LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

¿

0910

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

¿

0915

¿

0920

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Hélène Cormier (Director, Policy, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. Yvon Godin

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

¿

0940

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

¿

0945

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

¿

0950

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

¿

0955

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

À

1000

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Ms. Hélène Cormier

The Chair

À

1005

Ms. Hélène Cormier

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Glenn Campbell (Chief, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

À

1010

Mr. Glenn Campbell

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Glenn Campbell

À

1015

À

1020

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Glenn Campbell

À

1025

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Glenn Campbell

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Martine Lajoie (Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

À

1030

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Krista Campbell (Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

À

1035

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Glenn Campbell

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Glenn Campbell

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 032

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Seeing a quorum I declare the meeting open.

    We have with us this morning representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, and Ms. Hélène Cormier, Director of Policy, Official Languages Support Programs, I believe, whom we will have with us for one hour.

    We will then have two witnesses from the Department of Finance: Mr. Glen Campbell, Chief, CHST Policy Development, and Ms. Krista Campbell, Senior Policy Analyst, in the Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch.

    I will have to leave the meeting to attend another event around 10 o'clock, and Ms. Thibeault will replace me then.

    Welcome, Mr. Lemoine. We are preparing a study and we hope to be able to report to the House before the end of October, as requested by the House, on the subject matter of Bill C-202, which has been withdrawn; it deals with how to improve health care services for minority official languages communities.

    The purpose of your presentation this morning will be to help us understand how the Government of Canada transfers education funding to the provinces. What are the mechanisms, the measures, the criteria and the assessment methods that are in place? How have they evolved, and where are things at now? On the basis of what we learn from you, the committee members intend to see whether there are things that the Canadian Heritage Department is doing that could also be done by the Finance Department in the area of health transfers. That is the context of your appearance here, and I will now give you the floor.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before the committee. It gives us an opportunity to talk to you about a program that has a long history, the Official Languages in Education Program, or OLEP for those familiar with it. This program has had many successes over the years. I would like to make an oral presentation of no more than 10 minutes, which I have divided into four parts. To begin with, I would like to deal with the context of the program, that is, its legal and constitutional context. I believe that it is important to situate the program within this larger framework. I would also like to explain to you how the program works. It seems to me that that is really what you are interested in learning about. I will try to avoid going into too much detail about this program which is not a simple one. However, you will certainly have an opportunity to ask questions afterwards. In the third part of my presentation, I will cover the strengths and what I would call the challenges, the strong points and not necessarily the areas for improvement, but the realities that do pose certain challenges. I will conclude with a few comments that are much broader in scope. Is ten minutes all right with you?

    Let us begin with a couple of remarks about the program's legal and constitutional basis. We always need to keep in mind that education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is an important aspect that must not be forgotten. The program was created in 1970, in the wake of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. At that time, the commission made two important observations regarding education. The first was that linguistic duality, if it was to be a success, was dependent in part on education for official language minorities, in their own language, and for those learning the other official language. This was a very general observation made by the commission in the third or fourth volume of their report, I believe, dealing with education. But they also mentioned in the same volume that minority-language education and second-language instruction created additional costs for the provinces and territories. So it was at that time, in 1970, that the government received the advice or mandate to work with the provinces to establish this program.

    Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as you know, recognizes the right of official language minorities to have their children educated in their mother tongue, and that right also includes “minority-language-educational facilities.” That is another important constitutional and legal basis for the program.

    Another key element is the federal government's commitment under the Official Languages Act, 1988 version, under the new Part VII:

[...] enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and [...] fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

     That is essentially the wording of section 41.

    There is also section 43 of Part VII, which states that:

43.(1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate [...]

    You will notice that I am quoting Part VII nearly word for word. I am very aware of the importance of using the same vocabulary as in Part VII. This section, then, states that:

43.(1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to

    And I am going to quote here paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection 43(1):

(d) encourage and assist provincial governments to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities generally and, in particular, to offer provincial and municipal services in both English and French and to provide opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to be educated in their own language;

    And this is in (e):

(e) encourage and assist provincial governments to provide opportunities for everyone in Canada to learn both English and French;

¿  (0915)  

    So that is basically what gives the federal government the mandate to have and administer such a program.

    Turning now to how the program operates, the objectives are quite simple. The aim is first to provide financial support to the provinces and territories to enable them to offer minority-language education and also to provide all Canadians with an opportunity to study French or English as a second language.

    The development of the mechanisms and operation of the program can be divided into three main periods over its 30-year history. You may find it strange that I am going into these details, but I think that it is important for you to know that there has been an evolution over these 30 years. Those involved learned from experience, of course, and if the potential for such a program in other sectors were to be explored, it would be important to have a bit of an understanding of how this program has evolved and why the way things were done changed over time.

    So that is why I am going into these three main periods. The first lasted from 1970 to 1982, which was the period of what I would call “bilateral arrangements.” The government established a series of programs called formula programs. These were basically formulas that were intended to take into account explicitly the additional costs already mentioned, and you understand why.

    The formulas were essentially federal contributions to the provinces based on a percentage of the education costs per student. So the provinces would tell us the general cost per student, and the federal government was committed to funding a percentage of those costs. The percentages were as follows: 10 per cent for minority-language education, and 5 per cent per full-time student for second-language education. The full-time aspect was important because second-language students normally have a half hour or one hour of second-language learning three times a week. So the students had to be full-time in order for the 5 per cent funding to apply.

    There were also two other formulas that were quite interesting, including 10.5 per cent funding of costs involved in post-secondary minority language programs. So post-secondary institutions that offered programs and courses in the minority language, other than the French faculty or department, of course, added all this up, and 10.5 per cent of those costs were funded under the formula.

    Finally, the fourth formula provided 1.5 per cent of administrative costs, because administering education programs creates costs for the province, the system, etc.

    So this series of formulas was used for over 12 years in the early days of the program.

    There were also what were called non-formula programs. The formulas accounted for nearly 80 per cent of the total envelope, and the other 20 per cent of the funding was allocated through a series of non-formula programs, such as the special development project programs. In such cases, nearly 50 per cent of the costs were covered.

    There were also teaching bursaries, which came under another program. The federal government funded 100 per cent of those bursaries. Then there were bursaries for students wishing to pursue a post-secondary education. At that time, the federal government funded 100 per cent of those costs. Finally, there were national summer bursary programs during that period for students and monitors that were administered with the provinces and again fully funded by the federal government.

    So the approach during that first period was very much based on formulas and on exact cost information per student as calculated by each province. The costs could vary from province to province. So the higher the province's costs were per student, the more money that province would receive through the 5 per cent or 10 per cent formula.

    In the second period, from 1983 to 1998, the multilateral approach was introduced, with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, through the creation of a memorandum of understanding, that is, a framework agreement with the Council of Ministers of Education followed by bilateral agreements with each province.

¿  (0920)  

    For reasons of transparency, we wanted to simplify the programs involving formulas, and, in a way, make it easier to hold people accountable. Therefore, we adopted four funding categories. The first category was called “contributions to infrastructure”, not in the meaning of “bricks and mortar”, but in the meaning of a contribution to the system.

    There was a set budget and we had to find a way of spreading the money as fairly as possible amongst the provinces. We decided to adopt a per-student contribution system based on a fixed budget. There were two envelopes: one for minority-language education and one for second-language education, which was in fact a national envelope. The amount of the contribution varied from one province to another depending on the number of registrations, of course, but the total never changed. We never exceeded the budget, even if the number of registrations increased; all we did was redistribute the money between the provinces.

    However, and this is where accountability played a stronger role, the provinces and territories, for their part, had to provide us with written evidence of any additional costs they had paid. In real terms, this is what justified the contribution per student. We wanted to show Canadians that there were real additional costs and that the federal contribution only covered a fraction of those costs.

    The second block was called “contributions to development”. This block basically dealt with special development projects, such as the development of a curriculum, new immersion classes, interprovincial student exchanges, and so on. Another block was called “teacher training” and the last one was called “development support”, which could cover things such as grants or activities, such as summer camp for kids.

    It must be recalled that at the time, the budgetary envelope for the provinces was more or less guaranteed. The provinces knew how much money they would have over the five-year period. We gave them the numbers for projected registrations and they basically knew how much they would get for that period of time. Of course, registrations could fluctuate from one year to the next, but these were minor changes.

    The approach we then adopted between 1998 and 2003, and which is still in force, is basically the approach we intend to take when agreements, which have expired, are renegotiated. It is what I would call the “plan of action” approach. You have probably noticed that, once again, we were extremely keen on the principles of increased transparency and accountability.

    Despite this approach, the federal government and the provinces have often been criticized by some community members, interest groups, or even by the Commissioner of Official Languages. These people claim that the programs lacked transparency and that they were not accountable enough. That is why we came up with the idea of a plan of action. The process always involves a protocol and a bilateral agreement. If you wish, I can give you a brief explanation of what the protocol involves, but I won't address that issue now.

    The beauty of the current system is that the federal government gives each province a global envelope. For approval to be given and the funds granted, a province must submit a five-year plan of action which includes, amongst other things, the description of activities which will be undertaken over the five-year period.

    So, in 1998-1999, we asked the provinces to submit a plan of action which included a description of future activities, projected outcomes and performance indicators to measure results.

¿  (0925)  

    We also asked them to provide a breakdown of the provincial, territorial and federal forecast expenditures and contributions per fiscal year. This action plan is made public once the agreement is signed. The provinces must also report to us annually on the activities that they have undertaken, measures that have been implemented, and outcomes.

    We have kept an envelope which we call the “supplementary contribution”. This is a discretionary envelope which is used to fund strategic projects that are not necessarily included in the action plan, but which may be created over the years. We maintained the national bursary and monitor programs. During this period, we also set up, using additional funds from cabinet, an envelope to be used for school management special measures and to promote the implementation of school management and post-secondary education in French. So there were basically three main components: the comprehensive action plan envelope, a more discretionary envelope earmarked for development and a five-year special measures envelope to assist certain provinces and territories in implementing school management.

    During this time, we also emphasized consultations with communities and interest groups. We expect that the provinces and the territories, as part as their action plan, will hold such consultations in order to ensure that the needs of the people are being met.

    Mr. Chairman, you alluded to an evaluation earlier. While it existed, this program was in fact subject to an external evaluation every five years. We are in the process of completing the most recent review. We're hoping that the report will be released next month. We have been told that it should come out in October. This report covers a longer period of time, namely, the past 10 years. It was drafted in cooperation with the provinces and should either provide us with a new direction or suggest new sectors or new avenues to explore.

    I will talk very briefly about the budget in order to give you a general idea. We are talking about an envelope of approximately 200 million dollars for the year 2002-2003. Strengths and challenges.

    The Chair: Could you please do this rather quickly, Mr. Lemoine.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: This program is meant to be an incentive and has a leverage effect. Provinces must invest funds in order to get this money. The federal government is not alone. Federal money also allows provincial money to be generated.

    Besides, of course, this program will certainly increase the provinces' ability to act. The program also provides for promoting federal objectives while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Whether we like it or not, the federal spending power allows the federal government to make headway towards some of its objectives. The best example of this is the work that was done on school management and post-secondary education. I think that this program had a definite impact on creating new school boards and some colleges over the past 10 years. It also helped universities to implement new programs, in Moncton, Saint-Boniface, Saint-Jean, etc.

    This is an asymmetrical approach, given the action plans. We will respect all the jurisdictions and we will take their position into account. The action plan is not a fixed model. We asked the provinces to point out four or five important issues. They must do this according to their current system. We believe that this model increases transparency and accountability to Canadians because the action plans are published and the public can voice its opinions about them.

    We have several challenges to meet. This kind of program does not necessarily give the federal government a high profile, because these programs are managed by provinces and territories. The results obtained depend a great deal on currently used systems. We control that to some extent, but we must remember that we are not providers of education. On the other hand, we have little or no control on the quality of these programs. Basically, the only thing we have is the financial incentive.

    We are dealing with a management structure. The program's management is relatively complicated. Consider that we have to submit an action plan with annual reports. And we have to submit reports to Canadians. We must ensure that the government is clearly perceived to be fair with its programs. This makes it more complicated than the usual transfer system.

    To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we may say that the OLEP fosters federal-provincial cooperation within an area of provincial jurisdiction. The national framework and the understanding with the CMEC both encourage the achievement of common objectives, interprovincial collaboration and the sharing of best practices. Thus, this is an important mechanism. The action plans allow us, as I said earlier, to take into account the specific needs of each jurisdiction.

    As a last comment, let me note that this program was cited as a model of federal-provincial cooperation by several evaluators.

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lemoine. I now give the floor to Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Mr. Lemoine and Ms. Cormier. Ms. Cormier, by your name I gather that you come from New Brunswick or from the Atlantic region.

    Ms. Hélène Cormier (Director, Policy, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage): You made the right guess, but only with regard to my distant relatives. I come from Trois-Rivières in Quebec.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Welcome to the committee.

    It is true, health is under provincial jurisdiction. However, the Romanow report stated that the federal government ought to play a greater role if we wanted to see more bilingualism in hospitals and in the health system and if we wanted to respect both official languages. Since the federal government contributes to the health system, it could add what is called the sixth point, so that further to the amounts spent, and even though this is a provincial jurisdiction, other funds could be granted by agreement, since bilingualism costs money. We cannot assume that this can be accomplished on its own.

    I do not know whether you can be clearer about this, but you said earlier that you spent $200 million a year. In a document by the Library of Parliament that I have before me—and I do not know where the figures come from—they mention eight provinces, and the amount is approximately $2 million. Looking at the amounts for 1999, for instance...

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: I can help you, Mr. Godin. If you are speaking about health, the $200 million is for education.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: All right. That means that, to have $200 million go to health—and that would require extra funds—there would have to be a direct attribution to health.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The $200 million in question is specifically for education. At present, Heritage Canada does not have a specific program for health services. That said—and I think you mentioned that in your document earlier—there is another program in our department, pertaining to service agreements with the provinces. These are services other than education. The budget is approximately $12 million a year, compared to this program, which is $200 million a year. This program deals essentially with all services. It could be some initiatives for the delivery of health services. As a matter of fact, I believe that in the document before you, there are a few examples of health projects, but the object of this program is not necessarily geared towards health services. This is a program for all services. It could be for promotion, road signs, translation, language training for judges, etc. There could be and there have already been in previous years various projects whose object, for instance, was to study the best ways of delivering health services. However, with a budget such as this one, it would obviously be unthinkable to do much more in the field of health than what we do at the present time.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: So, the $200 million is strictly for education, but it is for everything, in all fields.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: No, it is for educational needs.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: What I mean to say, is that it is for education, but in all fields, whether it be health or something else.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: So the federal contribution is $200 million.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But that does not stop the federal government from contributing more, while recognizing that this is indeed a provincial jurisdiction, but by telling provinces that if they want to have access to these funds, they would have to agree with certain standards and ensure that these funds are used for education in the field of health: nothing prevents Heritage Canada from doing that.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: I would tell you that we already support provinces as regards the existing university or college... Let me take the example of the University of Moncton. Some of the $200 million goes to New Brunswick, of course. Of that amount, under the action plan, the University of Moncton gets a certain sum for all of its programs or for new programs it wishes to establish. Thus, technically speaking, if the University of Moncton wanted to develop a health care program, for example... Would that go as far as a faculty of medicine? To the extent that funds are available, the program could be involved with such a project, because it is educational in nature. As you said, health care education is a training activity.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I found the developments in the program over the last 30 years very interesting, Mr. Lemoine. It is clear that significant changes have been made in the structure of Heritage Canada and its strategy in this area.

    Of course, it is quite reasonable to change with the times, but might all these changes not lead as well to a lack of continuity and difficulty in introducing certain measures? By changing a program in this way, have you found that it was possible to put measures in place for a 30-year period, for example?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: For a long time, it was extremely difficult to get a concrete measurement of the results of this program. I think that is why we adopted the action plan approach, which requires that the provinces tell us clearly what outcomes they're trying to obtain. I think that it has been much easier to account for successes since 1998. In the past, the results were much more general in nature. In the evaluations in place at the time, we asked, for example, whether the federal contribution had any impact on the programs. Of course the answer was yes, and some provinces said that without this contribution, there would probably had been no immersion programs let alone this type of service for the minority community. So the results at that time were really quite general in nature.

    Under the action plans, and the next generation of action plans will allow us to be a little more specific, we want the provinces and territories to determine clearly where they want to be in five years, so that they can move toward these objectives and we can provide the funding on this basis. As we move forward, we should develop performance indicators so that we can evaluate the results. Some of these indicators are simpler than others; I will begin with the most complicated ones.

    For example, when we ask whether the level of education is better in grade 6 than it was five years ago, that is not an easy thing to check. Nevertheless, I think this is a commendable objective for the provinces to have.

    However, it is easier to measure whether there are more students currently enrolled in minority schools than there were five years ago. Our objective was to increase the percentage of minority community students outside Quebec from 68 per cent—and 68 per cent of those who qualify are now in these schools—to 80 per cent over the next 10 years. In three years, we will want to determine how much progress we have made.

    When we talk about 68 per cent nationally, that probably means 80 per cent in New Brunswick, but only 40 per cent in Saskatchewan. We will have to increase the percentage for each province. It will be much easier to measure that and demonstrate that we have made some progress in this area.

    The other issue has to do with the second language: we ask whether more students are enrolled in second-language programs and more in immersion programs. It is easy to calculate: we simply count up the number of students.

    Something that is more difficult to measure is whether students have more second-language skills by the end of grade 12. This is something we will have to look at, because, as you know, another one of our objectives is to increase, over the next 10 years, the number of high school graduates who have a practical knowledge of the two languages. We want to increase the percentage from 24 per cent to 50 per cent in 10 years. In order to do that, we are going to have to get some concrete results.

    In other words, the situation has changed significantly, and we are now much more specific about the results we want to achieve in education.

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: I would now like to address several health issues.

    For instance, in our notes it says that Health Canada will manage 75 million dollars for manpower training. You stated a little earlier that Official Languages Support Programs were very complex and difficult to manage.

    I'm a bit worried. For 30 years, you have developed an expertise and a certain know-how in dealing with the provinces. However, over the next five years, during which 75 million dollars will be spent, how much time will be spent on relearning what you have learned over the span of 30 years? Will the Department of Canadian Heritage be involved in this issue? Will the information and expertise be shared? I get the feeling that the cost of administering those 75 million dollars will be fairly high if Health Canada personnel will have to be trained.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: I think we have already contributed to helping to manage the 75 million dollars. Over the last five years, the University of Ottawa's Centre national de formation en santé, which is the precursor, if you will, of the health consortium which received the 75 million dollars, was managed directly by ourselves and by the University of Ottawa.

    We managed this centre more or less in the way we are now managing our agreements. At the time, the University of Ottawa also had to provide us with an overall plan. We feel that this model will probably guide Health Canada, at least that's what we are hoping. Furthermore, we feel that this responsibility falls naturally on Health Canada's shoulders. However, this should not make the management of all these programs even more complicated.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Thibeault, you have the floor.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    After having heard Mr. Godin, I just want to make sure that I understood everything correctly. Will the 200 million dollars a year be indeed spent exclusively on French or English education in a minority situation?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The money can also be spent on French or English second language training.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Fine.

    You also talked about increasing the number of people who have the right to minority language education to 80 per cent. How do you define someone who has the right to such an education?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines who has the right to French education. We use that definition. It refers to people who are eligible in minority language schools. But we must meet another challenge, namely eligible parents who do not necessarily take advantage of these services.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Very well, I understand. That's what I thought. I just wanted it to be clear in my mind.

    You have asked for annual reports from the provinces. A little earlier, you said that you had originally asked the provinces for plans of action and so on. How can you be sure that the money is actually spent on minority language programs?

    The same could be said for health care. The money should not simply go into a province or territory's coffers, only to disappear from that point on. Does the department have the means to make sure that the money is well spent? Does the department have the means to hold back transfers if, for instance, it realizes that the money is being spent elsewhere?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Obviously, the action plan approach helps us better evaluate accountability and enables us to see whether the money is actually spent on things that are in keeping with the intended purposes. This does not mean we did not know that previously, but back then it was more difficult to find out how the provinces spent their federal transfer funds. It is much easier to do so now.

    We expect that people interested in education, organizations which promote education and school boards will monitor the situation much more closely, because the plans of action are made public and indicate how much money is spent where.

    It is now much easier for people to ask questions. Before, they could only ask whether the money was spent on education in French. They were told that they could take a look at the books. But now, people can ask much more pointed questions. For instance, they can ask whether a new grade 7 French science program actually was put in place, or whether a promised increase in a given area actually was implemented. People can ask to see the plan and the programs.

    We feel that the action plan provides people with much more information on how the money is spent. Furthermore, the provinces must submit financial reports to us to receive their money. The transfers are not made automatically.

¿  (0950)  

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: What you are telling us is that, for instance, schools are responsible for ensuring that the money is well spent. If that is the case, do you think that the same sort of thing could be done in the health care area, or that action plans could also be produced for the health care area?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: As far as we are concerned, this is a good model for the field of education. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and we have made improvements over the years. I am convinced that over the next 10 years, the situation will improve even more. The model allows... I will get to your answer. Given that the education sector is fairly well monitored, especially the minority education sector, what with school boards which exist more or less everywhere, it makes sense for the people involved in the sector to make sure that the federal money is well spent. It is basically their bread and butter. As for second language education, there are fairly strong rights organizations, such as Canadian Parents for French and French for the Future, which have networks in every province and which more or less act as a guard dog, although the comparison is not quite apt. You could say it is a system of checks and balances. I cannot seem to find the right expression in French.

    That is basically the reason why, in the area of education, it is possible for the federal government to complement provincial objectives. Because, of course, you will always have people who scrutinize every little thing very closely to criticize the federal government or to criticize the provinces with the objective of ensuring that the money is indeed spent on its intended purpose. So, surely, all these existing organizations do make a difference.

    However, I am not familiar enough with the area of health care to be able to give a clear answer to your question. But perhaps you could put the question to our colleagues from Health Canada.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It remains to be seen whether the health care sector would be willing to adopt the same approach as the education sector. There is no guarantee that will be the case. Whatever the case may be, I do not see that happening for now.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Lemoine.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

    Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Lemoine, I greatly appreciate the approach taken in the plan of action.

    I have a simple question. School boards offer second language training. But when people think about this issue, they always think it's anglophones wanting to learn French or francophones wanting to learn English.

    The programs I am referring to have more to do with immigrants, particularly refugees, who come to Canada. In the case of immigrants, the ability to speak either conversational English or conversational French counts for a certain number of points—seven, I think. Then there are of course mostly refugees who do not speak either language when they arrive in Canada. You also have the parents of immigrants or refugees who arrive with their family and who don't understand either English or French.

    So, school boards offer second language training. In Ontario, there is ESL, English as a Second Language. But a Franco-Ontarian, for instance, is not allowed to register for ESL; only immigrants or refugees may do so. The same applies to the French as a second language program.

    Now, as for the financial support you give second language training programs, well, we here think it goes towards promoting minority languages. In Ontario, if, for instance, you are an Armenian or a Ukrainian in Toronto wishing to learn English in order to get a job, that does nothing to further minority languages.

    How do you deal with this mess?

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The programs we presently deliver are specifically targeted towards French as a second language outside Quebec and English in a second language within Quebec. This means that, normally, English as a second language programs for immigrants are not funded under this program.

    This has lead to other kinds of problems because the provinces are putting a lot of pressure on the federal government to fund this program, but as things now stand, we are not at all involved in that area. That falls under the jurisdiction of the school boards, which pay out of their own budgets, of course. In fact, it's a huge problem in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. In Vancouver, for instance, 60 per cent of kids entering kindergarten speak neither English nor French. So it's no surprise that this situation costs the school boards money.

    As it now stands, we are not involved. Once again, with a plan of action clearly setting out specifically which second language programs will be offered by each province, we can be sure the money won't be spent there. It doesn't change the fact that there are needs in that area, but this program does not address them.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Lemoine. Please allow me to ask you a couple of fairly brief questions. The Canada Health and Social Transfer includes money for education.

    Do we know how much goes towards education?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: No, we don't. As far as I know, the provinces decide how much is spend on health and how much on post-secondary education. Several years ago, the federal government insisted on having a set spending formula with percentages. But I don't think it ever managed to sell the idea. As it now stands, it is a global envelope which the provinces spend as they see fit.

    The Chair: Are there consultations between the Department of Finance and the Department of Heritage with regard to how much should be spent on education by each province?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: No, there are no consultations between us. However, there may be some with the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, which is in charge of training.

    The Chair: A little earlier, there was mention of a guard dog. Under the Official Languages Act, the Department of Heritage guards the application of the act, particularly with regard to how it is applied by other departments.

    I want to bring the discussion back to the issue of health care. I think that Health Canada must produce a plan of action under section 41, unless I am mistaken.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes.

    The Chair: Could you tell us whether you, or your branch, is responsible for evaluating the plans of action?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The action plans for health fall under the IPOLC program. They do not all deal with general health care issues. Therefore, we do not see the plans every province must submit.

    The Chair: No, but unless I am mistaken, in the summer of 1994, cabinet decreed that 26 or 27 agencies—the CRTC has just been added to that list—were obliged to table action plans with regard to their Official Language Act obligations.

    Is your branch responsible for assessing those plans?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I misunderstood your question. Yes, indeed, that is our responsibility.

    The Chair: I realize you may not have the information at hand, but what do you think of those plans now that departments have to prepare them?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: As far as I know, Health Canada produces a plan each year. Each year, the department must also make public a statement of achievement. The action plan does not really delve into Health Canada's activities. Health Canada does not report on provincial health programs; it simply does not study this issue. Our plan of action does not address provincial health care programs. Rather, it addresses Health Canada's community initiatives to, for instance, develop service delivery mechanisms, or to develop specific one-time projects which the department has implemented with our financial support. Of course, the federal Department of Health remains involved through its contacts and consultations with official language communities.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: As for section 41 of the Official Languages Act, since it applies to every federal department, is there a relationship between the Department of Finance and the Department of Canadian Heritage as regards the Department of Finance's obligation to enforce the act? If so, what is the nature of this relationship?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: There are no ongoing discussions between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Finance with regard to the action plan. We are not saying there should not be, but at present there are no ongoing discussions.

    The Chair: So, if I understand correctly, there are transfers. Billions of dollars are transferred for health and education, but no one really knows how much is spent on post-secondary education, and the Department of Heritage, which is accountable, has no say as to how the money is to be spent. However, new educational programs are created, for instance, but the moneys involved are fairly small. These programs fall under the purview of the Department of Heritage. Unless I am mistaken, and without trying to be catty, that is the current state of affairs.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: You have got it.

    The Chair: Could you speak about the French-English balance? We often hear accusations from various quarters that the Official Languages Act is intended to protect francophones only, particularly francophones living outside Quebec.

    From your experience, could you describe how the funding is broken down for education or other matters? I would like to know whether we are playing to the full our role of seeking to ensure the equality of the two languages throughout the country.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: I would say that about 35 to 40% of our budget of $200 million goes to education or learning the second language, whether English or French, and that about 60 to 65% of the budget goes to the minority community.

    The Chair: Of the 35 to 40% that is spent on the second language, is there a 75-25 breakdown for learning English and learning French?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The percentage is much higher for learning French as a second language, because of the population, of course.

    The Chair: Of the 65% that goes to education as such, is there a breakdown there as well?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes, the breakdown would probably be closer to 30-70 or 35-65 overall.

    The Chair: Have negotiations with the provinces been undertaken to renew the agreements?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: We have begun some discussions. A negotiating committee has been established by the CMEC. They will be meeting at the end of September to review their strategy, and we think the negotiations will really get underway beginning in October.

    The Chair: Once the report is made public.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: We are waiting for the evaluation report. However, we were very open to sitting down with the provinces and beginning our discussions. Once again, the negotiations are not officially underway.

    The Chair: Who is doing this report, Mr. Lemoine?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: It is being done by a private company, Prairie Research Associates Inc.

    Ms. Hélène Cormier: The department will be publishing the results of the...

    The Chair: Will this be a public document?

À  (1005)  

    Ms. Hélène Cormier: Yes, it will be a public document.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I would like to ask you a question out of personal curiosity. Some time ago, there were some complaints about the transfers in Nova Scotia. Even the Nova Scotia Department of Education recognized at the time that money that was earmarked for education had gone to maintenance or highway construction activities.

    Has this situation been corrected, Mr. Lemoine?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes, it has been corrected. In fact, the Minister of Education was mistaken in her comment. We had an audit done. We sent our auditors down there, and they found that the allegation was unfounded. With all due respect for the Minister of Education, there was a lack of information in this case. That is important. I come back to this comment, Mr. Chairman, because our agreements allow us to have an audit of the provincial accounts done at any time as regards these sums. So we do have this option, it is written into the agreements. I think this may provide further assurance to individuals who want to know whether the money is being spent properly. We used this clause in the case of Nova Scotia.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lemoine and Ms. Cormier.

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to end this part of the meeting. We were starting to get into some important matters. What we can learn from what has been done or not done by Heritage Canada and education transfers could be very useful as regards what is clearly not being done by the Department of Finance. In its transfers to the provinces, the Department of Finance is in no way living up to its responsibilities under the Official Languages Act. However, representatives from the department will be coming to explain this to us themselves in a minute or two.

    I thank you very much indeed.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Thank you very much.

À  (1006)  

---

À  (1009)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): We will now begin the second part of our meeting this morning.

    I would like to welcome Mr. Glenn Clark, Chief, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch; and Ms. Krista Campbell, Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch; and Ms. Martine Lajoie, Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance.

    Let me outline briefly the purpose of this meeting. The committee would like you to explain how the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the CHST, works, and how the Canada Health Transfer, which will soon be replacing the CHST, could include language considerations to meet the needs of Canadians in this regard.

    Are you going to be making a presentation to the committee, Mr. Campbell?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell (Chief, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance): Yes, but it will be brief.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): About ten minutes?

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): You have the floor, Mr. Campbell.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons.

    With me today are my colleagues Krista Campbell and Martine Lajoie. It is a pleasure for us to be here today.

[English]

    I would like to discuss how the Canada health and social transfer and the new Canada health transfer, the CHT, to be implemented by April 1, 2004, will work. In doing so, I will address the issue of whether these transfers can incorporate a linguistic aspect to encourage the provision of health services in both officials languages.

    First, the CHST.

[Translation]

    The CHST is the largest federal transfer to the provinces and territories. It helps fund health programs, post-secondary education and social services, including early childhood development through cash payments and tax point transfers. I will come back to the way the systems work a little later.

    The CHST was established in 1996 and replaced two federal transfer programs: the Established Programs Financing, the EPF, which covered health and hospitalization insurance and post-secondary education, as well the Canada Assistance Program, the CAP, which covered the social services.

[English]

    The move from the EPF and CAP to the CHST completed the trend towards block funding that started back in 1977, when EPF replaced major cost share programs. Block funding provided provincial governments with increased flexibility in designing and administering their programs. At the same time, the block transfers uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act circa 1984 and the condition that there be no period of minimum residency with respect to social assistance.

[Translation]

    Beginning on April 1st of next year, the CHST will be restructured to improve the transparency and accountability of this federal assistance to the provinces and territories. To this end, two new transfers will be established: the Canada Health Transfer, the CHT, to support health care, and the Canada Social Transfer, CST, to support post-secondary education, welfare and social services, including early childhood development.

[English]

    Now let me turn briefly to how the CHST works. As I previously mentioned, CHST support is provided to provinces through a mix of cash payments and tax transfers. As provided for under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, CHST total entitlements are equal per capita across provinces. The tax component of the CHST occurred in 1977, when the federal government agreed with provincial and territorial governments to reduce its personal and corporate income tax rates, thus allowing them to raise their tax rates by the same amount simultaneously. As a result, revenue that would have flowed to the federal government began to flow directly to provincial and territorial governments in support of these programs.

    To determine the value of cash payments to provinces, we start by estimating the value of the total equalized tax transfer. This means we take into account the equalization payments associated with the tax points transferred to provinces. Since tax points are worth more in some provinces than in others, these are equalized through an equalization program. Second, we estimate the total entitlements per capita, first by adding the value of the tax transfer equalized and the total cash payment, as determined by the Parliament of Canada through the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, then by dividing Canada's total population.

À  (1015)  

[Translation]

    Third, the value of the cash transfers for each province is determined by deducting the value of its own tax points per capita from the total per capita figure. It is a complicated formula.

[English]

    When the existing CHST is restructured in April, the existing cash and tax transfers will be apportioned between the CHT and the CST. The percentage of cash and tax points apportioned to the CHT will reflect the percentage of provincial health spending within overall provincial spending in health and social sectors supported by the CHST. The remaining cash and tax points will be allocated to the CST.

    I'll talk briefly about the recent health and social accords reached by the first ministers. The February 2003 first ministers' accord on health care renewal, which builds on the 2000 first ministers' agreement, is a cooperative federal-provincial commitment designed to improve the accessibility, quality, and sustainability of the public health care system and enhance transparency and accountability in health care spending.

[Translation]

    The 2003 First Ministers' Accord also provides for a stronger accountability framework under which all the public administrations agreed to present comprehensive reports to Canadians periodically based on comparable health indicators, health outcomes and quality of service. In this way, Canadians will be able to see the progress made in achieving reform, track access to health care services and assess the efficiency of all health care systems.

[English]

The accord reflects the government's, the provinces', and the territories' desire to achieve objectives through public accountability models and targeted programs, rather than through legal conditions.

    In summary, with respect to your questions, the CHST and the forthcoming CHT and CST are first and foremost fiscal transfers that provide block funding support to provinces and territories. Over the years, as supported programs became established, conditions were reshaped and major cost sharing programs were combined together under a single formula. Generally speaking, these types of large transfer instruments are formula driven and are not currently designed to provide targeted support in any one specific subsector. At first blush, this does not appear to be an appropriate instrument for your purposes, at least as I understand it. Provinces and territories are responsible for how these funds are allocated among the supported areas, and thus there are no direct enforceable conditions on how the money is spent by provinces. Let me explain.

    It is important to note that all current legal conditions related to health care reside in the Canada Health Act itself, in which there is a direct link with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, which governs the CHST. Current CHST cash, and in the future all CHT and CST cash, is linked to provinces and territories respecting the criteria of the Canada Health Act and can be withheld in instances of non-compliance. Generally speaking, the CHST is a fiscal transfer with no direct conditions to be upheld by the finance department, or the Government of Canada, for that matter. Accountability lies elsewhere, in the Canada Health Act being the responsibility of the Minister of Health, in summary, and with no minimum period of residency requirement, for which the Minister of Social Services is responsible.

    What I mean is that a fiscal transfer effects a flow of money. There is a cross-link to the Canada Health Act, which has five principles, and it so happens that the fiscal transfers we provide to provinces and territories are what we use for withholding purposes to enforce the Canada Health Act. The money flow itself is unconditional, and provinces, in turn, are completely and fully responsible to their residents, and they are, of course, overseen by their auditors general, as are we by the federal Auditor General, on how payments are made.

    That concludes my remarks.

    Merci, madame la présidente.

À  (1020)  

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.

    Mr. Bélanger has to leave soon, Mr. Godin, and he asked whether he could ask the first question. Do you have any objection?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no, I will wait.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Fine.

    In that case, you have the floor, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

    I had no objection to letting Mr. Bélanger ask the first question, particularly since, even though I don't want to flatter him too much, he does do a good job on the issue of the official languages. I wanted to tell him that.

    Do you not think that the Department of Finance is in a poor position? Drastic cutbacks were made to health care in 1994, and there is a shortage of health care staff in the provinces at the moment, particularly because of the reduced transfers. As Mr. Campbell said, health comes under provincial jurisdiction, and it is up to the provinces to decide how to use these funds best for their citizens. They have their own auditors.

    What would have to be done to enable the federal government to provide follow-up without intervening into areas of provincial jurisdiction? In Canada, we believe in the official languages. This is something that can be dealt with and for which money can be earmarked. The federal government cannot provide funding and then not know whether it will actually be used for the official languages, whether French or English.

    What is the Department of Finance's answer to Mr. Bélanger's question as to whether Heritage Canada and the Department of Finance talk to each other? It looks like they do not even talk to each other. Do you think the Department of Finance takes this matter seriously and considers the official languages a priority in the area of health care?

[English]

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Let me begin by reaffirming that I am indeed a member of the Department of Finance and not from the Department of Health. I understand representatives of that department and the Department of Canadian Heritage have appeared before this committee to address your remarks.

    I can say that following the recent budget 2003, following on first ministers' orders of commitment, any carry-over of restraint from the early 1990s has been addressed. When we're talking about major transfer instruments, cash levels have been restored; they have been at an all-time high for some period of time. The February budget outlined how an extra $34.8 billion will be flowing into provincial systems, both health and social, over the next five years. I think that point stands on its own. We have taken the liberty of providing some information to that effect to the committee members.

    With respect to your second question, about the role of the Government of Canada in controlling money that is provided, I think we've established quite clearly that these are large instruments with few conditions, other than the Canada Health Act, which are very important, along with the residency requirement. The Government of Canada and the provinces over the past several years have chosen to follow this public accountability model, which is in the spirit of the Social Union Framework Agreement, to come together as parties and agree on national objectives that would also be tied to increases in federal funding. The obligation is on provinces in turn to account to their citizens on how federal dollars are spent and the outcomes of those programs.

    With the first ministers' agreement in 2003, for example, increases to transfers were only part of the story. There were many other direct and targeted initiatives that were employed as part of that package under the jurisdiction of other ministers. Even with official languages, as part of the government's plan earlier this year, they decided to move with a targeted approach, which, at first blush, would give the government more control and the ability to track more specifically how those funds are being spent. I think the federal government has responded in that way. Transfers play a certain role, and targeted and other programs play a different role.

    Finance, on your last point, deals regularly and constantly with all departments. Particularly in education, we deal mostly with the Department of Human Resources Development for the Minister of Social Services, who has responsibility on the education side with respect to the CHST and provision of support for post-secondary education. As you're aware, the federal government, through transfers, does not support K to 12 education, but merely post-secondary education.

    I think I'll stop there, if you think I've answered your questions.

À  (1025)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The premiers, after the federal government told them how much money they'd get in the next five years, all said that is not enough. If that is not enough for the health problem, how you can implement another one that says, we will take some money for the bilingualism part of it, for the minorities across the country, anglophone and francophone. Would you believe that maybe they should have another point, point six, that says there will be money allocated to players that are ready to deal directly with the bilingualism issue? Do you think that will be the solution, to have a specific point? My colleague Monsieur Bélanger came out with a private member's bill on it, saying we should add a sixth point.

    Outside that, if the premiers are more interested in saying, I'm trying to get some nurses and doctors into my hospitals, that's my point number one, what if the federal government says, there are going to be some more transfers, because we have two official languages, and to get it into health care will be the sixth point; we're giving it under those conditions?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I know my colleagues from Health Canada have touched on the issue of the Canada Health Act. As I'm not a health expert, I'll refrain from that. I will talk generally, though, about the first ministers' accord and outline that it was the product of consensus among all parties.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Did they have a choice?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: It's not for me to.... I believe, as responsible governments, they always have a choice.

    It's quite true that pressures are great in all program areas, and in this case they identified, after a couple of years of deliberation, what their priorities were in the health sector, of which there are many, as you've pointed out. With the funding that goes particularly to primary health care reform, which is the front-end service delivery, certainly provinces must take into account providing services to all of their residents, be they anglophone or francophone.

    My general point is that there never seems to be enough money. The Government of Canada has put forward significant resources in the past few years. Both parties agree they need to prioritize in the health sector, as in others, and try to accomplish all their goals within a fiscally sustainable budget.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Bélanger.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Campbell. May I ask what your title is, Ms. Lajoie?

    Ms. Martine Lajoie (Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance): Senior policy analyst.

[English]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Merci.

    Can anyone, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Campbell, Madame Lajoie, tell me your awareness of part VII of the Official Languages Act?

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Perhaps you could refresh our memories. We have been through the Official Languages Act and we've looked at--

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Section 41 in particular.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Which pertains to what?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The responsibility all departments have towards the official language communities of this country.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I'm not as familiar as perhaps I should be--we don't have legal counsel with us today--with respect to our adherence to the act.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're in the social policy branch. Correct?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're responsible for that. I was going to ask you, actually, how you apply, how you give life, how you give un suivi, as you're obliged to, as every department is obliged to, to that section. I gather there is no follow-up on the obligations that fall on each department.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I wouldn't say that, sir. Generally speaking, through the federal-provincial relations division of our branch, we have three major transfers we deliver on behalf of the Minister of Finance and, in turn, the Government of Canada. We do uphold all the federal laws, regulations, codes, accounting rules in the delivery of those programs, including how we deal with our clients, the provinces, the public in our information materials in both official languages. Everything is available.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not criticizing the department's capacity to produce material in both official languages, but this section 41 goes way beyond that.

    Ms. Campbell, are you familiar with that section at all?

    Ms. Krista Campbell (Senior Policy Analyst, CHST and Policy Development, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance): No, I'm not.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then that sort of throws that whole line of questioning out the window. I find it somewhat perturbing. If you say your department follows all of the laws it has to, this is one law that gives a particular obligation to every department and agency of the Government of Canada, including the Department of Finance, and the people who are responsible for the social policy branch are not aware of it. That troubles me greatly.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I think you mistake what we're saying about not being aware. What I'm saying is, not having legal counsel present, we do not have detailed knowledge of the act itself.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine.

    Mr. Campbell, could you tell me what obligations are imposed on your department by that section of the Official Languages Act?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I cannot quote them at this time.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just tell me what it obliges the department to do.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I can only assume at this point, so I'd rather not say.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can anyone? Madame Lajoie? Ms. Campbell?

    Okay.

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: And I must say that with the questions that were forwarded to us, we would have been much better prepared if such a line of questioning had been indicated.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're coming to the official languages committee. Our duty is to see that the act is properly applied.

    I've just received this document, prepared, I presume, by the department in February 2003, the federal-provincial relations division. That's not your division--or is it?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: Yes, it is.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've just very briefly glanced through it, I haven't read it, but can you tell me if there's any reference in this document to the Official Languages Act?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: I don't believe so, in the documents provided to the committee.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Tell me how much time I've got left, Madam Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Probably a minute.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What I'm facing, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Campbell, and Madame Lajoie, is the following. You said in your presentation that these programs, because these are federal programs, are subject to all the laws that apply, the Federal Administration Act, the Constitution for that matter, and so forth. The Official Languages Act is one of those laws, yet I don't see any reference to it. Given that there are obligations imposed on the department by the Official Languages Act, just as there are by the Canada Health Act, I find it, again, a little disturbing that there is no reference whatsoever to the obligations of the department because of that act in these documents. We're talking about the biggest program of the Government of Canada, correct?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: It is.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think I'll have to refrain from asking more questions, because we'll probably have to go and seek the minister at some point, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

    You have the floor, Mr. Simard.

À  (1035)  

[English]

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    We heard this morning from our previous witnesses that the Department of Health will be responsible for advancing some $75 million to the provinces for official languages and minorities. They don't have a lot of expertise in that field. I'm extremely concerned, when we've already got departments like Heritage Canada that do have that expertise. We are one government; although we are different departments, we should be working together. Would Finance have a certain responsibility in ensuring, if there is an expertise in one department, that these two departments would talk and try to save us a lot of energy and probably allow for a much smoother administration of the program? Do you have that kind of responsibility?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: That kind of responsibility falls under the Treasury Board Secretariat as a matter of administration. As you likely know, the Department of Finance and Treasury Board work in concert as a central agency on the financial side of administration. I can talk from the policy point of view, because we're part of the policy shop; Monsieur Baril was talking about the operations of this program, which are elsewhere. When it comes to assisting the Department of Health in carrying out its responsibilities, the Department of Finance provides funding authority, and once funding authority is provided, the Treasury Board Secretariat takes over from there and helps the departments manage.

    Through our network system, if there's any information to be shared, all departments that are involved tend to work very closely, and as a central agency, we encourage that.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: The Dion plan, if we can call it that, has indicated that such an amount will be directed towards, for instance, health. I just want to know if the Department of Finance, again, has a responsibility to ensure that those funds are going where they're supposed to be directed and how you ensure that they are going towards that. Is there some kind of accounting, is there an audit system? It's a huge budget, it's $30 billion, and when you talk about less than $100 million or somewhere around $100 million, it can easily get lost in the shuffle. Would you have a responsibility at that point to ensure that those funds are going towards what they're supposed to be going for?

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: For myself, no. Moneys that are allocated to the Minister of Health, and in turn the Department of Health, and all funds disbursed to that department are audited by the Comptroller General and the Auditor General of Canada, overseen by the Treasury Board Secretariat, and as you know, the main estimates, the report on planning and priorities, and the departmental response to that comprise the process for feedback and accountabilities administered through those programs.

    From a policy point of view, over periods of time, when the Department of Finance is looking at disbursing money and making money in a budget context, they always take into account all the quarterly and annual reports that are generated in the system by the various auditors and the like, and they make decisions on that basis. But we're not directly tied to the administration of those programs. The Treasury Board is the intermediary between us and the Department of Health in that regard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Did you wish to ask a question, Mr. Bellemare? No.

    I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Campbell and Ms. Lajoie, for appearing before us this morning.

    Would any of you like to make any closing remarks?

[English]

    Mr. Glenn Campbell: If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to pick up on the earlier line of questioning with respect to the Official Languages Act. As I mentioned, we come from the policy branch, and I'm sure, when we go back to our department and look at our website and how we furnish all of our information material, there's likely to be reference to the Official Languages Act, as well as the many other acts that guide our deliberations. We rely mostly on those documents to do with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, as being the legislation that governs our programs. We'd be happy to follow up on the point that was raised earlier.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

    Since there are no other comments, the meeting is adjourned.