Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of May 26, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, May 26, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:01 p.m. to study and 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 Andrée Champagne (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Traduction]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Andrée Champagne from Quebec. I am the deputy chair of this committee and I am chairing the meeting this evening in the absence of Senator Maria Chaput of Manitoba, who is our chair. I am sure that you will all join me in wishing her a quick recovery.
I would like to begin by introducing the members of the committee. To my right, is Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick, on the other side is Senator Gerald. J. Comeau from Nova Scotia. We also have Senator Yoine Goldstein from Quebec and Senator Jim Munson from Ontario.
Allow me to introduce our three witnesses who were invited to participate in the round table this evening. First, Ms. Lise Leblanc, Director General of the Association des groupes en arts visuels francophones, Mr. Mark Chatel, President of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, and to the right, Mr. Yvon Malette, President of the Regroupement des éditeurs canadiens-français.
The purpose of today's round table is to study the state of francophone culture in Canada, and more specifically the state of the culture in minority francophone communities. Our witnesses today represent the national associations of the arts and culture sectors. We have already met with most of Canada's community associations, government organizations and the Centre de la francophonie des Amériques.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having accepted our invitation and for having taken the time to appear before the committee today. I would now invite you to make your presentations. I think everyone will understand that I suggest we begin with Ms. Leblanc.
Ms. Lise Leblanc, Director General, Association des groupes en arts visuels francophones: Madam Deputy Chair, thank you for meeting with us today. I spent nearly 20 years with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française. I have just left that organization to work with the Association des groupes en arts visuels francophones, and I will explain why I believe that this sector has enormous potential with regard to the development of francophone communities.
Our organization brings together 16 members which are spread out over four provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba. These members are artists' collectives and artistic centres focused on production and broadcasting — there are 10 of them — university galleries, one in Moncton and one at Glendon in Toronto, a community gallery in Saint-Boniface, and three artists' associations, including the Bureau des regroupements des artistes visuels en Ontario (BRAVO), the Association acadienne des artistes professionals du Nouveau-Brunswick (AAAPNB), and most recently, the Conseil des arts de la Baie Sainte-Marie in Nova Scotia. In provinces where there are no francophone organizations focused on visual arts, the AGAVF has accepted the membership of individual artists and it also works in close cooperation with provincial cultural organizations on the development side.
The visual arts sector is complex, misunderstood and changing. As with the rest of the Canadian population, Canadian francophones have a limited visual culture, and we could go so far as to say that it is light years behind today's contemporary practices. The great museums still exhibit artists such as Renoir, whereas the Venice Biennale showcases installation and performance artists. The language of the visual arts is based on a code and very few people have the keys to this code. In fact, the Visual Arts Summit which was held in Ottawa last November expressed the need to develop education programs for all age groups. This is a huge challenge. For example, people are still talking about drawing, when today young people are involved in graffiti art and the development of sophisticated computer- generated software programs.
Why do I believe this sector presents several opportunities for the Canadian francophonie? For three somewhat related reasons: interdisciplinarity, youth and modernity.
Interdisciplinarity came into being in the visual arts sector and it is the way of the future, as is the integration of different art forms. The significance of this phenomenon lead the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA) to create the Inter-Arts Office, and Simon Brault, the Vice-President of the CCA for this area, gave a very good speech on the subject and I would invite you to read it. So, by integrating the many disciplines in the area of visual arts, which include painting, sculpture, photography and printmaking, to other forms of art, such a music, video, poetry, theatre and dance, the visual arts sector is leading the way by allowing this intersectoral integration to take place within the artistic community. This gets artists out of their silos, something which is often denounced within the arts sector, and it enables artists to gain a better understanding of what others are doing. It creates better cohesion within the sector and strengthens the artistic community.
As far as youth is concerned, a series of fora headed by Governor General Michaëlle Jean on urban art and young people is one example which truly inspired us. New art forms are often marginalized, such as hip-hop, slam poetry or graffiti art, but these are expressions of contemporary art, which inject new life into the art world and allow us to see the world through the eyes of each new generation. Several members of our organization practise these modern art forms. They include the Galerie Sans Nom in Moncton, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, and which is headed by a team of 30-year-olds who in the last few years have organized an event called Trip Urbain, and who exhibit their work and exhibitions in Moncton during the Francofête de Moncton. There is also Ottawa's SAW Gallery, which hosted one of the Governor General's fora, and which is preparing Moncton Rock, which will be held from June 12 to 15 at Westfest. There is also the Galerie du Nouvel-Ontario, which organized the first alternative arts fair in Sudbury alongside the book fair which was held last May 4 to 7. It was based on a model which was already used in Toronto.
So young people everywhere are using art and culture to tell their stories. They are using every type of medium, so it is important that modern art forms be exhibited in francophone communities to attract young people and to help them build their own identity.
As several witnesses have already said in the course of the committee's consultations, by attracting scientists and thinkers such as Richard Florida, a city which fosters an arts scene will improve its social and economic vitality, and this is even more true when applied to the Canadian francophonie. Visual artists make up a huge part of this scene. However, visual artists still find it hard to get their work recognized. It is easier to fund a theatre troupe, for example, rather than visual artists to help them mount their exhibitions.
I would now like to talk about language. Even if so-called visual artists do not base their works on language, they are an integral part of society. In that regard, artists and the institutions they represent are full-fledged participants in the development of their communities. It is true that individual artists often show their works in English-speaking galleries or that they are part of an English-speaking network — it is a career choice — but collectively, a community must grow its institutions and leave its mark in the history of art, be it the Acadian, Franco-Ontarian or Franco- Manitoban societies.
In conclusion, our organization's applications for funding with the federal government mostly go through — and still go through — the Canada Council for the Arts, since it is the main funding organization for the Canadian francophonie, and because we do not have many of our own museums. However, our organization also applies for funding with the Department of Canadian Heritage — under its arts policy program — and we have also applied for funding under the Official Languages Support Programs (OLSP) with regard to agreements which should be renewed next year.
As far as funding from the CCA is concerned, we can tell you that despite the IPOLC and our efforts at collaboration, the situation has not changed from ten years ago. The amount of funding from the visual arts service we receive is only one per cent, whereas other sectors receive 5 per cent. These figures are from the study which compares the situation of the Canadian francophonie to other cultural sectors in terms of the funding received from the federal government's major cultural organizations.
As for artistic organizations, we are asking the Canada Council for the Arts to refer to the new fairness formula when it assesses funding criteria for artists, artists' projects or organizations, and to take into account the challenges which come with working in smaller, more vulnerable or isolated communities, and to also make up for the fact that provincial funding is not distributed equally. We would like the funding for the three artists' centres to be consolidated. There have only been three centres in the last ten years and their funding still has not been consolidated. However, more of these centres will be created, and we hope that the Canada Council for the Arts will fund new project-based centres first, followed by operations-based centres — we are working on this — and of course the AGAVF would like to be recognized as a national arts service organization.
As for the federal government's art policy, the government has funded programs such as Arts Presentation Canada and Cultural Spaces Canada in support of infrastructure and artists in the arts sector. However, visual arts do not really get their fair share of the pie, since performing arts get most of the money. The Canadian francophonie should not be the only group to raise the situation, but it is a fact of life for us. Our colleagues within the Canadian francophonie have also asked for more funding from these programs.
Of course, regarding the Official Languages Support Programs, our organization is asking for — and I take my hat off to my predecessor — a say in the development of our communities under the official languages programs, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Visual arts must be an important part of our communities. Today, the AGAVF received funding from a national envelope dedicated to national OLSP programs. However, there is a lot of disparity between the provinces. When the Canada-community agreements are renewed with the provinces, we must eliminate the inequalities which exist between the provinces.
Lastly, it is important to support cultural development organizations in the regions; they need help to give professional artists their due by paying them more and by providing them with more professional venues.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I suggest that we first hear from all three groups and then move on to questions.
Yvon Malette, President, Regroupement des éditeurs canadiens-français: Madam Deputy Chair, on behalf of the RÉCF, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on a subject which is dear to my heart.
I have divided my presentation into four points. First, I will briefly tell you about who we are, second, I will talk about the federal funding we received from both the Canada Council for the Arts and the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP). The third point I will address relates to the many and consistent problems we face, and my last point will focus on our demands and expectations.
Our organization is just over fifteen years old and I have been its president for the past five years. I am at the end of my mandate and today I am particularly keen on talking about and defending this organization, which is absolutely essential to the affirmation of our collective identity.
Who are we? The RÉCF represents 15 publishers, three of which are located in Eastern Canada, mainly New Brunswick, two in western Canada, one in Saskatchewan, two in Manitoba and nine in Ontario. All of these publishers, except for the Centre franco-ontarien de resources pédagogiques in Ottawa, and in Sudbury, focus more specifically on general literature. The other publishers focus on educational material. The 13 publishers, who publish works of poetry, novels, essays, theatre and books for young people, put out approximately 110 to 120 titles per year. You are probably wondering why I have not mentioned Quebec. Perhaps we can let Mr. Bellemare defend his territory, but he publishes about 5,000 titles. Apart from the two publishers of educational material, who do business in the order of a million dollars, our numbers vary between $700,000 to $750,000; if you divide that by 13, it is not very much. That is not a lot of money in business. The oldest publishing house, Prise de parole, was founded 35 years ago. We are relative newcomers. Is the quality there? I will not go over the list of awards we have won, but I am pleased to say that this year, we were awarded two of the seven Governor General's awards which are given out every year. That is a good average. Serge Patrice Thibodeau of New Brunswick won an award for poetry, and Annette Hayward won in the essay category.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that every member of the RÉCF plays an important role in affirming our collective identity and in building our literary heritage. The proof this lies in the fact that over the last ten years or so, the works we publish have been taught ever more frequently in universities. Master's and doctoral theses are being written on them. We are well-known and we are fully aware of the fact that we have a responsibility in the area of culture and that we must help affirm our collective identity, which varies depending on the provinces, of course.
This leads me to speak to my second point, which is federal funding. We have to distinguish between two types of funding, mainly federal support of publishers and federal support for our organization. Editors, of course, are always curious, every year, to see what lies behind the two funding doors available to them. The Canada Council for the Arts, which funds projects based on creativity and excellence, gave us $318,000 last year, which represents 4.5 per cent of its funding envelope. The BPIDP provides funding after review of applications. Some publishers do not apply to this organization because their sales volume is not high enough. The BPIDP bases its funding on sales volume, and if the figures vary between $18,000, $25,000 and $35,000, it is not worth it for publishers to apply, and that is too bad. Last year, we received $149,000, which represented 0.6 per cent rather than 0.4 per cent of the budgetary envelope from the preceding year. It was a good increase because the weighted average had changed.
The RÉCF received $73,000 from the Canada Council for the Arts last year, $170,000 from the BPIDP, and $78,000 under the OLSP.
Before concluding with the second point. . . Is my time limited?
The Deputy Chair: You have between 10 and 15 minutes so that we then have enough time for questions.
Mr. Malette: Very well. I will therefore go immediately to the third point, that is, the problems encountered. First, there is the size of the market. It must be pointed out, albeit briefly, that we work in small markets. The population varies throughout Canada, we do not have any bookstore or media networks. So we work under difficult conditions. Illiteracy rates are fairly high, that is a fact, and the rate of anglicization is worrisome.
A study by Canadian Heritage published in 2005 stated that there are four times fewer French-Canadian readers who live in minority communities. This means 3 per cent of good readers, as compared to 13 per cent in Quebec.
The size of the markets is a problem as is the size of structures, because we are small players. About a year ago, during the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais, naturally, Eastern Ontario was being honoured. A Montreal newspaper that I will not name, but of which Claude Ryan was the editor, published 32 reviews in a special booklet for the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais. Seven were on Quebec literature and only one was on Ontario literature. The others were mostly about foreign literature.
This shows you to what extent we must deal with difficult situations, especially in minority communities. There is also the impact of government assistance. If we look at what SODEC gives to its publishing houses compared with what Ontario receives from SODIMO, there is no common ground.
Finally, there is the lack of a political framework, which represents a serious problem. I am sure that we will come back to that during the question period. There is no Bill 51 that protects publishers and books published in Quebec.
What are our demands? The Canada Council, the BPIDP and publishers all have the same mandate: to affirm and build on this collective identity. We do so by publishing books, by forging a literary heritage, and you do so by granting us the financial assistance that we so urgently need.
I referred to the BPIDP and the 0.6 per cent of the budget envelope. If only we could receive 1.5 or 2 per cent more, I would come away today a very happy man. If I had the conviction that we could work toward this goal, that would be a great thing.
Our second request, while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction, is that the federal government should help us foster the development of a book policy. New Brunswick has already done so, Ontario is beginning to think about it, and we would like to be able to count on federal support. We will have to see how this can be orchestrated.
Third, we are calling on your support and your assistance to shake up the media. I am thinking of Radio-Canada, but I would like to congratulate them, however, because with the creation of the Prix des lecteurs or readers' award, especially as it is now a cross-Canada initiative as of this year, it is definitely the award that receives the most and the best media coverage.
The contribution made by Radio-Canada is significant, but I think that much more can be done as concerns cultural broadcasting. I am sorry to have perhaps gone over my time, but that is what I wanted to say to you.
The Deputy Chair: You used two acronyms during your presentation, that is, the BPIDP and another one. For those who do not know what you are referring to, could you tell us what those letters mean?
Mr. Malette: The BPIDP is the Book Publishing Industry Development Program.
The Deputy Chair: And the OLSP?
Ms. Leblanc: That is the Official Languages Support Program.
The Deputy Chair: I think that will make it easier for everyone. Let us now welcome Mr. Mark Chatel from the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada.
Mr. Mark Chatel, President, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada: Madam Deputy Chair, I have been the President of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada since last December. It is therefore a great honour for me to address the committee today. I will try to explain to you the situation of producers, and more specifically television, movie and new media producers.
The Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada was founded in 1999 and will celebrate its 10th anniversary next year. It represents about 11 production houses which are spread over five provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. I think it is important to understand that what we see on television today matters and gives Canadian and francophones living outside Quebec the feeling that they truly exist; this happens when they can identify with the people they see on the screen, or when they can identify with the people on television shows or in movies. The fact is that in Canada there is a linguistic duality from sea to sea. Part VII of the Official Languages Act is very important to us, and we hope to benefit from this particular provision to consolidate what we have achieved so far and which nevertheless remains fairly vulnerable, and that is a fact. But we have been in a period of growth since 2003, which was a turning point because some television shows might have disappeared, since at the time independent productions in minority communities were extremely under-funded.
The House of Commons Official Languages Committee recommended that 15 per cent of funding for audiovisual productions be spent on minority language projects. After that recommendation was made, we received 10 per cent of all public funding spent outside of the province of Quebec, and this helped our revenues double from $9 million in 1999 to $18 million in 2007. This represents the total revenues for all producers located outside Quebec, and this phenomenal growth and breakthrough would not have been possible without the standing committee having made that very clear recommendation.
Of course, we still face many challenges on a day to day basis. I myself am a television producer based here in Ottawa, and believe me when I say that I could not relate to the situation of francophone producers, when I used to live in Quebec, and I understand that many Quebeckers are not aware of the reality of the million francophones who live outside Quebec.
I recently produced a television series for young people; it was broadcast on TFO, which is the educational channel in Ontario. The program was called Mon premier emploi, and it showed young people between the ages of 9 and 12 who had summer jobs where they worked in French. Some young Franco-Ontarians between the ages of 9 and 12 told me that before they saw the show, they had no idea that when they became teenagers, they could work in their own language. So this is the type of impact television, new media and the movies can have on the lives of francophones living outside Quebec. When young people can relate to the characters they see on screen, they feel they exist; if they cannot relate, they feel they do not exist. This is why we are working hard so that broadcasters, particularly those who hold a national broadcasting licence — public broadcasters like Radio-Canada, and private ones like TVA — are obliged to reflect the reality of francophones living outside Quebec. In fact, perhaps they should even be obliged to dedicate 15 per cent of their programming to the francophone reality outside Quebec, since the million francophones living in the rest of Canada represent 15 per cent of Canada's francophone population.
We hope that when the television licences of these two broadcasters are renewed this fall — and next year, in the case of CBC — that the CRTC will impose this requirement on them. There is no doubt that this would add to the television programming available in Canada.
Our other reality is that we are far from major centres, from where the decisions are made by television channels. That works to our disadvantage on a day-two-day basis. The other disadvantage is the lack of human resources — francophone technicians, directors and scriptwriters. Fortunately, some programs, which were developed under interdepartmental cooperation programs in support of official languages, have made it possible to train directors and scriptwriters, in association with the NFB, CBC and Telefilm Canada — among others. These projects have been successful and have made it possible to produce some dramas and short films that were broadcast on Radio-Canada.
There were four experiments of this type that were very promising, because they allowed directors and script writers from outside Quebec to learn their craft. We hope these essential partnerships will continue.
Of course, we are very concerned about the future of the Canadian Television Fund. We will know within a few days or weeks what will be happening to it. And clearly, the position of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada is that a type of status quo should be maintained. We are definitely not in favour of dividing the fund into a public and private fund. We want a strong Canadian broadcasting system with high-quality programming. In our opinion, ratings are not necessarily criteria that can be used when program is produced outside Quebec.
Earlier, I mentioned the example of young people who see themselves on the screen, and who see a reason for continuing to speak French. However, had we evaluated the success of the program based onratings at TFO, we would have probably decided that it did not meet the standards. We would therefore not meet the objective.
So we think there should be a way other than the obsession with ratings of evaluating the success of programs. We think that emphasis should be placed on quality considerations, rather than quantitative ones. That is very important. We hope we will maintain this guaranteed place in the funding system for programs. We hope that the recommendation made in 2003 by the parliamentary committee will be met — namely that 15 per cent of public funds be invested in independent productions outside Quebec. We are having difficulty making ends meet and maintaining some vitality, and our remoteness and the lack of human resources mean that we need more funding to develop and build this infrastructure so crucial to the development of these production companies. They are really of all types: programs for young people, documentaries, drama series and variety shows. We work in all these fields. The quality is really recognized as equal to that of Quebec programming.
In the past, about two years ago, we were on the board of the Canadian Television Fund. Our place there was given to us by the Department of Canadian Heritage. This was taken away as a result of a recommendation made by the Auditor General, who said that there was a possible conflict of interest for us. However, the fact of the matter is that almost all the members of the board of the Canadian Television Fund could be in a conflict of interest situation. I'm thinking of the Association des producteurs de films et de television du Québec (APFTQ) or the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA), or any group, ultimately, whose objectives have to do with production companies and the production industry.
So for us, it is vital to be on this board to avoid being in a ghetto, and to be able to follow what is going on in various areas. I can give you a quick example of a bad decision made by this board that had a direct impact on us. People do not always think of all the possible ramifications of a decision. This happened when it was decided that the budget of the fund would be divided between Radio-Canada (37 per cent) and the other broadcasters. In the case of productions outside Quebec, there were no clear guidelines regarding this 37 per cent, whereas for the budget envelope for us, there were guidelines regarding the period of the year during which the money had to be spent, whether or not we had to produce certain types of programming — so much for programming for young people, so much for documentaries, drama or variety shows. In the case of Radio-Canada, this was left completely open, and as a result, in the last four years, there has been no youth programming produced at Radio-Canada by the independent sector outside Quebec. That means that there is one youth series a year less, compared to the past, which the Alliance des producteurs francophones produced. There is one young people's series less, and that means that francophone young people do not see themselves on the screen. And this speeds up the process of assimilation of francophone children. When decisions are made by the board, it is vital to have people there to raise a red flag to warn the other members about the concrete impact they could have for francophones outside Quebec.
I will close by telling you that another of our recommendations, one I've already mentioned, is that 15 per cent of the francophone content be in broadcasters' licences. And that we be on all the boards of directors that have to do with the Canadian broadcasting system, so that our voice can be heard and we can really protect our fragile achievements. We really hope to have increased production in the next few years. As I mentioned previously, I think there have been some good breakthroughs since 2004, but, at the same time, we have lost ground in other areas. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank our three witnesses.
Senator Goldstein: I would like to thank the three of you for coming to share your ideas and opinions with us.
I have a number of questions. My first is to Mr. Chatel. As you know, another Senate committee is reviewing some aspects of Bill C-10, one of whose objectives is to set some criteria for the funding and certain Canadian productions through tax credits.
Your organization has not been involved in these hearings. Is that because you produce mainly shorts or productions not eligible for funding by these tax credits? Or was there some other reason for that?
Mr. Chatel: No, our productions are clearly funded by federal and provincial income tax credits. So far, we have been quite silent on this issue, because our position was much the same as that of the APFTQ. We think it is more up to the courts to settle issues involving deviations from standards for conduct or good taste in programming.
The current problem is that the definition is much too broad and leaves a great deal of doubt about the tax credit system. The banks even mentioned that they could question their interim financing. The APFC's position is that the provision should be limited to some very specific cases. In the case of criminal prosecutions, if productions are found guilty, they could be turned down for the tax credit. In other cases, we cannot impose such a broad, vague provision on the entire industry.
Senator Goldstein: Ms. Leblanc, I see that the Association des théâtres francophones du Canada has members from all over Canada, except Quebec. Is there a reason for that?
Ms. Leblanc: Are you talking about the Association des théâtres francophones?
Senator Goldstein: Yes.
Ms. Leblanc: I am with the Association des groupes en arts visuels francophones. It is true that Quebec is not included. With a few exceptions, such as the Gala de la chanson, our national associations do not include Quebec. The intention is to defend the interests of francophones outside Quebec.
Senator Goldstein: Would it not be appropriate to join forces with Quebec theatre groups?
Ms. Leblanc: As my colleague just mentioned, we do defend a number of demands jointly with Quebec. Following the summit in November 2007, a new alliance on visual arts was established. It is made up of 11 national associations, including the group from Quebec. So we work at the same table to refine our demands.
In the area of the visual arts, CARFAC/RAAV is an organization made up of individual artists. This Canada-wide association, which includes Quebec, defends the rights of visual artists. We are involved in that group.
Senator Goldstein: All efforts to support culture in Canada and throughout the world always need support. Aside from financial assistance, can you tell us what other type of help, support, intervention or initiative from government and other state institutions could promote the development of the arts in the francophone community outside Quebec?
Ms. Leblanc: We often need research support to track trends. As Mr. Chatel mentioned, we are looking for data that is more qualitative in nature. Our approach is quite different from the one used in the major markets.
In addition, we are involved in education support, which is necessary at all levels — primary, secondary and university — in order to promote a better understanding of art, its importance and its inclusion in all areas of activity.
Mr. Malette: In your question, Senator Goldstein, you talked about assistance other than financial assistance. Nevertheless, I would like to come back to the financial aspect before looking at the others.
The financial assistance we receive is always helpful to us. However, a major problem remains. The financial assistance is not adequate in terms of operations. We have to take much too high a percentage of the funds we receive just to carry out our projects. And then we are encouraged to come forward with a new project. We apply once again, and bring forward interesting projects to get our literature known across the country. And we get a grant of $30,000 or $40,000, which is very good. The percentage of the grant that goes to operations is tiny. And yet our internal management costs are growing all the time.
Let me mention a specific example that concerns me. At the RÉCF, we did not have enough money to pay the executive director. He had to wait between four and six months to get paid. We were waiting for grants, and during that time, we did not have enough money for operations. These delays place us in some extremely difficult, precarious situations.
We would appreciate it very much if we could get funding that would focus more on operations.
You ask how you can help beyond financial assistance? In New Brunswick, a new book policy will be in place, in large part thanks to Marguerite Maillet. In Ontario, there has been a clear effort on the part of the Ministry of Education to encourage high school students to read more books by French-Canadian and Franco-Ontarian authors. There are 25,000 francophones in high schools in Ontario. Last March, a meeting was held to see how we could work together to promote literature. We found out that the Ontario government would like Franco-Ontarians to read three books by Franco-Ontarian authors. This has had an incredible impact. Of course, this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, if the federal government found some incentives, this would be tremendously helpful to us.
Senator Goldstein: Canada Reads is on the CBC every year. The program is designed to encourage young people, and even older people, to read the books suggested. The program's results have been measurable and significant. Have you already asked Radio-Canada, the French-language network of the CBC, to do the same for works in French?
Mr. Malette: I cannot confirm that. However, the Prix des lecteurs was created in Sudbury some five or six years ago. For the past two years, the event, which is Canada-wide, has made it possible to reach readers across the country. It has also been useful in raising awareness among readers of new titles published not only in Ontario, but also in New Brunswick and the west. Literary critics tell us what they think of the books. We also invite readers to share their views. Jury members are in fact readers who apply to be members. We have received about 100 applications this year. We are seeing community participation. Among the applications, we selected about 10 readers.
We are seeing extremely significant community awareness here. To answer your question, we do not have a program along the lines of Canada Reads. It is an excellent idea.
Senator Tardif: First, I would like to congratulate you and thank you for all the work you are doing to promote a collective identity and our cultural heritage. It is very moving to hear you talk about your challenges.
Mr. Chatel, you indicated that the changes to Part VII of the Official Languages Act were very important to you, because they make it possible for you to consolidate your gains.
Could you tell us what you mean by that? I would also like to put the question to other members of your panel. I would like to know if you have seen tangible examples of positive measures the federal government has implemented in your region.
Mr. Chatel: Since 2003, we have to admit that the provision on the 10 per cent funding set aside for French-language production in minority communities — originally, the recommendation suggested 15 per cent, but the Canadian Fund finally recognized that 10 per cent would be set aside for independent French-language productions in minority communities — that is clearly stated in the memorandum of agreement between Canadian Heritage and the Canadian Television Fund.
That example clearly shows that when official language provisions are clearly stated, gains are achieved. The provisions become an obligation, people understand, and contribute fully. That is how the industry has managed to grow.
In all contribution agreements entered into between the federal government and agencies or departments associated with broadcasting and production, we have to ensure that an accountability framework is clearly established, that performance indicators exist, that accountability mechanisms are established, and that we can make sure that all aspects of the agreement are clear in everyone's mind, and that there are no weak links in the chain.
As you know, as soon as there is a weak link, a grey area is created and we see the whole system slow down. When official language provisions are clearly set out at all levels and in all contribution agreements where they affect French- language production in minority communities, then we will see the whole industry become transformed, and gain hugely over the next few years. That is where we need clarity. Official language provisions have to be clearly set out in every memorandum of agreement.
Senator Tardif: Do such agreements currently exist, specifically recognizing the participation of organizations in minority communities?
Mr. Chatel: Yes, between Canadian Heritage and the Canadian Television Fund. However, if we compare other memoranda of agreement with the NFB, the CBC and organizations like the CRTC, we see that the provisions are very vague, or simply not sufficiently defined. There are no clear obligations set out, certainly not with respect to the 15 per cent allocation to programming, or public funding. That is where we have to set the bar properly, and that is where provisions must be very clear. When broadcasting licences come up for renewal, for example, accountability must be required, and no attempt must be made to adjust definitions to contain things that were missing because the memorandum of agreement was vague.
If this were done systematically at all levels, in all agreements and in all memoranda of agreements — not just for the Canadian Television Fund — I think we could then have a system that really worked, a system that would revitalize the industry across Canada.
Ms. Leblanc: This must be broadened to all agreements. Those provisions must be found not only in agreements relating to the film or television industry, but also to other industries. For example, there are agreements with MusicAction édition, though when it comes to the visual arts it is the Canada Council that tends to be the major player. There again, efforts must be made to formulate agreements that are in compliance with the Official Languages Act. If we want special measures to be stronger, and that is where the teeth are, that is where we can get it done.
We are not seeing any of this at present. In the Canada Council's new plan there is a new focus on equity, but we are still told that we will have to wait and that no one knows how that will translate into measures respecting official languages.
That means official language provisions were not sufficiently well defined, since we are still defining what this means in the area of culture at the Canada Council. Those negotiations should have been completed earlier, so that once the funding arrives everyone knows where it has to go.
Senator Tardif: So one example of a positive measure under the new Part VII of the Official Languages Act might be to ensure there are specific provisions in all agreements recognizing the cultural contribution of minority official language communities.
Ms. Leblanc: Yes, and we should go even further. I was talking about weighting mechanisms based on the challenges inherent in being a minority language community. In each sector there are memoranda of agreement, which have been negotiated between the government and a number of agencies, but we should go further.
Senator Tardif: They are not specific enough.
Ms. Leblanc: Exactly.
Mr. Malette: There are of course specific provisions in Part VII that broadly assist all minorities, be they francophone or anglophone. Another aspect that seems important to me is that the weighting factor be carefully measured. Let me give you a specific example. I mentioned it earlier.
When we receive a contribution from Canadian Heritage based on our sales figures, obviously our sales figures are small — major publishers receive $600,000 to $800,000, while we receive much smaller amounts. And we are only among 6 of the 15 publishers who receive that funding. I would say that the small amount we receive amounted to 0.6 per cent this year, and 0.4 per cent last year. So when you tell me that the weighting factor has changed, I congratulate those who changed it, but it is still not enough.
We need a provision with more teeth, and more consideration must be given to the weighting factor. If it could be raised to 1.5 per cent, it would still be low but would become quite significant for us. We would receive double what we get now, and we would be very happy. So I think we could put some teeth into the weighting factor set out in provisions comprised in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Comeau: Thank you for coming here this evening to share your observations and advice. I can say that you have certainly been making excellent observations and giving excellent advice. One thing struck me in listening to your presentations — each of your groups, and many others in similar situations, have many things in common. Your communities are far from major cities, and you have a distance-related problem.
Your communities are far from major cities. You are all in small markets, you are all in minority-language communities, and you all have a very special vocation. I would say that you are our troops at the front, and your mission is to halt assimilation in minority-language communities. All you have to do is visit regions in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and probably in Newfoundland as well, to see how high the assimilation rate is. The picture in the west is probably much the same. But soldiers need tools and means to halt assimilation. Those tools are not necessarily money or funds, but often a question of access to decision-makers. When you need to get your message across to officials, or to those who prepare documents for submission to the minister, do you have access to the highest authorities, or do you have to fight your way through many people at lower levels? Are you told that you are important? I am not necessarily talking about the minister.
Ms. Leblanc: Yes, we have been making longstanding efforts to have access to senior authorities in the department, through the multipartite agreement. Those efforts have been very useful.
Senator Comeau: Do they approach you from time to time? Do they come and ask you whether everything is going well?
Ms. Leblanc: No, they do not go that far. We are the ones who are at the asking end of things.
Senator Comeau: Given the way things are, those senior officials are probably dealing with Canada's anglophone majority, and Quebec's francophone majority. However, those are very large markets and populations. They are not necessarily the ones who need that access. Is that not so?
Ms. Leblanc: That is absolutely true. We are organizations working on the ground, providing services, and we are intermediaries for organizations that should take a keen interest in these matters.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chatel, do you get calls like that?
Mr. Chatel: Not after 5 p.m. I believe that the way things are for us as producers is something that clearly interests senior officials. The very fact that we lost our seat on the Canadian Television Fund board of directors, when we are the only organization speaking on behalf of minority-language communities, is unfortunate. I think it was a very poor decision. We have tried to meet with the minister about that, and received an impolite response that a meeting could not be possible in the near future, that the department and the minister were familiar with our situation, and so on. No one is better placed to speak on behalf of minority-language communities than we are. I believe we can speak for them with no conflict of interest, if someone who is not a producer were appointed to the board, as with APFTQ. At least, we would have a seat on the board, something that is vital if the board is to reflect television audiences that take into account the French fact outside Quebec.
Senator Comeau: You could go to Nova Scotia, and see Nova Scotia as part of your group.
Mr. Chatel: Absolutely. We have shown that with 10 per cent in public funding, we have already managed to grow considerably, and that is just a start. If we were to reach the 15 per cent required, we already have some indications from new production companies that want to belong to our alliance; when there are clear provisions, this is grist to our mill, this generates opportunities. We should not assume that there are only 12 or 13 production companies. Give us more money, that will attract people, encourage entrepreneurship, consolidate the industry and develop interesting structures. A television studio was built in Moncton by one of the members of the alliance. Initiatives of that type are allowing our industry to really take flight. But things are still so fragile, because some provisions are not clear, particularly the 37 per cent envelope for Radio-Canada, which can be spent any time during the year. The simple fact that there is no specific date during the year by which the public broadcaster must spend the money can mean that it delays making a decision about the project in which it is to invest for six months. In some cases, some businesses went bankrupt because of this, because they need their cash flow to be there; if projects are not launched during the production period, that can be fatal. It is fragile.
Senator Comeau: Don't get me started about Radio Canada!
Mr. Chatel: They are an important partner, we are glad to work with them, but there are things that could be improved. We even allowed ourselves to dream and said that since we make up 15 per cent of the francophone population and since there are seven days in the week, why not have one evening a week during prime time with programs produced outside Quebec. Why not?
Senator Comeau: What a great recommendation for our report.
Mr. Chatel: We feel like we are dreaming when we say things of this type, but why should we really describe it as dreaming?
Mr. Malette: That program could be followed by one about books in French Canada.
Ms. Leblanc: My colleague's comment reminded me that Radio-Canada still does not have a representative of the francophone community outside Quebec on the board of directors or on the Canada Council. We are still waiting for that. Surely you could help us with that in your recommendations.
Mr. Malette: You used the word ``soldier'' twice. I like the expression, but I think the word ``missionary'' would be better. I would not want to be another St. John the Baptist: a voice crying in the wilderness. I want to spread the good news, I want people to listen to me, and I want to work on this literary heritage. Someone came here about a century ago and told us that people without literature and without history would be assimilated. That still holds true today, particularly for minority communities. You ask whether there is anything our government officials could do a little better. Yes, I am not necessarily talking about money. They should pay much more attention to the importance of operations when they calculate their subsidies. Second, I think they are too picky about procedure sometimes in their questionnaires, but also with respect to deadlines.
I know of a publishing house that received a letter this afternoon around 3 p.m. regarding a travel claim for the Salon du livre in Paris. The amount claimed was $2,700. The publishing house submitted its claim three days late — on May 5, rather than May 1. The letter states: ``We regret to inform you that we cannot give you your grant.''
That is a question of procedure. The management committee is tiny, and we are working with almost ridiculous salaries. I know of a publishing house in which the director has not been paid for 15 years. He is doing 50 hours of volunteer work a week. We really have to wake up, and when we get a letter like that, I am sorry, but I can tell you our blood pressure goes up.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like to thank your witnesses for their contribution to the committee's study. I wanted to talk about funding, but I think Mr. Malette explained that to some extent.
You apply to Heritage Canada and you submit a project. Is the funding for the administration of the project separate, or is it part of the project itself?
Mr. Malette: We might put forward a special project for promoting our literature Canada-wide, however people will see its merits. Recently, we received a $30,000 grant under the OLSP. That is great, and I think it helped get our French-Canadian authors and their works better known.
Unfortunately, it also took a great deal of work on the part of the RÉCF to set the project up. It does not happen just by snapping one's fingers. It took days and weeks of work, and there is very little funding for operations. What happens is that we exhaust our managers and we increase their duties. To some extent, they do not manage, and the situation becomes worse if there is no pay after two weeks, because there is not enough money. Then, the situation becomes tragic.
Senator Losier-Cool: We have heard a number of organizations use words like ``exhaustion'', and that is why we do understand your message. Mr. Chatel, I hope that your dream does not become a nightmare, but rather a reality. Other organizations have also called on us to recommend a federal policy on francophone culture.
Mr. Malette talked about the book publishing policy established in New Brunswick. Do you think a policy on books should be part of a federal policy, or something quite separate, not part of a national cultural policy?
Mr. Malette: We would have to think about that and see how everything could fit together. At first glance, we would have to review the federal tax on books and the shipping costs that are eating up more of our budget all the time. I am wondering whether anything could be done as regards the tax credit.
As regards the specific policy on books, that is a rather sensitive issue, because it does come under provincial jurisdiction. I imagine we would have to be very cautious. However, I am quite sure that if people in publishing got together, they could find a modus vivendi that would be to everyone's benefit.
After that, we could go back home and say that we have done something for our literary heritage and to affirm our collective identity. We could say that we have stood our ground.
Senator Losier-Cool: Is it really up to schools to promote this culture with children, because they will become the consumers of art later on? Could the role be broadened and could we bring all the interested parties to the table? We know that this does come under provincial jurisdiction, but even teacher training could help promote francophone culture.
I would like to hear the views of our three witnesses on the issue of culture and education.
Ms. Leblanc: A few years ago, the Fédération published a study on the links between language, culture and education. This study was used in the context of the action plan of the Fédération nationale des conseillers scolaires (FNCSF) regarding the implementation of section 23. The plan includes a cultural act and identity component under which the national organizations, together with the Fédération culturelle, meet with the education community and the provinces to try to reconcile teacher training, culture, the teaching of the arts in schools and access to culture, which is also a part of Ontario's language policy.
This is indeed a very important file and I think that we should continue supporting it. Coming back to cultural policy, I think that the Canadian Conference of the Arts has put the issue of a national cultural policy on the table. And I also think that the entire environment is favourable to that. Nevertheless, we are told that Canada, without having a cultural policy, seems to have policies in certain fields which, taken as a whole, would constitute a cultural policy.
It is good to resume this debate because this file needs an aggressive approach.
Senator Munson: What would you like to see in the next budget to help francophone culture outside of Quebec?
Senator Goldstein: What would be your most important targets?
Ms. Leblanc: I do not think I understood the question. Could you be more specific?
Senator Goldstein: If you were to be granted one wish and if you could influence the coming federal budget in a way that would help to foster francophone culture outside Quebec in general, what would be your most important targets?
Ms. Leblanc: This is a good question. We are here to discuss culture and the arts.
The Deputy Chair: In culture and in the arts, in the next federal budget, what should be our aim? Where should we invest extra funds to facilitate culture and the arts especially among the minority francophone population?
Ms. Leblanc: We worked together with a roundtable of national organizations that promote the arts — it was hosted by the Fédération culturelle canadienne française — to establish a position for culture and the arts in the future official languages plan. The direction contained in this position should be promoted, because it is endorsed by all stakeholders, in the movie industry, in the visual arts, in cultural organizations and publishing companies.
[Français]
Senator Munson: I was curious about what you said, Mr. Chatel, that if people do not see themselves, they do not exist. I was captured by that comment.
Senator Comeau alluded to talking to public servants and whether they call you back after five o'clock. Obviously they do not. In the work that I do for the Special Olympics, for example, I talk to various people within the government. We are working on five-year plans and are trying to get things done. At the end of the day, it is about money, and the direction comes from the Minister of Finance. Public servants are supposed to serve the public with direction, guidance and money from the Department of Finance.
I sometimes worry about what will happen to francophones outside of Quebec if you do not get what you need. What will happen?
You have made compelling arguments here. Let us look at New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario or the francophones in Quebec and look at the programs that exist now. If you cannot keep your head above water or you are just treading water, what will happen 10 years down the road if governments do not listen?
[Traduction]
Mr. Chatel: For the television and movie production industry, we want a firm long-term commitment that goes beyond one or two years. This week I listened to the speech of the new president of Radio-Canada, Hubert Lacroix, who said that we would need a seven-year commitment from the government in order to be competitive with the U.S. industry and with an increasing number of big players getting involved.
On a smaller scale, especially with regard to productions by minority communities, if we do not get what we need, which is a minimum of 15 per cent of the public funds invested in independent production, we cannot last more than six months. We may only lose one company. However, some provinces only have one company. This produces more assimilation. The few remaining freelancers will go to work for an anglophone producer, or they will move where they can work in French. This cycle is accelerating very quickly and it could be disastrous for television production.
If a population does not recognize itself on television, it is as if it no longer existed. It is as if these people had been hit over the head and told that they have no importance because they never appear on television.
Very recently, the series Belle-Baie was produced by one of our members. It is aired on television on Thursdays at 7:30 p.m. This series was filmed in New Brunswick and co-produced with a Quebec producer which helped the program to get a prime time slot. Another problem is due to the fact that a program very often does not get the prime time slot that it deserves. The people of New Brunswick, because they saw themselves portrayed in a drama series, have suddenly developed a sense of pride. In the program Star Académie, we saw young Wilfred. His fans suddenly came into existence because they could see their idol.
There would have to be a firm, longer-term commitment, with written, significant minimum amounts. To obtain an exact figure, in our case, the amount represents 15 per cent of funds earmarked for French-language production by the Canadian Television Fund. The figure should be multiplied by five and included in a long-term commitment. Ideally, it should be between $75 and $100 million.
Mr. Malette: An organization must be internally healthy in order to be strong and do good work. Even though we have good authors and good books, the organization must nonetheless be able to continue working all year round. This requires human resources, you must be able to keep your expert help. If someone develops expertise while earning a pittance, as soon as he or she has gotten the expertise, they will look for another job. We are always back at the starting point. Functionally, we are unable to offer sufficiently high wages to keep the experts and to enrich our human resources. I wanted to emphasize this aspect.
Besides, I would very much like to see more multi-year programs, and there are currently more and more of them. Our file is reviewed based on the annual report, and suddenly, there is a cut. With 3.5 or 8 per cent cuts, we can no longer function.
There should be a reasonable increase according to the statements in the annual report. If there are weaknesses in the annual report, so be it. However, we are told that the budget envelope has to be cut. These cuts have more severe consequences for small operators than for large ones. If the small companies go down, the impact is felt throughout the entire French-Canadian community. Therefore, we have responsibilities.
Senator Losier-Cool: My question is for our three witnesses, who could answer by saying yes or no. Have you approached the federal government and proposed including culture and the arts in the future Official Languages Action Plan, as this was neglected in the 2003 Action Plan?
Ms. Leblanc: Yes.
Mr. Chatel: Yes.
Mr. Malette: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: As we are running out of time, I wish to thank you for having appeared before the committee today. I hope that we can help you realize the dreams that you shared with us, so that, very soon, these dreams can turn into reality.
The committee is adjourned.