Official Languages Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Then I'm going to ask just one.

Are you prepared to reimburse the interest that the organizations have to pay because the funding was paid out late?

[Tom Scrimger]

We don't have the authority to reimburse the organizations for interest they have accumulated as a result of funding delays.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Scrimger, did you receive the committee's recommendations on this point, which date back to June 2008?

Mr. Lussier said so, but what's your answer?

[Tom Scrimger]

You're asking me if I've received them?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, it was a report. I can give you a copy of it.

[Tom Scrimger]

I received a copy of the report, but the rules of public finance and the Treasury Board's public finance rules do not allow us to reimburse interest in the case of an application to which no response was received after 30 days.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You'll understand that it was more than 30 days. We're asking that it be done within 30 days following the department's response.

We're conducting this exercise, and we're suggesting potential solutions to you. I realize that it's all well and good to work on these files—Mr. Petit was in committee when we talked about it; he even took part in the discussions—but that the proposals we submit don't even make you think that you are indeed hurting the organizations simply because the money is sent late.

You're telling us that the problem won't arise this year, but the report dates back to June 2008. So we're talking about applications that were filed in 2006-2007 for 2008. So this hasn't been going on for just one year.

[Tom Scrimger]

We're taking the committee's recommendations into account in developing our service standards. We don't have authority to pay interest expenses. In my opinion, the solution is to ensure that, in the next contribution cycles, we don't have any recipients who suffer unreasonable delays. We've already said that we're prepared to ensure that interim funding arrives on time.

In addition, if interim funding has to be increased to guarantee that recipients' activities can take place, we'll do that. To what extent can we increase interim funding? That will be decided following an analysis by our agents in the regions, who will help us make that decision.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Canadian Heritage has already had some experience with the organizations. I'll make a friendly suggestion to you. I advise you to study the recommendations that we submit so that you don't seem surprised when you appear here, as though we were talking about that for the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr.—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The organizations have been talking about this for decades.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

I may have an answer for you on the report on the contribution agreements.

Mr. Paré, what's the explanation?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

The government hasn't responded to that report. It died on the Order Paper when the House adjourned. That's why there was no official government response to those recommendations. The committee could very well decide to restate them in the next report on the subject to see what the government's response would be. At that point, we would have the written explanation on the Treasury Board policies concerning—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau, this is a topic that you could raise in the context of future business.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We're in the middle of business. We'll prepare a report and we'll restate the recommendations; that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, go ahead please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier you talked about the Auditor General, who made her comments like everyone else. Didn't the Auditor General say that it was money poorly spent, that because it was late, the organizations had to spend it all at once and that was not a way to manage government money?

If an organization has a year to carry out a project, receives the money at the end of the year and spends it all at once, that's not money well spent. I remember clearly that the Auditor General said that wasn't a way of doing things. This year was the worst year. I believe it passed in a manner contrary to what the Auditor General wanted.

[Tom Scrimger]

I agree with you, Mr. Godin. If there is an unacceptable delay in the funding of a project—if we're talking about projects instead of programs—that can have a negative impact on the project. We definitely don't want any situations in which project funding is provided in the last three or four months of the year. That's a situation that must be corrected. I believe we indicated the immediate actions we can take to ensure that funding is delivered on time next year. We'll continue to improve our practices to ensure that funding reaches the recipients on time for them to carry out their projects.

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

You'll agree with me: it's counterproductive. The government can be sure of the manner in which the funding will be allocated. If it takes five, seven or eight months to get approval and then there are only five months left to carry out the project, there's not much point in taking all that time to pay the same amount of money if the organization can't use it properly.

Earlier I asked how much money had been returned by the organizations. You answered $190,000, but that amount only concerns Canadian Heritage. Perhaps I should have asked how much money the minority communities have to return under all the programs offered, by Health Canada and other departments.

The minister has toured the regions. I've gone there as well. People tell me that the situation is the same with other programs. People in the regions tell us, for example, that they file applications with Health Canada and it's the same story: the money doesn't come. At one time, Canadian Heritage monitored the government's other grant programs.

The problem isn't just at Canadian Heritage. I don't just want to paint a poor picture of Canadian Heritage. In Newfoundland last weekend, we were told that, to obtain money from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the francophone community in Newfoundland had to draft its application, and ACOA answered that it would take time because the document had to be translated. Furthermore, there was no one in Newfoundland, in St. John's, who could handle the file: it was sent to Moncton. Then, before Moncton answered Newfoundland, time had passed. This is widespread.

[Tom Scrimger]

Mr. Godin, for Canadian Heritage to be efficient, we obviously have no desire to disburse the funds at the end of the fiscal year if recipients can't use the funds for common objectives.

As I said, we're going to work hard on our action plan to ensure that the funding arrives on time for the official language projects and programs.

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

Some organizations receive applicable budget funding during a certain period of the year, the funds reach them late, and they feel they have to hurry to spend them so as not to lose them. It's that situation that isn't efficient.

We should congratulate our communities that tell us they misspend the money they get. We should tell them “thank you” and work together.

People are also wondering how many stages you have to go through to reach the goal. Back home, for example, the applications are sent to Moncton, which sends them to Ottawa. To how many offices does that have to be sent, how many studies have to be conducted by various departments before the minister signs? Can't this process be streamlined as well?

[Tom Scrimger]

I'm sure that, in the departments in Ottawa, there are a host of studies on issues related to business efficiency and practices. I'm going to talk more particularly about Canadian Heritage. With regard to our programs, we're examining our business practices, and we want to have processes for grant and contribution applications that are efficient and that ensure, once the minister accepts the application, that recipients receive their money in time to achieve their common objectives.

I now know that there are approximately 20 departments involved in the Blue Ribbon Panel's big project, that is most of the departments that give out grants and contributions.

The purpose of the Blue Ribbon Panel's work is to arrive at an efficient business process and to reduce the amount of work by recipients who are applying for grants and contributions, who write the follow-up reports and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Lussier.

[Hubert Lussier]

I would like to clarify one point. To correct the problem Mr. Godin refers to, and in the wake of the Blue Ribbon Panel's report that my colleague Mr. Scrimger mentioned, there is a new provision in the transfer payment policy that will now make it possible to carry over to a subsequent fiscal year a percentage of expenditures that were planned for the previous year.

[An hon. member]

What percentage?