Official Languages Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Hubert Lussier]

I don't remember the exact percentage, but I could provide you with that figure. That would help solve the problem you mention, if it occurs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

So that makes it possible to take funding that is not used during the year and to carry it over to the following year.

Do you know the percentage, Mr. Lussier?

Can you tell the members?

[Hubert Lussier]

My colleague says a “reasonable amount”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I see, all right.

That's excellent.

Now we'll go to Ms. Boucher.

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

Thank you for being here today. It's always pleasant to meet with you. My colleagues opposite talk about government red tape that is sometimes appalling; one might think they would like to shrink that government. That leads me to ask you the following question.

Approximately how many official languages files do you study every year?

[Louis Chagnon]

With regard to files coming from the regions, that is to say programming and project files that are submitted and must be analyzed, the number is on average between 800 and 900 a year. Incidentally, they all arrive at the same time, like a wave at the start of the fiscal year. Approximately 602 files have been approved this year. The number of files approved from year to year varies with the quality of the files presented, the priorities of the communities and the status of the previous files.

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

So it's a good average. I see that 602 out of 900 files have been approved. So there are about 200 left that have not been—

[Louis Chagnon]

They were rejected.

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

All right.

I would like to know what percentage of the money received by the organizations comes from Canadian Heritage as opposed to other funding sources.

[Louis Chagnon]

In this case as well, that varies considerably. It depends on the communities. Some, which are better off or better established, receive less money from Canadian Heritage but more from other sources because they are better connected and have more experience and presence on the ground, in various fields. They receive money from other federal departments, the provinces or, in some instances, even private sector funding agencies, depending on the nature of their activities.

In general, the funding provided by Canadian Heritage represents between 25% and 60%. For the small groups, which have less access to funding, the percentage is around 60%.

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

So the more remote groups, which have less opportunity than the better off groups of obtaining funding from other institutions, receive more funding from Canadian Heritage. That's what I understand.

[Louis Chagnon]

In general, the smallest groups, such as those in remote northern communities, receive more funding from Canadian Heritage than from other departments. It's between 30% and 60%.

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

Last week, Ms. Kenny appeared before this committee and talked a number of times about those binders. Is it true that those organizations have to send you big binders?

[Louis Chagnon]

In the context of the community consultation process, the communities have established recommendation committees, essentially review committees that re-examine all the applications for their communities. These are people who have declared that they are not in a situation of conflict of interest with respect to the proposals submitted by the groups seeking funding. These people have to review all the funding proposals, whether it be for operating funding or for project funding.

All the funding applications are forwarded to the Department of Canadian Heritage. The officers then prepare the binders which include all the applications and preliminary analyses designed to help the committees do their work. They are indeed quite large binders. Sometimes there are three or four binders of funding proposals, but they nevertheless contain information that helps committee members make recommendations on the priorities and projects that are accepted.

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

All the organizations wind up in these binders.

[Louis Chagnon]

It's all the proposals that are submitted to us. The binders are used for the operation of committees. They are submitted to Canadian Heritage and subsequently destroyed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Boucher.

Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From the answers the minister gave, it appears that the Treasury Board is responsible for the delays. Did you know in advance that there might be delays as a result of the re-evaluations, as was mentioned?

[Hubert Lussier]

There are requirements that come from the Treasury Board. The minister said—and I believe we accept that completely—that the onus is on us to improve our process while taking into account the parameters that are given to us by the Treasury Board, and we're going to do that.

What happened last year was particular. The volume of applications was much greater than usual, for two reasons. First of all, the end of the program terms and conditions on March 31 required all applicants to file new applications. Second, the arrival of new programs increased the volume of applications. For example, the Cultural Development Fund added some 100 new files.

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

That means that things went much better in 2007. And yet we nevertheless had similar programs.

[Hubert Lussier]

There was essentially a three-week difference between the year just ended and the previous years, but the preceding 27 weeks—

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

I understand the example regarding the three weeks, but the first 25% instalment took more than three weeks. We're not talking about mid-April.

Mr. Scrimger, you mentioned June, but it was more like July, August, September and October.

Were the organizations informed of what was going to happen this year so that they could prepare for the government's rules? Answer with a yes or no.

[Hubert Lussier]

There was no formal communication to tell them that we were going to be late this year.

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

All right.

Mr. Scrimger, you mentioned that, once Treasury Board said that you could go ahead, the disbursements started and people received them between May and July.

[Tom Scrimger]

I think it was Ms. LaRocque who said that approval for the program renewal was unusual this year. For example, there weren't any multi-year agreements or we hadn't approved the 25% payment in advance. However, that won't be the case next year. We'll be able to obtain a signature and to authorize payments in advance to ensure the payments are made in April.