of two witnesses who referred to three to five year periods, on pages 73 and 74 of the last document, not the one we have today.
I'm trying to find this in today's document. It was Mr. Franks who, in his testimony, recommended that we extend the scope of the program review beyond the limits imposed by the notion of a fiscal year. For instance, Mr. Franks advocated a three year horizon and Mr. Paul Thomas, who had presented similar arguments, indicated that it would be possible to review programs by adopting a long- term, cyclical and selective method, and he was in favour of a five year cycle.
It was with these two witnesses in mind that we had written "on a three to five years cyclical basis" in the initial recommendation. We hadn't mentioned it at the last meeting because we couldn't find the reference. Therefore, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be preferable to leave "three to five years" because that's what the witnesses recommended.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, during your last meeting together you disagreed over whether or not it was a good idea to specify the length of the cycles, but -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: We had set that aside, but we said we'd get back to it.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: In any case, Madam Chair, there was disagreement on whether or not the length of the cycles should be specified.
I was asked to change the recommendation, to leave out a specification, but in recognition of the fact that the committee hadn't really reached a consensus on this, I added a sentence saying this was an issue that should be looked into by the estimates committee when it is established.
The Chair: What would be an appropriate period for cyclical review?
Mr. O'Neal: This is at page 78 in the English version.
Mr. Laurin is quite correct about the testimony coming from the witnesses. However, the subcommittee wasn't at all sure whether or not there should be a specification.
In the English version of the recommendation it talks about explicit authority to undertake cyclical reviews of and reports on broad areas of existing programs and program spending. I've followed that with a new sentence, which reads:
- The Subcommittee discussed whether the length of these cycles should be specified. Since
consensus was not forthcoming, we suggest this issue be given further consideration by the
proposed Estimates Committee.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Well, I wanted to point out the reasons why we had put that there. The last time, we had set aside that issue and said we'd get back to it. That's why I'm coming back to it this morning by saying that it was a recommendation of witnesses.
What are we going to do? Are we leaving "three to five years" or are we coming back to "cyclical"?
The Chair: Is there a consensus, for or against, to mention a specific number of years in the recommendation?
John.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: No, Madam Chair. We talked about the fact that some programs would be longer, and some perhaps would be shorter, and those of a short duration may be evaluated at the end of the program.
Therefore, we thought for the very large programs three to five years was far too frequent. That's where we couldn't really come up with a consensus, and perhaps to repeat the words of the chair, we do want to leave something for this new committee to do.
The Chair: Yes, and even some of our witnesses said three years while some said five. So let's leave it this way as a question to be resolved.
We have a motion to adopt the report.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I second the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I would agree to adopt the report, but there are several errors in the French version, at least in the wording, and we were somewhat hasty this morning. I would have liked to point them out. If the clerk wants me to point out the places where there are... In some places, an entire sentence is missing and in others, the wrong term is being used.
The Chair: You could point out these problems to our researcher. I must also indicate that when the committee adopts a report as a whole, there is always a recommendation that allows us to make corrections.
Mr. René Laurin: That's right. I understand, but I just want to make sure that the French version is worthy of the French language.
The Chair: Certainly, we always bear that in mind.
[English]
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: The motion to adopt the report is agreed to unanimously.
Do we need a motion to present it to the procedure and House affairs committee, to table it with the committee immediately?
Mr. John Williams: I move that we present it to the procedure and House affairs committee.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: I will now thank all the members of this committee. They have spent enormous amounts of time on a tremendously difficult subject, more difficult than any of us thought at the beginning, I think. This is something they have received no public glory for. It is a subject most members of Parliament have very little interest in. I think it's important work you've all done, and I want to thank you all very much before I adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to add my appreciation to you as a chair for the most efficient and capable manner in which you have chaired this committee. As you mentioned, it's been a complex and difficult issue we have dealt with.
I also would like to thank all the members who have participated in a roughly non-partisan manner because we recognize that improving government is in everybody's interest. I would like to express my appreciation to all who have participated. Thank you.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.