[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 11, 1995
.0906 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
First we are going to hear from a couple of sets of witnesses from the Department of Health. We will hear from André Juneau and his group. There's nobody left in the department this morning for sure.
Welcome. We hope the statements will be brief. You'll be cut off after five minutes anyway, so it doesn't matter. But we hope you will be brief, because we'd like to have as much opportunity as possible for the members to raise some issues that are on their minds.
We have half an hour for this segment, and then we'll be hearing from the corporate services people in the department for half an hour. Since most of them are in the room right now, let me say this just once. We hope the respondents will be brief in their responses too, because it comes out of the member's time, and the longer you talk, the more you cheese them off. Make your answers fairly brief and cogent as well, if you could.
Welcome, Mr. Juneau. Would you briefly introduce the people with you and proceed, sir.
Mr. André Juneau (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Consultation Branch, Department of Health): I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
I have two of my colleagues at the table with me. Judy Ferguson is the director general of Health Policy and Information. I think you've met Orvel Marquardt. He is the director general of Departmental Planning and Financial Administration and is most familiar with the main estimates. Also with me are the other senior members of my branch who are directors general for various functions. Would you like me to introduce them?
The Chairman: Yes, we'd like to hear their names.
Mr. Juneau: Guy Bujold is the director general for Intergovernmental Affairs Directorate. That includes matters related to the Canada Health Act. Next is Carmelita Boivin-Cole, the director general of Strategic Planning and Evaluation. Ed Aiston is the acting director general of International Affairs Directorate. Joel Weiner is the director general of communications. Abby Hoffman is the director general of the Women's Health Bureau.
[Translation]
I will be brief, as you wish. I simply want to make two comments. First, I would like to say a few words about the Branch and then a few words about its priorities in order to support the department's priorities.
[English]
What's interesting about my branch is that we have quite a range of functions, as was shown by the names and the titles of my colleagues. The branch can help both with policy advice for the department and for the minister, and also with various coordination functions.
.0910
We give you examples of the kind of policy advice we give on broad health policy issues, while other branches focus on program policies. We advise on health economics, on ethical issues, on women's health, and on medicare, to name key examples, and our coordination role is assisted by our responsibility for federal-provincial relations, for planning, for evaluation, for international relations, and for communications. This assists us - and we perhaps are not there yet - with providing some coherence to the work of the department.
Currently I would list the main priorities of the branch as follows: advice on the Canada Health Act, research policy, working with the National Health Forum, women's health, and the anti-tobacco strategy. There would be many other things to say, but I will be happy to have my colleagues to answer your questions for the next 20 or 25 minutes.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): As you know, part of this process is being driven by the fact that the Auditor General has asked the committees to get more into the estimates. One of the things we talked about in advance of this process is the accountability aspect. When you deal with accountability, obviously there's a knowledge need about things such as what did you do before, what did you change and why, what did it cost, was it successful, have you assessed it, how has it changed, and what changes are you going to make later.
We haven't even touched any of that yet, from your start, so I think the committee would be very well-informed if you could give us an idea not of what you do but of how successful you have been and what's worked and what hasn't worked and why. Can you give us a start?
Mr. Juneau: Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling you'll cut me off if I start answering this with the answer it would deserve.
The Chairman: No, on the contrary, I might cut off the questioner, because one of the terms of reference here is that the questions be fairly specific to enable the witness to give a very specific answer.
Mr. Szabo: With that preamble, then, I'll ask a specific question. Could you identify for the committee the single major change you made for the past year and your assessment of whether it was a successful change in your operations or if there are some problems?
Mr. Juneau: Through you, Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of judgment whether the one I will mention is the major change. Because my colleagues and I are in the business of providing policy advice, it's a little bit difficult to determine whether one has been successful, but let me take a stab at one aspect of this.
One of our priorities has been to develop a more strategic relationship with provincial and territorial governments. In the past, the federal-provincial meetings of ministers and deputy ministers tended to be transactional and not focused on the really big issues. We made a decision with the deputy to have more effective federal-provincial meetings, and my own sense is that over the course of the last year or so, if one looked at the agendas of the meetings, one would find more important issues and fewer matters that could be dealt with simply by tabling reports rather than having extensive reporting discussions at meetings of deputies.
The real question you might ask me is whether or not that has improved the quality of federal-provincial relations. For that, in a sense, you'd have to ask provincial officials, but I think we have improved the relationship. That would be an important change.
Mr. Szabo: Let me ask you another question, then. From time to time Canadians have heard stories about where provincial governments and their provincial ministries of health have not complied with the fundamental requirements of the Canada Health Act. Indeed, on a couple of occasions the minister has withheld transfers because of those in terms of estimates.
These things seem to take an awfully long time. It's always a matter of saying get your act in gear or else we're going to do something. What are the rules of the game? How long do we really have to wait before we enforce the Canada Health Act provisions on the provinces?
Mr. Juneau: That's perhaps a question you will want to raise with the minister. The rules of the game are spelled out in the Canada Health Act, and they provide, either in spirit or in the precise terms of the act, for a consultative process with the provinces. What you are referring to has to do with the withholding of funds from the Province of British Columbia because there are still some doctors - very few, so we are making serious progress - who extra-bill in British Columbia.
.0915
In the case of the other matter, Mrs. Marleau's letter to the provinces in respect to private clinics, which includes an October 15 deadline, was for the purpose of giving provinces the time to adjust, as the minister is allowed to do under the legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard (Drummond): Mr. Juneau, according to the Main Estimates, the National AIDS Secretariate answers, on the strategic level, to the Assistant-Deputy-Minister of the Health Programs and Services Branch. Why is it that the funding of the National AIDS Secretariate does not come from the Health Programs and Services Branch?
Mr. Juneau: I'm sorry, Mrs. Picard, I did not understand the meaning of your question, but the fact is that the National AIDS Secretariate does not answer to me. I can ask Mr. Marquardt to clarify the issue of the funding of the Secretariate. If I understand correctly, according to the papers we have, the Secretariate answers to a Branch and its funding comes from another Branch?
Mrs. Picard: Yes, that is correct.
[English]
Mr. Orvel Marquardt (Director General, Departmental Planning and Financial Administration Directorate, Department of Health): The AIDS Secretariat is now under the Health Programs and Services Branch. Before that it was part of the program management section in the main estimates, but that has since been moved to try to consolidate it more within the department.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: In the Part III of the Main Estimates, where one can find the spending concerning the National AIDS Secretariate, what was the total budget of the National AIDS Stragey in 1994-95 and what level will it reach in 1995-96?
[English]
Mr. Marquardt: The strategy has a budget of $40.7 million per year for the duration of the five years of the strategy. As we discussed here last week, there's a slight change in the amount for 1994-95 because there were some funds that lapsed in 1993-94. We went to the Treasury Board to have them reprofiled, as they call it, to 1994-95. So if you look in the estimates, you'll see expenditures for 1993-94 and then in 1994-95 it goes up by about $4.2 million in total. It appears as though it's a drop down to 1995-96, but it's just that we've moved money from one year to the next. But the total strategy is still $40.7 million per year for the five years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Could you tell me why those funds have not been used whereas there were requests for spending? They were supposed to contribute. The Minister had told some organizations that she would contribute to some strategy, but they answered that, because of a lack of funds, it was impossible. Now, you say that those funds have been reprofiled to 1995-96. Why did they not use those funds?
[English]
Mr. Marquardt: I'm sorry, I don't know the reasons for the lapses. I just know that because of the strategy being approved during 1993-94, it took a little while to get the processes and maybe the contribution processes in place to get all the projects approved, and there was a little bit of slippage in 1993-94 that we've since moved over to 1994-95. So I don't know what the reasons for the slippage were.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Mr. Juneau, one of the major criticisms of the Auditor General's department is the fact that there has been a lot of staff turnover and there was no direct supervision to heads of departments. It's a concern of mine that a department of this size should get control of the team in order to make sure the programs are policed properly. Is this a real problem? Do you get a lot of staff turnover? What's the major reason for that? Do you have a grip of that?
I'd like to ask you a second question. Canadians are also concerned with regard to these private-public clinics. There seems to be a certain amount of mean-spiritedness throughout the country and a general movement to the right, with people feeling that they want to experiment with these private clinics.
.0920
I've heard it said by one person that perhaps doctors would want to get into private clinics and have public funding, because that's certainly a nice base to operate from. The government collects all their money and passes it on. Where does the public sector stop and the private sector begin in terms of how you fund these private clinics?
Mr. Juneau: On the question of staff turnover, I can only speak for my branch. When my colleague Robert Lafleur appears in a few minutes, you may want to ask him about the department as a whole since that comes under his responsibility.
For my branch, there has been relatively little staff turnover. The senior team has been stable for awhile and it includes a lot of very experienced officers. I myself am relatively new, although I have spent a lot of time in other jobs working on health-related matters. But as a whole, I don't think the staff turnover issue for my branch is a problem.
You asked about the distinction between private and public spending and where it begins and where it stops. I'm not sure how I might be helpful to you, but I can say that out of the total spending by the country on health, about 72% is funded by the public sector and 28% by the private sector. A lot of the private sector spending is accounted for by spending on pharmaceuticals and spending on care such as dental care.
We have some situations, as you have noted, where there's a mix of public and private spending such as in private clinics. The view the minister has taken under the legislation is that it's not acceptable under legislation to have a form of public subsidy of private spending, which is why she has asked the provinces to deal with the fact that there are facility fees in the private clinics.
I don't know if that is helpful to you, but it's a brief answer.
Mr. Jackson: I didn't get the statistics for the private. You said 72% of the budget. This is the global budget?
Mr. Juneau: No. As a whole in Canada we spend about $72 billion on health. That's about 10% of the economy and that's divided roughly 72% public and 28% private.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): Your branch states that it does not manage any specific programs but rather conducts the studies. With that in mind, this question may not be appropriate, but I'm sure you'll tell me if it's not.
I have concerns about RBST. Does that fall under your jurisdiction?
Mr. Juneau: This falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague Ken Foster, who has appeared in front of this committee before. I'm sure he'll be - happy may not be the word - quite willing to answer question on RBST.
The Chairman: Or the minister when she comes.
Mrs. Ur: Yes, that will be fine. Thank you. Now, that was a quick one.
This committee is studying aboriginal wellness so I have a couple of questions with regard to that. When your branch consults with the aboriginal groups to evaluate departmental programs with aboriginals, do you take their concerns into the consultation process? Do you consult with them as to whether the programs are effective? Does your branch in Health Canada have a format for consulting with the communities on an ongoing basis for evaluation purposes? Do you take into consideration the cultural appropriateness for a program to be effective?
Mr. Juneau: I don't want to be difficult about this. My colleague Paul Cochrane is the acting assistant deputy minister for matters related to native health. But I can give you a general answer to that, and that is yes to all your questions; that is, very extensive consultations are in place with first nations.
Mrs. Ur: Just first nations?
Mr. Juneau: Well, that's the responsibility of Health Canada. Very extensive consultations are in place on an ongoing basis, but Paul Cochrane will be happy to go over that with you when he comes.
.0925
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): Thank you very much for coming. I'm sorry I'm a bit late today.
I have two questions. They both generate from page 2-114 of the estimates.
In the estimates, near the top - I think it's the first point on that page - reference has been made to the health minister's interpretation of clinics and facility fees. I would like to have some expansion on what that interpretation is and a little bit of meat regarding what it actually means.
My second question is also from the same page. On that page it says that a comprehensive analysis of the report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies was released in November 1993. One of the common things we hear, be it a complaint or a comment, is the fact that the government does nothing but study. It's not necessarily just this government, but it seems to be a trend of government - one study after another study.
On this particular report...I think the commission was formed in 1989. Four years were spent on research, hearings and opinions, consultations and so on. In November 1993 two volumes were released, 1,300 pages with 293 recommendations.
This is May 1995. I'm wonder why the government needs to study a study for 17 months. Also, of the 293 recommendations, can we implement any without going back to the study room?
Mr. Juneau: Through you, Mr. Chairman, the member's first question is from page 2-114 and is in reference to a new interpretation of the Canada Health Act. The minister said in her letter to the provinces of January 6, 1995, that under the act certain kinds of clinics will be considered to be a hospital, and further under the legislation, imposing financial barriers to the access to insured services is not permitted.
By definition, if a provincial insurance plan reimburses the physician fee in a clinic, it is because the provincial government accepts that the service is an insured service. Therefore, imposing a financial barrier to the access to that service would be a contravention of the act, if that clinic can be considered a hospital. Our legal analysis of many clinics leads us to conclude that they are hospitals as intended by the legislation.
That's, if you will, the legal answer to your question.
Another form of answer, as I alluded to earlier, is that if a patient pays the facility fee out of his own pocket but the physician fee is paid for by the insurance plan, that's a form of subsidy by the public sector for private access to health care, which the minister finds objectionable under the spirit and letter of the legislation.
With respect to your second question on new reproductive technologies, that's a fair question. I will say two things, and then I will ask Judy Ferguson, who is more closely involved with that file, to comment. I will ask her to comment specifically on what can be implemented.
If you look at the experience of other countries in dealing with really sensitive issues like that, it has taken many, many years. So for Canada to have been involved in a process of, say, five or six years up to this point is not something I think we should be embarrassed about, because of the deep ethical and moral issues that are involved. If you look at the experience of the U.K., for instance, I understand it took them about ten years to come up with a satisfactory framework.
.0930
Nevertheless, there are some urgent issues that need some attention. I'll ask Judy Ferguson to say a few words about that.
Ms Judy Ferguson (Director General, Health Policy and Information, Department of Health): Over the last 17 months, as you know, we have been reviewing the 293 recommendations of the massive and very complex report that raises tough social, legal, jurisdictional and ethical issues. We did not assume everyone would be in agreement with the findings of the royal commission report.
We have since been consulting with the provinces to get a better sense of their views. Since the report was released, we have conducted bilateral consultations with about 50 stakeholders to understand what they thought of the findings of the report.
The interim approach and the longer-term management approach the minister is developing reflect the views of Canadians. The practices found to be unacceptable are either prohibited or regulated. We're looking very much at a balanced approach between management and instability prevention.
I take your point. The consultations we had were well-received. The minister was intent on taking a reasoned and cautious approach. These issues are too important to move precipitously.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): Mr. Juneau, in last February's Budget speech, the federal government announced that the main transfers to the provinces, including those made under the health insurance, would be restructured to form the new Canada Social Transfer.
My question is very simple: How far are you in that restructuration?
Mr. Juneau: As you know, this is first a responsibility of the Minister of Finance, who tabled Bill C-76 in the House. It is essentially where we are at the present time. The implementation of a program as this one requires obviously cooperation at the departmental level between the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Health. The usual analytical work is starting and the main activity is the one I mentioned, namely Bill C-76 which is before the Committee of Finance, I think.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to thank Mr. Juneau and the witnesses for coming this morning. It helps us put a face on some of the people. We haven't asked all the questions we probably should have, but the fact that you're here is important. Let this be just a beginning, to enable individual members to be in touch with you and also to welcome you back on future occasions. Thanks very much.
Mr. Juneau: You're very welcome. It's my pleasure.
The Chairman: We'll go directly to the second set of witnesses, please.
Could I please have the attention of the committee for a moment while we're making the transition. There is very likely going to be a bell at 10 a.m., with a vote at 10:15 a.m. If that is the case, we have the room until noon. If the bell does go and we're interrupted, my suggestion is that we complete our hearing of the witnesses before us now at 10 o'clock or as soon after as possible, do the vote, come back and spend about an hour on the draft report. Is that your wish? Okay.
I want to welcome from the Corporate Services Branch, the assistant deputy minister, Robert Lafleur. Bienvenue.
Mr. Robert Lafleur (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With your indulgence, I've asked the directors general who work in corporate services to join me at the table. In the area of administration, we don't often get the opportunity of working with a parliamentary committee. I'd like to introduce Marie Williams, the DG of assets management; Fruji Bull, the DG of information management; you already met Orvel Marquardt; Bob Joubert, who is the DG of human resources; and Dave Beavis, who is the DG of program planning.
.0935
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving the committee's time, giving the members every opportunity to ask questions, I won't be making a statement except to say that corporate services is an integrated service provider. It deals basically with the machinery of the department, everything apart from program delivery and policy and communications.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we are ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chairman: If there's a Nobel prize for brevity, you've just won it, by the way. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Welcome to our presenters this morning.
Looking at your budget or allotment, I have two questions to start with. Can you tell us the percentage spent out of that total in administration, and the balance that goes towards identifiable projects?
Second, as you would know, during the past year, 1994 specifically, all departments went through the program review process and a number of things were identified during that process. I'm wondering, as a result of that and as a result of the budget tabled in February of this year, where you anticipate changes from the way it's been done in the past and what areas of concern you have with that.
Mr. Lafleur: With reference to the size of the administrative capacity, we're talking here about the integrated administrative capacity, the people who do the more generic type of work. We're among the lowest percentage-wise in the public service. Vis-à-vis the overall budget of the department, we represent 2.7% of the spending. If one looks at just the operating spending, leaving aside grants and contributions, we're 6.5%, which is quite low overall.
In the course of program review, the corporate services directorate will be going down quite significantly. In fact, we've been reducing over the past three years and will be continuing for the next three years as part of the overall reduction program for administrative services. We'll be reducing overall by about 25% for those six years. That's quite a significant amount. We've been able to do that by converting a lot of our activities to more efficient processes, including the use of technology, and of course with the cooperation of all of the branches.
Mr. Culbert: Just how do you see those continued, as you had indicated, lessening or lowering of budgetary dollars available to your branch to operate with? How do you see that affecting service delivery? Do you see problem areas? With the modern technology, are you going to be able to deliver and coordinate as effectively as in the past or perhaps even better, because you indicated more efficiency?
Mr. Lafleur: I expect we'll be able to do at least as well as in the past. One of the advantages of doing a reduction over a longer period of time is that you get a chance to do re-engineering. You get a chance of looking at processes and finding better ways of doing things, shortcuts if you like, and then applying technology. In the future, we hope to be able to do a lot more with the resources we have because of technology and the spreading use of technology in the department.
Mr. Culbert: As a result of this scenario, you've found new efficiencies, one might say.
Mr. Lafleur: Yes, we have.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Lafleur, your predecessor, the witness who appeared ahead of you here, André Juneau, indicated that you should answer the question that I asked him. That had to do with the Auditor General's criticism about the department with respect to the workforce not being stable and people moving around and his recommendations not being followed.
In the half hour that we have here, we don't have a lot of time to ferret out a whole lot of things. But to me, what is significant and important for any department is the way you fellows run the department and how you react to the Auditor General's criticisms. How stable is the department with regard to that? How are you doing with the list of problems that the Auditor General identified with regard to your department?
.0940
Mr. Lafleur: While there's certainly a large amount of instability in the public service at the moment, at Health Canada, in part because of the way in which we went through the program review and I suppose also because of the importance that Canadians attach to health matters and health issues, the turnover has not been very great in the last couple of years. Now it's down to 4%, which is not very much, because accounting for that is people leaving and retiring. It is a very low turnover rate compared with what we've had previously in the public service and certainly compared with most other departments currently.
Mr. Jackson: How about the list? How are you doing with that? Is there a process for...? The committee can ask you a lot of questions, but the Auditor General has a battery of people in his department who come to look at the books and look at the way the department is structured. Do you follow up on his recommendations at all or do you just ignore them?
Mr. Lafleur: We certainly pay a lot of attention to the Auditor General. We make every effort to follow up on the recommendations and act on them. He has to be the judge, of course, in the end as to whether or not he is satisfied that we have followed up according to the way he perceives the thing should be done. We certainly track all of the recommendations. By and large, I think we have been able to close off the vast majority of recommendations he has made in the past years.
Mr. Jackson: Could this committee have a balance sheet showing what his criticisms were and how you reacted to them?
Mr. Lafleur: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. It would be helpful if the member could be perhaps a bit more precise as to which audit he is referring to, because there have been a number of audits done on Health Canada and it would be helpful if we knew where to look.
Mr. Jackson: Let's say the last one he did.
The Chairman: May I suggest, though, that we talk to the assistant deputy minister afterwards and be specific with him. I am sure he could respond.
Mr. Lafleur: I'd be pleased to respond.
The Chairman: In the interest of time, would you do that?
I have a question for Orvel. I have been watching your progress from across the table. I expect you'll be the minister by the time he gets here.
You made reference to reprofiling insofar as the national AIDS strategy is concerned. That's just a cute term for moving the expenditure down the line to a future year. Is that correct?
Mr. Marquardt: I wouldn't know if it is a cute way of doing it, but it is a way of ensuring that the total resources approved for the strategy over the five-year period are utilized to their maximum. If we can demonstrate to the board, and indeed we have to demonstrate to them, that there were just causes - and I don't know yet what those reasons were for those lapses in 1993-94 - we should move those ahead to the following year because we have projects in the wings that may be partially approved or in the process of and we can demonstrate that the money should not be, if you like, lost to the strategy in total.
The Chairman: Would you ever use the term ``reprofile'' if you increased the budget?
Mr. Marquardt: No.
The Chairman: Was your reprofiling limited to the AIDS strategy or did you reprofile some other programs?
Mr. Marquardt: There were two or three others that we reprofiled. I don't have the details at the moment. They were rather small. I think there was one for about $200,000 in one particular area and another smaller item. I could give you the information now because it is in the blue book somewhere. I've just forgotten which programs.
The Chairman: Do you recall what were the programs? Perhaps you can get them for us.
Mr. Marquardt: Yes.
The Chairman: Let me come back to the AIDS program. Does your reprofiling reflect a diminishing emphasis or diminishing need for emphasis in that area so far as the department is concerned?
Mr. Marquardt: No. Indeed, I would say it substantiates the need for that particular program and those strategies. We are very cognizant of the amount that is approved for a particular strategy and we do whatever we can to ensure -
The Chairman: How could it substantiate the need if you're spreading the money over a longer period of time? I don't follow you.
.0945
Mr. Marquardt: If there is, let us say, $100 million approved for a particular strategy over a five-year period and if the approval, such as the AIDS example, is approved partially throughout the year and the original profiling for that year is $20 million, and we just can't get the program off the ground that quickly in that first year, some of that money will slip, so we just move it ahead to the following year. So the total for the five-year period is still $100 million. We haven't increased the expenditures, we just move it ahead for that particular year.
The Chairman: You haven't decreased the total amount.
Mr. Marquardt: No.
Mrs. Ur: I represent a rural riding in southwestern Ontario and the single largest industry is agriculture, so I'm really quite concerned about the Auditor General's report of $150 million that was spent over a four-year period for food safety without any stipulated accountability for the spending.
I'll go on with another question. I'm not an accountant. With regard to the terminology ``financial improprieties'', what would you place under that title? With the $150 million, did the auditors try to ascertain where this money has been spent? You said that you pay attention to the Auditor General's report, and keeping that in mind, I just wonder how you're going to address that. With the massive cuts in the agricultural minister's offices, I find this a hard thing to accept, with the dollar funding lost in Agriculture Canada and $150 million with no accountability from the health department. I don't think we have opportunities to throw money around like that without any accountability by someone.
Mr. Lafleur: My official answer to that question would be that our accounting and tracking of expenditures is done with respect to the funds that are given to the Department of Health for programs the department has to carry out either directly or in partnership with other departments. I don't have the specific information to answer the issue you raised, if it's a matter relating to an audit report by the Auditor General regarding the use of those funds. As I said, we track and respond to all of the recommendations. I would be willing to provide the answer to that afterwards, in writing, if you like.
Mrs. Ur: Yes, I would like that. That's why I asked the question.
Ms Bridgman: Thank you for coming. To follow up on Rose-Marie's request, when you say you would provide it, is it through the committee?
Mr. Lafleur: Yes, I believe that's the procedure.
Ms Bridgman: My question is related to the AIDS program again. In some of our deliberations we returned to core funding versus project funding as far as the public applying for these funds is concerned. Apparently there's been a trend since the inception of this program to move from core funding into project funding. I would like to know why. What's the rationale for this? Why are we putting more money the other way? It seems to be providing some barriers for coordinating, from what we're hearing on the other end, the receiving end of it. I was wondering what the overall philosophy is of this move and why. What's the rationale?
Mr. Lafleur: I'm not certain I am competent to answer that question. That's a matter of program delivery and it is the responsibility of the assistant deputy minister of health program services, Kay Stanley, who appeared before the committee.
Ms Bridgman: I've got the wrong group on this one.
Mr. Szabo: Being a chartered accountant and a former internal auditor, I wanted to ask Marie about asset management. In regard to the review of your area's control mechanisms, what kind of report did the auditors give to you in terms of the effectiveness of our asset management? Are you fully automated and do you have any significant amount of loss or unaccounted-for assets?
.0950
Ms Marie Williams (Director General, Assets Management Directorate, Department of Health): I'm not fully aware of a specific recommendation in the Auditor General's report. However, internally we in the department recognize there is a need for greater monitoring and for a greater capacity to track our assets. We undertook a project in the previous year to look at a mechanism whereby we can do a better job of doing that. We feel, though, that the mechanisms that are in place give us a reasonable amount of assurance that our losses are not significant throughout the department.
Mr. Szabo: What percentage of your asset base is represented by basic information technology support equipment? Do you have an idea of the split of your assets?
Ms Williams: No, I can't specifically answer that question.
Mr. Szabo: Okay. That's all right.
The Chairman: Can somebody at the table tell us how many internal investigations were undertaken during the fiscal year 1994-95 because of suspected losses of public money relating to your department?
Mr. Lafleur: I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, that we made investigations specifically for that purpose, but we -
The Chairman: If that's the case, that would come as a real surprise to me, because in his report of 1994 the Auditor General reported, or at least alleged - and you decide which verb is appropriate - that $115 million was apparently spent over a four-year period for the food safety program without the stipulated accountability for that spending. You're familiar with the allegation.
Mr. Lafleur: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but as I said, we'll be answering that after this appearance because we don't have the details as to exactly how the department followed up, although I know they were addressed. I'd like to do that in writing.
The Chairman: In response to the Auditor General's report.
Mr. Lafleur: Yes.
The Chairman: I understand that, but surely for that kind of money you wouldn't need an Auditor General to tell you that.... You must have suspected something was awry before he came along.
Mr. Lafleur: I'm not sure -
The Chairman: My question concerned what had been done to rectify or identify, first of all.
Mr. Lafleur: Mr. Chairman, that was picked up in the Auditor General's report, and in his perception that needed to be addressed. We, I'm sure, have done that subsequent to the tabling of the report, and I'll provide the details on how that was done. I'm not sure I can say with certainty that these items were identified in quite the same way prior to the Auditor General's report.
If you'd like to know, however, more generally the kind of internal investigation we've done, we've done an investigation of the alleged irregularity of advance payments, an investigation of the integrity of the department's financial system, and an investigation of the propriety of the procedures used for the acquisition of computers for the enterprise network. We have also done some work in the area of non-insured benefits. Those are the areas we've done in the last year. All of those are done always in consultation with the Auditor General. Our auditors and the Auditor General work together.
The Chairman: I'm interested in the first part of your answer, where you said there's a response to the Auditor General forthcoming. Just be specific. When is that going to be -
Mr. Lafleur: I'm referring to my response to the committee that I can't answer that now, but after this meeting we'll get the information to you as soon as we can.
The Chairman: I see. Okay. You're undertaking to supply it once you've researched it.
.0955
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: In the estimates, it says that Health Canada is now working on an enterprise network project and that the electronic mail system will be changed. How much money was invested in 1994-1995? How much do you intend to invest in 1995-1996 and what will be the benefits of the new system over the current one?
Mr. Lafleur: Considerable amounts have been invested. I will ask Ms Bull to answer your question.
[English]
Ms Fruji Bull (Director General, Information Management Directorate, Department of Health): In 1994-95 we invested $8.9 million. In 1995-96 we will be investing another$7.7 million.
Mr. Patry: At the end, is this going to be more economic for the health department in future years?
Ms Bull: Yes. It is our belief that it will increase productivity and enable us to provide automated tools to our workers and provide a more automated office environment.
Mrs. Ur: I have just a quick question, Mr. Chair.
In my question regarding financial improprieties, there wasn't any expansion on that. So when you're replying to the committee, could I request that this could be also included in your response? You did not expand on that question.
Mr. Lafleur: I'll respond to that in the measure that the Auditor General raised that in his report.
Mrs. Ur: As you feel it is appropriate within your department, your accountability.
Mr. Lafleur: If the Auditor General raised the issue of impropriety in the use of funds, I will address that in my reply.
Mrs. Ur: Do you just rely on the Auditor General to be your guideline? Is no one accountable within your own department?
Mr. Lafleur: Ultimately the deputy minister and the minister are accountable, but the issues referred to were issues raised by the Auditor General. So that's why I'm addressing that.
I mentioned other areas where we had done investigations internally. There is a very small audit group internally that does some work.
Mrs. Ur: How effective are they?
Mr. Lafleur: I would say they're very effective. I think they would say they're very effective.
Mrs. Ur: Do we have any statistics on that, any information that we can get?
Mr. Lafleur: We have the results of the work. I've mentioned the investigations that we've done.
Mr. Chairman, if the member wishes to see any of those, I would be pleased to provide that. But they are in very specific areas.
The review, for example, of the integrity of the department's financial system showed that we were in essence doing everything right, that the system is quite reliable. There were no major difficulties that needed to be addressed. So we were quite pleased with the results of that.
It was the same thing with the review of the handling of money for the purchase of computers, which is an investigation we carried out in the middle of the project to make sure things were well on track.
Mrs. Ur: I can appreciate your positiveness. Now, what about the negative?
Mr. Lafleur: I don't have any negatives that I need to report on.
Mrs. Ur: Very good.
The Chairman: Rose-Marie, the witnesses suggest you might want to see some of those reports of those investigations.
I suggest to you, to test the system, you request to see at least one. You might want to talk toMr. Lafleur after the meeting if you wish to see one and test the system.
I want to follow up on Rose-Marie's line of questioning and my earlier line. Mr. Lafleur, the Auditor General made his observations public last November. Surely by now, six months later, quite apart from the fact that it was raised in committee this morning, your department would have done something to respond to the allegation. I'm appreciative that you're going to get a response to the committee's request, but I find it passing strange that it took that kind of a request to generate the information as a result of the allegation made by the Auditor General fully six months ago.
.1000
Mr. Lafleur: Mr. Chairman, the response to the Auditor General's report is usually done directly to the Auditor General and in the form of a statement made by the minister. All of that was done. We then have follow-up tracking of all of the recommendations and we inform the Auditor General of the activities undertaken to respond to each of the recommendations, and we have been doing that. I just don't have them before me so I don't have the answer, but there is the machinery in place.
The Chairman: So you're saying that the response of the minister was in a private communication to the Auditor General, or was that a public document?
Mr. Lafleur: No, we usually have both, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Do we have access to that? Could we have a copy of the response of the minister to the Auditor General on this subject, please.
I want to thank the witnesses. We're going to just take a minute for the transition. We've now been informed there is not a vote. We'll just break for a minute and ask all the undesirables to clear the room because we're having a tête-à-tête, an in camera meeting.
[Proceedings continue in camera]