Canadian Heritage committee  No, because it's our role as public servants to plan for those eventualities as well--which are more and more often these days--and to make sure we have systems in place that are more efficient. You won't hear me put this blame in the office of the minister. Until we've done our job as public servants, that's not fair.

Canadian Heritage committee  That's a budget decision. It's in the budget. Frankly, it's quite remarkable how fast the whole public service was able to turn that around and go to Treasury Board. Perhaps it was the urgency of the matter. A lot of the rules were simplified so that we could get it through. We're reporting on it constantly.

Canadian Heritage committee  That was a political choice in the budget. They decided that cultural infrastructure was important for the economic stimulus of the country, and the program was doubled.

Canadian Heritage committee  The Minister of Finance stood up and announced the doubling of that.

Canadian Heritage committee  Well, across government everybody said that if we were going to have an impact with the economic plan, we had to get on with it. Speaking for our department, we did.

Canadian Heritage committee  What's interesting is that when we go to mechanized ways of dealing with clients...and by the way, it's not to remove that personal contact. Some programs cost a little bit more to deliver because we have regional offices, but we want those regional offices because it's important to help those groups understand our system.

Canadian Heritage committee  The cultural spaces program was literally doubled in the economic action plan, from $30 million to $60 million.

Canadian Heritage committee  It was an existing program. It's a little easier in those cases.

Canadian Heritage committee  Well, in that case, there was a need, because we know that the cultural infrastructure programs contribute directly to the economy and to economic activity, more broadly. So this was a good project for an economic stimulus package, but on top of that, we could do it quickly, because we had existing programs.

Canadian Heritage committee  I don't know the specifics of that particular case, so it's hard to comment on it. I can tell you, though, that I don't want to be in a situation where somebody applies and.... If they're clearly not admissible, they need to know that quickly. If they're admissible, we need to treat it as quickly as we can while balancing the need for service to the clients with the appropriate stewardship of public money.

Canadian Heritage committee  We'd be most happy to explain it to you, because in a sense, when I was speaking earlier about communications being important, you're also communicating to people who benefit from our programs. We're more than happy to come back when those standards are published there, and we will be reporting on them.

Canadian Heritage committee  Perhaps you should ask this question directly of the minister. Except that our service standards... We will discuss this with the minister. There is one system, and he will have to be part of the system. Otherwise, we will not accomplish what everyone wants of us. In other words to provide Canadians with a service that is accountable, for which there are checks and balances, without creating excessive delays.

Canadian Heritage committee  The challenge there is that the number of six and a half months is based on when the application enters the building. That's how the current system tracks it. A correct service standard mechanism might track that, but would more likely focus on when the application is complete. Therefore, we would be comparing apples and oranges otherwise.

Canadian Heritage committee  I cannot comment on what the minister's thoughts are; I do not know.

Canadian Heritage committee  He can make the decisions he wants, but he is ultimately responsible and accountable for his decisions. The process is subject to terms and conditions. The minister has some leeway with certain programs.