Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 29th, 2006

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I want to begin by addressing the follow-the-money component of the Accountability Act by pointing out that it will, in the long run, lead to fewer encumbrances imposed on groups that receive grants and contributions. Audits and audit functions, if they're done properly, actually reduce the amount of paperwork that needs to be accomplished. For example, Revenue Canada reduces the amount of work taxpayers have to do by conducting periodic audits. If there were no such thing as an audit, every single taxpayer would have to file every single receipt for every single filing they make, but because we have an auditor who moves randomly, the taxpayers have to assume that they should file honestly.

The same goes for the kinds of groups that you represent. Giving the Auditor General the ability to follow the money in the rare instances where she has detected a problem means, in the long run, that the government will not need to impose as many administrative burdens on the groups you represent.

The previous Liberal government brought in place a bible of new...actually, a bible would be too modest, because it was far thicker than a Bible; it was more like a Talmud of rules. I have groups all over my constituency who talk about the enormous amount of administration they have to do simply to file for a grant or a contribution.

Do you agree with the approach of the Accountability Act, which is to increase the strength of the audit function while reducing the massive administrative burden imposed on your organizations by the previous government?

[Teri Kirk]

Absolutely. The spirit of what you've articulated is highly consistent with what we're presenting to you today.

To the extent that it's hard for recipient organizations to comply, it is extra hard for recipient organizations in our sector to comply, because they're very small. They hire people who are specialized in delivering front-line services, often to high-risk individuals, and are not necessarily very expert at filling out all the forms. They often don't have the financial software packages. They are being asked to complete audits and processes using financial software they don't have, let alone computers.

So it is an area of tremendous concern to our sector, and certainly the spirit of what you articulate is exactly consistent with our views.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'd like to cede the remainder of my time to Ms. Joy Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. It is very insightful and gratifying to see Canada's community non-profit sector so alive and well in our country.

There is one question I do have. As you're probably quite aware, this bill is not intent on putting more rules on the public service, but rather to enforce the rules that are there and to make things more seamless. From your experience and from what is coming into being right now, can you comment on how this would support the non-profit sector in a very meaningful way?

You made comment earlier in your presentation that you did support the bill. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

[Teri Kirk]

I'll declare, if you promise not to hold it against me, that I'm a lawyer, and so I'm at ease, shall we say, that sometimes the real test of a law is in its application. So the spirit of the language is something we're extremely comfortable with, and really the test will be, over time, the extent to which these words are given meaning. That's why we are very pleased to see an accountability action plan, which accompanies the bill, and the striking of a committee whose mandate would be to go and breathe life into these words.

We look forward to working with the committee. The sector is extremely supportive that the committee exist and the quality leadership there.

The test will be the extent to which the grants and contributions committee can come back with some very meaningful changes. Fixes to just the flow of grants and contributions is important, but if government wants to be seen to be successful in really dealing with the 10- to 12-year demise in funding to the sector and the enormous erosion of infrastructure, it will have to look more broadly than just at fixing grants and contributions and look at some longer-term funding solutions.

I've thrown out a few ideas. I think it's appropriate for a parliamentary committee. We haven't had a parliamentary committee on this important sector in decades.

I happen to like the idea of a foundation that takes funding outside of government, to a certain extent, that might be endowed through consolidated revenue but be a maple leaf kind of foundation that mirrors, to certain extent, the Trillium Foundation or the Wild Rose Foundation, that could complement grants and contributions and contracts over at PWGSC by providing some stable national funding for the sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

The Liberal caucus has five minutes.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I think that's me, not the whole caucus.

I certainly have a question, Ms. Kirk. Thank you very much for being here.

Ms. Kirk, several months ago, HRDC, as it was known at that time, went through a process of reassessing contracts with community-based organizations. It was a real schmozzle. On page 12 of your document--the accord and codes--you relate all the things that came out of that process to improve it: more streamlined administration, improved call for proposal process, a fairness adviser, a fair practices resolution mechanism, a joint steering committee, and an undertaking to publish an annual public report on consistency with the accord and codes.

Regarding your recommendations at the end of your report under grants and contributions, procurement, sector infrastructure, and government accountability, it seems to me that if there was a generic application of the accord and codes within the context of those improvements, most of your recommendations would be covered. You state, and I quote from your report here: “However, “take-up” of the Accord and Codes across the Government of Canada has been inconsistent at best.”

I guess mine is a systemic question. How can we make sure this framework, through the Accountability Act, is distributed right across government departments?

[Teri Kirk]

Yes, we are supporters of the accord and the codes. A tremendous effort was put into negotiating these a number of years ago. They were signed off by the Prime Minister of Canada, not in a partisan or narrow way, but to commit the Government of Canada and the sector. Service Canada does provide an example of an organization that has lived and breathed everything that people anticipated. But they are voluntary. If you did a survey of deputies and ADMs and program directors, I think you'd find that very few use the accords and codes in that way.

Our recommendation is that the accord and codes be adopted at the Treasury Board level, which is responsible for guidelines that govern administrative procedures for the government as a whole, instead of it being up to individual departments, and that it become part of the government's accountability framework under the action plan so that the funding practices and policy dialogues would move forward.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Is that what you mean, under grants and contributions, by streamlining applications for it as agreed by Treasury Board? Is that your recommendation?

[Teri Kirk]

No. The issue about the accord and codes is under recommendation 4, which is the accountability framework. What we're really saying is that we agree with the spirit of the act, that there should be an overall accountability framework. It deals with issues such as the government not going forward with policies for the sector without consulting with the sector.

The government doesn't have to start from scratch here. There are some very good documents in place that are being used and are working well.

So let's have Treasury Board sign off, demonstrate that the new government is equally committed, and reissue them government-wide.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Such as the accord and codes.

[Teri Kirk]

Exactly.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

And thank you, Ms. Kirk. You've given an excellent presentation. We appreciate your coming and giving us a different view.

The committee will take a short break while we prepare for the next witness.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have two groups before us this afternoon that I will introduce. We have the Public Affairs Association of Canada: Elaine Flis, who is the president; and Chris Benedetti, who is the past-president. We have the Canadian Council of Chief Executives: the executive vice-president, who is David Stewart-Patterson; and the vice-president, regulatory affairs, and general counsel, John Dillon.

The committee welcomes you and we look forward to your presentations. Each group will give a brief presentation, and if you've been sitting here, you have seen that there will be questions from each caucus. So thanks again. We look forward to hearing from you.

[Elaine Flis, President, Public Affairs Association of Canada]

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm Elaine Flis, president of the Public Affairs Association of Canada. My colleague is Chris Benedetti, the association's past-president.

The Public Affairs Association of Canada is a national not-for-profit organization founded in 1984. PAAC's growing membership represents a cross-section of the many disciplines involved in public affairs, including policy development, government relations, communications, opinion research and public relations.

I want to say first and foremost that the Public Affairs—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just a second.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Excuse me for interrupting, but could you possibly speak a little more slowly to allow the interpreters to keep pace with you?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You're speaking too quickly for the translator.

[Elaine Flis]

Oh, am I? This is my first presentation. Pardonnez-moi.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I do the same thing to Mr. Sauvageau. Both languages are going on, so please speak as slowly as you can. Thank you.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On a point of order, if this is the precise text of what you're going to be saying, maybe a copy of this could be given to the translator.

[Elaine Flis]

I actually only brought an English version. I'm not sure if.... It's up to the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

They are excellent translators and they will do their best.

[Elaine Flis]

And I will do my best at speaking slowly.