:
I would ask parliamentarians and witnesses to take their places so that we can start.
This is the 28th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. In the first part of our meeting, it is our pleasure to hear from two organizations that represent the minority language communities.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge is Director General of the Quebec Community Groups Network; she is here with her President, Robert Donnelly, from the Quebec Region.
We also have Lise Routhier-Boudreau, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Ms. Bossé, who is that organization's Director General, as well as Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Liaison.
Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the committee, which is no doubt one of the last before the summer.
Without further ado, I would ask the members of the Federation to give their opening address, then parliamentarians will be able to ask you some relevant questions.
Ladies and gentlemen, first I want to thank you for inviting us to appear this morning, but especially for showing interest in this fundamental issue of government support for organizations and institutions serving the francophone and acadian communities of Canada.
The purpose of the presentation we have for you today is to provide a description of the situation based on the recommendations the committee made a year ago in its report entitled, “The Collaboration Accords between Canadian Heritage and the Community Organizations - An Evolving Partnership”.
For the needs of this presentation, we have focused on three of the recommendations. First, there are the two concerning Canadian Heritage's commitment to delivering funding responses by the deadline and that funding be delivered within 30 days following the date of the funding response. Then there's the recommendation concerning a 50% increase in funding for the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent. In concrete terms, this takes the form of the collaboration accords, which used to be called the Canada-Community Agreements.
Let's start with the first two recommendations. In the past few days, we conducted a survey of our member organizations so that we could give you a recent, up-to-date and slightly more detailed picture of the situation for 2009-2010. Based on that survey, we can tell you that 75% of the provincial and territorial representative organizations have not yet received confirmation of the amount of their program funding for the current fiscal year. In addition, while 10 organizations received a letter at the end of April informing them of a 25% funding advance, pending confirmation of their funding, the fact remains that five organizations at this time have not yet received the first instalment of their contribution.
Now let's talk about impact. Six of the organizations that responded to our survey said they are using their lines of credit, reserves or investments to cover their operating expenses. Since April 1, interest charges incurred on those lines of credit have varied between $180 and $525 a month per organization, which in some cases represents the equivalent of a pay cheque for one employee.
Lastly, the most unfortunate consequence, in our view, is that two of our member organizations have had to lay off staff for lack of cash and confirmed commitments by the federal government. Two others are considering doing the same thing by the end of the summer.
In closing, I would note that the situation does not apply solely to program funding. All the organizations are still waiting for responses to project applications submitted under the Community Life component. Too often the approvals and first instalments for these projects are received in the fall, forcing recipient organizations to carry out in six months activities that they had designed for a full year.
So that's a brief, but very telling picture of the impact of processing, approval and funding payment delays on the organizations that serve the francophone and acadian communities. Our survey does not concern local organizations, but the situation that we have observed within the provincial, territorial and sectoral organizations suggests that the local situation can hardly be any more encouraging. I would even say it's worse.
Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, when our organizations receive program funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, they become agents responsible for offering services and activities to citizens.
You'll agree with me that having to lay off staff while waiting for funding responses, having to pay interest charges on lines of credit drawn on during waiting times, having to borrow from one's own employees, these are not necessarily conditions that are conducive to concrete results in terms of services, activities and community life.
Of course, the kind of delay we're dealing with also occurs in other programs and other departments, but here we're dealing with a systemic problem that has persisted for a number of years now. This problem was raised, in particular, in the Official Languages Support Programs audit report last December. That report recommended, among other things, that the OLSPB put appropriate mechanisms in place to improve delays in the application and approval process and continue promoting the use of multi-year agreements.
We completely support those recommendations. It is really urgent that measures be taken to eliminate the waiting times and delays at the administrative level, if we want our organizations to be able to operate and provide the services that are expected of them.
However, that's only half the solution. I now come to the recommendation that you made concerning increased funding for the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent. We have received confirmation that there will not be an increase for the next five years. However, the last increase in that funding dates back to 2005, and it was a very modest addition of $2.7 million a year, well below minimum needs that the communities estimated at that time at $18 million.
So that means that, roughly speaking, the funding granted to the organizations of the francophone and acadian communities to address the constantly growing demand for services and activities in French have remained the same in the past five to 10 years. During that time, the cost of living has increased. The final report of the evaluation of the Official Languages Support Programs clearly summarizes the situation: it refers to a situation “in which organizations have limited funding to assume a mandate, which is itself continuing to expand. This dynamic inevitably leads to fatigue, if not exhaustion, within the network of OLMC associations.”
People will tell us that the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality provides for investments of $1.1 billion over five years. That's true, and the FCFA pointed out that that Roadmap would make it possible to continue the momentum of the Action Plan for Official Languages in a number of important development areas for the communities.
However, there are two very significant problems. First, while announcements were indeed made about the various initiatives under the Roadmap, in concrete terms, the funding amounts announced remain to be seen. Second, we have pointed out that support for organizations that create community life in French is absent from the Roadmap. The issue of financial activities and services in French therefore remains intact.
People will no doubt be told that we are in the midst of an economic crisis. I would remind you that the organizations serving the francophone and acadian communities employ hundreds of individuals, not to mention the social and economic impact that they have in their communities. Investing to consolidate this network is, in a way, a contribution to Canada's economic recovery.
In conclusion, like all Canadians and the government, the community organizations are in favour of the sound use of public funds to produce results. However, the delays in funding approval and payment we are dealing with, as well as the lack of any increase in dedicated funding for the collaboration accords clearly constitute a barrier to those results.
Thank you very much. I am prepared to answer your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, on behalf of the QCGN, we'd like to thank the committee for receiving us again this year. As you will have already heard from Lise, some of the problems are still there. I'll talk a little about that, but also about some more general things.
The QCGN, which was recognized by the Department of Canadian Heritage as the official representative and interlocutor of English-speaking Quebec in the last collaboration accord, is a non-profit association that brings together more than 30 organizations from all parts of Quebec. Its purpose is to support and assist in the development and enhance the vitality of English-speaking minority communities. We have 32 member organizations across the province, from Gatineau to Gaspé, from townshippers to MCDC in Thetford in Quebec, and to the Lower North Shore and Baie Comeau, and the lower Lower North Shore and St. Augustine, Îles de la Madeleine, etc.
Lise was talking about the importance of timely funding for these member organizations. This is the third year, I think, that I've come to Ottawa. We spoke about it in the past and we're speaking about it again today. We all have examples of member organizations that are surviving the summer on the executive director's credit card. That's the reality.
We get 25% funding, but it's 25% of what? We don't know what the funding is for the year. You don't know how much you can start spending because you don't have your yearly budget. In these weeks where there's so much talk here in Ottawa of support, funding, and the amounts that are being invested, this is not new. This is a five-year plan. It's the same money year in and year out, yet every year it's such a problem getting timely funding. We know that people have been working on trying to fix this, but there's still a way to go.
As the QCGN prepares to launch its 15th anniversary celebrations in the fall in conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, we look back on past successes and failures and on 40 years of official languages legislation. The crucial question we must pose is this: how successful has the Official Languages Act been in supporting the vitality of English-speaking Quebec? But that is only the first part of the question. As we all know, the devil is in the details. The more fundamental question is the following: how successful have the Government of Canada's official languages policy framework and program funding initiatives been in supporting English-speaking minority communities?
The QCGN is working hard to develop and implement policies that support and nurture our community's place in Quebec and Canadian society. Among our greatest challenges has been getting recognition of Quebec's English-speaking community as a minority both in Quebec and in Canada.
That is why we were pleased that the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, underlined our “national standing” when he noted in his annual report in 2007-08 that Quebec's English-speaking community is one of the two official language minorities. The commissioner stressed that federal institutions and key stakeholders interested in official languages should acknowledge our community's contribution to national policy-making in Canada.
However, for the Official Languages Act to be effective in Quebec, our community's national standing must not only be recognized but acted upon. That means federal institutions must find innovative ways of supporting our community. While priorities apply nationally, the policies can be adapted in such a way as to implement them differently for us in Quebec.
In the 2005 mid-term report entitled “Update on the Implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages”, our community's formal assessment noted that the most successful and promising initiatives under the action plan in Quebec were the efforts to improve access to health and social services in English. However, our overarching assessment was that the action plan had generated very uneven results and that it underestimated the community capacity required to successfully support its application.
That should have been a wake-up call to proceed differently, but despite the best advice, an upgrade didn't occur in the second round of the action plan funding and is absent from the road map. We are concerned that it is just still not a priority. While the development of the health sector is clearly a success story for us in Quebec, there is still little or no funding for other key sectors.
If evaluation frameworks for a 2008-2014 road map do not address funding gaps, for example, in immigration and literacy, the results will once again be skewed against our community. The evaluation may determine such programs were implemented successfully, but they will nevertheless have failed in supporting English-speaking Quebec.
We have come to recognize that when a systemic flaw fails to recognize the needs of our community, only an evidence-based approach can resolve the issue. In that context we have proposed that the Government of Canada develop and implement overarching evaluation methodology that would ensure all departments take the priorities of the English-speaking minority into account. If that is not done, the priorities of our community will continue to be ignored.
In the most recent collaboration accord, English-speaking Quebec was allocated almost $16.9 million in funding. That is less than $3.4 million a year, of which 80% is core funding. The core funding is that 25% cheque that goes to all our member organizations, but they still don't know that it's 25% of what. While the amount represented an 11% increase from the previous collaboration accord, it is just insufficient to support our network and to meet the needs of English-speaking Quebec.
What do we need, you might ask. I would suggest our network needs at least an 18% to 20% increase in funding to meet the most pressing needs of our community and to address funding gaps in a number of currently underfunded areas, including youth, seniors, status of women, arts, culture, and heritage. So, yes, there is success in the health sector, but what about the other sectors?
Over the past year, the QCGN has attempted to access strategic funding from the national as well as the regional envelopes of Canadian Heritage. That has met with systemic roadblocks. We believe initiatives of national strategic importance that the network has submitted in the area of youth have not been given the national priority they deserve. We work within a framework of PCH Heritage regional in Quebec and PCH Ottawa.
Without support of initiatives such as permanent funding for a provincial youth coordinator, the creation of a youth organization for English-speaking Quebec will be impossible. Quebec's English-speaking youth have no voice. When compared to every other province that has targeted ongoing core funding for official language minority youth organizations, this has been a disappointment for English-speaking youth in Quebec.
These are among our many priorities for the coming years. I'm sure the committee agrees that to be truly effective in supporting English-speaking Quebec's communities and institutions, a high level of commitment by the politicians is required. Without the support of each and every one of you, and your parties, there will be little or no change. For us in the English-speaking community of Quebec, there's a real appetite for change.
Merci. Thank you.
:
You have until November 28; that's later. However, some organizations will file their applications before November 28. I heard about organizations that had filed them at the end of October, precisely so as not to be filing at the last minute and so the government would have the time to assess the files.
Furthermore, we know that this money is used to fund operations; these things recur. We can have three- or five-year, agreements—which we virtually don't see anymore— or two-year agreements, which seem more common right now. It's hard to understand where the problem is, why it takes so much time to send that money. I imagine you're waiting.
Let's say you file your application at the end of November; we're talking about five, six or seven months before knowing. They tell you or suggest that you find another solution to fund yourselves in the meantime. So you're going to request a line of credit. That's great: a line of credit! As you said, Ms. Routhier-Boudreau, that's money for operations. There are costs, there is interest, but, if they don't approve your plan, what happens? Who'll pay down the line of credit? Who'll pay down the credit card that someone has used if you don't know on April 1? When it works in one direction, it should work in the other as well.
Let's consider the example of tax returns. There's a deadline, and there are penalties that the citizen fails to file before the deadline. However, you're told that, if the government is late, that's okay. Get organized and find personal financing, outside funding. However, if your plan is ultimately rejected, you're in no man's land; you have no idea what's happening. In that case, who will repay the line of credit?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Putting it another way, it's hard to go to war without ammunition. But that's exactly what you're doing. I remember accompanying Jeannine Séguin, president of the Fédération des francophones hors Québec at the time. She is someone who speaks out loud and strong, who makes appropriate demands. She was explaining to Serge Joyal, who was then Secretary of State for La Francophoni, that it first had to be understood that groups like Alliance Quebec—today the Quebec Community Groups Network—and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada represent the Canadian and Quebec social fabric.
Today, if we used the same language, if you were representatives of banks, of GM or oil companies, you would be telling us how you would manage the billions of dollars or the tax credits that are granted to you by the Canadian government.
However, it's quite the contrary; it's still the same debate. I remember interdepartmental debates that took place in the mid-1980s to ensure that money didn't come just from Canadian Heritage or from the Department of the Secretary of State, as it was called at the time. People wanted the Canadian government to help all the communities fighting against assimilation or for rights in Quebec and in all of Canada. At the time, I was president of the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon, which was experiencing the same thing.
At the time, the Chrétien-Martin government cut our funding. They wanted to cut our budget by 52%. Ultimately, it was cut by 37%. We know how hard it is to retain staff in that kind of situation. People don't wait forever. You yourself said that employees are being asked to go on employment insurance. If they're on contract, they can't get it.
We read the report that was written on the collaboration accords. I'm one of those who proposed the subject to the committee, and my colleagues agreed to discuss it. We know the solutions. The problem is systemic. We know that. I want to thank Mr. Godin for suggesting that we conduct this emergency meeting.
For the government and Parliament to understand, what solutions are the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Quebec Community Groups Network proposing? You talked about multi-year agreements. What elements should be put in place so that we no longer have to meet on this subject, so that it works on its own?
:
May I add another situation? I don't know if it's comparable to that of the FCFA. In Quebec, because we are one province, while we are a national minority contributing to policy across Canada, there has been up until relatively recently, in the last year or so, little consideration for the fact that we play on the national scene, not just in the case of QCGN itself but also for a few of our other organizations who meet with national organizations with the francophones outside Quebec, for example, l'Association de la presse, or la FCCF.
We have small organizations in Quebec, like ELAN, English-Language Arts Network, that are required, requested, and important in order for Canada to play on the national scene. ELAN, English-Language Arts Network, receives a very small pittance. I won't even embarrass ELAN by telling you what the amount is here today. For that, they have to figure out how they are going to develop policy and play, and talk to CRTC, CBC, and all of those. They don't even have $100,000. It's way below $100,000.
In Quebec there are other funds--strategic funds--at national headquarters. For Quebec, a number of us English-speaking organizations take a ping-pong approach to trying to get funding. The regional office gets the collaboration stuff, and they want us to play only on a very regional basis, not recognizing that a number of us have to play on the national stage.
I think that's another piece of a puzzle that is different from Quebec and that is a problem for funding.
:
But that's only for the last three years. My understanding is, and I've been informed, that six months has been the average for many years, which is why the 25% was set out--and I see some nodding heads--to address some of that concern. It sounds as though this has been ongoing for ten or more years, and it's unfortunate that we haven't found a way of progressing more quickly. I do want to point out some of the challenges that I've learned about since I've been here.
Of course we don't have public servants who have delegation for approval. The funding for the projects has to go to the minister. So they go to the regions where they do what's called “due diligence”, and then of course they go through a number of other steps before the public servants then transfer them to the minister who has to approve them.
This has been a unique year. We had an election in October. Boy, oh boy, I'm still not fully aware of all of my responsibilities, and I'm seven months in. So it was unique simply because of the way we started, but also it's unique because of this need for Treasury Board to deal with the files that were coming to an end.
[Translation]
You talked about multi-year agreements. It's true that we have multi-year agreements. Isn't it?
An hon. member: Yes.
Ms. Shelly Glover: This year, there will be renewals; we'll have new multi-year agreements. So I hope that will help as well, since the department will have fewer cases to approve.
[English]
I think that's something to note, that this year is somewhat unique. Then, of course, in December we also had other problems that came into play.
So I did want to point some of those out, but also, some of the groups have not signed their contribution agreements. I think that plays a part as well. I would encourage those groups that have not yet signed to do that as quickly as possible. If we all work together to try to get that done, I think it would certainly help. But I did want to point out that we also have new money.
[Translation]
It was said earlier that it's been five years since more money was invested in Community Life. I acknowledge that, but we have committed $260 million of new money under our Roadmap.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, it's all well and good to try to blame others, but the opposition isn't the government. That may not be good for you, but I believe that people on the government side haven't understood that they are the government. They have formed the government since January 2006. If they want to talk about elections, I'm going to remind them that they're the ones who triggered the election in September 2008. So they should stop blaming the opposition and accept their responsibility.
It's all well and good to study the situation, but personally... I think that Ms. Bossé, from the FCFA, said that programs had to be accepted or approved again by the Treasury Board. Between you and me, that's not the organizations' problem; it's the government's responsibility to do things accordingly so that you aren't ultimately penalized. I think this is really a matter of common sense. If the government withholds approvals, takes the time it wants, and is forced to transfer matters left and right, ultimately you're the ones who aren't entitled to funding because they haven't done their homework. It's not your responsibility; it's not your fault. The government must accept its responsibility in that respect.
How much time has the entire matter of the Roadmap for Linguistic Duality taken? In principle, it should have been in place on the day the other plan expired. But they took their time, and today all we hear is that the Roadmap has been announced. However, we're looking for something concrete. Where does it stand? In what organization? In what region of the country? People are waiting to know when they'll get their funding.
Ms. Bossé and Ms. Côté mentioned earlier that applications to Canadian Heritage have to be submitted at the provincial level in September and October. This is now late June. That means that organizations and groups applied in September, but may not yet have received any money, or even an answer, in July. We're talking about a system that makes absolutely no sense. You aren't one of the new groups; they know who you are; they know what you want, what your objective is. You're trying to promote both official languages through your respective organizations, in your respective regions. However, the only thing we hear is that the money isn't there. It's deplorable to see these kinds of situations. It's up to the government to shoulder its responsibilities. This government has been in power for nearly four years. It's all well and good to say that some people are new, but the government itself is starting to get old. Four years later, they're still trying to blame the opposition for their own inaction and inability to do the necessary work to ensure that our organizations can be properly respected.
My remarks are probably more of a comment, because there comes a time when we get frustrated for you. We would much prefer not to have you appear before us, in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, to tell us what your problems are. If the government had taken action or was taking action, you wouldn't be here explaining to us what has to be done to save you. You would have your money. Your applications would have been approved, you would have received your money, your projects would be implemented, and the communities and groups would be benefiting from them. However, we're still struggling before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Why? Because the government isn't giving you the money you need. Why doesn't the government simply approve your application and hand over the money you need?
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to ask you a few simple questions. We see the problem is serious. The parliamentary session will be ending soon, likely this week. No doubt you know how things work here in summer: everything runs in slow motion.
What could we do to help you now, so that you don't see any of your organizations shutting down, going bankrupt or laying off employees? I see you are really in serious difficulty and that this has been going on for years. You no doubt often need qualified staff, but it must be hard to recruit them. These people don't want to get involved in an organization that offers no financial security or can't guarantee long-term employment.
Give us some ideas of what we can do, as parliamentarians, to press the government before the House adjourns for the summer in the next few days. That way, we could immediately take concrete action that might help you this summer. Then we could see you again in the fall so to give you some news.
I'm going to hand over to you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning, I would like to welcome our guests with a sense of urgency.
[English]
Mr. Donnelly from the Quebec Community Groups Network, I hope you'll forgive me, but I will continue this discussion in French, and principally with the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I hope you'll realize that if we manage to solve the problem for one, it will solve it for both.
[Translation]
I'd also like to point out to the committee that Ms. Routhier-Boudreau is a resident of Ottawa—Orleans. We have met on a number of occasions.
As far as I know, the issues we previously discussed were resolved to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, I don't remember discussing this one with you. If you had talked to me about it, I could have helped you. I very much appreciate the urgent efforts of the opposition members in wanting to support and help you.
This week, I got a call from the Festival franco-ontarien, which was facing a similar problem. In a few hours, they received the documents they needed. I think there's a way to improve the process.
The situation is probably the way it is because there have been abuses in other files in the past. Those abuses were committed not by the organizations that receive funding, but by the government. Today, the procedures are tougher. Everyone is ensuring stricter management of public funds. For a group such as yours,
[English]
and here I speak of both groups,
[Translation]
there is already an assumption of good faith. And since the assumption of good faith is there, I believe it's unacceptable to leave you hanging the way we are doing.
As for the $165 million increase in the Roadmap, as far as I know, you aren't eligible to receive that money for administration or promotional purposes. However, you are eligible for it for projects, to provide services to the people you represent. Since I am one of those people, being a francophone living in a minority setting, I would be critical of you if you didn't file an application to obtain a portion of that funding.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau, I would like to speak with you during the break. I very much appreciate the assistance of all the other members in solving this problem as soon as possible. The fact remains that you have one servant at this table, me.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
First, a 25% advance that arrives in June isn't an advance. An advance is an amount that arrives on April 1.
Second, we talked a little about access to Roadmap funding. It's not that there isn't any money for the anglophone communities in Quebec, especially
[English]
in arts, culture, and heritage, for example, but Sylvia talked before about the process we're stuck in. We put in a national program for arts, culture, and heritage that's going to be of benefit for all the English communities and for Canada in terms of the arts domain. When we try to access road map funding or whatever, we're sent through a regional office in Montreal. That's not a problem for our confreres here, but it is for us in Quebec.
Sylvia was talking before about the trouble with working at the national level. We're in the process now. We worked six months on developing the arts, culture, and heritage. Yes, we can perhaps access road map funding for something like that because it's across Quebec--it's not just one little sector or one little organization--but when we have to work through the Montreal regional office that has its own ideas about our cross-Quebec project, we don't even know how far it goes from that level. It's like we're dealing with two departments of Canadian Heritage at the same time. It shouldn't be like that.
:
You have found an honourable servant who will solve all your problems and he is sitting at the table.
I thought that, in Ottawa, it was the Parliament of Canada. There are four political parties. Politics exists, and always will. When we don't want to do something, the excuse we give is that we don't want to make it a political issue. And yet we engage in politics every day. That was true before and it is today. It's like before and after. At the age of 20, I had hair on my head, and at 27, I didn't. What can you do about it? I'm still the same person.
I don't accept the idea that a government can say, as an excuse, that it's the fault of the public servants, who only work at the rate they're asked to work. I didn't accept that during the time of the Liberals, and I won't accept it under the Conservatives either. If things don't go quickly enough, perhaps it's because there aren't enough public servants. Perhaps there's only one official responsible for all the projects. What's the problem? You say you don't know where the file is. Someone has to take responsibility for that. The minister can't say that he isn't aware; it's been repeated to him for 10 or 15 years. It's the same problem.
Mr. Donnelly, you put it very clearly: a 25% advance six months later isn't an advance. I'm sure you've already told the department and the minister that makes no sense. Leadership has to come from the top. A member can't simply tell someone in his riding that, if he had known, he would have met with him and everything would have been solved. My God, spend the rest of the day with that member and solve all your problems. Promises are being made, but the money isn't going out. There are reasons for that. The longer the situation goes on, the better it is for them. That undermines the development of the communities.
If I was in your position, I would simply close up shop, but you're saying that's not the solution. It's true that it's not the solution, but when individuals who care about their community have to use their credit cards, what has to be done? It's the government that should care about the communities. Laws have been passed, and it's the government that's responsible for linguistic promotion of Canada's anglophone and francophone minorities.
I can't wait to see the motion the Liberals will be introducing. We have to find a solution. We must stop making this a political issue and ask the minister to find solutions. Why has this problem been around for 10 years? Instead of blaming the Conservatives, we have to wonder what the problem is. We should also ask the officials who is responsible for the problem. Is it them, the minister or the government? What do you think?
:
The government is conducting a study on this subject because we also have concerns. So we want to help you as soon as possible. I assure you this is not a political response.
For my part, I believe in the Francophonie, in your investments and your efforts, and I frankly congratulate you.
However, with regard to the motion, I am concerned by the question of “the impacts” because that means that we'll be introducing witnesses who will tell us how this has affected them and so on.
[English]
There's a measure of urgency, and we don't really have time to invite all of these organizations back to say how it's impacting you. We know it's impacting you all. I think we can agree that it's impacting you negatively. We want to figure out how to fix it, so I think we should study the delays and how we can
[Translation]
improve those delays.
[English]
Every organization is going to come in and say they want it sooner, and I think we can agree on that. I don't think we have to bring 50 witnesses in and delay other very important studies we have to do to improve official languages in our country.
That is my concern. Then we'll have to talk about a date. We only have one meeting left, and it will be impossible to do anything by the one meeting. I agree with Monsieur Rodriguez in principle and in spirit, with slight amendments so it's not based on the organizations, because I truly believe, and we all agree, that they're all impacted negatively.
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of the motion. I know this is an emergency.
Furthermore, the government will have the opportunity to consult the committee blues and to see everything that is going on.
With respect to National Defence, we already had that subject on the agenda.
You don't conduct a study in one day. You have to do something serious. I don't want to play politics, but every time you make a comment, we believe it's political.
This isn't something that's been going on for two or three years; it's been going on a long time. What's missing in a good study? What are the officials going to tell us? Will they tell us why they can't respond on time? How can we adapt? We need answers. We have to be able to have a dialogue together to try to find solutions and make recommendations. That's why I'm supporting the motion. We mustn't conceal the fact, the House will probably be adjourning by the end of the week, unless the committee wants to sit in July. That's possible. I hope that, at the start of business, we'll begin by studying this subject and that we'll try to work with our communities to find a solution to this problem which has been around for years.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The motion is very broad, and I support it. And we could even go as fast as possible at the first opportunity.
Mr. Godin seems to mean that someone has a problem, and that it's them or that it's us. Politically, that causes a problem. You have to look at the machine. How is it that it is having trouble handling the organizations' applications? Are there too many stages to go through before the decision is made? That's what we have to know.
If we want to give them an adequate response, we can't simply say they're responsible, or that we are. We have to know why the machine doesn't work. How is it that, when organizations file an application, there are perhaps 25 stages to go through and delays? That's what I want to know.
If that's Mr. Rodriguez' goal, if that's what we have to examine, we must make a recommendation to reduce the number of stages. We have to be able to make a recommendation. I don't agree that we should come up with a recommendation such as, “It's them or it's us.” I want to be able to study the machine, to invite officials to testify, to ask them how they operate when they receive an application, where they then send it, who responds, how much time it takes between the two of them, why it isn't ready on time, why a decision can't be given in one month. Perhaps there's a problem in the machine. That's what we have to study. If there is one, we have to find a solution.
I agree with Mr. Rodriguez, but we have to proceed precisely and exhaustively in order to come to a solution. Consequently, the people who have testified this morning will be able to say that it's very possible they won't get it this year, but that, on the first occasion, there may perhaps be a meeting where we'll be able to find a solution. That's what I want. I believe Mr. Rodriguez wants that as well.