:
Good morning everyone and thank you for your confidence in me.
This morning, we have the opportunity to resume where we had left off at our last meeting. We were talking about the effect of delays in approvals and disbursements on organizations funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Somewhat by chance, we have with us here this morning representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Ms. Marie-France Kenny and Ms. Suzanne Bossé.
So, if committee members so wish, we could invite them to tell us about the situation with the Department of Canadian Heritage regarding disbursements and their consequences for organizations.
Do all the committee members wish to so proceed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: I would invite the witnesses to join us. At the end of this discussion, if there is any time remaining, we could talk in camera about committee business and adopt the agenda for the parliamentary session.
On behalf of the committee members, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected president of the FCFA, Ms. Marie-France Kenny. I want to assure you of the cooperation of all committee members.
I also want to welcome Ms. Bossé.
Ms. Guay.
:
Good morning. I want to thank you for having invited us to appear this morning to give you a follow-up on funding to organizations serving francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. I am here today with Suzanne Bossé, who is our director general. We will be pleased to answer your questions at the end of our presentation.
When we first appeared before you last June—my predecessor Lise Routhier-Boudreau was here—it was to bring your attention to a situation we considered alarming. At that time, two months after the beginning of the fiscal year, 75% of the provincial and territorial umbrella organizations were still awaiting confirmation of how much funding they would get for programming for 2009-2010, and five of those organizations had not yet received the 25% advance that is usually paid out while waiting for funding confirmation.
You had taken the situation very seriously, as well as its impact on community development, and you called us here this morning to give you an update on the situation three months after we first sounded the alarm.
We have come this morning with well-documented and enlightening data. In fact, over the past month, we have developed and administered a poll to our community organizations in order to find out more about the current situation regarding funding delays and their impact. This time, we expanded our study to the entire francophone and Acadian community network, which includes approximately 600 organizations.
In total, 81 organizations responded to our poll, which gave us a sampling of approximately 13.5%. Since this was an online survey, this is a good sampling and a good response rate, all the more so because among these national, provincial, territorial and local organizations, we find theatres, community newspapers, youth organizations, cultural centres, and umbrella organizations, to mention just a few.
Of the 81 respondents, 65 are funded primarily by Canadian Heritage, while the main source of federal funding for the others is Human Resources and Skills Development, Justice Canada or Health Canada.
That is the profile. Now, let's look at the situation. The first conclusion we can immediately draw: five months after the beginning of the financial year, 5% of all organizations have not received any confirmation of funding of any kind whatsoever, be it for programs or projects. Five per cent may seen small compared to the situation in June, but we should remember that this means that this 5% stands for services to which the public has no access due to a lack of resources.
The survey also taught us that most organizations received their contribution agreement in July and August. Of course, we are happy that these organizations have received funding, but we are much less happy with the impact of the months of waiting on their operations. You must understand that, in many instances, the impact continues to be felt even till now.
In total, 72% of respondents had to use a line of credit or a loan, and, since April, at least 14 of these organizations incurred $500 in interest on those lines of credit. We are talking of at least $7,000 going to banks and not to developing services in French for our communities. I want to stress that this $7,000 amount is a minimum estimate. Some organizations have incurred over $1,000 in interest charges.
I am also thinking about the long-term impact on human resources. In some cases, employees had to use their personal credit cards to pay for expenditures or give up their salary or their expense account. Furthermore, 37.5% of respondents were unable to renew an employee's contract, while 19% said that they had to let permanent staff go.
I want to share with you some of the responses. One organization told us the following:
We had to extend a project officer's temporary contract, because we hadn't yet received confirmation of Canadian Heritage's support for the project. We took that risk however because suspending the contract would have meant compromising the results. We were only told in June that Heritage Canada would no longer support the project. This project luckily had the support of provincial funding partners.
Another organization told us:
A permanent and priority position to ensure the proper operation of the association was not filled for four months after the employee's departure. Since September, another permanent position went from four days a week to three days a week.
Finally another one told us:
We encouraged some of our employees to take summer leave without pay, we reduced the hours of part-time employees and reduced the employer's contributions to permanent employee benefits.
You will agree with me that these are not the ideal conditions to improving the ability of our communities to live in French.
The poll taught us something else that's very important: a number of local organizations rely on financial support from their provincial or territorial umbrella organization while waiting for the confirmation of funding. This is a very enlightening and worrying piece of news. It is enlightening because it shows the important role that our provincial and territorial umbrella organizations play in supporting the development of services in French to people in the regions. However, it is worrying because if the umbrella organization experiences difficulties because of funding delays, the entire provincial or territorial community network is compromised.
A final element of the poll will no doubt be of interest to you: we asked respondents to tell us by what date in previous years they generally received their contribution agreement and their first payment. This allowed us to confirm on the one hand the fact that people are waiting longer this year, but also to determine that this is a systemic problem being experienced year after year. One thing is clear, our organizations do not want to experience next year what they went through this year and what they have been experiencing for years. The situation needs to change.
What is the solution? We would like to bring your attention to various considerations. First, in order to make the examination and application approval administration process easier, we should ask ourselves whether it is really necessary for all projects without exception to go through the minister's office. We know that the Department of Canadian Heritage is considering other options to resolve this issue. We have always said and we will say so again: we are not here just to talk about the problems, we want to be part of the solution and we are prepared to work with the government in order to do so.
However, we cannot ignore the problems that exist with regard to governance. In fact, the Official Languages Support Programs Branch and the regional branches of Canadian Heritage with which a number of our organizations deal are two separate entities that both come under two different assistant deputy ministers. This makes it difficult to consider, for example, creating a joint committee bringing together both the government and the FCFA to try to find solutions.
In conclusion, I want to repeat what my predecessor Lise Routhier-Boudreau said before this committee in June. At that time, she said that organizations and communities are in favour of a responsible use of public funds that produce results, but that approval delays and disbursement delays clearly hinder achieving results. I want to echo those comments and add the following information: new policy on transfer payments clearly states that risk management must not become a way to avoid risk. Allow me to quote the following excerpt from the policy:
Supporting strengthened accountability for public monies and better results for Canadians, this policy requires that transfer payments be managed in a manner that is sensitive to risks, that strikes an appropriate balance between control and flexibility, and that establishes the right combination of good management practices, streamlined administration and clear requirements for performance.
However, the current delays and desire to avoid risks are having the quite ironic result of creating risk. We are creating risk in terms of projects' success. We are creating risk in terms of the survival of community infrastructure or creating risk with regard to social and economic vitality. As we indicated in June, it makes no sense, when you're trying to stimulate the Canadian economy, to adopt an approach that is leading to job losses and undermining our community structures.
Thank you very much. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have.
:
We are familiar with your lengthy résumé. You are a woman of experience and conviction. You have always been involved in issues that concern communities. It is our opinion that the FCFA is in good hands.
Ms. Bossé, good morning. It's always a pleasure to see you. We must also salute the work done by Ms. Lise Routhier-Boudreau, and everything she has done in the past.
The situation is serious. That is why you are here today. A few months ago, we began this conversation, and this has led to our discussion today. I think it's serious as well as sad. We must encourage and not discourage organizations working throughout the country.
I like the fact that, in your approach, you talk about the situation and propose some solutions too. I think that is important. We mustn't just criticize, we must also seek ways to move forward.
You say that a number of respondents had to use their lines of credit and that the organizations have to absorb the interest charges. Does the government then pay those charges?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Ms. Kenny. I would not err in saying “long live the Fransaskoisie!”.
Good morning, Ms. Bossé.
Last June, the committee did indeed decide to go ahead with this extremely important study. In my experience, this is a recurring problem. I get the impression that from the day the Official Languages Act was promulgated and organizations were given opportunities to combat the assimilation of francophones in Canada, they have had trouble obtaining the funds within reasonable timeframes for the creation of the programs demanded by the federal government. It was true regardless of whether Liberals or Conservatives were in power. It seems to be the administrative structure that is at fault. I cannot blame any particular government, but this has been going on for far too long. I have met members of the Quebec Community Group Network who are in the same situation. These are Quebec anglophones.
We know what the situation is like. We know how harmful it is. We know our history: you only receive crumbs to fight assimilation put forward by provincial governments for decades under the spiteful auspices of the federal government. Despite that, communities are being asked to take charge of their affairs, to be responsible, to be accountable and to assume all the responsibilities that the government is not taking on in this context. It is not a bad thing for you to be in charge, because you are far more aware of the situation on the ground.
We are looking for solutions. Could you tell us how you would feel if there were no longer a need to go through a minister to get the authorization to issue the cheque? Quite often, it is on somebody's desk and there are many other things to take care of first. The Department of Canadian Heritage is vast, it is very big. There were many, many files at the time. In what way would not having to always go through the minister improve the situation?
:
Good morning and congratulations, Ms. Kenny. It is nice to see your enthusiasm. Please pass on my congratulations to Ms. Lise Routhier-Boudreau, who did a very good job.
Since my election, I am gaining a better understanding of what I was hearing in my riding, since I have lived in a minority community for a long time. As Mr. Nadeau said, the situation has existed for years; it recurs. Receiving funding takes a long time.
So we are here to help you, and you are here to help us understand how to proceed. I greatly appreciated you mentioning solutions, and I thank you for them.
Personally, I was very happy to learn that the government had provided an unprecedented amount as part of the Road map for communities. That is a step forward, but how do you access the funding? I know that this year, as you pointed out, was very different, because the Treasury Board had to renew and examine all files for April 1, 2009, which meant a complete renewal cycle. So I understand that that was a huge challenge this year.
Now, with the support of Minister Moore, we expect multi-year agreements, as requested. We are working on that. Moreover, Minister Moore has already done so in the area of culture, among others, but there was also new funding, like for Music Showcases, translation, and so on. That is fine, but we must have a serious discussion with officials and departments in order to come up with some solutions, as you said.
I would like an update on the situation in your organizations and to know what your relations with people working in the region are. Are they good?
:
In Saskatchewan, for example, there is a management committee which studies funding requests that have already been analyzed once by Canadian Heritage. The management committee is comprised of members from the community, including members of the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise. It is a subcommittee which meets and makes recommendations to Heritage Canada.
In Newfoundland, until this year, there was a committee comprised of bilingual and francophone people who were not active within the community and who did not have the right to be members of another organization or committee, and which decided on behalf of the community how to invest the money or funding. Further, this committee did not ask any questions of the community; it simply received the requests.
When I was a member of the ACF, I evaluated funding applications, and I can tell you that we had questions with regard to every application. We therefore held public meetings.
It is rather difficult to accept that a group of people, who are not active in the community and who don't really know the community, make decisions without even putting questions to those proposing projects in order to obtain clarification, and then recommend to Canadian Heritage who should obtain funding.
In Newfoundland, people said that there was no other process in place and that it was the same everywhere, when that is not the case. We had discussions with Canadian Heritage, of course, and we were told that they would give us that flexibility.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks you, Ms. Bossé and Ms. Kenny. Ms. Kenny, congratulations on your appointment.
You said that the Department of Canadian Heritage seems to be listening to you. It's one thing to be listening, but it's another to get results. It's all very well and good for departmental officials to say that they also have to deal with red tape, but it was not members of Parliament who created the ton of paperwork you have to fill out. Officials from the department have to show leadership and reduce the paper burden. They complain that the process is complicated, but they are the ones who have to streamline the process.
You have to fill out several forms, and often it is volunteers who do the work. Some organizations may have several employees, but others do not. Therefore, volunteers are found to fill out the ton of paperwork, and the situation is made much worse because there is no guarantee that the funding will come through.
I talked about achieving results. You said that some organizations are not able to deliver services to Canadians. Three problems were mentioned. First, the time an organization has to wait to receive confirmation of funding. Second, the loss of employees because of this wait. Third, services could naturally not be delivered if organizations don't hear from the government in six months or longer.
On top of all of these problems, when an organization has not received confirmation, especially when the wait exceeds six months and there remain only five or six months before year-end, when the organization receives confirmation, followed by the funding, it might have to hire people to compensate for the previous loss of employees, and it might not be able to provide the service or the program to Canadians.
The government sends you money and then reminds you that it's December 31, so don't forget to pay it back. It's as if it was asking you, since you finally got the money, not to “bug“ it anymore, but not to forget to pay it back. It looks good on paper when funding has been given, but it would be interesting to look at the government's books and see how much funding had to be returned by organizations because they received their confirmation much too late, or because the funding still had not been approved six months later. There are several other factors, including the fact that the files are still sitting on the minister's desk. I can't believe that the minister reviews each application.
I worked for the Business Development Bank of Canada where I was responsible for evaluating funding applications, which I then passed on to my boss for final authorization. The applications were not sent to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. Under the organization's hierarchy, decisions were taken at a lower lever for greater efficiency.
If the minister, who has other responsibilities, has to review the applications, he will never get the job done. He might be able to review a couple of applications, but don't believe for a moment that the minister of Canadian Heritage, while on a plane between Ottawa and Vancouver, will pull out his binder of applications and decide to approve one of them this week because it seems to make sense. What about the other applications, then?
I'm not giving you time to respond, but I would like to come back to what I said. The fact of the matter is that organizations can't deliver services to Canadians because they have to wait too long for confirmation of funding; they are losing employees and are not getting approval even after six months. This means that even if they wanted to, they cannot fulfill their mandate. Is that correct?
:
Good morning, Ms. Kenny and Bossé.
Ms. Bossé, we have already met on numerous occasions. You are one of our favourite witnesses.
A little earlier, Mr. D'Amours described three things. You had talked about them during the previous session. In fact, they are the reason for your request today. You said that something was not working. Naturally, we are trying to find a solution. Earlier, Ms. Kenny said that it was not all bad, that some things were good. We understand that you are between a rock and a hard place. You do not want to overly criticize us or say we are too nice, we understand that.
I want to ask about the machine. As Mr. D'Amours said, the minister cannot read these binders every day. When you talked about how thick the binders were, you indicated with your hands that they were about a foot high, perhaps even higher. To say that the minister would be responsible is completely irresponsible. He cannot read them all by himself, he needs help. We are talking about deputy ministers. Even if there are many deputy ministers, given the number of binders received, they cannot read them all. So we need to keep going down the line.
I want to know what kind of contact you have with those people down the line, the people with whom you have been talking for the past few years and with whom you are on a first-name basis. Are you telling them that the machine is broken? It is easy for a public servant to say that it is the boss's fault. That is what we hear most often. Once you have filed your application--and God knows that it is thick--it winds up in the hands of some public servant. Does it get stuck at the first level? I am trying to understand. I want to know to whom I need to speak. Do you understand what I mean? That is the problem.