Thank you very much for having us.
A question was asked on whether all the agreements were the same. They're not, because the agreements all follow the same general framework for parts 1, 2, and 3, but they are quite different in parts 4 and 5. They are, however, adapted to each of the communities involved and are symmetric in the following areas: development of objectives and priorities, the manner in which community networks consult, and the structure of communities that also make recommendations on the funding.
The question is what will happen after the present cycle of collaboration agreements. A number of tools will sustain the department's thinking, in particular the 2007 mid-term report for which the communities were involved in evaluating the collaboration agreements. A formal summative evaluation of the official language support programs will also be complete in the fall of 2008. The report of the standing committee, to which you belong, will also make recommendations this fall.
Critical comments have also been made on interdepartmental governance by the various standing committees on official languages, both that of the House of Commons and that of the Senate, and by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
We will also analyze current federal government practices with respect to financial refereeing and funding transfer mechanisms. There will also be criticism from recent university studies on how we can improve community development and governance.
The first meeting will also be held in June 2008 with the community spokespersons of the francophone community network outside Quebec and of the anglophone community to begin discussions on the period following the agreements.
Lastly, it would be good to emphasize that we have heard a lot of things about the agreements and their administration. It is nevertheless important to emphasize that progress has been made in the past few years on the administrative side of these agreements. We'll mention three such instances here.
First, all groups receiving annual funding may receive 25% interim funding at the start of the year. That enables them, very shortly after April 1, to actually receive 25% of the total amount, which represents three months of operation so they can continue operating without interruption.
We also encourage organizations to submit multi-year requests. That started two or three years ago, and some community organizations have now received funding for two or three years. This offers them some stability and continuity and enables them, to a certain degree, to plan the amounts they may receive.
We've also recently raised the threshold for allocation of grants to $75,000. It is much simpler, easier and less complicated for the organizations to provide a report on a grant than one on a contribution agreement since there are fewer regulations and obligations.
My colleague and I have merely provided an overview, but we are prepared to answer your questions.