Official Languages Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. D'Amours.

[Robert Donnelly]

Mr. Blaney, I would like to make a clarification regarding Mr. D'Amours's question.

The deadline for submitting a project is October. As for basic funding, that is in November and December. We do not look at project applications before reviewing all basic funding applications, that is, applications for a regular budget. That goes on until June. Normally, a project can be approved in June or July. However, project funding is not available until September or October.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Therefore, if a project is to be approved, its regular budget must have been approved first. Is that what you're saying?

[Robert Donnelly]

Before reviewing projects, we have to settle the matter of regular budgets.

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

But they do the opposite. It does not make sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau, you have the floor.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we met with representatives from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne last week, they raised three major problems: approval delays, lay-offs due to those delays, and the fact that certain members had to wait up to six months before receiving a response from the federal government. You said that you encounter similar situations, with all of the attendant problems.

If we had to wipe the slate clean and rebuild the entire accountability machine—everybody wants accountability—how should we go about it? Whether it is the Regional Association of West Quebecers, the Quebec Community Groups Network or Mr. dePoe's organization, Canadian Parents for French, which focuses on learning French as a second language, I would like to know whether it is possible to create a new system based on the way things really work.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

That's a big question.

We think, from studying the report on the old blue-ribbon panel and the Government of Canada's action plan to reform the administration of grants and contributions programs, that a lot of thinking has been done on making the system more responsive. I think what might be missing still in this ingredient is that even with vanguard departments, there hasn't been a lot of consultation with the community. Personally, I don't think any of the groups in my network have heard about the work that is going on currently on grants and contributions at Canadian Heritage.

We feel some effects. There have been some changes this year. We know that some groups have received more money at the outset than other groups. We're seeing some changes, but there hasn't been training or consultation--I don't know if you want to call it dialogue--to help the groups be full participants in making this happen. If we were to start all over, or if we were to integrate some of the ideas on the action plan to reform the administration of grants and contributions, I think the place of the organization should be better understood in the whole cycle. For example, are we clients, beneficiaries, or people who want to spend the government's money? What are we? Are we doing good work? Are we doing work the government wants to have done? In that way, the organizations would be treated in a way that would allow the government to do its business.

The only practical logistical solution I could give would be that within the context of this action plan to reform the grants and contributions program I would like to see better dialogue, with us directly, and understanding of what the department is doing on changes to its application process and on changes to the way they manage risk. It feels as if it's being done to us rather than with us, if I might be so bold.

We feel good things coming out, but we also feel the bad things, right? We know that some of our organizations got, all of a sudden this year, almost the entirety of their funding and said, “Good work, keep going.” But we can't figure out quite why, unless you figure out that you're Canadian Heritage as a vanguard department. If we could get a better handle on working together.... Are we a partner? It's hard to be a partner with government, right? It's hard to be. Are you a client? Are you a beneficiary? What is our place, and how do we evaluate our own place, and how do they evaluate our place within the context?

[Robert Donnelly]

People are always asking us how long the delays are, but ultimately it always the minister who decides and who has to sign off on an application. However, if an organization has received approval from the minister for a three-year project, why does that organization have to wait every year for the funding to come in?

We don't understand. Mr. Galipeau said earlier that we could set clear timelines and respect them. That's what should happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau.

We will now move on to Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for appearing in front of our committee today.

I empathize with your challenges. I actually understand your challenges. Twelve years ago, I was one of a group of three people who, without any money or resources, much like many of the groups that you and your umbrella organizations represent, started a not-for-profit now called the Historica-Dominion Institute. At the time, we literally had no resources. I remember borrowing somebody's computer. I think in our first year we received a grant of about $60,000. We were on a complete shoestring budget. I empathize with the challenges your organizations face. We faced the same challenges.

While it may not be applicable in your case, what we quickly discovered was that we needed to diversify our funding sources. Also, cashflow management was one of the huge issues. As was mentioned by Madame Stronach, we couldn't get credit in our first couple of years. We had no line of credit, no credit cards, no nothing, for the very reasons you've outlined. It was difficult to get credit and to manage that cashflow.

It wasn't until we were established for about four years or so that we managed to negotiate a line of credit with the bank. That was one thing that happened. The other thing that happened was that we sought two other sources of funding. One was from the corporate and private sector. It was difficult, there's no doubt about it. It's difficult to secure that funding.

But we used those contributions to manage cashflow. The private sector doesn't have the same onerous kinds of contribution agreements as the Government of Canada does, because it's not public money, so we used the private sector funding that we received as a way to help smooth out that spikiness in the cashflow.

The other thing we did, which we were not as successful in doing--but you may find better opportunities--was to go to our membership as a not-for-profit to seek their support in a greater way.

Those are just some suggestions.

I think one of the challenges the government faces in this regard with your problem is that Treasury Board sets out and approves terms and conditions for every single program across the Government of Canada. In light of the last number of years, those terms and conditions are very strict, and the public service follows them by the book, for obvious reasons. I don't think this is unique to this program. I don't think it's unique to Canadian Heritage. I think it's a government-wide issue. I don't think there are any games being played with respect to how the money gets approved.

I think it's good that you're highlighting this as a problem. Perhaps solutions can be found.

I know that one of the things the government has tried to do through its program funding, through contributions to your member organizations, is that for those programs that are ongoing and for those organizations that are considered low-risk, they've advanced cash at the start of the fiscal year before the application has been formally approved. It's a way to get you through the first quarter, the first three months. It doesn't help if you don't get that 75%, the rest, until September, but at least there are three months of funding upfront. Then there are two months where you presently have to figure out how to manage that cashflow.

Those are just some ideas I had.

Another idea I had is that the umbrella group might be able to facilitate a line of credit for some of your member organizations. That's just an idea.

Whatever helpful suggestions you have for the government, I think we're open to considering.

[Robert Donnelly]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We are now at the last member from the second round.

Monsieur Godin.

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

Merci, monsieur le président.

I don't know if you like what Mr. Chong said, but is it not scary? It's almost saying the government is not ready to approve money going to communautés, and then go and get the private sector to do it for you. We had all the problems in the world when we started, so why don't you take the same route as we did?

I'm kind of worried about that statement coming from the government side, not that I want to pick on the government this morning, but it comes from government side. I hope he's not speaking for the government, that he's speaking about himself or the suggestion that he wants to give. But is it not scary? The government has a responsibility with the communauté. The government is there to pick up the tax of the taxpayer and is there to distribute the tax. It doesn't belong to a political party; it belongs to Canadians, and they're there to distribute, to have good collectivité and a good country. I personally believe they have the responsibility to do it. It's not acceptable—and I think that's what I hear from you this morning, from all of you—that we only get 25%, and then we have to make those reports, we have to make applications, and we don't have the staff to do it.

How can we be productive if all that's going on at the same time?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I will interpret, for myself, Mr. Chong's comments. We believe the Government of Canada has an obligation, a commitment to official language minority communities in Canada, whether they be francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec. There are priorities and it's a core common value, and we believe that the government understands, as do their employees, that we are there to further the Government of Canada's reflection and contribution to official language minority communities in Quebec.

I think the question was put earlier to my president, Mr. Donnelly, about whether it has become more difficult. Yes, technically it has become more difficult over the last few years--technically.

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

But if you come to a point where it's so difficult that you're not productive anymore, it doesn't make sense.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

That is the consideration. I think that any government in power would applaud some of the work that at least I know is being done in the English-speaking community about diversifying the funding to try to include the corporate and para-public sector. For example, many of you have the document in front of you that we prepared for the fifteenth anniversary. We were successful at getting a $5,000 contribution from Hydro-Québec to make that piece of work, and from para-public, from QPAT, the teacher's association. We are out there trying to do that. And I think that, you know—

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

Yes, but an example you were giving is that this summer you couldn't even hire some students.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

That is in smaller organizations.

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

Is that not negative?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

That's absolutely true. So I think we have to separate this whole thing out into the philosophical idea that the Government of Canada has an obligation, and find logistical, practical ways of helping us deliver. I'm hoping that Mr. Chong understood our plea--and all of you this morning--about being able to be more strategic. All we ask--all of us, small, medium or big--in the English-speaking community is to be able to have the time to devote to the more strategic pieces of getting services and policy done for the English-speaking community.

So logistically we have a huge problem, which I think you people have taken on, and we hope that we will have a cheque in the mail by April 1, and not May. If it can be earlier, fine. And if there service standards, we want to also know about them. We want to be able, like any good Treasury Board business, to know what to expect.

[Robert Donnelly]

It's ironic, Mr. Godin and Mr. Chong, that the 25% that comes on April 1 does not mean guaranteed funding for the year. It's 25% about which maybe three months later they would decide, sorry, you weren't supposed to get that. We don't know what it is 25% of, but we get the 25%. Then after three months we run out of that.

As for credit line possibilities within our smaller organizations, they just don't have the collateral, as Heather was explaining. When they come to ask us for the guarantee of continued funding, we can't say we got 25% because in the eyes of the government that is not official funding for the year. It's just an advance, and so we have to wait that extra two or three months.

We have four categories in our PCH funding. There are salaries; honoraria; travel, which is the smallest; and administration and office expenses. In administration and office expenses there is no category for interest on credit lines and credit cards, obviously, and so there is the other problem. Even if it's small numbers, how are you going to justify it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We are at the end of our second round. We have some committee business to do. One member has expressed a wish to talk to the witness, and then we can move on with committee business.

Do any other committee members have questions?

Ms. Zarac?

We will have another round of questions, which will leave us about 15 minutes of deliberations.

Ms. Zarac.

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

Merci, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Stronach, you mentioned that this causes you lots of stress because you're not getting the funding fast enough. You also mentioned that you have a good relationship with Heritage Canada, so being stressed with this situation, you must have asked the ministry questions. I am curious to know what the answer was. Why do they have these delays?

[Heather Stronach]

I think part of it is workload, just trying to process so many applications. I get the impression there is nobody idle in Canadian Heritage. They work longer hours. I can reach them at almost any time. So it's not a function of the individuals, I don't think. I think it's the process that's required in order to do their due diligence.