Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Pablo Sobrino]

No, no, the minister also has that same due diligence requirement. The minister has the authority to sign. The minister is the one who's accountable for the programs.

Generally, the minister's office is looking at issues such as whether it is meeting program requirements, and whether we've dotted all the i’s and crossed the t’s in terms of managing risk.

The thing that slows us down most is the actual management of risk. That is one of the big pieces we're putting in place.

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

And it slows down at the minister's desk, where the 4,000 reports are sitting?

[Pablo Sobrino]

It's across the entire department. We have to manage risk by putting a system in place where we are able to separate the low-risk clients from the higher-risk clients. And by “risk” I mean is that client going to be able to deliver on the objectives of the program that's been set out by the government?

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

Again, I'm failing to see this. I could see a new government coming in and wanting to make sure it's not making any mistakes, but you're dealing with very professional presenters who you deal with every year. We have 4,000 applications sitting on the minister's desk, and you're looking at every one of them in terms of a risk threat. Again, I would think that most of the risk assessments would have been done before they get there.

I talked with presenters who said it took 10 months for approval. Most of the project was done. They were told that the delay was on the minister's desk.

That's not accountability, as far as I can see.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Mr. Angus, I have to dispute your picture of saying there are 4,000 files sitting on the minister's desk. That's just not true.

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

You said there were 4,000 files and he sees every one of them, and they're reviewed--

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

That's different from saying that they're sitting on his desk.

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

They could be in some briefcase.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

There is a process. In our system, the minister is ultimately accountable. He has the authorities. It is absolutely legitimate for him, or through a system, or through his office, to put in place to look at certain issues. That is our system.

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

I know, but he also has to get them out in a timely manner.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Absolutely, but what I'd like you to understand is that I think it's unfair to say that all the problems in the system, which starts from a request at the beginning, all the way to the ultimate approval from the minister, all the delays, lie at one place, at one desk. They are throughout the system.

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

No, I brought it up because you didn't mention it in terms of the various strategies, and until we address it, we have a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, your time has expired.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today for giving us some further information on a number of changes that are obviously going to make a significant difference for our important arts and cultural sector across the country.

One of the reasons that today's meeting is timely is that it gives department officials, yourselves, the opportunity to talk specifically about a number of changes you're putting in place. I'm glad to hear they're proceeding well.

I'm going to try to zone in on some of those changes.

First, though, I'd like to talk a bit about how PCH was initially selected to essentially be a vanguard agency, and also the process for becoming part of this specific identification and this blue ribbon panel, the results of that. Could you give us more specific items as to what the results were?

Maybe you could just start by talking about why PCH was identified.

[Pablo Sobrino]

Canadian Heritage was selected as one of the six vanguard departments, as they're called, because of the high volumes of grants and contributions and this diverse array of programs that we have.

As Jean-Pierre mentioned, from the small not-for-profit organizations to the large corporations in the cultural field, that diversity is one of the reasons they chose us. They also asked Indian Affairs, Transport Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and I'm trying to remember the last one. Those six departments were chosen for that reason, and the reason they chose those departments was to look at the processes.

When the blue ribbon panel went across the country, they heard from many witnesses who had exactly the same issues that you've raised, which are the delays in processing grants and contributions, the difficulty that clients are experiencing in terms of reporting, the non-standard application process. So one organization may apply to three different kinds of programs with three completely different forms and totally different requirements.

The blue ribbon panel came out with a number of recommendations, and the recommendations were simply to communicate better, to get away from a risk-averse kind of culture in terms of the treatment of files, so that you are just managing the risks, and to simplify the processes.

It raised the issue about errors in applications, for instance. One of the projects we have under way right now is to be able to apply online for grants and contributions. I'll use an example. When you fill out your passport form now, the system checks to make sure your information is going in properly. Well, essentially, that same kind of service is what we want to provide our clients, so that when they input the information the first time, it's the right information. As well, for that client who has previously applied, we already have a lot of information, so it's to reuse that information and have it verified by the client in a future application.

So that's the front-end piece, which is to get all the information right. There's the service standard piece, which is to communicate to our client on how we're doing in terms of getting the process through. And in terms of risk management, it's asking the questions that you need to actually manage the risk, as opposed to just trying to go to a zero tolerance for the risk process.

That change in culture across all departments was really one of the things the blue ribbon panel was looking at.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes, that's a good change in the cultural view of the department, to move from the perception of guilty until proven innocent, which sometimes you can run into when you're faced with these applications. I think that's a great change.

Where do you think you are in terms of the implementation? Perhaps you're not in the implementation yet. Where in this process are you?

Based on some of the inquiries we've had from the opposition members on these topics, I think it's quite pertinent to understand just how far along the department is in making these internal changes to improve the system.

[Pablo Sobrino]

We've made quite a bit of progress. There are three significant steps. One of the things we had as a model department already was a grants and contributions centre of expertise. Essentially, all 37 and 48 subprograms can have one place to try to get consistent processing, a consistent approach to treatments of recommendations, consistent treatment of application of standards, those kinds of things. So that's the centre of expertise, and a number of other departments have now modelled themselves after that. So that's in place.

The next area of focus has been the risk management framework. We've developed a whole number of risk management tools for the department, from risk management at the corporate level right down to the individual file level.

Just a month and a half ago we had a large national training session for all our program officers--over 500 program officers--where we taught them on the use of the tool, which is the program risk accountability mechanism.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

No, you have no more time.

Thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez, please.

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

Thank you.

Are recipients consulted on ways to solve the problems? Can they suggest improvements, and participate in the discussion?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Yes. During the course of the program renewal cycles, we do broader consultations, but we can adjust the program's guidelines annually. We consult with recipients at that time.

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

You do so through a questionnaire?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

When the programs are delivered regionally, the recipients are obviously close by and we use our regional offices to see what they are thinking. On top of that, we have annual consultation mechanisms. In the book sector, for example, we invite publishers who benefit from the Book Publishing Industry Development Program in order to determine what adjustments need to be made. In fact, we have changed some of our practices in light of this.

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

Could you please explain to us—I want to understand this correctly, so I'm going to go back a bit—the process of project approval? Is there a set date for all programs or do the dates change according to the different programs?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Every program and even every program component will have its own service standard.