Official Languages Committee on Oct. 1st, 2009

[Marie-France Kenny]

Sometimes the rationale behind a project is questioned. Questions will be asked about the project itself.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

There will be questions despite the big black binder.

[Marie-France Kenny]

That's right.

Several communities, for example in Saskatchewan, have a management committee. This committee asks many questions and makes sure that the applications are prepared correctly before sending them out with recommendations. However, sometimes there are additional questions regarding an organization, a program or part of a program.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

In your view, if the big black binder which you are obliged to provide was smaller, do you think that Canadian Heritage would still have enough information to decide whether a project is good or not?

[Marie-France Kenny]

Yes, absolutely, and we hope to work with Canadian Heritage to make the binder smaller. Of course, we still wish to remain accountable. We also want Canadian Heritage, the government, to be accountable as well. We want to make sure that the money is well spent.

However, we are convinced that there is no need for the big binder. I always laugh when I talk about the big binder. There was a report on Radio-Canada which showed a big binder with teeth! The report was on funding and funding applications by communities.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You mentioned that you were willing to sit down with Canadian Heritage to work on that.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Absolutely. Then again, the federal government would have to have a system of good governance which would provide for an effective committee.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I imagine that you have already made that suggestion to Canadian Heritage.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Absolutely. Several times.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

What was the reaction?

[Marie-France Kenny]

We were told that they were working on that issue. I have to say that they recently asked us to sit down with them. However, we have asked them several times already to invite us when they... They are also looking at reducing the paperwork and I have to admit that there has been some progress. We asked them to consult with us so that we could help them streamline the process. However, the invitation never came.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You are still waiting for an invitation.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Indeed.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you. We will see what the committee can do in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Zarac.

We will now give the floor to the member of the Bloc québécois, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Earlier, Ms. Bossé added a few words to what was said by Ms. Kenny with regard to the way the funding is distributed. Would you also like to add something?

[Suzanne Bossé]

I simply wanted to mention two things. First, concerning the structure, I would say that the fact there is both programming and projects can be problematic, because it has been years since there was an increase in what is usually called program spending, that is spending which basically helps an organization to provide services. Instead of increasing that type of funding, it was decided that more money would be spent on projects, which forced organizations to develop projects to get a meagre 15%, at most, of funding to cover their basic administration costs and to implement a project. This is a problem because it is precisely the projects that take so long to get approved, which means that there is even less time to complete the project. Once again, this is a matter of risk management.

This is important for certain organizations, such as umbrella or national organizations which have been around for a long time, to manage risk. For the government, it is important to collaborate with these organizations. That would be the first step. Perhaps then it would not be necessary to fill out all of the paperwork, the same number of forms, as new applicants.

When I refer to investment, the Roadmap is a good example, because the Government of Canada has invested in it to a degree which is without precedent. This is true. Unfortunately, this does not help community organizations which deliver services to Canadians, except for the amount of $400,000. This also affects our organizations.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Do you still encounter situations where you have to produce reports on a regular basis, such as several within one year, for certain projects? I remember a situation relating to the workers' cooperatives of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française. We had to hire someone to manage the project and to write a report every three months for a two-year project. It was a lot of work and took away energy which otherwise would have been directed at the regions—it was a pan-Canadian project—but we had to do it to make progress.

Do you still face this kind of constraint?

[Suzanne Bossé]

Of course, we have to produce reports for the department, but I am very pleased to say that under the 2009-2011 contribution arrangement, we have to submit one less report in the course of the year. This has already made a huge difference in terms of reducing our paperwork. So, certainly, our message was heard.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

But we agree that it is important to produce reports because people have to be accountable for the money they spend.

[Suzanne Bossé]

Yes, absolutely.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The problem lay with the fequency of the reports which had to be filed for projects which were very specific and which were already heavy on paperwork. It was a lot to manage.

If there was one thing we could do right away to improve the situation, what would it be?

[Marie-France Kenny]

To be honest, it would be to send us the cheque as quickly as possible, or the letter of confirmation to those organizations which would not have received it yet. There has to be a way to get the money out more quickly. The first funding instalment only gets sent out at the end of April. And apart from the financial burden, there is the issue of staff turnover. Employees are not stupid: they know that their contract may not be renewed on April 1st. They already start looking for a new job in January. We have an incredibly high turnover rate; in our communities, people leave after less than two years on the job.

We really need to sit down together and figure out how to get the funding out more quickly while respecting the Auditor General's guidelines. As Ms. Bossé said, some organizations are a much less risky proposition. Let's make a list of the organizations which have to fill out the paperwork and go ahead with those who present the lowest risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau.

We will now move on to Ms. Boucher.

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

Good morning, ladies, and welcome to the Official Languages Committee. I am not an official member of this committee; I am substituting for another member. That being said, I am always interested in hearing what minority language communities have to say.

Ms. Kenny, you talked about expert panels in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Should these groups still exist or are they just another administrative layer? Do you have any other solutions?

You said that some groups always applied for this or that. Is it too complicated to have these groups make applications instead of the organizations?