Official Languages Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

All right. That's the genesis of the agreements, and today we see the objective.

One of the aspects that comes up often is the matter of the organizations' human resources, something that Mr. Rodriguez talked about. The organizations have a given objective, regardless of what it is. It's recognized and funds are granted. I was president of an organization that received funding under the Canadian Heritage agreements at the time and still receives it. I know that one of the problems that arises is that the salaries and duties of development officers don't meet our expectations.

I'll give you a concrete example. A qualified person starts the work. That person is asked to perform a large number of tasks. The first thing we learn—and I'm not even exaggerating in saying this—is that that person winds up as a regional employee at Canadian Heritage or at a provincial department that partly met the needs. It's not that community work doesn't interest that person, but the salary was inadequate.

How can we retain these development officers and enable them to really work on community development, while lightening the administrative burden that stems from the contribution agreements, which increase the organizations' administrative load?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

I can answer that question. Having worked in the community network myself, I am very familiar with the problem of retaining employees who are not paid as well as they should be for the work they do.

I think that's always a challenge. We would definitely like the employees of the community organizations to be well paid. Budget envelopes obviously exist. This is always a challenge. We're not necessarily opposed to the idea that these people working for these organizations eventually take up other duties in different ways. They may become public servants, work for provincial governments and so on.

In fact, there is a kind of mobility. The community sector will definitely never be able to compete with the government sector on compensation, for example. There are definitely other ways to encourage employee retention, but, for the moment, we're working with the funding we have. We're not the ones who set the salaries granted to people who work in the community sector.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So there has to be a political will in that regard.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Talk about political will.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

No, I'm well aware of that.

Every year, you must perform duties related to evaluations, even though certain major agreements are spread over a number of years.

What mechanism do you offer the communities to ensure that the applications are in order, obviously, and that they can be forwarded? How do you operate with the communities in that regard?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

I'll explain to you how that works in practice. A collaboration agreement exists between the four Atlantic provinces and us. Let's take New Brunswick, for example. Every year, the community and the department warn that programming or project applications must be submitted before a given date. The Department of Canadian Heritage receives the applications and analyzes them. It does the administrative work, not the community. It's really the Department of Canadian Heritage that does the administrative support work for the recommendation committee.

The rest is shared. Each community determined how it wanted its recommendation committee. Often it's the people who are not at all associated with the organizations who receive funding, to keep a certain distance. So it's the wise ones, if you will, who are selected by the community and to whom responsibility is delegated for conducting an initial evaluation/assessment of the amounts that could be allocated to such and such an organization, to such and such a project.

Then it's submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which examines the file. Honestly, few changes are made to the recommendations. That's subsequently recommended to the minister, and she makes the final decision as to the amounts of money that the organizations will receive.

The community is thus a participant in this process.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Since I don't have a lot more time, I'd like to talk about long-term projects. A school-community centre is a long-term project compared, for example, to an annual festival. They are different projects.

How do you operate for long-term projects? Can you plan for the next 5 or 10 years, for example? I know that, when we talk about schools, that's not just the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage and there are other important players.

How is all that done? Can we improve things in that area?

[Hubert Lussier]

Yes, there is room for improvement, as in many other aspects of our relationship. We absolutely recognize that.

But, first, I would simply like to add, to supplement what my colleague said, that some provinces don't have a recommendation committee. That's the case of some communities in Ontario and Quebec, in particular. They simply choose to tell us their priorities, even if it means that the Department of Canadian Heritage alone makes the recommendations to the minister.

Is there room for improvement? Yes. It is up to the communities, and to us, to target priorities more specifically. It's sometimes very hard, when you have 12 major priorities, to say that you're going to focus on three of them over the next five years.

In the case of costly projects, such as school-community centre projects, that does require a longer development period. Before finalizing the project, the Department of Canadian Heritage normally funds a feasibility study through the programs we're talking about today, until the province and the federal government agree on the project's development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lussier. We'll come back to that.

Mr. Godin, it's your turn.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses, Mr. Lussier and Mr. Lafontaine. It's not Mr. Fontaine, who is now the rector of the Université de Moncton. I called you Mr. Fontaine; I had forgotten the "La" somewhere. I welcome you.

I don't know whether the question has been asked. How does your department decide who will get the most, among, for example, New Brunswick, Nunavut, Yukon, British Columbia and Quebec? What are the criteria?

[Hubert Lussier]

There are a number of types of criteria. If it were simply a pro-rated distribution based on population, we wouldn't have the figures we currently have. There's a whole cocktail of factors, including demographics. There are also issues relating to geographic dispersion. A small, widely dispersed community will score points: we realize that there are density problems, as a result of which they have to be given more support. There are factors such as the community's institutional maturity. A community that lives in a province that has a strong institutional apparatus that supports it in the area of health at the provincial and municipal level won't have the same needs as another community that is still at a much earlier stage in its development. We weigh factors. In addition to that, there is a kind of funding history. It's true that the percentages have changed since the start of this decade. There were increases at the end of the 1990s that were not equal for everyone, but, since 2000, increases have been made by adding the same percentage for everyone.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Let's look at the criticisms we've received from the communities. One of the complaints we get concerns funding uncertainty, which troubles people. Mr. Lafontaine, you say that 25% of funding is allocated pending the grants.

Will they get the remaining 75%? That goes further, unless they didn't tell the truth. Some tell us they're required to get lines of credit, loans. How can you get organized when you don't know in advance what's coming? I believe that's what they're trying to say. In the meantime, what's standing in the way? Is it the political or administrative machinery? Can it be improved on the administrative end?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

I think that—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Or else is it simply because the cheque isn't written?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Honestly, I think that—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Here you have to be honest.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

For example, when I talk about the 25% that is advanced to the organizations, they have to send us back a signed letter, in late March or early April, saying that they have submitted a request and are prepared to abide by the funding terms and conditions. However, I note that some organizations send us the letter in the first week of April, others at the end of April, whereas others haven't yet sent it.

Then it's hard to say that the funding hasn't been released because of us. All that to say that we're still trying, as hard as we can, to meet funding requests as quickly as possible.

The multi-year route is another way to go. Some organizations have started using multi-year funding. That means that, instead of submitting a request every year, they do so every two or three years. It can be approved in principle, provided they send us reports. It's a lot easier if we've done multi-year funding over three years. That provides something predictable. They can know that there won't be... Unless the organization stops operating, unless it's no longer accountable.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

In its testimony, SAANB said, unless I'm mistaken, that it made a request in January, that other reports had to be filed in July and that the funding didn't arrive until January, and that it had to be spent before the end of March. I think that's contrary to common sense.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

You have to draw a distinction between annual programming, which enables organizations to operate, and projects. In the case of projects, there have indeed been delays. We accept responsibility for the delays. In many cases, projects were filed in October. It took time for them to be analyzed and recommended. That's possible. We can vastly improve the turnaround time for projects.

However, with regard to programming, we have systems in place that enable the organizations... With respect to the organizations that say they aren't sure they will have the same funding, we can examine the data for the past three or four years. There hasn't been that much variation in the funding that the organizations receive for their programming. Sometimes, some receive less because the community itself says it isn't satisfied with their performance and that certain amounts should be transferred from one organization to another. That happens, but that may represent 5% of cases, at most. There's a big variation from year to year.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Does that come from Canadian Heritage or Health Canada?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

From Health Canada.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Earlier we talked about how you determine where you'll invest. How can Canadian Heritage justify Quebec receiving $3.5 million to celebrate Canada Day on July 1, New Brunswick $110,000, and Ontario, which has two to four million more inhabitants, only $900,000? How can you explain that to the communities?

[Hubert Lussier]

You would have to invite my colleagues who manage that program. We didn't take part in the design of the Celebration program you're alluding to.