Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of February 11, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, February 11, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met today at 4:03 p.m. to study, and to report from time to time, on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon everyone and, in particular, I would like to welcome our special guest, the Honourable Josée Verner. My name is Maria Chaput, and I am the chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages. Ms. Verner is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages. She has come here to discuss the last annual report of Canadian Heritage, the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and francophone culture.
Minister Verner is accompanied by Mr. Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, and Mr. Jérôme Moisan, Senior Director, Official Languages Secretariat. Welcome to our committee.
I would like to point out that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is studying, in order to make a report from time to time, on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
The committee has also undertaken a study on francophone culture. This subject is a topic of interest to this committee. I would like to note that at our next meeting we will be hearing from the Minister of Justice, and in March we intend to invite representatives from Air Canada and the Department of National Defence to appear before us.
Madam Minister, as the chair of this committee and on behalf of our members, I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before us today. I would now invite you to speak and, as you know, this will be followed by a question period from the senators.
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., MP, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages: Madam Chair, I am appearing before you at the end of an eventful year in the wide-ranging field of official languages. Over the course of 2007, our government has taken real, positive action on official languages.
[English]
First, our government tabled a budget that increased funding for linguistic duality and official language minority communities by $30 million over two years.
Next, in the Speech from the Throne, we reiterated our commitment to linguistic duality by announcing the development of a strategy to bring about the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages.
Finally, we ended 2007 on a high note with a series of regional consultations, both online and in the field, led by Bernard Lord. These consultations will help to shape the development of our new strategy, which will be made public in 2008.
Our work to develop this strategy will also be guided by our dialogue with the provinces and territories. It will also take into account the results of community consultations, reports from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the results of the 2006 census and the subsequent post-censal survey on the vitality of official language minority communities conducted by Statistics Canada.
Needless to say, the important work of the parliamentary standing committees on official languages will also be taken into careful consideration.
[Translation]
I would like to speak to you today about some of the initiatives we have undertaken since our government came to power to strengthen the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Allow me to summarize my duties in that regard.
As Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, I am responsible for the official languages support programs. These programs, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, provide funding for minority-language education, second official-language learning and the provision of provincial and territorial services in a minority language. They also support non-profit organizations that provide community development and language training. These activities stem from section 43 of the act, which applies specifically to Canadian Heritage.
Section 41 deals with the government's commitment to the development of Canada's anglophone and francophone minority communities and the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. This section applies to all federal institutions. Thus, when Health Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, or Canadian Heritage's cultural programs adjust their practices to meet the needs of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities, we say they are ``working the 41.''
Under section 42 of the act, I have the job of encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach to the implementing of commitments set out in section 41. Encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach does not mean doing the work for them. Rather, it means working together, pooling resources, providing tools, sharing best practices, encouraging, explaining, illustrating and so on. The reports that the 32 designated institutions must prepare and submit to me are an example of this coordination. For my part, I present summaries of these reports to Parliament.
I cannot speak about this coordination role without mentioning the amendments made to the Official Languages Act in 2005. Indeed, much of our work over the past two years has been helping various departments and agencies understand and implement these new provisions.
As you know, since 2005, Part VII of the act has mentioned positive measures. It explicitly states that these are a requirement for all federal institutions. Failure to comply is now subject to court remedy, as is the case with all of Part VII and many other parts of the act.
At the risk of repeating myself, all federal institutions are required to commit to the implementation of section 41. I would also like to point out that the Official Languages Act does not specifically define positive measures. In light of the fact that the Federal Court will soon be called upon to issue a decision in connection with the legal proceedings brought by the FCFA concerning the Court Challenges Program, you will understand that I will not comment further at this time.
[English]
We have compiled examples of collaborative efforts within the federal administration that have yielded tangible results in various parts of the country. These examples, as well as comprehensive related information, are included in the 2006-07 annual report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which you will be receiving shortly. You should already have received the 2005-06 annual report, which was distributed last summer.
Volume 1 of the forthcoming report will present a summary of the achievements of the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Official Languages Support Programs.
Volume II will present a summary of the accomplishments of the 32 designated federal institutions whose activities have been deemed to be of crucial importance to the development of official language communities and linguistic duality in Canada. Among other requirements, these institutions must submit an annual status report on their section 41 achievements.
Volume II covers the period from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. During this period, federal departments and agencies were particularly active in the promotion of official languages. In fact, since 2005, they have been both more aware of their obligations in this area and more proactive in carrying them out. This new approach has resulted in more intense dialogue between key government players and in the development of new working tools.
Internally, the Department of Canadian Heritage launched several new projects, including a campaign to raise awareness and understanding among federal public servants of their obligations under section 41 of the act.
I should also mention the Guide for Federal Institutions, co-produced by Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada and the Canada Public Service Agency. Federal institutions are called upon to make policy and strategic decisions, and this publication will help them carry out their role of promoting the development of official language communities and fostering the full recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society.
[Translation]
For Canadians, this enhanced cooperation between institutions has manifested itself in various forms. For example, the CRTC recently joined the ranks of institutions that have set up consultative committees for official language minority communities, others that have done so include Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Justice Canada, Health Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
On the cultural front, Canadian Heritage is engaged in ongoing dialogue with Canada's office-language communities through various interdepartmental mechanisms, such as the Agreement for the Development of Francophone Arts and Culture in Canada and working groups in various arts disciplines.
These are just some of the channels that give these communities a voice within the federal administration. They provide an effective forum for communities to make their viewpoints known and underline the government's firm commitment to acknowledging the priorities identified by official-language minority communities.
Other concrete examples include the Société Radio-Canada's recent French-language broadcasts from Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This SRC initiative was highlighted at a meeting between representatives of francophone communities in the north and the interdepartmental network coordinated by Canadian Heritage. This meeting also inspired the National Film Board to launch negotiations about developing activities for young people in those communities.
From the National Capital Commission which features artists from official- language communities in national celebrations such as Winterlude, to the regional offices of various organizations that offer their premises to communities for training, there is no shortage of examples. I invite you to consult the forthcoming Official Languages 2006-2007 Annual Report to find out more.
Of course, much remains to be done to implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act. But Rome was not built in a day! We are proud of the achievements we have made to date, and are ready and willing to tackle the next stage.
In the area of official languages, 2008 promises to be just as busy and productive as 2007.
With regard to interdepartmental coordination, we will be looking at various ways to improve our support of ``non- designated'' federal institutions in fulfilling their obligations under Part VII of the act. These might include, for example, less formal versions of the planning and accountability frameworks used by the designated institutions.
These tools will have to be flexible and adaptable to a wide range of institutions. In this context, we intend to work closely with the Canada Public Service Agency, which has already solicited input from these institutions.
[English]
2008 will also be a year of celebration, particularly the festivities commemorating the four-hundredth anniversary of Quebec City. This is a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge the vital role that the French language and culture have played in the history of our country. The Sommet de la Francophonie, which will be held in October, will be a highlight of the celebrations.
We are also less than two years from the opening of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Since the planning of the games began, we have made respect for our two official languages a priority. I can assure you that both English and French will be prominently represented at this important athletic event. The Government of Canada is also looking forward to this unique opportunity to showcase the contribution of our two linguistic communities in building our strong and vibrant nation.
We are ready to answer your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
Before moving to honourable senators, I would like to introduce the members of the committee to you.
On my far left is Senator Champagne, deputy chair of the committee, from the beautiful province of Quebec, and then we have Senator Comeau from Nova Scotia, Senator Goldstein also from Quebec, and on my far right, Senator Losier-Cool from New Brunswick, Senator Tardif from Alberta and Senator Murray from Ontario.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for being here with us today, minister. You indicated in your presentation that you have the job of encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach to the implementing of the commitments set out in section 41. You are quite right when you said that ``encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach'' does not mean ``doing the work for them.''
However, you do have an overall view of the situation regarding implementation of that section of the act. In your opinion, which sectors need to show improvement to ensure full implementation of Part VII?
Ms. Verner: That is a good question. You know, we are quite proud of the initiatives that have been undertaken. We have many examples of positive steps taken by various departments and agencies, and this will certainly be mentioned in volume II of the next annual report, but we also have an overview of the steps taken with respect to coordination.
In 2006, Canadian Heritage and Justice Canada led a campaign to raise awareness in federal institutions; in the spring of 2007, a symposium on the new Part VII was held in Charlottetown, and the officials with me today could give you more details on that. Moreover, the School of the Public Service has organized information sessions; in 2006-07, the network of official languages champions highlighted the responsibilities arising out of Part VII; the clerk of the Privy Council sent a letter to deputy ministers and agency heads.
A guide was published in 2007; I was looking for it earlier because I was wondering if you had received it.
So a lot of steps have been taken.
I could also mention a complementary project undertaken by Canadian Heritage that is also new, I believe. Mr. Lussier or Mr. Moisan can speak to you about it, but it deals with non-designated federal institutions. As you know, there are 32 designated federal institutions, but this initiative would target non-designated federal institutions.
Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair, as the minister has indicated, the idea is that the 32 designated institutions are subject to structured, formal planning and accountability, and the results of this process are then reported to the House. In the case of the approximately 170 other institutions, results have been dependent up to now on their goodwill and their participation in certain committees, but they are not required to go through the same exercise.
So the question is whether it would be possible to do something that is not necessarily as burdensome or stringent as the demands placed on the 32 designated institutions. Nonetheless, these institutions would be encouraged to implement certain practices that would push them to take positive measures more systematically. This would also provide some reporting to parliamentarians, since there is no accountability required right now of these institutions, except what they decide to include in their generic accountability exercises, their performance reports.
Senator Tardif: After the 32 institutions have submitted their annual reports and you have then reported to Parliament, do you do an analysis or do you simply compile the reports? If you do an analysis, do you pick out what is working well, what the trends and what needs to be corrected? Do you simply compile all the reports without analyzing or evaluating them?
Ms. Verner: My role is to table them in the House. Of course, they are analyzed beforehand. Mr. Lussier can provide you with more detail.
Mr. Lussier: The minister sees only the tip of the iceberg. We receive her comments on these reports. The reports submitted to us by the institutions are quite large, and the official languages team at Canadian Heritage prepares comments on them. There are ongoing exchanges. The deputy minister of Canadian Heritage even sends an official letter after the regular work that I just mentioned. The letter reminds these institutions of the improvements that they could still make in their activities, and it also highlights progress when there has been progress, and that is often the case.
Senator Tardif: There is no report card as such, but the institutions still receive comments and impressions indicating their performance. Are there sectors that are of particular concern to you, minister?
Ms. Verner: With Part VII, the 2005 amendment to the Official Languages Act, we basically had to start with an information campaign. Organizations are aware that they have obligations under the act and that they must meet these obligations. From the time that these information sessions have been given through various means, we have been very positive about the future and we are monitoring progress carefully.
Senator Tardif: You indicated that you were not able to make comments on positive measures, but I have the impression that when you meet with these institutions you are doing an awareness campaign. What do you tell the institutions and groups that you meet with? What do you tell people who want to know what is meant by a positive measure?
Ms. Verner: It is not so much positive measures that I cannot comment on but rather the case that is before the courts. That is not the same thing. There are positive measures, and you will have an opportunity to see them in the next annual report that will come out in a few months. The Public Health Agency of Canada, for example, is buying air time and advertising space in minority media for its campaigns. That is an example of a positive measure. People understand very well what it means to reach out to a minority language community. What I did not want to comment on was the debate surrounding the legal meaning of a positive measure. But there are examples of positives measures that have been taken, and they will be covered in the annual report.
Senator Tardif: In that case, I cannot wait to see the annual report, as I truly believe that a number of communities look to Canadian Heritage as a leader when it comes both to defining what is meant by positive measures and to actively promoting them. That being said, communities want to be involved in crafting the definition, and I hope that that will be included in your annual report.
Ms. Verner: I would remind you that we announced $30 million in additional funding in our last budget — that will certainly allow us to set up projects that the communities themselves have developed. Furthermore, the government, together with the 32 designated federal institutions, has undertaken a number of initiatives and it should not be forgotten that this has allowed for some excellent projects to have been developed. Indeed, announcements were recently made in your province, senator.
Senator Tardif: And we are very grateful.
Ms. Verner: I know that you are very appreciative.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you for agreeing to appear before the committee, Minister Verner. We realize how busy you are and we greatly appreciate you making time for us. I have a very specific question for you. Virtually all departments subcontract some of their workload and responsibilities to public and private companies across Canada.
What measures are taken to ensure that these subcontractors comply with their responsibilities under the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Verner: Thank you for your question, senator; it is, however, very technical and I am going to ask one of my officials to answer.
Senator Goldstein: Allow me to explain why I am asking this question. I received an e-mail this morning from a young New Brunswick student who is struggling to pay back her student loan. Her case is being handled by a debt- collecting agency working for the Department of Finance; however, when she requested service in French it was not provided to her.
Jérôme Moisan, Senior Director, Official Languages Secretariat, Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair, I would be happy to personally follow up on this matter for the committee. Subcontractors and third parties carrying out work on behalf of the federal government are actually covered by another part of the act. Generally speaking, our contracts include clear provisions on language requirements. Generally speaking, contractors have to comply with specific contractual obligations. The federal government's responsibilities when subcontracting are clearly defined on this matter. I would be happy to provide you with more information on this afterwards.
Senator Goldstein: I will discuss this with you later.
Senator Losier-Cool: Minister Verner, I, too, would like to thank you. It is always a pleasure to see you and it is always an honour for a Senate committee to have a minister appear before it. My questions are both very specific and very simple; a yes or no answer will suffice. Firstly, at the beginning of your presentation, you spoke of Mr. Bernard Lord, a special adviser. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Lord was supposed to table his report in mid-January. In your presentation, however, you said that it will be tabled in 2008.
Ms. Verner: Thank you for your question. On January 24, a wrap-up event took place here in Ottawa — I attended it personally. Mr. Lord's report was not tabled in mid-January as the wrap-up event had not yet been held. We do, however, expect that the report will be tabled within the next few days or, at the most, the next few weeks. We are not running late, we are on schedule.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am glad to hear you confirm that it will be over the course of ``the next few days'' or ``the next few weeks,'' because with the current political climate as it is, one cannot but wonder what would happen to all of these consultations and this report if the writ were dropped? Let us hope that the report will be tabled as soon as is possible. Make Mr. Lord aware of that!
Ms. Verner: I am not going to respond to that, as I am sure that you do not want the committee to be a forum for partisan politics.
Senator Losier-Cool: The last page of your presentation primarily addresses the funding of ``Celebrate Canada'' programs. However, Acadia's National Acadian Day, on August 15, is not earmarked to receive funding, and unlike, for example, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24, does not appear to be on the list of eligible celebrations. Could you explain this to us?
Ms. Verner: I will have to get back to you on that. As you know, we announced $30 million in additional funding for festivals in the various communities and I will have to check whether they submitted a request under this new program.
Senator Losier-Cool: But how will you find out? Will there be a report for these $30 million?
Ms. Verner: Let us be careful not to mix apples and oranges. You asked about funding for August 15 celebrations. Off the top of my head, I would imagine that would involve new funding for festivals that we announced in the last budget. It is a separate $30 million fund, it is not the same as the $30 million in supplementary funding for official languages.
Senator Losier-Cool: But August 15 is not really a festival, it is a holiday comparable to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Yet there is no funding for August 15.
Ms. Verner: Listen, we will look into it for you.
Senator Losier-Cool: The issue is all the more important as next year we also have the Congrès mondial acadien for which we will also need funding.
Ms. Verner: There will be no problem with funding the Congrès mondial acadien.
Senator Champagne: Welcome, Minister. I would like to come back to the question of designated federal institutions. Last year there was a degree of dissatisfaction as they did not seem to have a clear mandate with regard to implementing Part VII of the act and nobody really seemed to understand what was meant by positive measures.
Mr. Moisan, Mr. Lussier, when you analyze the reports that are submitted to you — and I know that this is something that will be in your report that you will be tabling in the near future — would you say that these issues have now been clarified? Do people now have a better understanding of what is meant by innovative proactive measures? Is it beginning to become clear?
Ms. Verner: Either Mr. Moisan or Mr. Lussier will be able to answer your questions. The next annual report will indeed include a list of examples of positive measures. Obviously, positive measures can vary from one institution to the next, but I will let my colleagues address the progress that has been made by the 32 federal institutions.
Mr. Lussier: To follow on briefly from what the minister was saying, we have noticed that positive measures can vary radically from one institution to the next, depending on the institutions' mandate. For example, not all institutions are involved in funding. Obviously, an institution mandated with providing financial support, be it in the economic, social or cultural domain — will be likely to introduce positive measures of a financial nature. These might include setting aside a funding envelope or establishing criteria for community-focused programs. However, those institutions that do not have a financial mandate were often heard wondering what they could do. And that is where creativity and imagination come into play. Ms. Verner cited a few examples earlier, such as providing premises for meetings and buying advertising space in minority media. These are examples of measures that support community development without being related to grants and contributions or financial measures per se. We are working on providing such examples at the moment.
Senator Champagne: Positive measures often become confused with cold hard cash, but I believe that there is more to it than that — yet here you are saying that those who do not have money to fund some project or other perhaps find it the hardest. I was somewhat disconcerted to learn that there is a major problem with the Department of Justice — whose role it is to provide legal advice — insofar as it has adopted a very defensive and restrictive approach to interpreting the new Part VII of the act, favouring caution over proactivity and innovation.
Have you made any headway with Justice Canada, Minister? Caution is all fine and well, but there comes a time when progress must be made.
Ms. Verner: With your indulgence, I myself will be cautious with regard to Justice Canada, as I know they are currently before the court. I can, however, say that the upcoming report will include examples of positive measures taken by Justice Canada.
Senator Champagne: I will come back to the cultural aspect in the second round.
[English]
Senator Murray: We have notes here concerning Part VII of the act and the meaning of ``positive measures.'' I will refer you to a sentence from those notes. It says that ``positive measures'' means that federal institutions must make a habit of ensuring that each and every program, policy, agreement or decision reflects the obligations under Part VII. This may mean treating Canada's official language communities differently according to their particular needs and circumstances. That is very broad. I would say it is too broad, which is the point of my question.
I have been searching my mind for recent programs, policies and agreements that we have had before us. There is a bill before the Senate now, and indeed we have been told by the Minister of Justice that it is a confidence matter. It contains omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code. Justice Canada is one of the designated departments and agencies.
I am not intimately familiar with it. The two provisions that I see discussed in the media are one that would raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 and another that provides for mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with guns or firearms. I think the short answer to the question ``What is the link between those provisions and official language communities?'' is that there is none and it is neutral. Hearing what you say about the process, I wonder whether somewhere in this giant machinery of government there is someone or some group of people faithfully going through every phrase and clause, wasting their time at this to see what the link might be.
By all means consult. I will be happy to hear either from you, minister, or from your officials because to some extent this matter has to do with public administration, with which they are more intimately familiar.
The second bill that received Royal Assent the other day dealt with the federal government allocating $1 billion to come to the aid of essentially one-industry towns, say, in the forestry and mining sectors, which have been affected by layoffs and closures. I could easily make an argument, and would, that there is a link there. I happen to know, just from my own general knowledge, that some of the hard-hit communities in New Brunswick, for example, are areas where a substantial proportion of francophone minorities are affected — workers and citizens. However, you have drafted and passed the bill in such a way that you have absolutely nothing to say on that aspect, ``you'' being the federal government and ``us'' being the federal Parliament. Whether or not the Province of New Brunswick, for example, or some other province pays particular attention to the linguistic minority is out of our hands. I think New Brunswick most certainly would. We passed a bill that was so open ended and so general that they can do whatever they like.
[Translation]
Two or three questions spring to mind. We must first ask ourselves whether our expectations regarding Part VII are realistic or whether they are too high. Second, we must give consideration to the impact of this process on our already unwieldy system of public administration.
[English]
It is early days, as we say in English.
[Translation]
Third, ought we to refine both the policy and the process to make them more focused and effective?
Ms. Verner: You raised the various aspects of the criminal law bill that you are currently studying in the Senate. You also mentioned the $1-billion trust fund that we established to help, amongst others, the forestry industry.
Memoranda to cabinet are submitted on these discussions and programs. Obviously, the impact on official language minority communities is discussed. For example, the $1 billion trust fund will help communities that are reliant on a single industry, some of which are official language minority communities. This support will be of great assistance to workers, as well as to small communities that have been very heavily hit by the forestry and manufacturing crisis.
I would encourage you to speak with my colleague Monte Solberg, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, who will be able to provide you with more information about measures that have been introduced to help workers affected by the crisis. He is very sensitive to the situation of official language minority communities and programs have been adapted to meet their needs.
Across the government as a whole, projects to support minority groups have been introduced. A host of support programs exist, be it at Canadian Heritage or Status of Women. Another example is Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which supports projects to encourage immigration to French-language communities. In short, we have a host of projects and programs for official language minority communities.
You asked three questions about Part VII, firstly, whether our expectations are realistic; second, whether it made our public administration all the more unwieldy; and third, whether it needed to be refined.
We had this debate in 2005. It was agreed that we should go ahead with Part VII. I do not think that it would be appropriate to rehash the debate today.
Has the machinery of government become more unwieldy? As with any change, there is a period of adjustment and transition. Information campaigns and guidelines have been developed by those at the top. The clerk wrote a letter to all deputy ministers to explain our aims.
We have to take our time and then review what has been achieved. It is certainly not my intention to throw in the towel straightaway.
Do adjustments need to be made? Time will tell. I can, however, say that we must not be afraid to commit fully to the change. We have to take the necessary time to examine the results obtained and the initiatives taken by all government entities before deciding whether to make adjustments. I have full confidence in the process that is currently underway.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a supplementary question regarding your comments on the Status of Women.
Are you telling us that Canadian Heritage has carried out an in-depth study on the impact of these changes on Status of Women Canada? In 2005, Status of Women's budget was cut and satellite offices were closed. Did you consider the impacts of these changes on women from official language minority communities?
Ms. Verner: Your questions are based on an erroneous premise. No cuts were made to Status of Women Canada programs. Quite the opposite, the budget for Status of Women Canada programs was increased by 76 per cent. I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to correct this misconception. It is an example of misinformation having been spread. The reality is that in 2006 the budget for Status of Women Canada programs was $10.2 million, while this year, thanks to funding announced in the budget, it is over $19 million. This means that women's groups around the country, including those from official language minority communities, are now able to access funding because the overall envelope is larger. We received a record number of submissions in the second round of applications for project funding and we will be announcing the successful proposals in the near future. Obviously, both Canadian Heritage and Status of Women Canada are delighted to be able to help official language minority community groups that submit projects, provided, of course, that they have identified specific results and objectives.
I would also like to correct the myth that some Status of Women offices have been closed. What really happened was that we determined that having these offices was not an effective use of resources for community groups, particularly those in the regions. The funding was therefore reallocated — and not cut — to programming. Over the course of the past year, hundreds of groups have been given information sessions in person or been briefed by teleconference. Officials even travelled to meet with groups in official minority communities to explain to them how to apply to Status of Women Canada for project funding. I would be happy to provide you with a list of those whom we have contacted. We have made good use of the 500 Service Canada service desks.
Senator Losier-Cool: Are you saying that satellite offices were shut to shore up the programming budget and give more to women?
Ms. Verner: To put it bluntly, we wanted to stop funding bureaucracy and instead free up more money for projects, thus achieving more results for women.
Senator Comeau: Welcome, Minister. We are very grateful that you gave up your time to appear before the committee.
As I am sure you are aware, federal government institutions are, in general, rather thin on the ground in official languages minority communities, especially in rural and coastal regions. Their presence tends to be limited to Canada Post, the RCMP, and sometimes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Regional offices are sometimes hundreds of kilometres from these communities. Generally speaking, agencies such as Canada Post become the face of the federal government. Are you aware of this reality? Have you identified the agencies that play this role? Have you developed strategies to communicate the unique responsibilities that these bodies must assume in rural communities as the representatives of the federal government?
Ms. Verner: You are right, identifying these small communities scattered around the country would certainly be worth doing, even though it would be something of a gigantic task. That being said, these are recognized responsibilities. As I said earlier in my presentation, my role is not to act on behalf of these institutions, but, rather, to encourage them to act. Similarly, I cannot discharge their responsibilities for them either. That being said, we are very cognizant of the importance of meeting communities' needs, as sometimes the bar needs to be raised. It does sometimes happen that the bar needs to be raised, but I should remind you that our government did support Bill S-3 and will therefore not undermine it. I do not know if specific measures targeting public service officials have been introduced, but I know that there have been meetings at the ADM level. Around a dozen such meetings have been held in the space of just over a year and, obviously, the question of official languages was on the agenda. I cannot, however, see whether specific measures have been introduced to identify the communities.
Senator Comeau: It would not be too difficult to find out. Allow me to give you the example of the Atlantic region: There are around two communities in Newfoundland; perhaps a further two on Prince Edward Island; and some five or six in Nova Scotia. This situation is a little different in New Brunswick because it is a bilingual province. The situation is more or less the same in western Canada — there is a very limited number of communities.
Ms. Verner: I have been told that the official languages communities in British Columbia are very spread out, but for the work to be done we need to assume our responsibilities. I am going to ask Mr. Lussier to give you more information.
Mr. Lussier: With your indulgence, I would like to make two points. The first point is that, depending on the demographic weight of the community in question, these federal institutions are bound by regulation to respect certain language requirements in terms of service provision. This area of the law is not, however, my field of expertise. It is not part of my responsibilities. However, I can say that when I speak to federal institutions about Part VII, I tell them that it is not just regions with a high number of French-speakers, such as Quebec, for example, that deserve service in French. It is not just those institutions operating in regions that meet this threshold requirement that should ask how they can live up to their section 41 responsibilities. You do not need one to do the other. Many of these institutions, perhaps more than we think, strive to go beyond their basic service obligation to help these communities.
My second point is that we have carried out detailed mapping of the whereabouts of these communities, and I would be delighted to share this with the committee.
Senator Comeau: I know that we are running out of time, so I will ask only one last question.
When it comes to promoting official languages minority communities, timing is crucial. And in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, the time is right. The provincial governments are very receptive. The situation in Newfoundland is perhaps less clear, but the conditions are excellent in the other provinces. In light of this, have steps been taken at the federal level to move these issues forward more quickly than would normally be done?
Ms. Verner: I just want to make sure that I understand your question properly. When you speak about moving the issues forward, are you speaking about official languages?
Senator Comeau: I am referring, for example, to schools, to junior kindergarten and to other programs that can strengthen the communities.
Ms. Verner: The agreements that have already been signed would be in force until 2009. With regard to other community projects, we make announcements as soon as we are in a position to do so.
I know that discussions are underway with the provinces and territories on agreements on education, services and official languages minority communities. Mr. Lussier would be able to give you some more information on this and bring you up to speed on the status of negotiations.
The Ministers' Conference on la Francophonie in Canada allows us to dialogue and move ahead far more quickly than does the conventional administrative process. Indeed, we had such a conference in Halifax in September.
The Chair: Minister, time is marching on; it is already 5:00 pm. Would your schedule allow you to give us fifteen more minutes of your time?
Ms. Verner: Unfortunately, I am very certain that I am expected elsewhere. I could perhaps stay an extra five minutes.
The Chair: I would therefore ask senators to be succinct in their questioning. We will move on to the second round.
Senator Poulin: I realize that you are fairly new to the job. Nevertheless, I would like you to talk to us about your personal aims with regard to official languages. What do you hope to accomplish? What do you hope to be remembered by as minister?
Ms. Verner: That is a great question. I have in fact been responsible for official languages for the past two years. Furthermore, when our party was in opposition, I was also our critic for official languages.
Official languages is an emotional issue for me, and one that is close to my heart. I have learned a lot from the communities. I come from a region where 98 per cent of the residents speak French and where children never so much as have to wonder whether they will be able to get service in French. I was therefore very quickly very moved by the cause.
Obviously, I have responsibilities and we have the Official Languages Act. Canada is large country with more than 33 million inhabitants. Our expectations have to be realistic. To my mind, we have some extraordinary tools at our disposal. While demographic change cannot be ignored, we are fortunate to have extremely dynamic young Canadians who travel around Canada, their linguistic heritage in tow. Young people are amongst our best ambassadors. Bilingualism is popular in Canada. Young people want to master both languages. To my mind, that is an extraordinary tool and one we should continue to produce, and build on.
Senator Poulin: I am delighted to hear you say that. This week marks your sixth month as Minister for Official Languages.
Ms. Verner: No.
Senator Poulin: My apologies, you are of course Minister of Canadian Heritage. You have considerable financial responsibility.
There was an article published recently in a newspaper whose name I will not mention. The author of the article seemed to have a rather narrow view of our country. He said that with globalization, English was predominant and that we should be investing in English only. I was wondering how the minister responsible for official languages reacted to this article?
Ms. Verner: It is unfortunate.
Senator Poulin: Let me ask my question differently. As minister, I would have liked you to write a letter setting out the government's position on the importance of this rather unique asset in a globalized world. You could state that the two languages give us even more opportunity to do business with other countries.
Ms. Verner: I agree with you. I must confess that I have not read the article. If it was published recently, I will certainly respond to it.
Senator Poulin: The article was in last Saturday's Le Devoir.
Ms. Verner: I would be pleased to respond to that. I must say that last weekend we were celebrating the winter carnival in Quebec City. There were activities going on throughout the city and important visitors in town.
When the Prime Minister of Canada speaks French, including at international summits outside the country, I think that says a great deal about our government's position. I would be pleased to point out this fact to people who do not share this view.
The Chair: Could your two officials, Mr. Lussier and Mr. Moisan, stay for another few minutes to answer some more of our questions?
Ms. Verner: Yes.
Senator Champagne: Of course we could discuss culture, but let us stay with official languages for the moment. Last fall, I had an opportunity to go to the Institut universitaire de gériatrie at the University of Montreal. There is a program called Francommunautés virtuelles, offered by Industry Canada, but which comes from your office as well. As a result of this program, the university was able to establish an incredible site on the Internet in French to provide assistance and information to caregivers. The address is: www.aidant.ca. I have heard that this program will be ending in March and that it will not be renewed.
I have seen what can be done with this program. I experienced it myself with the people who work there. I saw it with Frédéric Bach, who was the spokesperson for the university at the time and who is looking after his wife, who unfortunately suffered a rather serious stroke.
This was not a very expensive program, but it could achieve a great deal of good with the right people. Francophone minorities have the Internet pretty well everywhere: Montreal, Quebec, but also Saskatchewan and Alberta. This program is providing service in French for people. And apparently it is supposed to end at the end of March.
If you could take another look at this, Minister, I think that would be very helpful to people. I have seen caregivers from the other side. I was the person receiving care for many months, and I know how useful this resource is to the caregivers. It does not cost a lot of money, and you do not even have to administer it — Industry Canada would do that. This may be an idea worth considering.
Ms. Verner: Mr. Moisan will complete my answer. I am told that this program is supposed to end on March 31, but discussions are underway between the two departments. We will look at this closely.
The Chair: We will allow the minister to leave and we will continue the meeting. Thank you, Ms. Verner.
Senators, we will continue for 10 minutes at the most and then we will move to the next group of witnesses.
Senator Tardif: In recent weeks, we have read that there was a $132-million shortfall between the amount actually invested and the amount that should have been invested under the education agreements signed with the provinces and territories. Can you account for this shortfall?
Mr. Lussier: There actually is no shortfall, senator. The basis of this calculation was inaccurate. I have seen the chart that the Library of Parliament staff used in all good faith to produce these figures, and I even discussed this matter with the library staff this morning. In 2002-2003, the year immediately before the action plan began, there were two envelopes for funding by Heritage Canada for education in the minority language. One of them was to end in 2002- 2003, and the other in 2003-2004. These were the envelopes Ms. Copps announced at the end of the 90s — one for $15 million and the other for $18 million. These were to expire in 2002-2003, and in 2003-2004. So these resources were not supposed to last beyond these two years.
As a result, it was necessary to subtract the so-called regular resources for minority language education in order to come up with the real base for minority education resources. If you multiply these figures — 15 and 18 — by the number of years during which they were not available, you come up with a figure of 147. So theoretically, there is a shortfall of some 147 million. However, this is not the case, because these resources were ending in any case.
This may be somewhat confusing, because without having a chart, it is difficult to follow the explanations regarding these figures. The fact is quite simply that these funds, which were supposed to end, did end as scheduled.
Senator Tardif: Thank you. I can continue looking into this on my own.
Senator Goldstein: Just for your information, the article in question was published in the National Post on Saturday. There was quite a sharp response in La Presse on Sunday and an even better one, in my opinion, in today's Le Droit. I am wondering whether the department or the minister could respond by submitting an article to the National Post, because that is where this article appeared, and it was read by anglophones. It contained many misunderstandings and misinterpretations — I would not go so far as to say lies, but almost — and I think it requires a response.
Mr. Moisan: We will look into this. There have been many articles recently, including that one, of course, but others as well, that resulted in responses here in the region, in the Ottawa Citizen, a few weeks ago. Sometimes it takes a little time before there is a response; but it is worth setting the record straight.
I think the article in the National Post raised a much broader issue than French and English — it was more about the value of languages generally. We know that many other people have views on languages that go far beyond English and French and that take into account all languages and the way in which they enrich people's lives.
Senator Tardif: When can we expect to get the 2006-2007 annual report?
Mr. Lussier: In 2008. Last year, it was tabled in June. We always try to target a tabling date as early as possible in the spring. We are talking about the 2006-2007 report, which is being written at the moment.
The Chair: Before thanking you officially on behalf of the committee, I would just like to make one comment. We are all here to further the development of official language minority communities. A few years ago, if you recall, we were talking about defining a consultation process. This was defined at one point so that departments would understand that this is a two-way street, not a one-way street. Now we are in the process of defining what constitutes a positive measure. In the meantime, the years are going by, and minority communities are more and more vulnerable.
Personally, all I would like to say today — but this is not an announcement — is that Part VII of the Official Languages Act talks about the accountability framework of all the federal departments and agencies that come under it. The passage states:
Determine whether its policies and programs have impacts on the promotion of linguistic duality and minority community development, from the initial stages of their inception.
I think this is very clear, and I would ask you to continue encouraging all departments to comply with Part VII of the Official Languages Act and to define positive measures as quickly as possible, because time is going by, and I know you are as aware of that as I am and as the members of the committee are.
I would like to thank both of you very much, Mr. Lussier and Mr. Moisan.
We will take a break for a few minutes, senators, and our next witnesses will come to the table.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
The Chair: As I mentioned at the beginning, our committee has also undertaken a study of francophone culture. That is one of the subjects that is of great interest to our committee.
We will now hear representatives from two national organizations that promote the artistic and cultural expression of the francophone and Acadian communities. With us is the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the FCCF, represented by Pierre Bourbeau and Ms. Raymonde Boulay-LeBlanc, as well as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, represented by Ms. Lise Routhier-Boudreau and Ms. Diane Côté.
We will hear the presentations of the two groups and then we will move to questioning. Please begin.
Lise Routhier-Boudreau, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Thank you for inviting us to appear before you. The subject you are studying at the moment, the culture of francophones in Canada, touches on some issues of crucial importance for the vitality and development of minority francophone communities.
As you know, the Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities, which was held last June, allowed us to put forward a vision and a roadmap for the next development of the francophone community throughout the country. The summit's final statement set out clearly the conditions that promote the cultural, social and economic vitality of French-language communities. It also included culture explicitly in the common themes to be developed over the next 10 years. Moreover, it is one of the main points we would like to make today. The summit spoke about a francophonie defined not only by people whose mother tongue is French, but by all those who choose to communicate in French and to support French.
This concept of a plural francophonie is very important for the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities as well as for the development of our cultural identity and sense of belonging.
In our society, homogenous identity and cultural systems no longer exist. We firmly believe that cultural spheres have diversified through regionalization, the multiple origins from which francophones come, and the cultural influence of the rest of Canada, the U.S. and the world.
The current context for francophone and Acadian communities is one of great cultural diversity and an acknowledged increase in the number of people who identify as being bilingual. Over the past decade, these communities have had to deal with fundamental issues regarding what it means to identify as a francophone in a diverse context and in particular how to ensure that everyone can achieve his or her cultural potential. Defining the francophonie as consisting of all those who choose to communicate in French shows respect for cultural, religious and ethnic differences and is inclusive of francophones from various origins and those who have learned French and choose to participate directly or indirectly in the life of the francophone community. From this perspective of a pluralistic francophonie that is influenced by various identities, how will artistic institutions and initiatives aimed at strengthening francophones' sense of belonging to their community manage to carry out their role, especially given the siren call of anglophone culture? We see that as the major question facing us today. Language and culture are what connect us. Language incorporates culture, and culture involves a common language. It is with that language and that culture that we create a community. In this new concept of francophonie, a sense of belonging can be developed and nurtured only through the efforts of a broad range of community partners as well as institutions, facilities and content that creates attractive and dynamic living spaces in French and open them up to a variety of individuals, experiences and needs.
What we are talking about are accessible community living spaces such as schools, media, centres to welcome new arrivals and immigrants, and community and cultural centres. The linguistic and cultural content must be competitive from the standpoint of technology, accessibility, activities, events, products and services offered in French. There must be a variety of processes to interest individuals, groups and target publics by providing them with opportunities to share, dialogue, celebrate, participate, get involved and use interactive communication media. It is also vital to have organizers, cultural contributors and artists who lead, communicate, create, innovate, produce, promote and transmit culture, heritage and the arts with a view to bringing individuals and groups together in a francophone space and a community context. These carriers of culture and identity will work together to attract, acquire and maintain cultural activities, to ensure community participation and to enhance the awareness and enjoyment of the benefits of living in an open linguistic and cultural space. However, competition is strong among the various cultural and identity influences connected with French and English. The major challenge for francophone and Acadian communities and for those involved in culture and identity is therefore to strengthen their ability to attract people's interest and fulfil the expectations and desires of both francophones and francophiles. In a world where there are numerous influences on culture and identity, especially given the dominance of American and English-Canadian culture, it is essential that living spaces, content, processes and cultural contributors in French be able to offer comparable quality, variety and vitality to what is available in English.
After all, choices of culture and identity are greatly influenced today by the powers of seduction, that is, the ability of cultural leaders and contributors to offer attractive choices to individuals and groups. For all these reasons, it is important to strengthen the ability of those involved in creating and transmitting francophone culture and identity to carry out their role effectively. The federal government can contribute in a vital way by investing in building and strengthening French living spaces.
There will be a number of major opportunities over the next year for the government to take concrete measures to support its commitment to Canada's linguistic duality and the development of official language communities. In addition to major events such as the Francophonie Summit and the Quebec 400th anniversary celebrations, where Canada will be able to showcase and promote the Francophonie through the production, promotion and dissemination of art, culture and heritage, there are other issues: the renewal of the community cooperation agreements, the federal-provincial agreements and, of course, the federal government's official languages strategy.
During the consultations led by Bernard Lord on the new official languages strategy, we emphasized the importance of investing in building living spaces in French, especially by investing in the human capital of communities. This means investing in the spaces, content, processes and cultural organizers to enable francophones to identify with the Francophonie and develop a sense of belonging. It means investing in infrastructure, physical spaces where francophones have access to activities, goods and services in French, and places where they can meet, learn, dialogue and come together as a community. It means investing in French-language public and community communications media infrastructure that will stimulate and mobilize young people, families, new community members and immigrants, as well as promote and disseminate the many dimensions of francophone culture and identity.
It means investing in the training of human resources in order to improve the abilities, skills and effectiveness of francophones when it comes to creating and innovating, producing, promoting and disseminating cultural activities, goods and services in French.
We would like the Senate to support this emphasis on investing in the building of francophone living spaces, and since culture is the cross-cutting element of these spaces in French, we also would like to see the Senate recognize the vital contribution made by the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française and its members to strengthening these environments. The government's commitment to Canada's linguistic duality and to cultural diversity, which is a fundamental value of our country, is a commitment to Canada's future.
I want to thank you for your ongoing interest in Canada's francophone culture. We will, of course, be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now hear from Ms. Raymonde Boulay LeBlanc.
Raymonde Boulay LeBlanc, Chair of the Board of Directors, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Madam Chair, the future of the Francophonie in Canada is tightly bound to that of our culture. Canada is not only an economic power, but also a dynamic cultural entity and an environment where its national cultures can thrive. Francophone culture today is a driver of change and development that can help build a strong, open and pluralistic Canadian Francophonie.
Francophone culture should occupy a central position in Canada, but it has not yet been granted that place even today. Our artists, our organizations and our creations have brought a plurality of voices to La Francophonie on the world stage thus enhancing its image. We have great performers, entertainers and creative talent. Their calling is to express themselves and to reach out to the world, but the Canadian francophonie still lacks the means by which to take a place among these international bodies.
The primary challenges facing our industry: there are still ongoing challenges directly related to our peripheral and minority status; we need to consolidate the cultural continuum in the regions; and in our communities, cultural development is fostered by about 145 local organizations and 13 provincial and territorial bodies. Their capacity to act is often limited by a lack of resources, and in particular, human resources and adequate infrastructure.
Holding on to our performing artists: it is becoming increasingly urgent for us to encourage new employment development initiatives for our performing artists and to focus on regional strategies in order to keep our performing artists who, through their contributions, provide a vital and stimulating environment for our francophone and Acadian communities; the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and cultural agencies must give greater consideration to the needs of the performing arts community:
For several years, the FCCF and its members have been critical of the failure to increase financial support to the francophone performing arts community in Canada. Aside from a number of success stories since the start of the new millennium, there has been a lack of awareness of the plight in which the performing arts sector finds itself. The result has been inadequate funding of the regional and national performing arts infrastructure, as indicated by the study conducted by the Fédération culturelle canadienne française. This study shows there was a drop in funding from the Canada Council for the Arts between 2000 and 2005, and also in 2006, despite PICLO investment of $2.2 million and a Canada Council for the Arts overall funding increase over the same period. There have also been setbacks as far as the Canadian Television Fund is concerned, particularly in management of the use of funding. Lastly, efforts to get francophone representation on the board of directors of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Canadian Television Fund have been unsuccessful.
The failure to make reference to Canadian francophonie arts and culture in the official languages action plan was particularly damaging in terms of ensuring the balanced development of our cultural and artistic communities. We now urgently need stable and multi-year core funding to consolidate our organizations and to develop winning strategies and projects which recognize existing resources and each region's potential.
Our national performing arts organizations represent a cross-section of sectors including the visual arts, literary creation, the theatre, music and song, and the media arts. They are constantly looking for additional funding in order to pay their operating costs and to ensure their performing artists and creative talent are paid a decent living. The industrial structure of the francophone and Acadian communities may never be able to compete with the conglomerates, but clearly, without this structure, our communities will be incapable of sustaining creative and production endeavours of a professional standard.
Having said this, despite real progress, francophone audiovisual production outside Quebec remains a fragile industry especially with the recent changes announced to the Canadian Television Fund and its budget allocation. Over the last six years, funding for francophone producers in a minority setting has never reached 15 per cent of the Canadian Television Fund francophone envelope.
Access to the arts: Many projects — such as the Réseaux régionaux de diffusion de spectacles, the Livres, Disques initiative, the L'échangeur en arts visuels project, the Montreal promotion office Zof — have enjoyed financial support, but these projects remain additional investments in order to really make a mark and increase the visibility and influence of our artists.
The role of family, school, youth, community, the media, and governments in promoting and supporting francophone culture:
While cultural and identity-based capital is the common denominator among francophones and Acadians, the fact remains that learning a language and the culture that goes with it is the result of an educational and learning effort shared by families, schools and communities. Culture at school and the accessibility of culture have therefore remained an ongoing focus in the FCCF's work. To this end, the FCCF launched the initiative lien langue-culture-éducation — language-culture-education — which in turn testifies to the essential role played by an artistic and cultural education in our schools, which contributes to our youth thinking about their identity.
As far as francophone and Acadian communities are concerned, the FCCF would argue that francophone culture is not a sector, but rather an essential multi-dimensional element to their ongoing development. Francophone culture and its many manifestations are transversal and cut across all sectors of the Canadian francophonie, and help to control the exodus of our youth, linguistic and cultural assimilation and linguistic transfer.
In this 21st century, we must take a fresh look at what francophone identity means not only when it comes to protecting our culture, but also in terms of the cultural interconnectedness in our francophone world, along with the notion of otherness and cross-culturalism which are progressively becoming part of our francophone and Acadian communities.
The arts and culture are tools for pluralistic integration within our francophone and Acadian communities. Places of cultural mediation, local structures of cultural activity are both meeting places, places of interaction which encourage better understanding and friendship between cultures among francophone and Acadian communities. This is crucial so that immigrants feel a sense of belonging to their francophone community, and to halt any ghettoization of new francophone/francophile immigrants in their francophone and Acadian communities.
Culture's contribution from an economic standpoint: Despite its measurable and quantifiable economic impacts, francophone culture still is not recognized as a key component of the Canadian economy. The only exception being that Quebec cultural and artistic communities and, more recently, Acadian ones, have successfully implanted bold strategies to highlight the decisive and important contribution of their artists and cultural institutions in society by making a trademark for themselves rooted in modernity, creativity, and innovation.
Francophone culture and Canadian society and minority francophone communities: Culture needs to become a societal focus for the Canadian francophonie, francophone culture must be rich and creative, confident in its identity, and it must take its place among institutional, public, media, and political fora, thereby establishing its legitimacy and helping the francophonie become an essential project in Canada. In going about this ambitious mission, the federal government needs to better support francophone culture which enriches cultural diversity and fosters linguistic duality in Canada. These two fundamental values characterize Canada and are a source of pride for it abroad.
Since 2002, the FCCF has been publishing a study on the place held by the Canadian francophonie in the major federal cultural institutions. The study has revealed the fluctuating funding levels for cultural and artistic organizations in the Canadian francophonie, and this is something the FCCF wants to change, particularly through the development of a new instrument to replace the official languages action plan. To this end, the FCCF believes that an additional $200 million spread over five years is required to ensure the long-term consolidation of these artistic and cultural organizations throughout Canada.
A national cultural policy to fight for and stimulate francophone culture: Currently, there is no official definition of culture and no dominant cultural policy in Canada. The Constitution outlines the major principles of a Canadian cultural policy. Other elements of a cultural policy are to be found in legislation such as the Income Tax Act, the Copyright Act, the Broadcasting Act and other highly specific acts such as the Status of the Artist Act. Having said this, the lack of coherency between Canada's legislative framework and financial rather than cultural considerations seems evident in the way the current cultural policy is applied. Culture is a shared responsibility and each order of government develops it according to its own priorities and programs within a strategic framework and with consideration for budgetary constraints. What remains clear is that in the 21st century and the globalized environment of international trade and a concentrated business sector, Canada must send out an unequivocal message to the arts and culture sector, and especially its Canadian francophone component, that it understands the importance of adequate and stable funding in this key area which underpins both the national economy and identity.
Part VII of the Official Languages Act is an important tool supporting cultural life in minority francophone communities: Following the amendments made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act in 2005, the federal government must now take positive steps to promote the vitality of language communities. To this end, the FCCF would like to emphasize the problems surrounding the management of some Canadian Heritage programs by third parties which are not subject to the Official Languages Act. In other words, even though the legislative framework has been strengthened through Bill S-3 with the intention of helping minority language communities, concrete and measurable results have not been forthcoming.
The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Diversity: The FCCF is continuing its involvement with the coalition for cultural diversity. The federal government needs to take clear action: it needs to pass adequate legislation confirming the importance of Canadian ownership and control of cultural enterprises, including those within the realm of Canadian francophonie; it must implement a policy framework which ensures that all distribution and Canadian content production technologies share the same obligations and cultural objectives; must develop a Canadian foreign policy which focuses on promoting our francophone culture in all media formats and platforms throughout the various international markets; and, it must celebrate Canadian francophone cultural achievements world-wide.
And we need money to make our dreams a reality. Federal spending on culture is but a tiny part of the overall budget. The FCCF believes that it is time for the Canadian government, just like other countries, to seriously think about moving towards having at least 1.5 per cent of the national budget dedicated to culture, with a fair share of this being allocated to the Canadian francophonie through the Department of Canadian Heritage and its cultural agencies' programs, in line with the demographic weight of this sector.
In conclusion, in making culture a real ambition for the Canadian francophonie, it becomes obvious that in reality the Canadian francophonie is based in culture itself. Our artists, our designers, and our cultural community has woven together a network of the mind, the imagination, and the heart, and it is up to us to keep this alive and well. Since culture is at the heart of the francophone identity, it must also be at the heart of sustainable development for francophone and Acadian communities.
Thank you for having invited us to appear before you. I may have one more recommendation: perhaps the committee should also consider inviting national artistic organizations to appear.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. LeBlanc. I should mention that the committee does intend to hold a round table and these organizations will be invited.
Senator Poulin: I would like to thank Ms. Routhier-Boudreau and Ms. Boulay LeBlanc and your respective directors general for having taken the time to come and speak to us with conviction and clarity of the importance of language and culture in our country today. You are preaching to the converted. I will not hide that fact from you.
You said a number of important things. I really liked the language you used, Ms. Routhier-Boudreau, when it came to using seduction nowadays to ensure that language and culture are further developed. I particularly liked your reference, Ms. Boulay LeBlanc, to the Broadcasting Act.
I was a little surprised that you did not talk about the importance of broadcasting to, one, broaden the reach of our culture and language, and two, to make known our artists, and contribute to their development. When I look back 20 years ago — and I think Senator Champagne will recall — Société Radio-Canada played an extremely important role both regionally and nationally in developing our major artists. Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer regional programs and programs which feature our major French-speaking artists.
Have you decided to no longer call on our national broadcaster to play this role and is that why neither of you referred in any way to the importance of the Société Radio-Canada in our country today? Especially with the budget of about a billion dollars and regional infrastructure which is available country-wide, I was a little surprised to see that there was no mention of our national broadcaster.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: It certainly was not my intention to not continue to highlight the need for both television and radio broadcasting. When I referred to the media, I was speaking broadly, and was including the important role that the media has played in the past and which it continues to play today. Moreover, we have an ongoing dialogue with Radio-Canada and we continue to make known our communities' needs vis-à-vis their broadcasters. I would like to reassure you that that is certainly not something we have lost sight of.
Ms. Boulay LeBlanc: I might also point out that, today, I had a meeting with the CEO of the APFC, the Association des producteurs francophones du Canada, who, as it turns out, had some alarming things to say on this matter. Perhaps I will let Pierre tell you about that.
Pierre Bourbeau, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Indeed, it is perhaps because we recently appeared before another committee in relation to Radio-Canada and its important role that we may have allowed ourselves a broader focus in this document. However, I can tell you that, as far as we are concerned, the visibility of francophone and Acadian communities and of artists within Radio-Canada is very important and we have really pushed Radio-Canada to focus on the visibility of these artists in the top-rating national programs.
We have observed lately, with the restructuring of Radio-Canada, that there are quite interesting developments in terms of web and radio programming at Radio-Canada. And this has to do with the fact that the Internet and radio are flexible media which do not cost much. Now, television, is another thing. Radio-Canada is our public television and it is not being adequately funded despite still having to play the same role when it comes to fighting for ratings with the private television companies, and by extension, fighting for the advertising revenue they need.
We, the French-speaking community of Canada, are indeed placed in a losing position, because what Radio-Canada seeks are high ratings in Quebec. Often, given that our artists are not well known, programming is selected based on ratings. What we have argued in other documents is that Radio-Canada must fully play its role as a public broadcaster by providing our artists with the appropriate visibility. Their career depends on this and they need this coverage in order to become known and to be able to earn a living from their craft.
What Ms. Boulay LeBlanc was referring to is that of the Canadian Television Fund, one-third is allocated to French-language broadcasting and, of that proportion, currently, Canadian French-language content represents 10 per cent. What we are asking is that this figure be raised to 15 per cent, so as to correspond to the demographic weight of the Canadian French-speaking community. This proportion is considerable, because it represents an increase of $5 million. I can tell you that if French-Canadian producers had an additional $5 million in their budget, that would make a major difference.
There is another concern with regard to this 10 per cent granted to French-language programming. Radio-Canada now has 33 per cent allocated directly to it. Unlike for the rest of the fund, certain categories must be presented as a percentage of the programming to ensure a certain amount of diversity in television production. Unfortunately, the amount granted to Radio-Canada now is category-exempt, which means that Radio-Canada can do what it likes with this 33 per cent, and the impacts are felt by the French-language producers.
Once again, and I am saying this from a general perspective, Radio-Canada must unfortunately play the ratings and advertising income game.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have to tell you that I was one of those who really pushed to have this committee look at francophone culture in Canada.
When I read in last Saturday's edition of the newspaper La Presse a supplement entitled ``Quand je me regarde je me console,'' I was not consoled at all. Even in France, statistics show that the French are more attracted by American movies or the Academy Awards than by galas in French.
That being said, Radio-Canada has often been threatened in our regions as a vehicle of anglicization because francophones in northern New Brunswick are tired of hearing what is happening in Montreal and about the traffic on the Jacques-Cartier bridge, so what do they do? They switch to an English channel.
I would like to come back to the meeting with the minister, when we spoke about positive measures, and I would like to know if your two organizations cooperate with Canadian Heritage on what could be positive measures under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: I will let my colleague answer that, because she knows more about the development in that area than I do, but I can tell you that positive measures are a major focus of our federation. We are following this area very closely and we have, time and time again, underscored our willingness to collaborate with government authorities to work on positive measures.
I think that, like everyone else, we feel that there is a certain inaction in this area, and I also think that part of the problem is that we often have the impression that no one really knows what to do to move forward with positive measures. We work hard to help people do what needs to be done to put positive measures in place, but Diane can tell you more.
Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Relations, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Of course, we work with the Canadian Heritage interdepartmental team. Since the fall, we have had regular meetings with them to see how we could move things forward at different levels, in efforts to implement positive measures.
We are also developing a mechanism through which we will gather data in our communities on positive measures established and measures the communities are asking departments to set up. Obviously, this will be a long-term process. People will be able to communicate what is going on in their communities more effectively.
I would like to make it clear that positive measures were in place before 2005. We would of course like things to go very quickly and we would like to have a large number of initiatives in place, but we must understand that a dialogue needs to be established with a variety of government institutions. Those institutions need to understand clearly what we need so that they can make needed adjustments. That is a process which must be initiated.
Senator Losier-Cool: The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française as well?
Mr. Boudreau: I do not think that consultation is lacking. For example, we at the Fédération culturelle canadienne- française manage a multi-party agreement with a variety of signatories, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council for the Arts, the National Arts Centre, the NFB and Canadian Heritage. The purpose of the agreement is to determine how agencies other than Canadian Heritage can support development in the arts and culture sector in francophone Canada.
We have established cooperation mechanisms through the agreement, on an annual basis. For example, we have a variety of theme-based working groups including groups in the visual arts, editing, voice and music and theatre. We also have bilateral meetings — in other words, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française meets with individual parties to the agreement, for example the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the National Arts Centre. That is how consultations are carried out.
The results achieved are not always as we would wish, however. For the most part, desired goals are not achieved. I do say ``for the most part,'' because I do not want to cast any aspersions on our champions. There are certainly some people who have achieved very good results, particularly people in the Cultural Space Canada and Arts Presentation Canada programs. The APC has been sensitive to the situation and circumstances of the Francophonie in Canada.
There are of course still gaps, because the situation of francophones and francophone culture in Canada is still marginal — often smaller, and often in the regions. Funding all these efforts well poses a host of challenges. What we do always tend to see, however, is that when program criteria are established, people listen to us and then — this is what we generally see — the final criteria are established on the basis of how things are for the anglophone majority or francophones in Quebec.
Frequently, what la Francophonie in Canada ends up with depends on good will. Agreements frequently contain clauses that say generosity should be shown towards the French-speaking community in Canada, or certain things should be interpreted certain ways, but nothing is expressed in concrete terms. We are still in a rather uncertain position, in that we depend on good will and interpretation.
This is why I would say that nothing is very clear on what the government really wants to do for in the French- speaking community of Canada in the arts and culture sector. Positive measures are always the subject of major debate.
Allow me a quick aside: I was part of a working group, along with the Office of the Official Languages Commissioner, established to determine what positive measures are. The Office of the Official Languages Commissioner came up with some very interesting concepts, including the fact that people will really need to work together, agree on the results to be achieved, and invest the means to achieve them. Afterwards, an assessment would be necessary. The aspect which has not yet been clarified is what people really want to achieve for the French-speaking community of Canada. It will take very specific efforts to properly adjust existing programs.
Senator Tardif: I would like to add my own question to that of my colleague Senator Losier-Cool on positive measures. In your presentation, you said there was a problem with the management of some Canadian Heritage programs, because certain third parties were not subject to the Official Languages Act. Could you please elaborate on that? Why did the programs work with third parties? In what area? What is the problem?
Mr. Bourbeau: The Canadian Television Fund is one example. As far as I know, it is not subject to the Official Languages Act, and it is through political efforts that we have succeeded in obtaining a 10 per cent investment for the Francophonie in Canada. But this could be lost any time, and each year we have to monitor things very carefully to ensure that investment is maintained.
We could say the same thing for the Canada Music Fund. That fund is not subject to the Official Languages Act either. There again, we have made some useful progress through representations and dialogue, but we could again lose what we have acquired, because the people in authority change and the ones who take their place might simply have a different attitude.
When we see what is now happening with the CTF — the issue of creating a public or private fund, and the whole issue of meeting market trends — provides indicators that our gains are indeed fragile, and that we must always be on the alert to ensure that our gains are protected. When the government establishes funds that are not necessarily government funds, we end up taking a reactive position to ensure that our rights are protected. There are several million dollars at stake.
The Chair: I have a question to add to Senator Tardif's. Don't some of the financial contributions to the CTF come from Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Bourbeau: I think that the fund has been reduced somewhat. At one point, however, it amounted to $300 million — $200 million for English-language production and $100 million for French-language production. Canadian Heritage contributed another $120 million, and it is because Canadian Heritage contributed those amounts that it required a 10 per cent investment in French-Canadian production.
The Chair: So even though some of the financial contributions came from Canadian Heritage, the fund is not subject to the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Bourbeau: No, because 5 per cent is charged to the cable companies and for many, that becomes like a private fund that cable companies would rather use as they wish.
Senator Goldstein: The question that came to my mind was asked, and was put much better than I could have put it myself. I do have a response however — but I do not know if it is a question. You were talking about culture. Obviously, you are talking about francophone culture, and preaching to converts. We understand that the resources provided to help francophone culture in Canada flourish and develop are not sufficient. However, when I listen to you, I realize that if I close my eyes and replace the words ``francophone culture'' or the word ``French'' with words like ``opera,'' ``theatre,'' ``ballet,'' or ``museum,'' everything you say could easily be repeated by the National Museum Association, the Canadian Authors Association, in French and English, and by any other body that seeks to protect culture. And we are up against the fact that culture as such does not appear to be a priority either of this government — I do not mean to be partisan here — or of the previous government.
So governments, regardless of their stripe, do not support culture either at the federal or at the provincial level. Yet culture is the very essence of civilization, and of what we call Canada.
Could you work together with all other parties interested in preserving and developing culture generally, of course while nonetheless underscoring the pivotal importance of francophone culture? After all, you do have a government department which is supposed to be both expert in and committed to protecting, preserving and advancing French- language culture.
Could you not work with others to focus on culture generally?
Mr. Bourbeau: I think we have already done that. The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has focused particularly on the area of official languages. The Fédération is also a member of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and of the Canadian Arts Coalition. The coalition has fought very hard to increase the budget for the Canada Council, among other things.
We are also a member of the Canadian coalition for cultural diversity. The coalition for cultural diversity has done a great deal internationally, among other things with respect to the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. We are all in favour of protecting rights to cultural diversity. Sometimes, we amuse ourselves by saying that Canada presents itself as an international leader and protector of cultural diversity. Canada will have to determine very seriously how that is to apply within its borders. This is precisely what we are seeking to determine by working with a variety of Quebec and English-language organizations.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a challenge for both of your organizations, that will help us and advance the debate. My comment follows on the question Senator Murray put to Minister Verner, when he spoke of funding that Parliament allocated to disadvantaged regions. We can draw a link with culture here. It is true that culture provides an economic return. However, people who have no money go neither to the theatre, nor to the ballet, nor to the opera.
I would like you to be careful in your efforts, to ensure that in the provinces — and particularly in our francophone regions — we can establish economic measures to ensure that culture does not suffer too much.
Ms. Boulay LeBlanc: I would like to respond to that comment. Arts and culture are determining means that we use to draw major corporations to establish their operations in a given region and create an economy. We might even reverse the roles and say that in order to attract an economy to a given region, that region must have a dynamic culture. Then, we look at the activities available outside the work environment, and there we often turn to art and culture.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: I have a general comment. It is quite true that culture is very important, regardless of language and regardless of region. For French-language communities, however, the impact of culture is even more important. The francophone identity and landscape have changed a great deal over the past 30 years. The contribution made by all cultures present here have led to our being able to recognize ourselves and to be migrant, or immigrants. As Ms. Boulay LeBlanc was saying, if we want to keep our francophones, we will need not only jobs in French but life in French — a good quality of life in French. Those aspects are important and are directly related to the gains culture brings.
I can speak as a teacher, something I was for 33 years. It was by using cultural elements that I succeeded in reaching my students — all the students in my class, including immigrants, migrants, students with problems, gifted students, and students with problems at home. It is through culture that we can reach one another.
For francophone and Acadian communities, what culture brings is essential.
Mr. Bourbeau: I am going to make a comment based on my personal and professional impression. The last census, and the post-census investigation were a real wake-up call for me. We have to roll up our sleeves. Two particular challenges are facing us. We have to be able to build a francophone identity for our young people. Our young people must be proud to be francophones. But building an identity often takes a very internal, introspective path. To build our identity, we must have the needed infrastructure. Education is important. We are convinced that arts and culture can play a determining role in building that francophone identity.
The insights they have and the development young people do within themselves has to be reflected in their environment. This means they have to see dynamic, contemporary communities with which they are proud to be associated. And we believe that to offer people that kind of environment outside the family and outside the school, arts and culture are crucial. They play a very important role in making our communities dynamic.
Those challenges are very specific to francophone and Acadian communities, though they do of course to some extent apply to Canadian society as a whole.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for coming here today to testify before the committee. I would like to thank you particularly for the documents you are leaving with the committee, and for the calibre of your presentations. These documents are extremely well prepared, and you have obviously spent a lot of time and energy on them. I would like to tell you that they will be extremely helpful as we prepare our report, after our study is completed.
The committee is adjourned.