INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to clarify the position of Conservative MPs sitting on the Standing Committee on Official Languages regarding some of the recommendations included in the report on the study of the Collaboration Accords between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the representatives of the community groups working in Official Language Minority Communities.


I. AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR THE COMMUNITY SECTOR

The first recommendation of the report – which is actually a reiteration of Recommendation 18 of the report on the vitality of Official Language Minority Communities – poses a first problem insofar as the overall support of the government to the community sector does not seem to be taken into account. In its response to the first report, the government referred to the diversification of initiatives and programs through which it supports this sector. Without further evaluation, the committee rejects this response as inadequate and merely reiterates its proposal for improvement of the "Cooperation with the Community Sector" subcomponent – a proposal that appears, therefore, very arbitrary.

The government's response, however, pointed to a reality that our study of the Collaboration Accords has enabled us to acknowledge.

As we have seen during our meetings with the communities’ representatives, the community sector is highly diversified and it overlaps with different spheres of activities. Thus, several community groups provide essential support in areas like health, education or assistance to immigrants, while others are working in the field of arts and culture.

These are all areas supported by the federal government in many different ways – through both Canadian Heritage and other departments. Far from underestimating the critical role of the funding allocated under the "Cooperation with the Community Sector" subcomponent, we need to recognize that the government's support for the community sector exceeds the amounts allocated through this program.

In fact, some witnesses also stressed that their sources of funding were far from being limited to the amounts awarded by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Whether it be by giving money through other regular programs from Canadian Heritage or other departments, or by granting additional funds like the $30 million announced in 2007, the Government of Canada remains firmly committed to supporting communities, and it is important to recognize its ability to modulate its support in different ways.

In this context, and considering that the committee has requested more information from the Minister of Canadian Heritage on how the $30 million was spent, we believe it is premature to state boldly – as the report does – that the government's response is insufficient and that a substantial raise of 50% of available money under the "Cooperation with the Community Sector" subcomponent remains the only appropriate answer, regardless of the budget leeway of the government.


II. DELAYS IN FUNDING DELIVERY BY CANADIAN HERITAGE

Although we are aware of the negative impact that the lack of liquidity caused by the delay in the release of funds can have on community groups, it still seems to us that Recommendation 6.1 is clearly inappropriate to solve this problem.

There is no doubt that this recommendation is trying to address a difficult situation that requires concrete improvements.

Even if it is well inspired, Recommendation 6.1 is still the result of a hasty attempt to find a definitive solution to a complex matter. In proposing to impose the payment of interests to the government whenever there is a delay in the release of money, the committee members fail to understand the reasons behind those delays and, even worse, they are asking the government to take a dangerous road in regard to the management of public funds and accountability.

To justify this recommendation, the members rely on the testimony of certain witnesses who claimed to have had recourse to their personal line of credit to offset the lack of liquidity of their organization. As deplorable as this situation can be, one can easily understand how the federal government would find itself in an even more problematic situation if it was forced to pay for interests incurred on personal debts. Should we point out that organizations that receive government funding are held accountable for their use of public funds, and that to require that the government be a guarantor of personal lines of credit opens the door to dubious practices, marked by a lack of transparency.

Given an awkward situation – of which the magnitude and frequency remains difficult to assess so far – the committee members have a duty not to propose a solution that is worse than the problem. For this reason, we reject this poorly tied punitive approach. .

On the other side, we take good note of the improvements made to the process of delivery of funding. Quoting the words of Canadian Heritage official Jean-Bernard Lafontaine, the report mentions that the government has put in place over the past two years a process of allocating funds on a multi-year basis and the possibility of a cash advance equivalent to 25% of the amount granted the previous year. This advance could also reach 50% in the case of multi-year funding.

Compatible with the rules of sound management, cash advances and multi-year agreements are promising avenues for solutions. We think that other mechanisms of this kind can be put in place to ensure greater financial security for community groups.

Of course, we also encourage the Department of Canadian Heritage to reconsider its ways to expedite the processing of submissions – with respect to both the response to submissions and the delivery of funds.


III. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADIAN HERITAGE AND THE COMMUNITY SECTOR

The analysis leading to the seventh recommendation is also problematic, and leads us to reject the recommendation altogether.

If we do recognize that some witnesses expressed the desire to sign a partnership with the federal government – and not only with the Department of Canadian Heritage – we continue to believe that the reasons provided are not conclusive. Because the government of Canada as a whole has obligations toward the communities – as specified in Part VII of the Official Languages Act – this does not mean that all departments must be involved in every agreement aimed at supporting a specific sector.

Without discussing it further, let us say that the diversity of positive actions taken by various departments in order to support linguistic minority communities clearly demonstrates that the Government of Canada takes its obligations seriously.

Because there is no clear evidence that the signing of Collaboration Accords with the sole Department of Canadian Heritage causes any disengagement on the part of other departments and of the federal government as a whole, we conclude that there is no reason to support the change prescribed by the seventh recommendation.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Conservative MPs of the Standing Committee on Official Languages wish to thank all the witnesses who participated in our study of the Collaboration Accords – and also want to reaffirm their willingness to find concrete ways to support those working in the community sector.