Official Languages Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We'll now resume without further delay because our second hour is packed.

We'll now hear from two stakeholders from Canadian Heritage who were here during the first part of the meeting. They are Mr. Scrimger, who is Assistant Deputy Minister for Citizenship and Heritage, and Mr. Lussier, who is Director General, Official Languages Support Programs. He is accompanied by Regional Executive Director of the Prairies and Northern Region, Mr. Louis Chagnon. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I believe you would like to say a few words to the committee before we move on to questions.

Mr. Scrimger.

[Tom Scrimger]

Mr. Chairman, we are at your disposal. We can make a brief presentation, which would perhaps enable committee members to become acquainted with certain details. However, we can also go directly to questions. I'll let you make the decision.

As I previously mentioned, we submitted the answer to the committee's motion on the repayment of unexpended amounts to the clerk. The question that Mr. Godin asked at the end of the last meeting concerned that subject.

How do you want to proceed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'll ask you to take a few moments to provide an introduction.

[Tom Scrimger]

Mr. Chairman, to save a little time, we could start on page 4 of the presentation, where we talk about the comprehensive approach to grants and contribution management.

We really want to emphasize the federal government's accountability or diligence framework and certain aspects of that framework, such as the Federal Accountability Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Auditor General Act. The department is a vanguard department committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent Blue Ribbon Panel for improving contributions management.

A balance must be struck between due diligence and reasonable service standards for our recipients. The cycle is clearly not working well enough and we have not satisfied everyone. However, I want to say that we have a quite full diligence framework and that we must always be ready to show, to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Auditor General, that we are managing public funds as prescribed by law and in accordance with Treasury Board policies.

On the next page of the presentation, we talk about PCH's approach to the Blue Ribbon Panel. In their report, these experts emphasize the need to manage the concept of risk management with regard to the sound management of public funds. Diligence is absolutely necessary, but there are still some sectors where, with a knowledge of risk, we can obtain more skilful, more agile practices in the administration of public funds. The department is fully committed to this approach. We have some 20 different projects within the department that are a complete renewal of our grants and contributions management practices.

An important element that was mentioned by the minister and by Ms. LaRocque is that, starting on April 1, 2010, we will be establishing and publishing the service standards for our grants and contributions programs, including the official languages programs.

On page 6—if you wish, I can ask my two colleagues to give you more details on our grants and contributions procedures—we give you the main process components, from the recipient's application to approval and, lastly, the release of funds.

On the following page, we present certain contexts specific to our programs. Mr. Lussier has already discussed the question concerning our regional review committees in the communities. We think it is an essential aspect of our obligations under Part VII of the Act to have these round tables with the communities to ensure they have a good opportunity to exercise an influence and to tell us what they think the priorities are. That doesn't mean we couldn't make the consultation process more effective, and we definitely want to see whether there are any more effective ways to do so. However, we don't want to lose the essential aspects of these tables and the advantages that the department still enjoys as a result of our partners' advice.

In 2009-2010, the average processing time for files was approximately 30 weeks. I use the average time, but I know there are cases where it was longer than 30 weeks. There were also some that took less than 30 weeks. The previous year, the average was 27 weeks. A difference of three weeks is significant.

On the last page, we wanted to very specifically share the analysis of our action plan. I'm going to do that briefly because the minister has already talked about certain aspects.

It is true that the program renewal issue is restricted to certain practices, such as the signing of multi-year agreements. We have had a higher volume of applications than in previous years. In some cases, there is a shortage of staff, which doesn't help the cause.

I'll continue the analytical work. There is a lack of standardization among the regions with regard to file processing. With a little work, we think we can resolve certain situations.

We clearly acknowledge that there has been an unacceptable delay in the issuing of interim funding, which is done between May and July rather than in the second week of April.

Our action plan definitely aims to promote the signing of multi-year agreements. Ms. LaRocque said it: we almost need to be able to approve a payment schedule over a period of a number of years, and those payments will definitely continue if all diligence reports are provided by recipients.

We have increased the subsidy thresholds from $30,000 to $50,000. I believe that next year, 88% to 90% of our funding will consist of grants under $50,000, which will help us enormously.

We discussed this with our regional representatives, and the staffing of key positions is a priority.

As Ms. LaRocque said, with regard to interim funding, we are going to start the process sooner so that the money is paid out in April. If necessary, we will exceed the current 25% of funding to reach the amount required to ensure that we have a good payment schedule for our recipients.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to answer your questions. I hope this presentation gives you an idea of our action plan and of the work we are currently doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Scrimger, for this introduction to the administrative process.

We're going to begin our first round of the second question period with Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here.

Let's do a review. Let's start at the beginning. Let's dig a little because, during my tour of the country, I saw an enormous number of problems. I didn't perceive the same sense of urgency from the minister. And there are a lot of aspects that come into play: disbursements, multi-year agreements, etc. I simply want us to have a basic discussion.

Are the agreements generally multi-year agreements?

[Tom Scrimger]

Over the years, I believe that between 10% and 12% of our recipients have signed multi-year agreements.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Recently? When? In recent years?

[Hubert Lussier]

We've been encouraging the signing of multi-year agreements since 2005-2006.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You say you encourage it. I'm sure recipients prefer it as well.

[Hubert Lussier]

It must be understood that the multi-year agreements make a major positive difference. However, they require that the organizations engage in more ambitious planning: a two-year agreement is more difficult to prepare than a one-year agreement; a three-year agreement, when you're a small organization, is as well.

So not everyone went along with it immediately.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

But ultimately there are advantages. Perhaps it takes longer at the start, but, later on, there are fewer reports, less paperwork, less management, and so on.

When you sign a multi-year agreement with an organization, because there is mutual trust, recognition of the organization's work, expertise and sound management, isn't there some way to disperse funds faster or to issue funding at the start simply because you know it?

[Hubert Lussier]

Once a multi-year agreement is in place and the first year has elapsed, the two following years go exactly the same way, that is to say that there will be regular payments based on a report schedule that is not too demanding, cash flow and interim results reports. Once the multi-year contribution agreement has been signed, there should be no more problems with regard to payments.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

But there are some. You currently have multi-year agreements, and there are payment problems. That's a fact.

[Hubert Lussier]

The problem was the introduction of the start-up contribution agreements. Once that's in place, small grains of sand can get into the gears.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What you're asking us then is to trust in the future and not to consider the past. It's an act of faith that you're asking us to make, Mr. Lussier.

[Hubert Lussier]

I wouldn't put it that way. I think the groups that currently lend themselves to multi-year agreements see a positive difference, and we know that vastly improves the relationship with the groups and the payment schedule.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Personally, I sensed a lot of concern and frustration and, without being alarmist, it was quite widespread. I didn't go anywhere where people told me that everything was working very well, that they were very pleased and that they were receiving money on time. On the contrary, instead I heard about people using credit cards, personal lines of credit, temporary lay-offs and loss of employees.

Once again I'm going to ask the question I put to the minister because I didn't get an answer.

The applications are filed no later than November. Is that indeed correct? Then all the analysis process kicks in. A recommendation is made in February, if I'm not mistaken. Then, normally, there should be a first payment of 25% of the grant in April, but it's made in June.

Explain to me what happens between the moment when an application is filed in November and the month of June. A lot of time elapses. Can you tell me what happens in the meantime?

[Hubert Lussier]

In response to a question earlier, I explained the generic process, that is to say the analysis conducted of the application and then the evaluation by the communities, which itself takes four to six weeks, finalization of the recommendation and final quality control, which takes place at the centre.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that the program we're talking about today is a program for which each of the 13 provinces and territories has a defined amount of money to share among the client groups. It's the same thing for the national groups.

It isn't as though the first organization to come could be the first served, as is the case with certain programs such as employment insurance.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I have 20 seconds left and I would like a quick answer to another question.

Did you consult recipients about the 25% payment? Do you think this is an initiative they appreciate?

[Louis Chagnon, Regional Executive Director, Prairies and Northern Region, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Given that the process was slow this year, that may not reflect the facts well, but the 25% interim funding normally would definitely make it possible to pay out the funds at the start of the fiscal year. That's something the groups appreciate, in fact, because they need money to operate from the start of the new fiscal year.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You're quite certain they appreciate it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.

We'll continue with Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen.

In light of the remarks made, and of the complaints you've probably received—the minister said he had received a certain number of them and we've received some as well—we're engaging in an exercise for the purpose of improving the situation of community organizations and, in this case, official language minority organizations. These are organizations that do an enormous job with limited budgets. Our committee has asked in previous reports and studies that the interim funding be increased to 50%.

We should eventually be able to meet with the minister and to tell him that the organizations are receiving their money on time. It's as simple as that: the organizations should be able to receive the money in the spring in order to start up their activities so that, in the summer, for example, when those activities reach their target publics, young people or whatever, they can operate.

In this committee, we adopted a recommendation in June 2008, which stated: “That Canadian Heritage commit to delivering funding within 30 days following the date of the funding response [...] [otherwise] the department be required to reimburse interest charges incurred as a result of the delay.”

Have you begun to study that recommendation, which comes from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which our colleague Mr. Blaney chairs and chaired at the time, the purpose of which is precisely to assist the organizations that have to pay interest? Have you considered reimbursing the interest that they have paid out of their own funds because the entire grant was not remitted to them?

[Tom Scrimger]

In fact, I think you're asking two questions.