Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to be here today to talk to you about FCFA's perspective on the collaboration agreements. As I am very much aware of the limited time that is allotted to me, I would like to refer you to the brief that we have submitted, and here I will merely provide an overview of the main issues.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, represents 12 provincial and territorial organizations that currently deal with the federal government under the collaboration agreements. FCFA's membership also includes nine national organizations, some of which also receive support under the Community Life - Cooperation with the Community Sector component of the Official Languages Support Program.
The FCFA therefore plays a support role for its provincial and territorial members in the implementation of the agreements and a liaison role with the department's national office. It works to increase the awareness of the administrative and political machinery to the need for greater investment in order to enable community organizations to better serve their clientele. We also work with the department identifying agreement implementation issues and examining other collaboration models that could meet needs more effectively.
The component of the Official Languages Support Program dedicated to collaboration agreements and support for national organizations representing francophone and Acadian communities has had an annual budget of $27 million since 2005-2006. That amount has been increased by a portion of the $30 million investment over two years, that is only about $3.5 million a year, announced in the 2006 budget.
In anticipation of the renewal of the agreements in 2005, the francophone and Acadian communities put the cost of meeting their minimum needs at $42 million a year. A quick calculation shows a shortfall of $11.5 million that is growing steadily because of the impact of inflation and a higher cost of living on the real value of those amounts.
Those investments represent an extremely important lever for the community institutions and organizations. They provide them with a funding base that they can use to form other partnerships and look for other sources of funding to support their community.
Here are some of the main impacts of the funding shortfall. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the communities to meet the growing public demand for services, activities and programs in French, and the communities are facing a large number of burn-out cases and experiencing difficulty renewing their leadership. You've heard some of my colleagues mention that to you.
In early spring 2007, the FCFA, with the support of Canadian Heritage, conducted a consultation aimed specifically at identifying the challenges involved in implementing the collaboration agreements and possible short- and medium-term solutions.
Except for the level of investment issue, which was not on the agenda during those discussions, and which we've just talked about, we can sum up the consensus on problems related to the agreements in three broad categories: first, a step backward in terms of control and autonomy; second, administrative burden in terms of both application processes and accountability; and, third, the need for a more flexible approach that meets the unique development needs and situations of each provincial or territorial community.
Let's start with the issue of control and autonomy. One of the biggest changes brought about by the collaboration agreements was the elimination of joint committees. Under the Canada-community agreements, the community and the department discussed and jointly decided on funding recommendations, but the collaboration agreements call for the creation of a community recommendation committee. The communities view this change from a decision-making body to a purely advisory body as a major step backward that gives the department the freedom to independently review applications and make funding decisions that could ultimately be at odds with the communities’ recommendations. The communities fully understand ministerial prerogative, but some also go so far as to question the role and the real importance of funding recommendation committees because their impression is that the Department of Canadian Heritage will act alone regardless.
Second, administrative load and delays are major irritants for the communities and community organizations. Since the Policy on Transfer Payments was adopted in 2000, the department has undertaken a full review of the way it deals with community organizations. The new imposed procedures have significantly increased the amount of time organizations have to spend on funding applications and reporting and have also increased processing times for applications and delayed the issuing of cheques. The communities fully appreciate the importance of accountability. However, they would like to see more flexibility and decisions based on real risk management rather than arbitrary and universal rules.
Lastly, since we're talking about greater flexibility, it must be emphasized that, despite the consensus on the main themes applicable to all francophone and Acadian community organizations, the day-to-day reality of each organization is anchored in its particular geographic, political, cultural and social circumstances. It is important that the department take these differences into account in designing its programs. Together with the department, the FCFA is currently overseeing a study to identify other collaboration models that would enable the communities to progress at their own rate while meeting departmental accountability requirements.
In closing, we will say that it is essential to identify the mechanisms that will make it possible to meet the challenges involved in implementing the collaboration agreements, particularly as regards better recognition, in practice, of the symmetry of needs and realities, better control by the community of its own development and a lighter administrative burden in terms of management and accountability processes. The federal government must also act quickly to stabilize the organizations' funding and to put in place measures that will enable it to work with the communities in future to evaluate and adjust investments as needs require.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.