Human Resources Committee on April 26th, 2007

[Christian Beaulieu]

It depends on the instrument creating the appropriation, the authority to pay the provinces. If you have proposed legislation like Bill C-303, the purpose of which would be to attach conditions to transfers to provinces, the purpose of the bill is to set out those conditions. The bill could very well set out as well what provinces are to do to account for the use of those funds.

If you take the example of SCPI--I forget what the new name is--that's a contribution program. It's not established by legislation per se. Of course there is a broad appropriation in the annual appropriation acts, but for the rest, the program is established via policies of the Treasury Board. There are terms and conditions governing the program, and it is by virtue of those terms and conditions that agreements of a legal nature are entered into with each and every organization.

The agreements are quite stringent in terms of the accounting they require from organizations. Legislation could be as stringent. Parliament has to choose.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

In the past, when the former Liberal government had the funding agreement with the provinces--with three, other than Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba--and the rest of the funding agreements were really.... Or sorry, they were agreements in principle, they weren't funding agreements.

In the funding agreements, did it say to the province that the funding had to respect the principles of QUAD--high-quality, universal, accessible, affordable? So there are in fact strings attached to those agreements, funding agreements anyway?

[Mark McCombs]

Correct. We have certain types of programs. We have statutory programs that are set up by legislation and the funds are spent pursuant to that, and then we have programs where the funding comes from the CRF under voted appropriations from this Parliament.

So there are two different sorts of mechanisms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Chow. You're just over the time.

We're now going to the final questioner of this round.

Ms. Yelich, you have seven minutes.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'll be sharing my time with my colleagues, who will be jumping in.

I want to talk about the Quebec exemption. Mr. Savage compared it to the Canada Health Act. Is that what would happen with this exemption clause? How does this clause play into the act? If you're going to compare it to the Canada Health Act, do you do that with Quebec then?

[Christian Beaulieu]

As far as I recall--correct me on this, Mark--in the Canada Health Act there's no exemption for Quebec. Also, the Canada Health Act does not provide for funding directly; it actually adds to conditions that might exist in other legislation that does provide funding. So it simply adds conditions to existing payments.

Bill C-303 might be the same purpose, which is to attach conditions on transfers otherwise appropriated by Parliament. The difference with the Canada Health Act is that Quebec would be exempted, meaning that any funding Quebec might receive under acts of Parliament could go on, even though Quebec does not meet these additional criteria conditions. That's one way of reading the legislation.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

You said the intent of the bill was to attach conditions to the transfer of the funds to provinces. Does this bill set up this mechanism to withhold funding from the provinces?

[Christian Beaulieu]

Clause 7 of the proposed legislation does provide that in the event a province or a territory does not comply with the conditions, the Governor in Council may withhold a portion of funding.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions.

How long did it take the federal and provincial governments to negotiate something like the Canada Health Act?

[Mark McCombs]

I can't honestly answer that.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Would you be able to answer whether there is a clause in the Canada Health Act to allow Quebec to opt out, as is being suggested here?

[Christian Beaulieu]

From what I recall, not being an expert in the field, all I can say is that you should refer to the act. I don't recall having seen anything in the act.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes. Neither can I, so certainly that's an interesting aspect of the act.

On a legal front, I have a concern with the ability of the federal government to require the provinces to spend child care money. For example, this year the Province of Ontario was given $97.5 million for child care and they chose to spend only $25 million.

When presenting before us yesterday, Ms. Savoie said that there wouldn't need to be new money. It was her opinion that we could use the money that has already been put into it. When I asked a question, her response was that it actually involves no cost other than what is being funded. She said that there is money going to the provinces and that the program could start on exactly the amount of money that exists today, with no additional funding.

Recognizing that there's no additional funding and that we're dealing with existing arrangements, is there any legal capacity to mandate the provinces to spend the entire amount required under the program specified by Ms. Savoie?

[Mark McCombs]

I'm not sure I really understand the question.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

No new federal dollars are going into this, according to Ms. Savoie. Do we have the legal capacity to tell the provinces they have to fund universal child care as specified in this bill? Well, it's not universal; it's actually 54%, as said yesterday.

[Mark McCombs]

Again, here we're into the federal spending power piece. In terms of—

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

But there's no new spending. Given the fact there's no new spending, do we have the legal capacity to tell the provinces how to spend their dollars?

[Christian Beaulieu]

The only answer I can give you is that Parliament, being sovereign, let's say has already legislated to provide funding to provinces. Nothing prevents Parliament from further legislating to add to what it said before.

[Mark McCombs]

Just to clarify, what Mr. Beaulieu is speaking about is with respect to the ability of Parliament to establish conditions, etc., on federal funds. We're not expressing an opinion with respect to this bill--whether it adds money, doesn't add money....

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

No, and I realize that. I'm going on what Ms. Savoie said yesterday.

[Mark McCombs]

I just want to clarify what we were directed at for the honourable member Madam Chow.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes, I know what she said too. I'm simply going on what Ms. Savoie said. Your interpretation is that we can retroactively say we can put conditions on?

[Mark McCombs]

Parliament, as Mr. Beaulieu has said, can decide what it wants to do with respect to funding. That's within the parameters of Parliament.

I'm sorry, I'm not—