|
BP-369E
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES:
REVIEW PROCESS
Prepared by Michelle Salvail
Economics Division
July 1993
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A. Federal
Expenditures
B.
Consideration of Expenditures
C. Control of Government
Expenditures
1.
Expenditure Control Act
2. Specific Expenditure
Control Measures
3. Foreign
Experience
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX
1
APPENDIX
2
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES:
REVIEW PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
On 26 April 1993, the federal
government tabled a budget in the House of Commons. The Minister of Finance,
Mr. Mazankowski, announced that the deficit for 1992-93 totalled $35.5
billion, some $1.1 billion more than estimated in December 1992. Net public
debt climbed to $458.8 billion, or 66.7% of Gross Domestic Product.
This announcement did nothing
to calm public concern about the state of public finances. On the contrary,
the feeling mounted that the government might have lost control. For years,
taxpayers have been hearing that it is time for belt-tightening and living
within their means. Now taxpayers want the government to stop picking
their pockets and to take action in other ways to achieve deficit reduction.
The object of this paper
is to explain the role of government in expenditure management. In the
first of three sections, we analyze federal government expenditures in
recent years. It is important to understand the composition of expenditures
in order to see the impacts reductions would have. In a second section,
we shall look at the process of consideration of expenditures by Parliament.
We shall ask who participates in this process, and how it guarantees that
public funds are properly spent. Finally, we shall deal with efforts to
reduce expenditures both in Canada and in other countries.
A. Federal
Expenditures
To limit the scope of our
analysis, we will look at government expenditures since 1982, that is,
over a ten-year period. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 show respectively government
expenditures in real terms, annual change in real expenditures, the ratio
of each component to GDP, and their shares of total expenditures.
TABLE
1
EXPENDITURES in millions of dollars constant of
1986 (for the fiscal year ending 31 March)
|
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
Transfer
payment to persons
Old age security benefits
Unemployment insurance
benefits
Family allowances
Other
Transfer payments to
other levels of Gov't
Fiscal arrangements
Insurance and medical
care services
Canada Assistance Plan
Education support
Other
Other transfer payments
Crown corporations expenditures
Operating and capital
expenditures
National Defence
All other departments
and agencies
Public debt charges
TOTAL
|
19,696
9,767
6,196
2,298
1,436
15,867
5,404
4,873
2,614
1,852
1,124
8,858
5,407
19,314
6,453
12,861
17,195
86,337
|
24,883
10,447
10,642
2,417
1,376
16,363
6,064
4,399
3,068
1,660
1,172
9,802
7,746
20,066
7,150
12,917
18,313
97,173
|
24,886
10,931
10,275
2,443
1,236
19,036
6,278
5,845
3,454
2,169
1,290
12,569
5,460
21,041
7,866
13,175
18,988
101,980
|
25,287
11,452
10,082
2,425
1,327
19,933
6,003
6,349
3,756
2,272
1,553
14,028
6,596
21,532
8,441
13,090
22,523
109,898
|
26,587
12,525
10,036
2,501
1,525
20,259
5,941
6,400
3,916
2,277
1,725
12,587
4,809
21,833
8,691
13,142
25,441
111,516
|
26,567
12,841
9,975
2,420
1,330
19,726
6,019
6,310
3,869
2,132
1,395
12,312
5,051
22,309
9,091
13,219
25,461
111,427
|
26,378
13,092
9,568
2,339
1,378
20,075
6,393
5,984
3,874
2,046
1,778
13,670
4,430
23,755
9,359
14,397
26,485
114,793
|
26,437
13,231
9,549
2,268
1,389
20,960
7,073
5,812
3,965
1,938
2,171
12,616
5,016
21,872
9,081
12,791
28,868
115,768
|
27,482
13,854
10,029
2,275
1,323
21,553
7,421
5,714
4,293
1,858
2,267
11,826
4,539
23,694
9,313
14,381
33,293
122,387
|
29,482
14,053
12,030
2,244
1,153
19,926
6,792
4,949
4,748
1,527
1,909
10,304
4,801
23,621
8,873
14,748
34,895
123,028
|
33,150
14,954
14,737
2,293
1,166
21,207
7,198
5,438
4,959
1,741
1,870
12,297
4,310
22,894
8,901
13,993
33,521
127,378
|
Source: Public
Accounts, 1991-92 and Research Branch, Library of Parliament.
TABLE 2
ANNUAL CHANGE IN REAL EXPENDITURES
in percentage (for the fiscal year ending 31 March)
|
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
Transfer
of payments to persons
Old age security benefits
Unemployment insurance
benefits
Family allowances
Other
Transfer payments to
other levels of Government
Fiscal arrangements
Insurance and medical
care services
Canada Assistance Plan
Education support
Other
Other transfer payments
Crown corporations expenditures
Operating and capital
expenditures
National Defence
All other departments
and agencies
Public debt charges
TOTAL
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
|
26.3
7.0
71.8
5.2
-4.2
3.1
12.2
-9.7
17.4
-10.4
4.3
10.7
43.3
3.9
10.8
0.4
6.5
12.6
|
0.0
4.6
-3.5
1.1
-10.1
16.3
3.5
32.9
12.6
30.7
10.0
28.2
-29.5
4.9
10.0
2.0
3.7
4.9
|
1.6
4.8
-1.9
-0.7
7.3
4.7
-4.4
8.6
8.8
4.7
20.4
11.6
20.8
2.3
7.3
-0.6
18.6
7.8
|
5.1
9.4
-0.5
3.1
14.9
1.6
-1.0
0.8
4.3
0.2
11.1
-10.3
-27.1
1.4
3.0
0.4
13.0
1.5
|
-0.1
2.5
-0.6
-3.2
-12.8
-2.6
1.3
-1.4
-1.2
-6.4
-19.1
-2.2
5.0
2.2
4.6
0.6
0.1
-0.1
|
-0.7
2.0
-4.1
-3.3
3.6
1.8
6.2
-5.2
0.1
-4.0
27.4
11.0
-12.3
6.5
2.9
8.9
4.0
3.0
|
0.2
1.1
-0.2
-3.1
0.8
4.4
10.6
-2.9
2.4
-5.3
22.1
-7.7
13.2
-7.9
-3.0
-11.2
9.0
0.8
|
4.0
4.7
5.0
0.3
-4.7
2.8
4.9
-1.7
8.3
-4.2
4.4
-6.3
-9.5
8.3
2.6
12.4
15.3
5.7
|
7.3
1.4
20.0
-1.4
-12.8
-7.5
-8.5
-13.4
10.6
-17.8
-15.8
-12.9
5.8
-0.3
-4.7
2.6
4.8
0.5
|
12.4
6.4
22.5
2.2
1.1
6.4
6.0
9.9
4.4
14.0
-2.0
19.3
-10.2
-3.1
0.3
-5.1
-3.9
3.5
|
Source: Public
Accounts, 1991-92 and Research Branch, Library of Parliament.
TABLE 3
Expenditure components as percentages of GDP
(for the fiscal year ending 31 March)
|
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
Transfer
payment to persons
Old age security benefits
Unemployment insurance
benefits
Family allowances
Other
Transfer payments to
other levels of Government
Fiscal arrangements
Insurance and medical
care services
Canada Assistance Plan
Education support
Other
Other transfer payments
Crown corporations expenditures
Operating and capital
expenditures
National Defence
All other departments
and agencies
Public debt charges
Total expenditures
|
4.9
2.4
1.5
0.6
0.4
3.9
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
2.2
1.3
4.8
1.6
3.2
4.2
21.3
|
6.1
2.6
2.6
0.6
0.3
4.0
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.3
2.4
1.9
4.9
1.8
3.2
4.5
23.9
|
5.8
2.6
2.4
0.6
0.3
4.5
1.5
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.3
3.0
1.3
4.9
1.8
3.1
4.5
23.9
|
5.7
2.6
2.3
0.5
0.2
4.5
1.3
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.3
3.1
1.5
4.8
1.9
2.9
5.0
24.6
|
5.6
2.6
2.1
0.5
0.3
4.2
1.2
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
2.6
1.0
4.6
1.8
2.7
5.3
23.3
|
5.5
2.7
2.1
0.5
0.3
4.1
1.2
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
2.5
1.0
4.6
1.9
2.7
5.3
23.1
|
5.2
2.6
1.9
0.5
0.3
4.0
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4
2.7
0.9
4.7
1.9
2.9
5.3
22.8
|
5.0
2.5
1.8
0.4
0.3
4.0
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.4
2.4
1.0
4.2
1.7
2.4
5.5
22.0
|
4.9
2.5
1.8
0.4
0.2
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.4
2.1
0.8
4.2
1.7
2.6
6.0
21.9
|
5.4
2.6
2.2
0.4
0.2
3.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.3
1.9
0.9
4.3
1.6
2.7
6.4
22.5
|
6.0
2.7
2.7
0.4
0.2
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
2.2
0.8
4.2
1.6
2.6
6.1
23.2
|
Source: Public
Accounts, 1991-92 and Research Branch, Library of Parliament.
TABLE 4
Expenditures as percentages of total expenditures
(for the fiscal year ending 31 March)
|
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
Transfer
payments to persons
Old age security benefits
Unemployment insurance
benefits
Family allowances
Other
Transfer payments to
other levels of Government
Fiscal arrangements
Insurance and medical
care services
Canada Assistance Plan
Education support
Other
Other transfer payments
Crown corporations expenditures
Operating and capital
expenditures
National Defence
All other departments
and agencies
Public dept charges
|
22.8
11.3
7.2
2.7
1.7
18.4
6.3
5.6
3.0
2.1
1.3
10.3
6.3
22.4
7.5
14.9
19.9
|
25.6
10.8
11.0
2.5
1.4
16.8
6.2
4.5
3.2
1.7
1.2
10.1
8.0
20.6
7.4
13.3
18.8
|
24.4
10.7
10.1
2.4
1.2
18.7
6.2
5.7
3.4
2.1
1.3
12.3
5.4
20.6
7.7
12.9
18.6
|
23.0
10.4
9.2
2.2
1.2
18.1
5.5
5.8
3.4
2.1
1.4
12.8
6.0
19.6
7.7
11.9
20.5
|
23.8
11.2
9.0
2.2
1.4
18.2
5.3
5.7
3.5
2.0
1.5
11.3
4.3
19.6
7.8
11.8
22.8
|
23.8
11.5
9.0
2.2
1.2
17.7
5.4
5.7
3.5
1.9
1.3
11.0
4.5
20.0
8.2
11.9
22.9
|
23.0
11.4
8.3
2.0
1.2
17.5
5.6
5.2
3.4
1.8
1.5
11.9
3.9
20.7
8.2
12.5
23.1
|
22.8
11.4
8.2
2.0
1.2
18.1
6.1
5.0
3.4
1.7
1.9
10.9
4.3
18.9
7.8
11.0
24.9
|
22.5
11.3
8.2
1.9
1.1
17.6
6.1
4.7
3.5
1.5
1.9
9.7
3.7
19.4
7.6
11.8
27.2
|
24.0
11.4
9.8
1.8
0.9
16.2
5.5
4.0
3.9
1.2
1.6
8.4
3.9
19.2
7.2
12.0
28.4
|
26.0
11.7
11.6
1.8
0.9
16.6
5.7
4.3
3.9
1.4
1.5
9.7
3.4
18.0
7.0
11.0
26.3
|
Source: Public
Accounts, 1991-92 and Research branch, Library of Parliament.
It is immediately apparent
that the 1982 recession affected expenditure levels dramatically. Expenditures
increased by 48% in real terms between 1982 and 1992. From 1982 to 1984
alone, they climbed 18%.
Transfer payments in general
rose sharply in the early 1980s, then increased at a slower pace -- occasionally
even declining in real terms. The ratio of transfer payments to GDP increased
marginally over this ten-year period. The largest change was the rise
in unemployment insurance payments, whose ratio to GDP rose from 1.5%
in 1982 to 2.7% in 1992. The recent recession also had a direct impact
on transfer payments, most of whose components increased in 1991 and 1992.
Expenditures of Crown corporations
have experienced both upward and downward movements since 1982. However,
they were reduced by 20% in real terms over ten years, with their share
of GDP falling from 1.3% in 1982 to 0.8% in 1992. The main reason for
this marked decrease in expenditures was the privatization of a number
of Crown corporations.
Expenditures for other government
programs have not followed quite the same path as transfer payment expenditures.
Annual changes reflect the desire of the Conservative government to reduce
growth in program expenditures. Although these expenditures showed fairly
substantial growth in 1988 and 1990, their ratio to GDP has been declining
since 1982. Overall, National Defence expenditures have increased over
the period, but at a declining rate, with even decreases taking place
in some years.
Public debt charges represent
a growing proportion of total government expenditures, having practically
doubled in ten years. In 1982, debt charges accounted for slightly less
than 20% of total expenditures. In 1992, they accounted for 26%. There
is only one positive feature in the pattern of debt charges: for the first
time in 50 years, in 1991-1992 they showed a decline from one year to
the next.
A brief look at the figures
shows that considerable financial complexity is involved: expenditures
are incurred by dozens of departments and agencies carrying out thousands
of programs. Review of these expenditures and consequently of the programs
themselves cannot be carried out in detail each year. The only annual
scrutiny by Parliament is approval of the votes allocated to each department.
In the section that follows, we shall see who is involved in the process
of reviewing federal government expenditures and the roles they play.
B.
Consideration of Expenditures
The annual tabling of the
Main Estimates by the President of the Treasury Board marks the initial
step in the consideration of government expenditures.(1)
The Estimates consist of three parts: Part I contains the principal components
of the Main Estimates; Part II includes the financial requirements of
each department and agency; and the Part IIIs (more than 80) supply more
detailed information on the items in Part II, providing descriptions of
program objectives, principal achievements and future plans for each department
and agency.
Parliament must approve
the Main Estimates for each fiscal year (1 April to 31 March of the following
year). First, Part IIIs are sent to various committees of the House of
Commons for in-depth consideration. The object of this exercise is to
ensure that the financial resources requested are justified. Ministers
and senior officials appear before the members of the committee to defend
their budgets.
Appendix 1 shows the number
of meetings on Main Estimates held over the past five fiscal years. The
total number of meetings has varied greatly over this period. Committees
met as follows: 134 times on the 1989-90 Main Estimates; 92 times on the
1990-91 Main Estimates; 33 times on the 1991-92 Main Estimates; 64 times
on the 1992-93 Main Estimates; and 45 times on the 1992-93 Main Estimates.
Although most committees
hold at least one meeting to consider Part III Estimates, this exercise
seems far from popular. In addition, no major change -- such as, for example,
a budget cut -- has ever been made following consideration of a Part III.
Votes are always approved in the end, if only because the members of the
government in power make up the majority of the committee. Committees
have until 31 May to report to the House on Part IIIs. On that date,
any items that have not been reviewed in committee or reported to the
House are considered to have been approved.
This way of proceeding does
not provoke any interest because Members are under the impression that,
whether or not they pay attention to the resources requested, the votes
will be approved. Members (particularly those in the Opposition) therefore
take advantage of the rare appearance of the Minister before the committee
to ask questions on all manner of topics other than financial ones.
Some may assert that, although
it is far from perfect, this manner of proceeding provides an opportunity
for public consideration of the Main Estimates and promotes transparency
of the budget process. In fact, only on rare occasions do public servants
appear before elected officials to justify their activities. However,
the lack of enthusiasm for these sessions implies that Members may not
be convinced of their relevance, at least in their present form.
Accordingly, proposals have
been made either to modify the process or to adopt other methods for consideration
of government expenditures by Members of Parliament. Auditor General Desautels
proposed the creation of a Committee of leading members for non-partisan
consideration of public finance matters.(2) Rather than concentrating on a single fiscal
year, this Committee would address the issues from a long-term perspective.
Other have proposed the creation of a super-committee to scrutinize government
expenditures, on which taxpayers would also sit.
The work of the Member of
Parliament in reviewing expenditures does not end with the adoption in
committee of the Part IIIs; however, with the exception of Members' participation
in debates, interventions are frequently ex post -- that is, they
take place after the expenditures have been made.
The Auditor General's Annual
Report is one of the instruments used by Members of Parliament to review
the programs of various departments and agencies. The Auditor General
(AG) checks to ensure that expenditures have been made wisely and in accordance
with the will of Parliament. However, because there is only one report
per year, months can pass before Members become aware of the AG's conclusions.
There has been a proposal to have the reports published as soon as they
are prepared, or as deemed appropriate, in order to permit quicker reaction
to the AG's observations.
Particularly in recent years,
the direct activities of Members (especially Opposition Members) with
respect to consideration of expenditures have focused on expenditure control.
The government is being asked to act to reduce expenditures without precipitating
another recession. In the section that follows, we shall look at actions
taken by the government to control expenditures in recent years.
C. Control of Government Expenditures
Although it is true that
it is not helpful to consider expenditure levels without comparing them
to revenues, expenditure levels can indicate the choices that must be
made when the government decides to make cuts. The government's determination
to restrain expenditures is not new; however, there is public pressure
to change the way in which this is done.
First, the public hears
various claims that the government could find less drastic ways of reducing
expenditures; indeed, everyone has his or her own proposal. Next, people
are uncertain whether the government is taking all possible measures to
ensure that funds are well spent. Early this year, a Gallup(3)
poll found that Canadians asked what percentage of their taxes they believed
was wasted by the federal government gave the answer 47 cents in every
dollar! In this context, it is important to understand what the government
is doing to control and reduce expenditures.
1.
Expenditure Control Act
More than a year ago (18
June 1992), the Expenditure Control Act received Royal Assent.
The purpose of this Act was to impose, in accordance with established
criteria, program expenditure ceilings for the 1991-1992 to 1995-1996
period. Subject to certain exceptions, these ceilings cannot be exceeded
by the Minister of Finance when presenting the budget.
Not all government expenditures
are subject to the Act. The principal self-financing programs (Unemployment
Insurance, Farm Commodities Stabilization, Gross Revenues Insurance Plan
and Crop Re-insurance Fund) and debt charges are exempt from the expenditure
control ceilings. The Act also permits excess expenditures if there is
a compensatory decrease over the two following fiscal years. This provision
is valid even for the final year of the program.
Expenditures subject to
the Act account for 62.5% of total estimated expenditures, and represent
expenditures deemed to be controllable (compared to Unemployment Insurance
expenditures, which vary with the state of the economy). Up to now, the
ceilings have been respected. Once changes in the structure of certain
expenditures have been implemented (restructuring of expenditures for
Child Benefits and full funding of pensions), the government plans to
revise expenditure ceilings downward, beginning in fiscal year 1992-1993,
and to extend the ceilings to 1997-98.
There are those who feel
that the Expenditure Control Act does not attack the deficit directly
enough, and who propose that the government adopt legislation prohibiting
deficit financing. The 1991 Auditor General's Annual Report proposed a
report card in which deficit and debt results would be compared to budget
forecasts, and any large differences would be explained in plain language.
The parameters (unemployment, inflation and interest rates) underlying
these forecasts would also be compared.(4)
2. Specific Expenditure Control
Measures
A number of factors influence
government expenditures. First, the state of the economy plays a part.
In a recession, the increase in numbers of the unemployed and welfare
recipients directly affects expenditures. Second, population growth also
has an impact. Generally speaking, the services required to serve the
population increase in direct proportion to that growth. Third, program
structure has an impact on expenditures. A very generous program will
naturally cost the government more money.
The increasing share of
expenditures for transfer payments to individuals and to the Canada Assistance
Plan since the beginning of the 1989-1990 recession has led to a number
of problems. If the government did not want to finance these additional
expenditures through tax increases, and yet wanted to keep the deficit
to reasonable levels, other types of expenditures had to be cut or the
structure of the components of transfer payments had to be reviewed.
An Expenditure Control Plan
was announced in the 1990 budget. Subsequent budgets have also resulted
in substantial expenditure reductions. The most important of these were:(5)
1990
-
Growth in Canada Assistance
Plan payments to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta limited to
5% (dubbed cap on CAP) over the following two years. This freeze was
then extended for a third year.
-
Two-year freeze on transfers
under Established Programs Financing on a per capita basis.
-
Decrease in spending
on social housing.
-
Implementation of the
clawback provision by which high income earners must repay part or
all of their Family Allowance or Old Age Security benefits as applicable.
1991
1992
-
10% reduction in most
grants and subsidies in each of the next two years.
-
Further two-year wage
freeze for federal public servants and Members of Parliament.
-
Elimination or merging
of a number of government agencies.
-
Reduction of the Unemployment
Insurance benefit rate from 60% to 57% of insurable earnings.
-
No UI benefits for workers
who quit their jobs without just cause.
1993
-
Extension of reductions
to regional development programs and non-renewal of some federal-provincial
development agreements.
-
Freeze on CMHC funding
for social housing.
-
Decrease of $300 million
in operating budgets over the next two years.
This list illustrates the
extent to which all expenditure categories have been affected. Although
the measures have led to a slowing of expenditure growth, expenditures
nevertheless rose in real terms from $122.4 billion in 1989-1990 to $127.4
billion in 1991-1992.
The impact of a number of
expenditure reduction measures announced in recent budgets will be felt
fully only in the coming years. If they are combined with an economic
recovery, they will certainly have a major impact on government expenditures.
3. Foreign
Experience (6)
Government expenditure control
is not unique to Canada. A number of countries have made similar cuts
in recent years. Appendix 2 shows the most recent measures taken in certain
OECD countries. Even the most socialist countries have made reductions
in their social programs. Most of these countries have acted to reduce
the size of their public service. All have made cuts to at least one of
their social programs. New Zealand has even abolished universality in
its health and social programs. Cuts in the defence sector have been made
in half of the countries.
The nature of expenditure
reductions depends in large part on the reaction of the public. The government's
hands may be tied in the sense that it is unable to touch programs that
are highly regarded by the people. For example, Canadians are very attached
to the concept of universal health programs. It seems unlikely that a
government would have the courage to abolish universality, despite the
fact that considerable savings might thereby be achieved.
CONCLUSION
The Canadian public is aware
of the constraints facing the government in the domain of public finance.
Yet the public also wants the government to end unemployment and the recession.
In a Decima Research poll conducted in November 1992,(7)
57% of respondents stated that it is more important to invest in human
resources even if this increases the deficit, while 41% felt that the
government should reduce the deficit even if there is a resulting reduction
in services.
The public therefore expects
the government to do its homework. To succeed in carrying out its expenditure
reduction plan, the government must explain the impact of its actions
to the public. Above all, the government must demonstrate that public
taxes are used wisely and well.
Public involvement in the
expenditure review process could be beneficial for the government. The
deficit is the problem not only of the government in power, but of the
population as a whole. Greater transparency in government accounts is
the first step toward an understanding of the choices we face, and achieving
such transparency would make the government more responsible for its actions.
Members of Parliament would also benefit, because they could explain the
situation better to their constituents.
In the poll referred to
above, when respondents were asked their views how best to take a decision
affecting the direction of the country, three-quarters said they favoured
being consulted via an opinion poll, a referendum or a 1-800 number. Only
12% said they would prefer a vote in Parliament. Whatever method is chosen
in the future, it is clear that the people want to be consulted. At a
time when government institutions are becoming increasingly unpopular,
the government must show that it is not the only one responsible for steering
the ship of state. The public will then become more aware of what it can
do to help keep the ship afloat.
APPENDIX 1
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON MAIN ESTIMATES
BY COMMITTEE, BY FISCAL YEAR
Standing Committees
|
ME/89-90
# of meetings
|
ME/90-91
# of meetings |
ME/91-92
# of meetings |
ME/92-93
# of meetings |
ME/93-94
# of meetings |
Aboriginal
Affairs |
1
|
2
|
--
|
--
|
3
|
External
Affairs and International Trade |
7
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
Agriculture |
13
|
6
|
--
|
3
|
3
|
Communications
and Culture |
10
|
8
|
1
|
5
|
--
|
Public
Accounts |
3
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
Consumer
and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations |
14
|
9
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
National
Defence and Veterans Affairs |
4
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons |
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
Elections,
Privileges, Procedure and Private Member's Business |
2
|
4
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
Energy,
Mines and Resources |
5
|
5
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Environment |
7
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
Finance |
9
|
1
|
--
|
1
|
--
|
Forestry
and Fisheries |
10
|
--
|
--
|
2
|
2
|
House
Management |
--
|
--
|
2
|
7
|
3
|
Industry,
Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development |
12
|
7
|
8
|
6
|
6
|
Justice
and Solicitor general |
11
|
11
|
3
|
6
|
2
|
Official
Languages |
--
|
1
|
--
|
1
|
1
|
Multiculturalism
and Citizenship |
--
|
1
|
--
|
1
|
--
|
Health
and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and Status of Women |
9
|
6
|
--
|
2
|
1
|
Transport |
4
|
2
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
Labour,
Employment and Immigration |
10
|
10
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
Sub-Committees |
|
|
|
|
|
Status
of Women |
--
|
--
|
--
|
1
|
1
|
Fitness
and Amateur Sport |
--
|
--
|
--
|
1
|
--
|
Forestry |
--
|
4
|
1
|
--
|
--
|
Financial
Institutions |
--
|
--
|
--
|
1
|
1
|
National
Security |
--
|
--
|
--
|
1
|
2
|
Source: Committees
Directorate, House of Commons, June 1993.
APPENDIX 2
Country
|
Positions,
Salaries and Department
|
Social
Programs
|
Other
|
Belgium
|
Reduction
in departmental expenditures (1990)
|
· Non-indexation
of old age pensions (1990)
· Reduced
expenditures on health and unemployment insurance (1991)
|
Implementation
of "zero-based budgeting" (1991)
Reduced
military expenditures (1991)
|
Denmark
|
· Restrictions
on growth in public sector employment (1990)
· 6,300
part-time positions cut; 4,100 of these privatized (1991)
|
· Reduced
expenditures for unemployment insurance (1991)
· Youth
must show proof of previous employment for entitlement to social
assistance benefits (1991)
|
|
Finland
|
· Plan
to reduce by 1.3% the number of public service positions (1989)
· New
government announced a reduction in the number of salaried central
administration employees (1991)
|
· Cuts
in social transfer payments and administrative sector (1993)
· Reform
of transfer system between central and local governments (1993)
|
· Development
of a new 1993-95 budget framework to reduce expenditures to
1991 levels by 1995 (1991)
|
Norway
|
|
· Restrictions
on growth of transfers to the private sector and to local municipalities
(1992)
· Reduced
sick leave payments (1992)
|
|
New Zealand
|
|
· Abolition
of universality of health and social programs except for old
age pension (1992)
· Reform
of public health and education systems: Higher income earners
must pay for doctor's visits and for a portion of hospitalization
fees (1992)
Those
with low incomes are entitled to free health care and university
education (1992)
|
· Decreased
defence expenditures (1990)
|
Netherlands |
· Maximum
indexation of wages set at 2.5% (1990)
· Increase
in public sector productivity through staffing reductions (25,000)
by 1994 (1991)
|
· Freeze
on social assistance benefits (1989)
· Reduction
of persons eligible for disability or sick benefits (1991)
|
·
Defence, development assistance and refugee assistance expenditure
controls (1991) |
United
Kingdom |
·
Agencies can establish their own pay and staff classification
systems (1991) |
· Tightening
of UI program eligibility criteria (1989)
· Abolition
of regulation permitting those aged 65 and over to draw a pension
while continuing to work (1989)
|
·
Cuts in highway construction and defence sector expenditures (1992) |
Sweden |
·
10% reduction in size of central administration within 3 years
through decentralization and deregulation (1990) |
· Change
in old age pension eligibility age from 65 to 66, and freeze
in pension levels (1992)
· Delayed
social transfer payment increases (1990)
· Reduced
sick leave benefits (1991)
|
· Reduced
grants to non-government organizations (NGOs) and corporations
(1992)
· Reduced
housing support grants (1992)
|
Source: Québec's Public Finances:
Living Within Our Means, Ministère des Finances, Gouvernement du
Québec, January 1993.
(1) For further information on the financial cycle, see
"Management of Public Finances in Canada", BP-297E, Library
of Parliament.
(2)
Speech to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Metropolitan Québec,
19 January 1993.
(3)
Ibid.
(4)
1991 Auditor General's Report, Chapter 1.
(5)
This section of the paper is based on Current Issue Review "Federal
Spending: Changing Trends," 87-2E,
Research Branch, Library of Parliament.
(6)
Data in this section were taken from "Quebec's Public Finances: Living
Within Our Means," Ministère des Finances, January 1993.
(7)
Maclean's, January 1993.
|
|