Official Languages Committee on Oct. 1st, 2009

[Marie-France Kenny]

No. Some provinces and territories have their own system. In Saskatchewan, for example, there is a committee comprised of members of the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise. That model works very well. In Newfoundland, there was a problem because people said that the committees did not know who they were, yet the committees set the priorities and decided where the money should be invested in a given year.

In other provinces, such as Ontario, Canadian Heritage reviews the applications. There is no committee of experts, which is a good thing because there are so many applications. Communities know what their priorities are. There is a lot of discussion with regard to priorities within the umbrella organization. The organization has a lot of leeway, which is something Canadian Heritage agreed to. This year, that discussion took place and communities were given the flexibility they need in how they managed their priorities and funding.

Usually, the organization was designated... It varied from one province to the next. In certain cases, it was even designated by Canadian Heritage. In Saskatchewan, it was designated by the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, and in Ontario, Canadian Heritage simply looked after the situation.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So it depends on the province where the groups are located. That's my understanding.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Yes. Previously, the decision was taken by the Department of Canadian Heritage. But now, they have told us they want to work with us to find the best way of managing the funding. We are very pleased to be given more leeway.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Organizations operating in a minority situation are in the best position to know what their needs are because they operate on the ground. At one point, there was a lot of paperwork. Do you feel that the Department of Canadian Heritage is listening to you now?

[Marie-France Kenny]

We have always found that the department was open-minded. We understand that certain programs need to be worked on, except that some of them need to be reviewed.

Certainly, the Department of Canadian Heritage listens to us. We have a good working relationship with Heritage officials. They also have to deal with paperwork; we are not the only ones to do so. Red tape is costly to everyone: government and communities. They understand that we need to work together, but nothing has been done in that regard until now. The officials have listened to us, and we have made some suggestions, but we really want to work in partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage to find solutions.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, ladies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Boucher.

Ms. Boucher also happens to be the parliamentary secretary for the Status of Women. You are always welcome here, Ms. Boucher.

We will now move on to Mr. Godin.

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

I would like to hear more about the unfortunate fact that the funding does not reach communities when they need it. For example, an organization might be forced to lay off people or use a line of credit, or even credit cards, which is something I would not do. Maybe that's what they need to do. Perhaps if every organization said that if they did not get the support they need, they would stop their operations, that might put pressure on the government. I know that would not be easy, but something has to change.

Let's take the case of an ongoing project. We are not talking about a new organization which sprung up overnight with a project for July or August. It is clear that the application would be reviewed. I'm thinking long term. You put in an application in December. If we are to be efficient and if the money is to be spent wisely, it does not make sense for a project slated to begin in July or August to receive funding in October. So you have to hurry up and spend the money before the start of your next budget. How much money has to be invested and how much work needs to be done to see the project through? To what extent does this hurt communities? I would like to know.

[Marie-France Kenny]

It hurts a lot. I have to admit that there are several negative consequences, including a high staff turnover. Indeed, doubling our efforts means working twice as hard with the same amount of money. You don't get more money because you waited six months for it, you don't get back the interest you've had to pay, either. There are consequences in terms of finances and human resources, and in terms of the success of the project.

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

I am more interested in the success of the project. It's all very well and good to talk about all of these consequences, but what happens when you do a project, and then simply say that it worked because you got some funding, but that because it was done in October it made no difference? That's what I'm afraid of.

[Marie-France Kenny]

A little earlier, Suzanne talked at length about projects. Our organizations submit projects to compensate for the lack of basic program funding; programs are the way we deliver services to our communities. I will be very direct and frank with you this morning. We carry out projects in our communities. We apply for funding for a project one year and maybe the next, but at some point we are told that the application is not for a project. If a project involves creating a website for an organization, but in the three subsequent years we don't get any funding to update the website, and if we don't have the resources to do it ourselves, the website will remain unchanged for three years. So what impact does the lack of subsequent funding, or an increase in funding, have on the organization?

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

It's not worth having a very lengthy document. We will have to ask the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Ms. Bossé, earlier on you said that there were two groups. Do you have any suggestions? Should the government appoint someone? Should there be a coordinator to oversee the whole thing? If one operates in eastern Canada and the other in western Canada, I'm sorry, but they won't talk to each other. Shouldn't there be one person to bring all of these things together and indicate what the needs are in each community?

[Suzanne Bossé]

As far as governance is concerned, the FCFA is very open to the idea of meeting with Heritage officials. Better yet, why wouldn't the Privy Council not coordinate all the programs which are delivered to minority official language communities? This certainly calls for an overall perspective. It would be very important to understand why there is this dichotomy within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Why are projects and programs reviewed by two different departments and two assistant deputy ministers? If we looked at that and at risk management, I think we could make a lot of progress.

There has also been staff turnover in regional offices. It is not only happening in our communities. I believe the Department of Canadian Heritage is looking at this situation right now, because it could have serious consequences. However, there is a potential number of specific solutions which would be easy to identify, and which could easily be discussed around one table. We have approached the OLSPB, and we have asked for the creation of a joint committee comprised of representatives of the FCFA and government. The door is open to discussions, and we are very pleased about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.

We will now begin our third round with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks you, Ms. Bossé and Ms. Kenny. Ms. Kenny, congratulations on your appointment.

You said that the Department of Canadian Heritage seems to be listening to you. It's one thing to be listening, but it's another to get results. It's all very well and good for departmental officials to say that they also have to deal with red tape, but it was not members of Parliament who created the ton of paperwork you have to fill out. Officials from the department have to show leadership and reduce the paper burden. They complain that the process is complicated, but they are the ones who have to streamline the process.

You have to fill out several forms, and often it is volunteers who do the work. Some organizations may have several employees, but others do not. Therefore, volunteers are found to fill out the ton of paperwork, and the situation is made much worse because there is no guarantee that the funding will come through.

I talked about achieving results. You said that some organizations are not able to deliver services to Canadians. Three problems were mentioned. First, the time an organization has to wait to receive confirmation of funding. Second, the loss of employees because of this wait. Third, services could naturally not be delivered if organizations don't hear from the government in six months or longer.

On top of all of these problems, when an organization has not received confirmation, especially when the wait exceeds six months and there remain only five or six months before year-end, when the organization receives confirmation, followed by the funding, it might have to hire people to compensate for the previous loss of employees, and it might not be able to provide the service or the program to Canadians.

The government sends you money and then reminds you that it's December 31, so don't forget to pay it back. It's as if it was asking you, since you finally got the money, not to “bug“ it anymore, but not to forget to pay it back. It looks good on paper when funding has been given, but it would be interesting to look at the government's books and see how much funding had to be returned by organizations because they received their confirmation much too late, or because the funding still had not been approved six months later. There are several other factors, including the fact that the files are still sitting on the minister's desk. I can't believe that the minister reviews each application.

I worked for the Business Development Bank of Canada where I was responsible for evaluating funding applications, which I then passed on to my boss for final authorization. The applications were not sent to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. Under the organization's hierarchy, decisions were taken at a lower lever for greater efficiency.

If the minister, who has other responsibilities, has to review the applications, he will never get the job done. He might be able to review a couple of applications, but don't believe for a moment that the minister of Canadian Heritage, while on a plane between Ottawa and Vancouver, will pull out his binder of applications and decide to approve one of them this week because it seems to make sense. What about the other applications, then?

I'm not giving you time to respond, but I would like to come back to what I said. The fact of the matter is that organizations can't deliver services to Canadians because they have to wait too long for confirmation of funding; they are losing employees and are not getting approval even after six months. This means that even if they wanted to, they cannot fulfill their mandate. Is that correct?

[Marie-France Kenny]

Yes, and as a consequence, the Government of Canada is not able to fulfill its obligations to francophone citizens.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I am not asking you to comment on this matter, but the fact that it takes so much time may be intentional. Perhaps we should be asking how much money goes back to the Government of Canada compared to what is paid out. We may be in for a surprise. Five per cent of your organizations have not received an answer in six months, regardless of the amount of money requested, whether it be 2, 3, 10, 15 or 20 million dollars. This means that this money will at one point be sent to them and all of it will have to be returned. You are not able to provide the services, even with the best will in the world, because someone, somewhere, is putting obstacles in your way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. D'Amours.

We'll now turn to Madame Tilly O'Neill-Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations.

As you know, it's my first term on the language committee, and being an MP from the riding of Miramichi, New Brunswick, which has many francophone constituents, I look forward to sitting on this committee and learning more about the francophone issues and helping in any way I can. I also want to congratulate you, Madame Kenny, and welcome Suzanne Bossé.

When I listened to you speaking, I heard you mention the fine that, if you don't repay the money, is left over. Am I correct? I'm wondering how long this was in effect. Was this idea in effect under the former Liberal government? Is it something new that just came about, or how has it come about?

[Marie-France Kenny]

It's not something new; it has been in effect for a long time. In addition to that, I'd like to add that we are required by nos bailleurs de fonds....

I'm sorry, my English is usually very good—I'm a translator—but for some reason this morning, it's not coming on.

The finance people are asking us to manage this money very well, and that is what we are doing. We have balanced budgets. At times we may have a small surplus of $100 or $200, that we are asked to return even if we have incurred expenditures of $1,000, throughout the year, because of late payments.

To answer your question very simply, these problems have been around for a long time.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Okay, thank you.

I attended many of the francophone celebrations, and I wonder whether the communities were relying on just sources from Heritage Canada or whether there are other fundings in your operations for these activities.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Usually the organizations will get funding from different sources. Heritage Canada is our main source of financing; however, we have contributions as well from the provincial government. Some of them are municipal. In the case of the Congrès mondial acadien, which was absolutely wonderful—I was there for it as well—there was funding at very different levels for different organizations.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Also, when you say the groups need more funding for the programming of day-to-day operations, is this the goal towards...? Exactly what would the money be spent on: more staff, different salaries, different outreach, or what?

[Marie-France Kenny]

Right now, we have employees in different areas. We have a community manager in an area who might be paid $18,000 with no benefits, and who has been there for years. That happens quite a bit in our community. We need funding not to give humongous raises. We consider ourselves to be public servants for the francophone community and to be offering services that the government is legally obligated to provide. We are looking at equitable salary for our employees.

I have to say that the francophone sector is not the only sector that's suffering like that. The entire volunteer sector is, across Canada. We need more resources. We're so efficient.... Actually, we're inefficient. We're doing extraordinary work; we're being inefficient because of our lack of resources. We could be even more organized. We don't have time to organize ourselves. We're looking at making sure we have adequate funding just to provide the basic services, adequate funding to provide decent salaries for our employees. We're not looking at humongous salaries. Just decent salaries would be nice, and benefits to our employees, which we can't provide. And we're looking to organize and really be more efficient.

We're doing extraordinary work, and as I said, not just the francophones but the entire volunteer sector. But the under-financing is quite big.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

As I go around my constituency, I find that more and more communities are benefiting from these projects. Do you find that these projects are reaching out now into more communities?