That's a big question.
We think, from studying the report on the old blue-ribbon panel and the Government of Canada's action plan to reform the administration of grants and contributions programs, that a lot of thinking has been done on making the system more responsive. I think what might be missing still in this ingredient is that even with vanguard departments, there hasn't been a lot of consultation with the community. Personally, I don't think any of the groups in my network have heard about the work that is going on currently on grants and contributions at Canadian Heritage.
We feel some effects. There have been some changes this year. We know that some groups have received more money at the outset than other groups. We're seeing some changes, but there hasn't been training or consultation--I don't know if you want to call it dialogue--to help the groups be full participants in making this happen. If we were to start all over, or if we were to integrate some of the ideas on the action plan to reform the administration of grants and contributions, I think the place of the organization should be better understood in the whole cycle. For example, are we clients, beneficiaries, or people who want to spend the government's money? What are we? Are we doing good work? Are we doing work the government wants to have done? In that way, the organizations would be treated in a way that would allow the government to do its business.
The only practical logistical solution I could give would be that within the context of this action plan to reform the grants and contributions program I would like to see better dialogue, with us directly, and understanding of what the department is doing on changes to its application process and on changes to the way they manage risk. It feels as if it's being done to us rather than with us, if I might be so bold.
We feel good things coming out, but we also feel the bad things, right? We know that some of our organizations got, all of a sudden this year, almost the entirety of their funding and said, “Good work, keep going.” But we can't figure out quite why, unless you figure out that you're Canadian Heritage as a vanguard department. If we could get a better handle on working together.... Are we a partner? It's hard to be a partner with government, right? It's hard to be. Are you a client? Are you a beneficiary? What is our place, and how do we evaluate our own place, and how do they evaluate our place within the context?