Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. Knowing that I couldn't add anything new to the list of complaints you've already received, I preferred this morning to share with you examples of what managing the collaboration agreement and contribution agreements in Newfoundland and Labrador represents for us in terms of time and energy. I also wanted my presentation to be brief, preferring to develop the subject during the question period.
Before coming here, I took the time to read our collaboration agreement carefully. I stopped for a long time at paragraph 17, which recognizes the contribution of the Canadian community sector, which remains, and I quote: “[...] a key provider of services in the minority official language”. The question that comes to mind is this: if we are recognized as a provider of services, shouldn't we be given the necessary tools and resources to be able to provide those services? Let's not forget that the government has ultimate responsibility for official languages. The obligation to provide services falls to it. For decades, the government has shirked that obligation by simply handing it over to the volunteer sector and non-profit organizations, without however giving them, or giving us, the necessary financial resources to do the job. We have never been greedy in our demands. We simply want reasonable financial resources to enable us to carry out our mandate as a “provider of services”.
One of the aspects of the collaboration agreement that it is hard for us to understand is the mechanism for allocating funding to the province. The francophone and Acadian community of Newfoundland and Labrador has a global development plan that the community organizations have developed together. However, the community has no impact on the decision regarding funding for the various programs or projects submitted by it. Instead, authorities have preferred to put in place an evaluation and recommendation committee consisting of people who are well intentioned, I'm sure, but who don't know us, are not active in our community and very probably have not taken the time to read our GDP. And it is they who are asked to make decisions that will affect our resources, our actions and our synergy for one year, by giving them the mandate to decide on our priorities, to determine funding levels and to make decisions that will have an impact on the vitality of and sustainable social change in our community. In our opinion, the community itself is in the best position to understand its needs in order to define priorities and ensure strategic, sustainable social change. We can no longer afford to operate in this manner with an entity that does not communicate with us, that does not come and gather more information, that does not take the trouble to explain its decisions to us.
The section of the collaboration agreement entitled “Canadian Heritage's Responsibilities”, paragraph 179, on page 32, also drew my attention, and I quote: “Canadian Heritage is responsible for determining procedures and tools relating to the presentation and analysis of requests [...] Tools will be developed with due attention to simplifying the administrative requirements [...]” Our collaboration agreement was signed in late October 2004, and to my knowledge, the funding request forms have not changed since they were imposed on us some 15 years ago. Whether it's for one or 10 requests submitted during the year, whether the amount requested is $250,000 or $25,000, the application forms and administrative requirements are the same. Every request must be accompanied by Appendix A, the information in which changes little or not at all during the year, which must be accompanied by the minutes of the annual general meeting, the statutes and by-laws, the latest audited financial statements, and letters of support from partners. Compiling all those documents and completing the information section can take an average of half a day per request.
Here's a concrete example: Appendix B of my organization's operating funding application takes me an average of 15 days to complete, and it takes another 10 days or so, twice a year, to complete the report on results, or, if you will, Appendix F. In the circumstances, can you tell me where you can see the notion of simplifying and a concern to lighten the administrative load? It must be understood that a number of our organizations do not have the human resources at their disposal to complete these applications and are right to find it abnormal that so much time and energy should be spent on completing these forms.
In addition to the collaboration agreement, I also read with a great deal of attention the contribution agreement for our 2007-2009 programming. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Department of Canadian Heritage for making the wise decision in 2007 to grant us a multi-year contribution. This operating method enables us, as managers, to adopt a longer-term vision and to better invest our time and energy. However, it is still unfortunate that we are not granted a small reserve at the end of the year to cover delays in payment by Canadian Heritage. Those delays cost us an average of $15,000 a year in interest charges. That's $15,000 that we can claim from Canadian Heritage, $15,000 that we could, without any problem, invest elsewhere for the benefit of our organizations.
In rereading the contribution agreement, I got stuck on section 12, on page 9, which reads: “Any overpayment remaining owing and unpaid shall carry interest calculated and compounded [...]” So it's completely ironic to read that we could be asked to pay interest if we were late in remitting overpayments, when Canadian Heritage can afford to delay payments, force us to negotiate lines of credit or, as I have had to do myself, advance funds to my organization from my personal line of credit in order to pay our employees' salaries.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to help not only my own, but also all the other official language minority communities in pursuing our mandate as service providers, Canadian Heritage, first and foremost, need only increase the programming support fund, lighten the managerial and administrative load related to the collaboration agreement, ensure that funding is accessible at the start of the fiscal year and ensure that there is a strategic and efficient use of funding to guarantee the vitality of our communities.
Thank you.