Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

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

Is there any way to adapt the filing dates with a view to facilitating the transition with the budget? I understand the challenge you told me about earlier: the budget is tabled in February or March, and if the program is offered immediately following that, there is a problem. However, if there is a lot of time between the two, if everything has been analyzed and there is a deadline, people table their projects, everything is in place, it is conditional on the budget, and once it is passed, we can proceed. Would it not be possible to change the dates?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

We recently renewed our programs in the book, music and arts policy sectors for five years. The problem we are dealing with is a historical one.

Yes, you are right, there might be other ways to proceed. Except that, to do what you propose would sometimes be complicated, because we would have to speak to Treasury Board, and change the terms and conditions.

However, I believe that as far as the future is concerned, as we have stable five-year funding for most of our arts and culture programs, we will be able to make the necessary adjustments. The transition problems are historic.

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

What percentage of the programs are not covered by a five-year agreement?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

The 2% that I mentioned correspond to applications that—

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

No. My question is what percentage of programs are not covered by a five-year agreement, but by shorter-term, annually renewable agreements?

[Pablo Sobrino]

Very few programs are covered by five-year agreements. Normally, we aim for a two- or three-year duration, that is what we are trying to do. The problem affecting the five-year agreements is that the new terms and conditions of the programs are renewed for five years. When we are dealing with an application that comes under a program that has just been renewed, for which the terms and conditions may have changed, the applicant finds himself or herself with a one-year delay, because it takes almost a year, at least a few months, for an application.

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

Can you give me a concrete example of the process followed in the case of a program: the date it is accepted, the timeframe for processing within the department, and then the communications process?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Perhaps I could ask one of my colleagues, Mr. Lemay.

I will give you an example. A few years ago, extra funding was allocated for festivals. It was a new program. There was therefore a decision made within the budget, and summer was coming. The first year, this took time. Mr. Lemay can explain to you how much we improved the process the following year, indeed because we did not have any time constraints.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemay.

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

Could you give me a concrete example of that?

[Michel Lemay, Director General, Citizen Participation Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Yes. There is the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program, which was created to help small local festivals. A number of you know that program because events in your ridings benefit from its assistance. The program was announced in Budget 2007. The Canadian Heritage Minister at the time, Ms. Verner, officially announced the launch of the program in September 2007. We were already in negotiations with Treasury Board in order to obtain the terms and conditions and spending authorities, and we were immediately able to set an application deadline, i.e., January 2008, for events that were about to happen, during the same year for certain anniversaries, and thereafter as of April 1.

Generally, there is a development period when we consider our terms and conditions. And we have to plan the rollout of project assistance. In this case, we were aiming for 2008-2009, which was okay, as funding had already been provided for 2007-2008. We moved fairly quickly, with the authorizations being drawn up at the same time as the funding announcement was made.

We usually need a little more time. Earlier you talked about festival funding. A good number of festivals require a fair bit of time to prepare their events programming for the following summer, and that is why the department has application deadlines that correspond to their needs based on previous years.

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

Does the minister ultimately have some leeway to impose his ideological views? Can he make decisions that are not based on facts, and refuse projects because they go against what he believes in?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

I cannot comment on what the minister's thoughts are; I do not know.

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

Does he have that kind of leeway?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

He can make the decisions he wants, but he is ultimately responsible and accountable for his decisions. The process is subject to terms and conditions. The minister has some leeway with certain programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll go to Mr. Pomerleau, please.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for your presentation.

My question is for either of the witnesses.

One of the findings of the blue ribbon panel's study was that there were often significant delays in many of the programs. Ms. Lavallée also referred to that. During our tour throughout Quebec, the various groups that we met with all said the same thing. We specifically asked them the question because a number of them also received grants from the Quebec government, and we wanted to understand the reason for those delays. We asked them whether the same occurred at the provincial level, and they said that that was not the case. In Quebec, according to them, things seemed to be running smoothly. They were experiencing delays with the federal government.

According to our figures, there are 4,091 grants and contributions files on the desks of various ministers, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage, representing a rate of at least three or four to one. Are those files split evenly among grants and contributions?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

That is difficult to say. The files that are more suitably processed according to the grant mechanism, owing to their level of risk, are often those with which other tools can be used. So the delegation goes into the structure.

A number of strategies can be used to speed up the process. We can improve communications with our clients with regard to their objectives. We can use online forms and the grant mechanism rather than the contribution process. There are other ways as well, such as the delegation of powers to more junior staff in the case of funding under $3,000. That is quite normal in terms of risk assessment.

[Pablo Sobrino]

I don't have the exact figure, but the 2,200 applications that were awarded grants and were under multi-year agreements had all been approved by the minister or by the minister of state. It is good for them also to approve grants.

The 1,400 and 2,300 cases I mentioned are all grants because they represent minimal risk given the amount in question. It may also be that these were individuals who have proven they were high performing athletes.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In theory, given that these cases represent a minimal risk, they should be approved more quickly by the minister's office than others.

You analyze all the applications forwarded to you. When the minister receives the final document, what kind of analysis does he still have to do?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

It is a comprehensive system. The minister is part of the chain of analysis. Because of political circumstances, it must be said that there have been changes in government and ministers. The ministers' offices take some time to understand how programs operate and to know what the expectations are. Political partisanship is not the reason for this. There are reasons why the application remains on the minister's desk for a while. The minister may ask us questions, there is a back and forth, we try to provide explanations.

As the minister gains knowledge and trust, the situation improves. That is perfectly normal. That is how our system works. We should hope that in time, we will reach optimum efficiency, which is not achievable when there are elections every year or ministers change every year and a half. I am not complaining about the political system, but that is the reality for people on the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Be very short.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Expert panels have made recommendations. Even though the minister has discretionary power, will he, to some extent, consider the recommendations, if only those having to do with what he himself will manage? Does he consider that? Because it must be said there are 4,091 of them compared to 1,400...

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Perhaps you should ask this question directly of the minister.

Except that our service standards... We will discuss this with the minister. There is one system, and he will have to be part of the system. Otherwise, we will not accomplish what everyone wants of us. In other words to provide Canadians with a service that is accountable, for which there are checks and balances, without creating excessive delays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Uppal, please.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming and helping us to clarify some of the current concerns that have arisen about grants and contributions, and the process itself.

In our document, it says that you take a little over six months for arts and cultural program grants, as an average. After 2010 and the changes you're proposing, where do we see this going? Can we see it below six months?