Official Languages Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine, Regional Executive Director, Atlantic Region, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much for having us.

A question was asked on whether all the agreements were the same. They're not, because the agreements all follow the same general framework for parts 1, 2, and 3, but they are quite different in parts 4 and 5. They are, however, adapted to each of the communities involved and are symmetric in the following areas: development of objectives and priorities, the manner in which community networks consult, and the structure of communities that also make recommendations on the funding.

The question is what will happen after the present cycle of collaboration agreements. A number of tools will sustain the department's thinking, in particular the 2007 mid-term report for which the communities were involved in evaluating the collaboration agreements. A formal summative evaluation of the official language support programs will also be complete in the fall of 2008. The report of the standing committee, to which you belong, will also make recommendations this fall.

Critical comments have also been made on interdepartmental governance by the various standing committees on official languages, both that of the House of Commons and that of the Senate, and by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We will also analyze current federal government practices with respect to financial refereeing and funding transfer mechanisms. There will also be criticism from recent university studies on how we can improve community development and governance.

The first meeting will also be held in June 2008 with the community spokespersons of the francophone community network outside Quebec and of the anglophone community to begin discussions on the period following the agreements.

Lastly, it would be good to emphasize that we have heard a lot of things about the agreements and their administration. It is nevertheless important to emphasize that progress has been made in the past few years on the administrative side of these agreements. We'll mention three such instances here.

First, all groups receiving annual funding may receive 25% interim funding at the start of the year. That enables them, very shortly after April 1, to actually receive 25% of the total amount, which represents three months of operation so they can continue operating without interruption.

We also encourage organizations to submit multi-year requests. That started two or three years ago, and some community organizations have now received funding for two or three years. This offers them some stability and continuity and enables them, to a certain degree, to plan the amounts they may receive.

We've also recently raised the threshold for allocation of grants to $75,000. It is much simpler, easier and less complicated for the organizations to provide a report on a grant than one on a contribution agreement since there are fewer regulations and obligations.

My colleague and I have merely provided an overview, but we are prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We'll now move on to our question rounds, which will be slightly shortened today. We'll nevertheless begin with our usual round of seven minutes.

Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead, please.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning and thank you for being here. Thank you for the patience you showed while we debated Mr. Coderre's excellent motion.

Mr. Lafontaine, you talked about the type of agreement. You said that it was adapted to certain communities, but, week after week, we've heard various community representatives tell us that they are a one-size-fits-all proposition. In fact, I would say that one of the two or three main criticisms was that people had the impression the federal government was imposing a rigid framework and had decided that it would be the same thing for everyone.

You don't appear to share that view. Can you explain to me why?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

I think that's a relevant question. The model agreement is standardized. All the agreements contain five parts and are relatively similar. The first three parts are essentially modelled on the standard agreement on relations with the voluntary sector that was introduced in past years. However, parts 4 and 5 are modelled on the actual situation. For example, part 4 talks about the common objectives toward which the department and the community will work. It states the community development priorities. They will probably be different in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's negotiated.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Part 4 is drafted on the basis of the agreement reached between the two parties on the common objectives we want to work on to contribute to community development. Part 5 concerns the consultation mechanisms that the community puts in place. They also vary from province to province.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What are the unchanging major components of the first three parts?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

It's the definition of the major principles, the collaboration between the government and the voluntary sector. The standard agreements are—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You've no doubt read the representatives' evidence. It's paradoxical. It's hard to understand because they are virtually unanimous, or else they say there is a problem. Sometimes you understand because a framework agreement is imposed on them that is the same for everyone.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

They characterize those framework agreements on the basis of the first three sections, which are really standardized. They contain statements of a principle that state how the relationship must be conducted. In concrete terms, however, each of the communities negotiates its development objectives, the way in which it wants to work with Canadian Heritage to achieve its objectives, the kind of consultation mechanism that the community will use to establish its overall development plan, and the manner in which each community can implement its development priorities and share them with Canadian Heritage. These agreements are standardized in the sense that they all have the same model. In practice, however, New Brunswick's objectives are different from those of Prince Edward Island or Manitoba. That's why the model is called a framework. However, the implementation varies with the communities' development priorities.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It's not always clear. I understand your point of view very well, but we'll try to clarify matters.

I don't have a lot of time, but I simply want to know why there is no indexing. We've often heard that as well. They say it's always the same amount, that expenses increase all the time and that needs are greater and greater. It's a management challenge.

[Hubert Lussier]

Part of the answer is political, and it's not appropriate for me to venture onto that ground. However, I would correct one of the assumptions of your question: that there is no increase. There was an increase in the amount entered in the agreements as reflected in the current cycle. There was an 11% increase in 2006.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It's not indexed.

[Hubert Lussier]

That wasn't indexed. You're right in that respect, but there was an increase in 2006.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We also heard people tell us that they're facing enormous challenges. It's also very hard for them to compete with the private sector for labour. One of the problems they encounter is the turnover rate. They often told us that this is a gateway for some people. If the people are good, they are happy, but they can't offer them more, and the turnover rate is enormous. That's what we also heard. It's a challenge. We would have to see what can be done in future.

In addition—and Mr. Lafontaine talked about this—they criticize the administrative red tape. They told us they spent a lot of time preparing reports and that they had few resources to prepare applications. So we were told that the government could lighten the load a little. Can you do better in that regard?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

We've started by paying an instalment of 25%. That enables people to start the fiscal year without having to apply for lines of credit at the bank and things like that. In the past five or six years we've started making these advances to groups that receive programming. When we move to a $75,000 grant, that means that all the groups receiving $75,000 or less have a lot fewer accounts and reports to submit, which already represents a lighter workload. The department will no doubt draw on the expert report of the blue ribbon panel on grants and contributions to determine how we can simplify accountability.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The provinces are major players. How do they take part in negotiations? Did the passage of what was called Bill S-3 at the time change the agreements, philosophy, vision or actions?

I'll stop at that point and turn the floor over to you.

[Hubert Lussier]

To answer your first question, I would say that the provinces are not party to these agreements. However, the provinces are reflected in them to the extent that the priorities that the communities set for themselves have a lot to do with the provinces' ability to work with them, particularly as regards the supply of services. It may be a priority for the community to develop better service delivery capability with the provinces. That will be recognized in the agreement, but the parties to the agreements are not the provinces.

I'm going to answer your second question. Even though the agreements were created when Bill S-3 had just barely been drafted or was being developed, they embody a number of the principles of that bill, that is to say the new Part VII concerning the Canadian Heritage's duty to play its role of assisting the federal institutions in supporting the communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

Do you have any further comments, Mr. Lafontaine?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

We see that the federal councils, which are institutions in each province and consist of the senior officials of every federal department established in the territory, are aware of the fact that the departments have new responsibilities now that Bill S-3 has been passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I thank Mr. Rodriguez and our witnesses.

Mr. Nadeau, go ahead, please.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Lussier. I would like to say a number of things in the spirit of what Mr. Rodriguez said earlier about the organizations we have had occasion to meet in the course of a lot of past meetings to discuss various topics. Certain aspects come up often.

The Canada-community agreements, which are now called the collaboration agreements, started in the early 1990s, when Lucien Bouchard was secretary of state. If I remember correctly, the first agreement was signed with Saskatchewan. Is that correct?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Yes. That was in 1988.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It was in 1988. At the time, what was the spirit of the agreements? Why were those agreements introduced? Does the major objective of the agreements still reflect the situation today?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Historically, Saskatchewan is a separate case. The agreements were established in the context of the constitutional negotiations that had been conducted, and Saskatchewan and Alberta expressed a desire to recognize the official languages. It was not until 1991 or 1992 that we began to look at what were called the Canada-community agreements at the time. The purpose was to have a new way of working with the communities.

Previously, when it was the secretary of state and subsequently Canadian Heritage, since 1993... It was the department that received the applications from the various groups. It conducted analyses and did an arbitrary job. The communities did not participate directly in priority-setting. The communities had to be allowed to get involved in the process of analyzing their priority needs. The Canada-community agreements operated over a two-year cycle. The collaboration agreements were established more recently.