LANG Committee Report

INTRODUCTION

What were traditionally called the "Canada-Community Agreements" are a series of collaboration accords between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the community organizations that support the development of the official language minority communities. These accords represent an annual investment of approximately $30 million, and are based on the principle that the community organizations are often in the best position to deliver, in the field, the programs and services through which the federal government intends to meet its commitment to enhancing the vitality of the official language minority communities. For most of the provinces and territories, these accords were improved for the period from 2005‑2006 to 2008‑2009.

In its May 2007 report on the vitality of the official language minority communities, the Committee addressed the agreements in the broader context of the community organizations' role in supporting that vitality. A number of concerns were raised at the time over the lack of resources that a number of organizations were suffering, particularly as a result of the excessively "piecemeal" allocation of resources of each provincial and territorial envelope which prevented every recipient organization from adequately doing its job. Another source of frustration was the burdensome administrative process that the organizations had to follow in order to obtain federal government grants and contributions. The frequent consequence of these two sources of frustration was trouble in recruiting and especially retaining staff, as well as the critical level of exhaustion among volunteers, most of whom were seniors. To take a closer look at these issues, the Committee decided to conduct a study specifically on the agreements so as to be able to answer the following questions, among others:

• Do the agreements adequately meet the needs of the communities in terms of funding, accountability and management of priorities?

• What main advantages do the communities derive from the way in which the agreements are currently administered?

• What are the main disadvantages of the agreements?

• Knowing that the accords must soon be re‑evaluated, either in the context of the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages or when the current accords expire, what recommendations would you make to the federal government to increase the effectiveness of its support to the organizations devoted to promoting the development of the official language minority communities?

The Committee heard 19 witnesses at five meetings held between April 1 and May 15. The principal findings of the following report indicate that:

• basic funding under the collaboration accords must be significantly increased;

• the administrative burden associated with the collaboration accords must be lightened;

• the community organizations wish to take greater responsibility for their development in order to manage funding on the basis of priorities established by the communities;

• the community organizations want the government to promote interdepartmental collaboration on community development sufficiently, so that it will be there for the official language minority communities in all spheres of development that come under federal jurisdiction.

CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENTS

The collaboration accords are based on the fundamental principles that are set out in the introduction to each agreement:

As a community development architect, Canada’s community sector is one of three pillars of Canadian society, along with the public and private sectors. Our quality of life, our economic strength, and the vitality of our democratic institutions depend on the vibrancy of these interdependent sectors and the support they provide to one another. Volunteers and staff working in Saskatchewan’s Francophone community sector organizations are actively involved in making a difference and improving their communities. They deliver services critical to Canadians, advocate for common causes, and support economic and community development in Canada. […] Volunteers are involved in all three sectors, but it is the community sector that was developed by volunteers and continues to do the most to mobilize their efforts. The community benefits enormously from the efforts contributed by volunteers, who provide people with access to a range of services, in particular services for women, youth and seniors, in a number of areas including healthcare and early childhood education. The rich network of organizations known as the community sector helps make Canada the humane, caring, and prosperous nation it is, and is one of the strengths for which Canada is known around the world.[1]

The agreements specify that they are not legal documents, and rather that they are designed "to guide the evolution of this relationship by identifying the common values, principles and commitments that will shape future practices."[2] They specify that the underlying values of the agreements are linguistic duality, democracy, active citizenship, equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice, and set out the six guiding principles:

• the independence of the community sector, including "right…to challenge public policies, programs and legislation and to advocate for change," and recognition that "advocacy is inherent to debate and change in a democratic society and … should not affect any funding relationship that might exist"[3];

• the interdependence of the community sector and Canadian Heritage when they jointly undertake activities to achieve common goals;

• dialogue, which must be facilitated, including by implementing appropriate processes and governance structures;

• cooperation and collaboration, which essentially means that "working relationships should be flexible"[4];

• accounting to Canadians, meaning "ensuring transparency, high standards of conduct and sound management in their work together" and "monitoring and reporting on the results" by the partners[5];

• transparency, meaning that the partners "agree that Acadian and Francophone organizations and the Department must communicate information on their functioning, practices, intentions, objectives and results in a timely manner."[6]

top

Commitments are made based on these principles, including the commitment by the community sector to "serve as a means for the voices and views of" as many components as possible "of the Acadian and Francophone community sector to be represented and be heard by Canadian Heritage and the Government of Canada, ensuring the mobilization and engagement of the various elements of the community."[7]

The rest of the text of the agreements (Part V) is specific to each community. It sets out the key issues of which the community must take note, and the results in terms of a development plan that is specific to each community.

In section 2 of Part V, each agreement specifies the provincial organization that will be responsible for "community cooperation and cohesion" among the various organizations in the community sector in each province and territory. Those organizations are recognized by the federal government as key interlocutors in advocacy and dialogue on public policy. The provincial and territorial organizations are also responsible for establishing, coordinating and convening a Community Forum that brings together the community sector. The extent of the responsibilities assigned to those umbrella organizations may vary from one agreement to another. The agreements also provide for the creation of "Collaborative Circles," which have a very flexible structure and which are essentially designed to bring in other provincial or municipal organizations or sectors of the community, where necessary, that have an interest in the implementation of the collaboration accords.

The Community Forums must establish a funding evaluation and recommendations committee to be mandated to:

[M]ake proposals to the Department of Canadian Heritage regarding the distribution of funds available via the provincial Cooperation with the Community Sector budget envelope. […] The Minister is responsible for making the final decision on the specific allocation of funding in accordance to terms and conditions in force at the Department. In order to maintain transparency, the final decision regarding allocation of funds will be communicated to the Committee and to the public, following the Minister’s approval.[8]

The Department agrees to promote collaboration with other federal departments and better knowledge on the part of other departments of issues affecting official language minority communities in each province and territory. One of the tools available for that purpose is the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities (IPOLC), which Canadian Heritage uses to transfer funds to other departments for creating programs that promote the vitality of official language minority communities. The government had planned to spend $3.7 million under IPOLC in 2006-2007.

The same principle applies for the provincial and territorial governments with which the Department of Canadian Heritage signs agreements to help them improve their offer of services in the minority official language. The total figure for those agreements was $14.3 million in 2005-2006. They are separate from the education agreements. The funds paid under the federal-provincial-territorial agreements on minority language education totalled $175.1 million in 2005-2006.

The budget envelopes made available to the community sector in each province and territory are divided into two activity categories: support for action (programming), which relates to recurring programs that ordinarily involve multi-year planning and support for innovation (projects), in which the priority is activities that do not require permanent funding. At least 20% of the annual budget envelopes must be devoted to activities that do not require permanent funding.

As to reporting, each funded organization must report annually on the use of funds as linked to its contribution to the advancement of the Global Development Plan prepared by the community sector. The government’s responsibility is stated as follows: "At term end in 2008-2009, the Department of Canadian Heritage must provide the Treasury Board with a summative evaluation of the Development of Official-Language Communities Program. The Corporate Review Branch, a third party independent of the Official Languages Support Branch, is responsible for conducting this evaluation."[9]

FINANCIAL DATA

There are, in principle, 13 collaboration accords, most of which were renewed in the fall of 2005 (one with each province and territory), with the exception of the Quebec agreement which was renewed in June 2006. The agreements cover the 2005‑2006 to 2008-2009 fiscal years. There are no agreements with organizations in the Yukon, but the Department of Canadian Heritage funds them under the Community Life component of its Development of Official Languages Communities Program.

Under the agreements, the government makes a specific budget envelope available to the "community sector" in each province and territory, and that envelope is divided among the various organizations based on the priorities set by each community. Each of the provincial and territorial community sectors is represented by a provincial organization which coordinates negotiations with the federal government.

In 2005-2006, the budget envelopes made available to community organizations totalled $30.5 million. The collaboration accords do not specify the envelopes allocated for subsequent fiscal years, but documents from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada suggest that the amounts will be recurring until 2008-2009.

Since 2003-2004, the annual reports of the Department of Canadian Heritage have not indicated what proportion of the envelopes has actually been disbursed during a particular fiscal year for the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component. However, a relatively accurate estimate can be made based on the figures in the proactive disclosure of grants and contributions by the Department of Canadian Heritage and from data from the Public Accounts of Canada.[10] One estimate is that for fiscal 2006-2007 excluding all grants and contributions under $25, 000, about $28 million was paid out under these agreements, to more than 260 community organizations. For the purposes of this study, the Department of Canadian Heritage provided the Committee with the relevant figures for fiscal years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. These figures are shown in Appendix B.

In addition to the Canada-Community Agreements are the Strategic Funds. This is a discretionary envelope of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, with an annual value of about five million dollars, that the federal government uses to fund major projects and even interregional and national ones. The Canada-Community Agreements and the Strategic Funds form the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent of the Community Life component of the Official Languages Support Programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The information provided by Canadian Heritage shows that, for the entire Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent, expenditures in the 2006-2007 fiscal year totalled $34.5 million, as compared to $34.7 million in 2002-2003. Investments increased in 2005-2006, but that rise was not maintained in 2006-2007.

Expenditures under this subcomponent have thus remained unchanged overall since 2002-2003. By comparison, total expenditures for all Canadian Heritage official languages support programs for fiscal year 2006-2007 were $340,194,966, as compared to $341,478,897 in 2005-2006, and $267,474,698 in 2002-2003.[11]

top

The significant variations in expenditures under the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent can be explained by two main factors: the negotiation of Canada-Community Agreements which, starting in 2005-2006, increased expenditures under these agreements, as well as a decrease, starting in 2003-2004, in Strategic Funds expenditures, as the next two tables illustrate.

Expenditures under the Canada-Community agreements and the Strategic Funds include those pursuant to the Action Plan for Official Languages. Under its Community Life component, the Action Plan included $19 million in funding over five years to fund projects submitted to Canadian Heritage that would assist the communities, in particular for community centres, culture and the media. This additional funding was not intended to build the capacity of the organizations themselves since no funding was allocated for the operating budgets of these organizations. It is therefore similar to Strategic Funds funding, which supports structuring projects for the communities that do not necessarily meet the criteria of current programs or where the infrastructure needs are significant, or are interprovincial or national. For the first four fiscal years of the Action Plan, the community life expenditures were as follows:

Based on all the financial data provided in the attached table, one can conclude the following:

• While expenditures under the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent in 2002-2003 accounted for 13% of all expenditures under Canadian Heritage official languages support programs, that proportion fell to 10% in 2006-2007.

• The Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent is the only one for which funding was not increased from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, as compared to a 27% increase for Canadian Heritage official languages support programs overall.

• The renegotiation of Canada-Community agreements starting in 2005-2006 restored spending to 2002-2003 levels, after significant and consecutive decreases in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

• The investments under the Action Plan under its Community Life component offset the drop in spending under Canada-Community agreements for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

• Moreover, the investments under the Action Plan for the Community Life component were funded by an equivalent decrease in Strategic Funds expenditures, which fell considerably in the last four fiscal years.

• In Ontario, the investments under the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent fell by 18%, while they increased slightly everywhere else.

• The decrease in Strategic Funds expenditures was most detrimental to Ontario since in 2002-2003, $1.5 million was spent in Ontario from the Strategic Funds, representing close to 60% of Strategic Funds expenditures in the provinces; whereas in 2006-2007, those expenditures fell to just $92,500 dollars.

In conclusion, the financial analysis showed that expenditures under the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent remained stable from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, despite the Action Plan investments which were offset by a reduction in Strategic Funds expenditures, which was felt most strongly by Franco-Ontarian organizations.

top

EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Francophone and Acadian communities of Canada admittedly have a number of points in common, but their situations are also quite different in demographic, geographic, historical and legal terms, and in the relations they maintain with the Canadian government and their respective provincial and territorial governments. Furthermore, not all the communities are at the same stage in their development. These factors influence the development of each community. The needs and priorities of the communities are thus very different. The collaboration accords must be developed, signed and administered taking this fact into account. The following observations and recommendations do not claim to address all the problems specific to each group that came to testify before us. Instead the Committee intends to focus on the points that came up most frequently and that revealed certain systemic problems, such as the funding of the organizations, the administrative burden and governance of the accords.

A. FUNDING OF THE ORGANIZATIONS

1.   Inadequate Funding

Solid community networks are one of the main conditions for the communities' vitality. That solidity is directly affected by the financial resources available to the organizations that contribute most to maintaining that vitality.

The community associations that appeared before us stated that the funding granted to them was inadequate and that increases were essential to enable them to do their community development work:

I think that organizations feel a little bit like the air is being squeezed out of them. Currently, due to a lack of funding, we don't have the capacity to innovate, to expand or keep our staff. We know that this is a very significant issue. As you know, we feel that we're doing important work for Canada and for our communities. We are present in each of our communities, which is very important for our provinces and territories. To this end, we need financial support.[12]

As the financial data presented above show, expenditures under the Collaboration with the Community Sector subcomponent have not increased since 2002‑2003; whereas Canadian Heritage's Official Languages Support Programs as a whole have increased in the order of 27% since 2002‑2003. The community groups have criticized the fact that the investments are not indexed. According to the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique:

The annual budget granted by Canadian Heritage, which now fluctuates between $2.6 million and $3 million a year, is inadequate. Taking inflation into account, that budget has not increased since 1999. The Bank of Canada website shows the amount of funding granted by Canadian Heritage for francophone affairs in 1999. The current amount is lower than that. And obviously the community has vastly evolved since that time.[13]

The significant gains made by the communities, particularly in education, and more recently in health, have made the work that the community movement must now do on a day-to-day basis significantly more complex. A number of community associations noted the changes that have taken place in their community since the last round of negotiations on the collaboration accords. However, the budget associated with the collaboration accords has not followed those developments. For example, the Acadian community in Prince Edward Island has made considerable progress in the past decade:

Is funding adequate for us? We have a fixed budget envelope over five years. However, in five years, many things can occur to change the situation. In Prince Edward Island, in 1999, there were only two French schools, whereas in 2003, there were six. This change occurred very rapidly, but the budget envelope has not increased. We must thus provide services to four more schools and four more communities with the same amount of funding.[14]

Some provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, are taking in more and more new Francophones from other regions of Canada and elsewhere in the world. This new dynamic is not only changing the face of the Francophone community, but is inevitably affecting the funding allocation. Intake structures must be put in place, which requires funding:

Immigration in our neck of the woods is going very well: 100 new families have arrived. This is something new in Saskatchewan, 100 new families settling there last year. The problem is that this leads to other difficulties and other priorities in terms of needs. Often, the immigrants are picked through a candidate selection program, but there are also refugees with challenges, and we then need to find solutions to those challenges if we want to ensure real integration. Here again, resources are needed to really help these people.[15]

Thus, the funding allocated in 2004‑2005 no longer meets the communities' changing needs. The communities must address this challenge by making the funding they do have go further. Money must therefore be taken away from one group and given to another:

Since budgets have already been exhausted, for both action and innovation, many groups do not file applications, knowing there is no money to fund them. When funding is granted for support for action to an organization that has not yet received any or for a new project, the funding granted to other organizations is reduced because the budget remains the same.[16]

The challenges raised by this under-funding of course have a significant impact on the community groups, on both the human side and in the areas of infrastructure, programming and projects. Ultimately, they say they are unable to carry out the mandate conferred on them by the collaboration accord:

Due to a lack of financial, technical and human resources, most groups are already unable to engage in development or to deliver the required services to the community and to their members. Without enough skilled and well-paid professional resources, the organizations cannot design, plan, deliver and evaluate the services they provide. The first services that have already been cut are the regular updating of websites, information-sharing and the creation of tools to develop community skills.[17]

The community organizations argue that the collaboration accords provide that they are to act as providers of community development services, which are ultimately the responsibility of the Government of Canada. It must therefore offer the service itself or, in the alternative, delegate that responsibility to a third party and provide it with adequate resources to carry out that mandate. The director general of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador stated the problem clearly:

Let's not forget that the government has ultimate responsibility for official languages. The obligation to provide services falls to it. For decades, the government has shirked that obligation by simply handing it over to the volunteer sector and non-profit organizations, without however giving them, or giving us, the necessary financial resources to do the job. We have never been greedy in our demands. We simply want reasonable financial resources to enable us to carry out our mandate as a "provider of services."[18]

top

In the context of a reinforcement of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the Committee is of the view that increasing the resources allocated to the community organizations is a necessary and urgent priority. The development of services, projects and investments has resulted in strong demand for community resources, whereas funding allocated to the community resources has not increased and administering it is an increasingly complex matter.

In its May 2007 report on the vitality of the official language minority communities, the Committee recommended:

That the regular program funding of the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent of the Community Life component, Development of Official Language Communities Program, be increased by 50% for fiscal year 2007-2008 compared to current levels of financing, and then be increased proportionally with the overall budgets for Canadian Heritage’s Official Languages Support Programs, in order to reflect the additional effort required of organizations once projects are in place. (Recommendation 18)

In its response to that report, the government wrote: "Additional funding of $30 million over two years announced in the last federal budget will allow community organizations to increase the activities that they contribute and deliver in several areas as well as enrich community life in minority communities."[19] The Committee is of the view that that is an inadequate response in the circumstances, and that a significant increase in basic funding for the budgets associated with the collaboration accords is necessary to enable the community organizations to carry out their delegated mandate.

The community would therefore like to reiterate Recommendation 18 of its report on the vitality of the official language minority communities, which states:

Recommendation 1

That the regular program funding of the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent of the Community Life component, Development of Official Language Communities Program, be increased by 50% for fiscal year 2008-2009 compared to current levels of financing, and then be increased proportionally with the overall budgets for Canadian Heritage’s Official Languages Support Programs, in order to reflect the growing and changing needs of the official language minority communities and the general rise in the cost of living.

2.   Multi-year Funding

Apart from an increase in the basic funding allocated under the collaboration accords, the community associations would like to receive multi-year funding enabling them to manage their development with a longer-term vision:

Ideally, we should have multi-year agreements providing for one single fund, and one lump sum payment. This way, we would be able to better manage our affairs. There would not be a payment five times per year, but rather one plan for the next five years. That would make our work easier.

Also, the community governance structure must be respected, and it must be given the power to require accountability. We need the necessary tools to make organizations bound to produce results; ask federal authorities to ensure accountability with respect to development priorities, and make investments accordingly.[20]

The Committee was pleased to hear the representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage testify that the department has been granting multi-year funding for two years now:

The multi-year agreements were implemented two years ago. As the agreements this year expire on March 31, 2009, the maximum it is possible to get is a multi-year agreement of three years. Five groups in New Brunswick and seven in Newfoundland obtained multi-year agreements of two or three years, which simplifies the process. They don't have to submit a request every year, since the agreement extends over three years. If they submit their activity report and it is consistent with the terms of the contribution agreement, they will receive their money much sooner and much more regularly. In addition, there are fewer reports to submit. They receive 50%, rather than 25%, of their funding in April because the multi-year agreement mechanisms pay out funding faster.[21]

The Committee wishes to encourage the Department of Canadian Heritage to continue this practice, by enabling the organizations to obtain multi-year funding, and recommends:

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada favour multi-year funding over a five-year period and assess the possibility of further accelerating the allocation of funding.

3.   Calculating the Funding Allocated to the Community Movement in Each Province and Territory

Funding granted under the collaboration accords varies from one province and territory to another without any justification. For example, Alberta, which has 61,225 Francophones, according to Census 2006 data, received funding of $2,966,732 in 2006‑2007; whereas New Brunswick, which has 232,975 Francophones, received the barely larger amount of $3,051,209. When asked what factors are considered in allocating funding, Canadian Heritage representatives said they looked at the following criteria:

There are a number of types of criteria. If it were simply a pro-rated distribution based on population, we wouldn't have the figures we currently have. There's a whole cocktail of factors, including demographics. There are also issues relating to geographic dispersion. A small, widely dispersed community will score points: we realize that there are density problems, as a result of which they have to be given more support. There are factors such as the community's institutional maturity. A community that lives in a province that has a strong institutional apparatus that supports it in the area of health at the provincial and municipal level won't have the same needs as another community that is still at a much earlier stage in its development. We weigh factors.[22]

Community groups agree that there should be a formula that takes into account a number of factors, that those factors should be clearly identified and that the calculation formula should be more transparent, ultimately to ensure that the funding allocation is justified. What criteria should be included in that formula? Some criteria were mentioned on more than one occasion:

• the number of Francophones living in the province or territory;

• the dispersion of the Francophone community in the province or territory;

• the existing organizational structure and institutions of the Francophone community in that province or territory;

• the various factors affecting the economy of a province or territory such as the economic development of a region, rises in the cost of living, competition for labour, and others.

top

For communities such as the Francophones of Nunavut, a formula reflecting only the number of Francophones would be harmful:

We are not in favour of per capita calculations. We are the smallest of the French-Canadian communities. We comprise some 700 to 800 people distributed over two million square kilometres. In Nunavut, the average is one person per 70 square kilometres. So we are not in favour of per capita calculations.[23]

Other communities such as those in Ontario and New Brunswick, which are the two least funded provinces on a per capita basis, believe that a formula based on the number of Francophones is essential:

The number of Francophones, their distribution over an immense territory and the constantly increasing presence and potential of Francophone immigrants cannot be disregarded in Ontario. Per capita figures are not the only indicator that must guide us but they nevertheless cannot be excluded from the overall equation. Some basic statistics will illustrate this point. A quick analysis of the funding for each of the provinces and territories under the collaboration agreement, based on the number of French speakers residing there according to the recent census, clearly illustrates the gap between those amounts. For example, one of the provinces receives $113 per capita, whereas Ontario receives only $16. Can that discrepancy be justified?[24]

The organizations especially want the overall picture of the community to be taken into consideration:

If the only criterion used in calculating the distribution of resources is based on the size of the population, the analysis will really be rather rudimentary. I think we must take into account the adequacy of the community's institutions. What we need is a type of equalization formula.

If there are services in French in Ontario and New Brunswick—and New Brunswick is after all a bilingual province—the issues are nevertheless very different. In Saskatchewan, we have no government services, no health care services and no communication services in French.[25]

In short, the communities agree that a formula should be established so that the resource allocation process is fair and less arbitrary. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada develop, in cooperation with the community organizations, a clear and transparent formula including various factors to be considered in allocating funding under the collaboration accords in a fair and equitable manner reflecting the unique needs of each community, including adequate qualification-based compensation for people working for community organizations.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN OF THE AGREEMENTS

1.   Reporting Requirements

The community associations that testified before us all criticized the administrative burden associated with the collaboration accords. More particularly, since the Policy on Transfer Payments was adopted in 2000, a very large number of organizations have had to switch from conditional grant applications to contribution agreements, which involves more reports and instalment payments. The increasingly demanding requirements cause many headaches for the community organizations, which sometimes do not have the necessary funding to hire full-time staff.

For example, the organizations singled out Schedule F of the agreements, which requires extensive report preparation:

At home, there is a bad word and it is "Schedule F." That is the schedule in the agreements where we have to fill out our reports. It requires qualified resources. Finding the people and paying them adequately is a problem. It is becoming increasingly difficult because we are always competing with the others, as you know. The smaller organizations come to us for help in this area.[26]

The communities observed that accountability requirements had increased significantly, but that the overtime associated with them has not been recognized or paid for, which has the tangible effect of reducing the organizations' ability to act in the field and carry out their development mandate.[27] The community organizations do not have adequate resources to spend that much time on administering the agreements. The remarks of the representative of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick (SAANB) clearly illustrate this problem:

When we devote 25% of our time to applications and filling out reports, we are unable to do anything else during that 25% of the time. If an organization has 50 people, it is a minor issue, as five of them will look after the work. But when there are two or three people in an organization and they must devote 25% of their time to filling out those documents, many things in the field are not done.[28]

And the Quebec Community Groups Network added:

[A]ccessing funds from these envelopes must be simplified. The government can play an important role by lightening the administrative load and simplifying the process. When an organization spends half its money filling out application forms and report forms and the staff can only have time for that, it hinders the ability to work and do well.[29]

The community organizations are proud to be responsible and want to be accountable. They simply wish that accountability were not an obstacle to their development activities. The representative of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et Labrador drew the Committee's attention to a paragraph in the collaboration accord providing that:

Canadian Heritage is responsible for determining procedures and tools relating to the presentation and analysis of requests. The Department recognizes the consequences that its policies and funding practices may have on the evolution of the relationship and on the strengthening of the community sector’s capacity for action, and takes them into consideration. Tools will be developed with due attention to simplifying the administrative requirements, while respecting the terms and conditions of the Program and the Department’s accountability framework, which may be modified from time to time. (emphasis added)

However, the collaboration accord was signed in 2004, and the funding application forms have not changed since then. As stated in its May 2007 report on the vitality of the official language minority communities, the Committee vigorously supports everything that can reinforce the financial responsibility of organizations receiving the support of public funds. However, it has become more than obvious that many organizations do not have the resources to carry out that responsibility and, consequently, too much of the time that volunteers spend on the activities of their organizations is devoted to completing activity reports justifying the funding that those organizations have received. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 4

That Canadian Heritage, in cooperation with the community organizations, review accountability measures to reduce the burden they impose so that they do not impede the community organizations' ability to carry out their development mandate but still guarantee adequate accountability.

top

2.   Reporting Content

The communities would also like the reporting to be based more on results than on the activities themselves:

Accountability is still based far too much on activities rather than results. Reports must focus on the achievement of medium and long-term results. We need to focus more on the strategic effects, transformation and impact of our actions on citizens, not just evaluate how many citizens have taken part in a given activity.[30]

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes (FCFA) shares that view and suggests that Canadian Heritage determine whether a results-based evaluation approach is appropriate. The FCFA further suggests that Canadian Heritage undertake, as provided in the collaboration accord, to develop common tools and indicators for evaluating and measuring those results. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 5

That the Department of Canadian Heritage assess the possibility of developing, in cooperation with the community organizations, a list of performance indicators to facilitate more results-based reporting.

3.   Funding Received Late

The community organizations also raised the important issue of instalment payments and funding received late. The community organizations submit their funding requests in December for the fiscal year commencing the following April 1. On April 1, Canadian Heritage pays 25% of the previous year's funding to enable them to operate in the first few months. Most organizations receive the rest of their basic funding around August or September, as a result of which they are unable to plan their annual programming before that time. In addition, some organizations close during the summer for lack of funding, thus often losing their employees:

As we stated earlier, the fiscal year began on April 1. With a little luck, we will know by July how much we will be receiving. Last year, we were told in August. That means that we are already four or five months into the fiscal year. We are given an advance representing a meagre 25% of the previous year's funding on April 1, so that we can continue to operate. We make do with very little. Often, we lay people off for the summer while waiting to see what will happen. The current year's funding is provided to us in August. That is five months after the year has begun. […] We often receive funding in February for individual projects. The money arrives in February for a project that was supposed to begin the previous September, and which must end by March 31. We let everybody go because we have no money to pay them, then suddenly the funding arrives. We scramble to find our employees, and many are no longer available because they have found other employment.[31]

In addition to managing the consequences of significant staff turnover, the community organizations must do their development work over seven months rather than a full fiscal year. This situation is very stressful for employees and volunteers who operate the organizations. The situation is the same for single projects. The applications are filed, but the department provides no indication as to the time the organizations must wait to know whether funding will be granted. This situation causes major logistical problems. For example:

[T]he projects are viable when we submit them, but they become difficult to carry out once we receive confirmation of their acceptance. That is the case, for example, if a project must begin on October 1, 2007, but I receive a response in March 2008. I then have to prepare my project retroactively and change all the budgets. That is not always easy to do. In some cases, the Association franco-yukonnaise has had to turn down funds.[32]

Funding delays have significant monetary consequences for the community organizations and their managers. The organizations must draw down lines of credit to survive, which means they must pay significant interest charges. For example, the representative of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique stated that the Francophone organizations in his province had paid a total of nearly $60,000 in interest charges for 2005‑2006. Those charges are not reimbursed by Canadian Heritage, and thus must be paid out of funding allocated for community development. The representative of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador added that she had had to advance funds from her personal line of credit to enable the federation to pay its employees. This situation is unacceptable. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 6

That Canadian Heritage commit to delivering funding responses by the deadline.

Recommendation 7

That Canadian Heritage commit to delivering funding within 30 days following the date of the funding response and that, in the event funding is not paid within this time limit, the department be required to reimburse interest charges incurred as a result of the delay.

C. GOVERNANCE OF THE ACCORDS AND PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1.   Partnership with the Government of Canada

The Canada-Community Agreements became “collaboration accords with the community sector” when the agreements were renegotiated in 2004. In the communities' view, it was more than a name change; the relationship between the communities and the government also underwent a significant transformation.

First of all, some view this as a legal change:

We cannot remain silent about the fact that, in 2004, we switched from the term "Canada-Community Agreement" to "Collaboration Accord", which, according to the opinions we have received, is a legal step down with respect to the value and weight of the instrument.[33]

Second, the communities emphasized that the collaboration accords are signed with Canadian Heritage, whereas the Canada-Community Agreements were signed with the Government of Canada, represented by Canadian Heritage. In this, the communities see a withdrawal on the part of the Government of Canada.[34] Responsibility for community development does not fall solely to the Department of Canadian Heritage, but to the Government of Canada and its institutions. Under the present collaboration accords, only one department appears to have responsibilities toward the communities. The representative of the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin accurately summed up the communities' wishes in this regard:

The cooperation agreements have allowed the community of Prince Edward Island to maintain an ongoing dialogue with Canadian Heritage. We would have liked to negotiate an agreement that included the Canadian government, and not only Canadian Heritage. All the departments have an obligation, and it would be a way for us to simplify the approach and set things straight for all sectors and all departments.[35]

Under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada and all federal institutions are responsible for taking positive measures to promote the development of the official language minority communities. The collaboration accords must reflect that fact.

Recommendation 8

That the collaboration accords be signed with the Government of Canada, represented by the Department of Canadian Heritage, to reflect the federal government's obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

top

2.   Community Responsibility

The community organizations noted that, in the switch from the Canada-Community Agreements to the collaboration accords, their relationship with the Department of Canadian Heritage changed from a partnership relationship to a client relationship. The communities would like to restore a respectful partnership.[36] To do that, the community organizations must have the opportunity to assume full responsibility for their community development.

At the time of the Canada-Community Agreements, the allocation of funding was done jointly with Canadian Heritage through a joint committee. Those committees were abolished and replaced by recommendation committees:

One of the biggest changes brought about by the collaboration agreements was the elimination of joint committees. Under the Canada-community agreements, the community and the department discussed and jointly decided on funding recommendations, but the collaboration agreements call for the creation of a community recommendation committee.[37]

These committees have no decision-making power and they can only submit proposals to the minister. The communities thus feel excluded from the decision-making process and view this as a step backward in their assuming of responsibility:

The communities view this change from a decision-making body to a purely advisory body as a major step backward that gives the department the freedom to independently review applications and make funding decisions that could ultimately be at odds with the communities’ recommendations. The communities fully understand ministerial prerogative, but some also go so far as to question the role and the real importance of funding recommendation committees because their impression is that the Department of Canadian Heritage will act alone regardless.[38]

These observations were confirmed by the representative of the Association communautaire des Francophones de l’Alberta:

In the past, under the former system of agreements, the next step was to reach joint decisions with the department. So what actually came out of our committee meetings was a series of recommendations for the department on funding issues.

Currently, under section 157 of our accord, it is left up to Canadian Heritage to focus on that. So, this is a far cry from the communities being responsible for their own development, and I think that this frustration is at the heart of the communities' current dissatisfaction. The amount of funding is also very important, and I don't want to minimize that. But our main source of frustration is not having our communities' top priorities adequately funded.[39]

Thus, in the view of the community organizations, funding should be granted on the basis of the priorities they themselves have set in their global development plans, so as to respect the specific characteristics of their community, but also the principle of community governance. The communities thus wish to see a match between their priorities and the funding granted. The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 9

That, while working with the existing decision-making process, the Department of Canadian Heritage place greater emphasis on community perspectives and priorities, as identified by the communities themselves.

The Committee further recommends:

Recommendation 10

That the Department of Canadian Heritage clearly communicate its rules and criteria for evaluating funding requests, comply with its own procedures and substantiate its funding choices to the communities.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was essentially to determine whether the collaboration accords adequately meet the communities' needs in the areas of funding, reporting and management of priorities. With respect to basic funding, the communities were unanimous in their view that funding must be increased to take into account both developments in the communities and various economic factors such as the rising cost of living. The legal obligation to ensure the development of the official language minority communities falls to the Government of Canada and its institutions. The Government of Canada chooses to fund community organizations instead of providing those services itself. The Committee is of the view that this operating method is eminently more effective in performing those obligations than increasing the ranks of the public service in an attempt to achieve the same objectives. However, the government must ensure that it grants adequate funding to enable the organizations to carry out the mandate delegated to them.

The above findings on the financial difficulties the community organizations are encountering are valid for all the official language minority communities in Canada, both Francophone and Anglophone. However, the situation is particularly critical in Ontario, where half of minority Francophones live. Investments under the Cooperation with the Community Sector subcomponent have declined 18% in that province, while they increased slightly everywhere else.

It is also very hard for Anglophone communities living outside Montreal, which are under the same pressures as other community organizations, but must also combat the prejudice that Quebec Anglophones are necessarily privileged. With a population equal to that of minority Francophones, Anglophone organizations receive only about 10% of total overall funding from Canadian Heritage's Cooperation with the Community Sector program.

As to the administrative burden associated with the collaboration accords, the Committee believes it is essential that the Department of Canadian Heritage find ways to lessen its administrative requirements so that the communities can use the resources provided to them for community development rather than for administering the accords. The idea is not to lower reporting criteria, but rather to acknowledge that a community organization that relies on volunteer work does not have the same resources as an organization with a number of employees that can afford to assign staff to the administrative duties that the management of these agreements requires.

It is the Committee's fervent wish that the Department of Canadian Heritage place more importance on the development priorities identified by the communities. The community organizations are in the best position to know the needs of their communities and to identify priority sectors. Furthermore, collaboration of this kind between community organizations and Canadian Heritage presupposes a more balanced and ultimately more respectful partnership.

The communities called as well for greater involvement by all government departments in supporting their development efforts.  The Committee would therefore like to encourage the Government of Canada to place greater emphasis on interdepartmental collaboration to ensure that, in carrying out its commitment to promote the development of official language minority communities, it plays a role in all spheres of their development.

Some community organizations also expressed the wish that the provincial and territorial governments be involved in implementing collaboration accords, in order to establish a partnership between the different levels of government. Given that this report deals with reaching accords between the communities and the Government of Canada, the Committee preferred not to comment on this possibility in the context of its current study.

The Committee also wants to take this opportunity to express the wish that the Assistance for Community Life component of the Action Plan for Official Languages be renewed in the next version of the plan.