Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Well, in that case, there was a need, because we know that the cultural infrastructure programs contribute directly to the economy and to economic activity, more broadly. So this was a good project for an economic stimulus package, but on top of that, we could do it quickly, because we had existing programs.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Again, at the risk of repeating myself....

I apologize, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, you're a little over time.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

My life story, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There you go.

We'll go to Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll share my time with Mr. Del Mastro.

Ms. Lavallée explained that a group had applied in the fall and heard back in the spring. Perhaps the application was being judged on merit, or that's what I can see; sometimes things are in after the deadline.

Could you just explain the process?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

I don't know the specifics of that particular case, so it's hard to comment on it.

I can tell you, though, that I don't want to be in a situation where somebody applies and.... If they're clearly not admissible, they need to know that quickly. If they're admissible, we need to treat it as quickly as we can while balancing the need for service to the clients with the appropriate stewardship of public money.

We can do better. I'm not promising that there won't be another 18-month wait or 14-month or whatever it is; I didn't do the actual calculation. I can't say that. But we will be working to eliminate and reduce those as much as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll go to Mr. Gourde, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let's look at the steps in processing funding requests for programs, from non- profit organizations organizing festivals, etc. After having filled out the application form, the organization sends it in. Then, the program officer receives it and forwards an acknowledgement of receipt.

However, time elapses between the acknowledgement of receipt and the final response, be it positive or negative. When it is positive, it usually doesn’t cause a problem. When it is negative, people often ask us why they did not make it through the process, because no one called them to tell them what part of their application was problematic.

When the officer receives the application, if he finds something wrong, does he automatically communicate with the organization? Or does he set the form aside to consider the other applications and perhaps decide to make phone calls after the fact? Or, does he call people further on in the process?

Let's assume that an officer denies an organization's request. The organization may only receive the denial a month before the event is to be held. While they are waiting for a response, heads of organizations wonder whether or not they will be receiving the funding. Why, if there is a refusal, would that information not be communicated more quickly? In that way, people could try to strike some kind of balance or plan their programming based on a knowledge that the funding had been denied.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

With regard to program delivery as a whole, program officers do not set aside and shelve applications because of a missing document; they try to obtain the information. As my colleague said earlier, by further computerizing the exchange of information, we will be in a better position to immediately identify the missing elements of an application. It is a bit like when you file your tax return online or apply for a passport. There are ways of computerizing that exchange.

On the ground, whether it be in our regional offices or here, when the programs are delivered from our offices in Gatineau, there is a constant exchange of information with our clients.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

In the acknowledgement of receipt, it could be stated that the application has been received, that it is compliant, that it meets the program requirements, and that it is making its way through the process.

Would you not agree?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

It is not always possible to state, at that early stage of the process, that an application meets the requirements, and that goes for all programs.

Earlier I gave the example of the Canada Book Fund. The funding of that program is based on previous year sales. Therefore, we can inform some applicants that they have provided us with all the information needed to do the calculations, but they will not receive an answer until everyone's information has been inputted into the calculation and we have applied the formula to the overall amount.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Organizations are often asked for the current year's financial statements. This year, with some programs, people had to get their 2010 applications in by September 2009, even though bank statements would only be available in January or February 2010, and they also had to provide statements for the previous year. The process therefore covers a three-year period.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

With a number of programs, we stopped asking for audited financial statements because that represented an excessive burden, given the amount of the grant and contribution. We settled that problem by eliminating that requirement.

That is why I said earlier that we were reviewing our corporate processes. That goes well beyond making sure that... We will not continue to require the same load of paperwork; we will reduce it in order to increase program effectiveness. In order to do so, we will have to conduct a risk assessment looking at how to properly manage public funds and provide clients with an acceptable level of service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, last questions, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I've met many of the heritage department staff who are out in the field. You hire people who really know their files. They are very professional. They know their portfolio very well. I meet many of the arts presenters. They are very professional. They wouldn't be in business if they weren't. As someone who's played most of the music festivals across the country, I can say that being lackadaisical about details will put you out of business very quickly, and you'll never work with people again.

I'm trying to understand--between the professionalism that you have on your staff and what we see with the presenters--the huge delays that happened. It happened after a change of government; Bev Oda came in. Now, there is going to be prioritizing of priorities, but now we're four or five years into this nightmare with the Conservatives, and we're still seeing the backups.

Mr. Blais, you were saying that part of the problem with the minister is that he has to get up to speed, the minister's staff don't know the files, there is a need for them to be more knowledgeable and more efficient. It seems to me that the problem here is that you can set up all the action plans you want, but God help us if there's a cabinet shuffle. Do we then go back to square one on this?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

No, because it's our role as public servants to plan for those eventualities as well--which are more and more often these days--and to make sure we have systems in place that are more efficient.

You won't hear me put this blame in the office of the minister. Until we've done our job as public servants, that's not fair. That's not right. And we can do better.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm dealing with presenters, a person is writing to me. It took ten months for their turnaround. That was one of many. Most of their shows had already been presented and they had to take out loans to cover them off. They said that for them, the situation is inexcusable, that if they had operated their business like this, their doors would have closed long ago.

So they're obviously laying questions about credibility here.

On October 19 I received a message from a U.S. buyer who was supposed to come to Canada to sign up a number of Canadian acts. He said he gave up, that he had been sending the same information again and again, that his role with artists' managers was such that he believed that when things are messed up at the beginning, they are going to continue to be messed up. So he decided not to participate. He said it seemed clear that Heritage doesn't see the benefit of engaging with the buyers.

This was one of apparently a number of U.S. buyers who just walked because they were tired of trying to get through the process.

You have an action plan, but you guys have been doing this for years. What's going on? The credible buyers are walking away from buying Canadian talent because they just can't get through the process.

I'm not seeing here how that's going to be addressed. It seems there is a more fundamental problem.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

I don't know the specifics of that particular case, but perhaps we can speak about it offline so we can follow up.

There were controversial events a few years back that have profoundly affected the willingness of officials, of program officers at all levels, in regard to taking risks. The due diligence became undue, and the blue ribbon panel was set up precisely to tell people that the.... And when I talk of risk, I'm not talking about dishonesty. I'm talking about how there is a proper risk to make mistakes in good faith and we should be accepting that in the process.

We are in a considerably important cultural change, not just in the department but across government, in embracing change with respect to risk taking. We're in the middle of it. We will do better. As I said earlier, I don't think I can promise that in every case there won't be...but we will do better because the leaders of the public service have said, “We have to do better to support our teams and our staff to embrace that risk”. That's all I can tell you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

If there's time, I just have a brief intervention for the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Make it very brief, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

First of all, there's a current song, a popular song that Mr. Angus may have heard: whether it's “a sweet dream or a beautiful nightmare”, either way, I don't care.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!