Public Accounts Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[Sheila Fraser]

In 2002, we carried out an audit on whether conditions under the Canada Health Act were being met. We have done no further work since, but this audit found that, at the time, the department was not following up enough on the meaning of conditions and that there were obvious cases of non-compliance with some conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have two minutes.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would like you to briefly respond to my second question.

[Rod Monette]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desnoyers.

The new transfer policy also applies to transfers to international organizations. The same criteria we have here apply in that case.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

So we would find these conditions within each agreement.

[Rod Monette]

Yes.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would like to get back to the Canada Health Transfers. Reference was made to 2002. But, the year 2002 was not really the year of privatization. Most provinces allowed for significant privatization as of 2005. How could we obtain figures on this, to see whether conditions have been met?

[Sheila Fraser]

We have not done any work in that area since 2002. The committee could ask the Department of Health what it is doing to ensure compliance.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We will issue a request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You can ask the Comptroller General if he knows.

[Rod Monette]

I have no information on the Department of Health. The department will probably be in a better position to provide you with this information. I apologize for not having this information with me today.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Is it possible to obtain it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You can ask him to provide that.

[Rod Monette]

Absolutely. We will make a request to the Department of Health.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Weston.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

With the greatest respect to our guests here, I have other commitments. At steering committee we had agreed to leave that. We'd love to have our guests back, but we can only be in so many places at once too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Kramp, what I'd like to do, if it's okay, is continue on for another 20 minutes to conclude the round, but obviously without motions or votes or anything. We can hear evidence when we're down to four people. I know people have to leave. We appreciate that. I think the witnesses will appreciate that too. We have another four or five on the list.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I just wanted to--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Oh yes. We appreciate that. I just want to point out to everyone here that we're going to go a little longer, but not that much. Because of the tight schedule today, a number of members have other commitments and just cannot stay at this meeting. We certainly hope everyone appreciates this.

We do thank you.

Mr. Weston, four minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to refer to the round of questions that began with Mr. Kramp.

Dr. Buhr, you gave a very transparent and helpful definition of accountability a few seconds ago. I wish I'd had my pen ready as you spoke. I think you said something to the effect that accountability is about the conventions and expectations that arise between parties, such as an electorate and the representatives elected to represented them, and then accounting comes in later. I'm paraphrasing, but it was a very nice definition.

[Nola Buhr]

Thank you.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Then, Mr. Wright, you said a second ago that we do want to track economic impact and it's vital to have that conditionality in order to do so.

Ms. Fraser, you answered my colleague's question by saying that there's no capacity for the Auditor General to track the use by local governments of federal funds.

Here's my question. A motion just passed in the House by the opposition parties says that at least 50% of the infrastructure funding that is to be used in the two years to come should pass by way of the gas tax approach, which means, as I understand it, no conditions. How are we to be accountable to those who elected us? This being analogous to other non-conditional transfers, I am asking myself how I can account to those who elected us, because we can't be accountable through your auditing of the municipalities. Is there any other way?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, if I could be clear, it's not a question of capacity to audit; it's that we don't have a mandate to audit. We have a mandate to audit the federal government. The municipalities, for the most part, do have auditors and can be requested to provide, for example, audited information to whomever, depending on conditions that may be put into agreements. It's simply that we have to respect the different levels of government, their accountabilities to their people, the structures they have in place, and the audit regimes they have.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

Let me refer again to federal-provincial transfers. These transfer payments are for use in provincial jurisdictions. Important programs depend on these transfers, as you've laid out, specifically through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. You stated in paragraph 1.29 of your report that in 2008 there was “a new approach to federal support for labour market programs”, and specifically, for increased flexibility, the participating province or territory “can accept and adhere to an accountability framework”.

Can you describe the accountability framework? Is this something that should be emulated?