Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday March 30, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:02 p.m. for its study of 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: Honourable senators, I see that we have a quorum and I would like to call this meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee.
I would like to introduce the committee members who are with us today. On my far left, Senator Gerald Comeau, from Nova Scotia, Senator Michel Rivard, from Quebec, Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, also from Quebec, and on my right, Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, Senator Yoine Goldstein, from Quebec, and finally, Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Today we are pleased to have with us two organizations that promote the interests of francophone communities: the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Fédération culturelle canadienne- française.
First, Ms. Suzanne Bossé, Executive Director of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, will make a short presentation on behalf of the organization she is representing. Ms. Bossé is accompanied by Ms. Diane Côté, Director of Government and Community Relations.
Following that, Ms. Raymonde Boulay-Leblanc, President of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, will make a short presentation on behalf of the organization she is representing. She is accompanied by Ms. Annick Schulz, Director of Communications and Public Relations.
Welcome to you all and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
Ms. Bossé, I now invite you to make your opening statement.
Suzanne Bossé, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Madam Chair, first off, I would like to thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to speak to you today. I also want to convey the best wishes of our President, Ms. Lise Routhier-Boudreau, who was unable to free her schedule in order to be here today.
My name is Suzanne Bossé, and I am the new Executive Director of FCFA. Today I am accompanied by Diane Côté, our Director of Government and Community Relations, as mentioned earlier.
The topics that you are presently studying and that you have asked us to comment on are all of very great importance for the development of our communities.
In the brief time allocated to us, we would like to address three of them: the implementation of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, the Language Rights Support Program — the LRSP — and the implantation of the Official Languages Act which, as you know, celebrates its 40th anniversary this year.
Let us start with the roadmap. When it was announced in June 2008, we expressed regret at the fact that it was not the impetus the francophone communities were hoping for. We also indicated, however, that the Roadmap at least guaranteed the continuation of several very positive initiatives that had been introduced under the Action Plan for Official Languages.
We expressed our approval at the fact that the roadmap put the priority on youth, that it created a cultural development fund and that it increased investments for access to justice, health services, education and early childhood, among other sectors.
On the other hand, we also talked about modest-income parents. For example, the investments in immigration are insufficient and will not enable us to meet our objectives in terms of recruitment, support and integration of new immigrants.
As for community development, which is an essential component for the creation of better services and environments for French-speaking citizens, it was completely absent as a priority in the roadmap, as it had been in the action plan before.
What is the situation now, almost a year after the June announcement? As you are certainly aware, FCFA expressed its concerns regarding the absence of any mention of the roadmap in the federal budget tabled in January, and the inability to trace the investments related to the roadmap in the budgetary credits.
We do acknowledge with pleasure that some initiatives have been launched in recent days. The minister announced the Cultural Development Fund, the call for projects under the Youth Initiatives Fund for the coming year was published, and the roadmap health programs were also announced.
We must admit, however, that several questions still persist regarding the implementation of the roadmap. We know that several roadmap initiatives are the continuation of investments from the Action Plan on Official Languages. Many of these initiatives were extended for one year in 2008-2009 to bridge the gap between the action plan and the implementation of the roadmap. However in many cases, no measures have been announced for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009.
Consequently, we find that the roadmap implementation has been characterized by a conspicuous lack of detailed information that would provide the communities and organizations with the ability to plan ahead. What we are hoping for, what we need, is a document that will show us clearly year by year how each department will use the investments that are assigned to it under the roadmap.
The lack of clarity goes further than the roadmap. We still have no information as to the renewal process for the programs under the responsibility of the Official Languages Support Programs at Canadian Heritage. These programs, as you know, all end on March 31, 2009.
We have learned, however, that the Interdepartmental Partnership with Official Language Communities Program, the IPOLC, will not be renewed and that the $5.5 million budgeted annually for this program will return to general treasury funds rather than being used to create new interdepartmental initiatives or, in a more general way, help support other official language initiatives.
Regarding the Official Languages Support Programs — Communities, we are currently very worried. As you know, this is the program that funds organizations and associations that work at the community level through the Collaboration Accords, which were previously called the Canada-Community Agreements.
Although for many years, communities have requested an increase in the investments, the department has confirmed that no such increase was forthcoming. The additional amounts identified in the roadmap will only maintain present levels of investment.
How can associations continue to offer quality services at an appropriate level when the volunteers and staff suffer from chronic exhaustion caused by limited financial and human resources?
How, under such circumstances, can provincial and territorial representative organizations continue to ensure consultation and communication within their communities in order to create greater cohesion?
This constant erosion of capacities in community organizations will have a negative impact on the development of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities.
Let me say a few words about the new Language Rights Support Program. This is a key program for the communities, and it is very important to us that this program get underway as soon as possible.
However, as a signatory of the out-of-court settlement, we had a duty to ensure that the program met the needs and expectations of the communities as well as possible. Therefore, we demanded that the department work with us to define the parameters. Throughout the fall and winter, we worked very hard with a team from the Department of Canadian Heritage to develop a program that would, within the limits imposed by the new approach, allow the communities to maintain an influence on its orientations.
On this issue, I wish to convey our appreciation for the department's cooperation and openness.
The call for proposals, for the managing institution, was put out last week, and all elements should be in place to enable the program to receive its first applications in the fall of 2009.
I also want to mention that all the litigations on constitutional language rights that arose after September 26, 2006, will be able to apply to the program for retroactive funding. I must inform you, however, that during the past month we have faced an issue we were not expecting. The department notified the Court Challenges Program that it would no longer be allowed to provide financial support to new interveners in cases already under its governance — in other words, all the cases that had received CCP approval before September 26, 2006. This decision is utterly unacceptable as it goes against the understanding that the members of FCFA had of the June 10, 2008 court settlement when they authorized their lawyers to sign it. In addition, we believe that this decision could jeopardize the committee's good will toward the new Language Rights Support Program, not only because it disregards the settlement, but also because it adds new financial obligations to the LRSP. Our many attempts to get the government to reverse its position on this have failed.
In closing, I would like to share a few thoughts on the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act.
First off, I would point out that francophones have a hard time understanding why, after 40 years, we are still falling short in terms of full implementation of the act. French-language services are still not offered in all government offices that are designated bilingual, a good number of public servants still cannot work in French in designated regions, it is still accepted that bilingual positions may be filled by employees who cannot speak both official languages, and the implementation of Part VII of the act remains timid at best.
We do want to voice our appreciation for all those within the government who have worked and still work toward the full implementation of the Official Languages Act. However, it is clear that a change in the culture of public service itself is necessary. There needs to be clear recognition of the fact that compliance with the act is no longer an option, and that measures must be implemented to produce results. For that to happen, there needs to be a strong determination and leadership on the part of politicians and senior public servants.
Francophones expect strict mechanisms to be implemented to ensure that federal institutions take the act seriously and comply with all of it.
Raymonde Boulay-Leblanc, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Madam Chair, I would like to start by thanking you for the invitation to appear before your committee.
In June 2008, the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 entitled Acting for the Future was introduced. The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française expressed satisfaction with the government's decision to expand the scope of its new interdepartmental official languages coordination mechanism to include arts and culture. The absence of Canadian francophone arts and culture from the Action Plan for Official Languages was particularly harmful to the balanced, controlled development of our arts and culture sector. Of course, adequate funding for the artists and cultural organizations of the Canadian francophonie remains vital for the ultimate consolidation of an expanded, recognized francophone cultural space.
Following the consultation of our members, the FCCF proposed an additional infusion of $200 million over five years, which represented a fundamental level of financial support for the arts and culture sector of the francophone and Acadian communities. That was the amount allocated to education in the original action plan.
When we look at the exponential growth made possible by that funding in the field of education, it is easy to imagine what it could lead to in the arts and culture sector. In that context, the $14 million budget envelope for the new Cultural Development Fund over the next four years of the roadmap is of minimal assistance and will not provide long-term support for across-the-board cultural action to reach other FAC activity sectors and Canadian civil society as a whole.
The FCCF is of the view that it is still not possible to talk about strong leadership and engagement by the Canadian francophonie artistic and cultural communities. The budgets that have been allocated do not adequately meet the needs and expectations of these communities. These budgets will not, therefore, give the Canadian francophonie a vibrant, well-structured and broad-based francophone environment that will evolve in a context of creative dialogue among identities and diversity, individuals and communities, while at the same time maintaining social cohesion.
The promotion of arts and culture in the francophone and Acadian communities depends on the capacity and excellence of organizations operating at the grassroots level. The cultural sector faces some formidable challenges: inadequate, unstable operating funding, which results in high turnover of human resources and a degree of apathy. Today it is critical to secure stable, multi-year core funding for building our organizations.
In most countries, the arts sector cannot develop to an adequate level without financial support. Our arts organizations are constantly looking for additional financial resources, not only to fund emerging projects, but also to cover operating costs and provide decent remuneration for artists and creators. That situation must change. To that end, the financial support provided to national arts organizations needs a radical overhaul. Francophone cultural products exist through the work of francophone creators and artists. The lack of adequate financial support from the federal, provincial/territorial and municipal governments and the absence of infrastructure and development tools in some artistic disciplines weaken the arts and culture system.
The industrial structures in the francophone and Acadian communities may never be able to compete with the conglomerates that increasingly dominate the market, since they operate in a micro or niche setting. Even those micro- businesses cannot escape the changes affecting the industry as a whole, especially the music industry. In fact they are even more sensitive to change because of their size. Yet those realities must not result in our abandoning the development of the cultural industries; that conviction is one of the driving forces behind the FCCF's activities.
It is clear that without certain industry structures, such as a book publisher, a music distribution company, or a television production firm, our communities would be unable to sustain professional creation and production activities.
Arts presenting and cultural product distribution contribute to the creation of heritage and to cultural creativity and enrichment. They provide an essential connection between artists, craftspeople and the public; in other words, they help to forge a cultural identity, a sense of belonging, pride and commitment, to promote cultural diversity and appreciation for cultural diversity, and to develop new artistic talent.
At the federal level, cultural expenditures make up a miniscule proportion of the overall budget. The FCCF believes that it is time for the Canadian government to think seriously about moving toward spending at least 1.5 per cent of the national budget on culture, as other industrialized countries do, and to give the Canadian francophonie its fair share, based on its proportion of the total population, through the programs of Canadian Heritage and its cultural agencies. It is particularly desirable for the cultural budget in Canada to be provided with additional funds in the near future and even to play a key role in shaping a more humane, more inclusive society.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. I want to congratulate you for respecting the time you were given. We will now move on to the question period.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: You did not talk about health for francophone minorities throughout the country, in anglophone provinces. I am very concerned with the issue and I would like to hear your point of view on it.
A study was recently conducted to specifically examine access to health services in French for the Franco-Ontarian community. At the request of the federal government, your organization, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, conducted the study in 2001. All of the Franco-Ontarians questioned, as part of this study, lived in regions designated by the Government of Ontario, under the French Language Services Act.
According to your study, access to services in French for these Franco-Ontarians is quite inadequate in the following sectors: hospital services, community health centres, medical clinics and home care. These four sectors encompass most health services offered in Ontario.
In hospitals, emergency services are often the central access point for the health care system. Yet three-quarters of Franco-Ontarians are denied access to this service in their language. An appalling 74 per cent of the 500,000 Franco- Ontarians confirmed having never or almost never had access to hospital services in French. In fact, only 12 per cent stated they had access to these services each time they went to the hospital.
To date, the Government of Ontario has not acted in the public interest with its policies and decisions on health services in French for the Franco-Ontarian community. Has this deplorable situation changed since your study or has it remained more or less the same?
Diane Côté, Director, Government and Community Relations, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Madam Chair, we have noted marked progress since 2001. Our objective in conducting this study in 2001 was to convince the federal government, among others, to help us work in provinces in order to put in place health care services in French with a view to offering better service to citizens.
Of course, the situation is not ideal. That was seven years ago, and a lot remains to be done. In New Brunswick and Ontario, some provincial policies complicate matters for health services. However, the progress is undeniable given the magnitude of the task.
For more information, I invite you to consult the Société Santé en français and the national consortium. That organization will be able to provide more specific answers to those questions about health care.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Were you consulted by Health Canada?
Ms. Côté: The Société Santé en français and the consortium were consulted.
Senator Jaffer: Is the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique one of the 12 francophone associations that you represent?
Ms. Côté: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: The organization is one of your members?
Ms. Côté: Yes.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Are you involved with VANOC and at what level are you involved in seeing that French will be provided at the Games?
[Translation]
Ms. Bossé: The FCFA works with the Canadian Foundation for Cross-Cultural Dialogue, in conjunction with the Fédération culturelle canadienne française. We carefully examined development in this area.
We will be making a presentation tomorrow on the presence and absence of francophone groups specifically as regards the opening ceremonies for the Olympics, but also for performances on tour. We want to ensure that francophone Canadians are represented at the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics.
Senator Goldstein: Where will you be making your presentation?
Ms. Bossé: We will make a presentation tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. We will certainly read that.
As you know, I am from British Columbia. From where I sit, I am sure that the opening and the closing of the Olympic Games will have good representation. It will be very interesting for me to see how French is integrated from the time a person arrives at the airport in Vancouver until the Olympic Games are finished. It is important that French is integrated and available to people from start to finish.
Have you made any observations with respect to what level of French will be provided?
[Translation]
Ms. Bossé: The recent appointments will help provide the service. However, to date, nothing confirms that will be the case.
Senator Goldstein: I would like to start by thanking you for your clear and concise remarks. You have painted a rather depressing and pessimistic picture. You have talked about difficulties in offering services in French, problems providing reasonable support for culture, the absence of financial assistance for court challenges. You have also said that the roadmap is not being followed, that it is not specific, and that it only benefits certain officials.
However, you did not mention the recently announced cuts, due to financial difficulties, that hit the CBC/Radio- Canada like a ton of bricks.
I must say that this is the most pessimistic update that I have heard in more than 20 years on the so-called progress of the Official Languages Act.
Structural problems seem to be appearing in the application of the act and the principles that are so fundamental for all Canadians, not just francophones, but also anglophones and allophones — that is what distinguishes us from other countries.
Given the magnitude of the situation you are describing, what sectors do you think the government should get realistically and appropriately involved in? Could you identify two main areas? There is health, of course, but I am talking mainly about preserving French-Canadian culture.
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: On the arts and culture side, we have been calling for a Canadian cultural policy for a long time. I believe that is essential for all of Canada, regardless of the language spoken. A cultural policy would enable both linguistic groups to align government action for arts and culture. At present, in the absence of a cultural policy, steps and action are taken which often lack vision, lack long-term direction or investments to ensure lasting development.
This is a very important point for the federation. It seems to me that Canada must develop a cultural policy.
Senator Goldstein: That was the first priority, do you have a second?
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: I will let my colleagues respond.
Ms. Bossé: The priority for our federation is support for the development and promotion of communities. Using financial support to develop a terminology bank is all well and good, but I think it is important to channel the financial support into the communities and the roadmap does not do that.
The second priority would be to have a national policy on francophone immigration. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has developed a strategic plan to promote the immigration of francophones to minority communities in collaboration with those communities. The implementation of this plan is, however, moving forward at a snail's pace. It is clear, in the context of asking for strong leadership, that immigration and direct support within those communities are essential.
Senator Goldstein: You also talked about community development support. What exactly would this entail?
Ms. Côté: These are local organizations providing services to the communities. For years, such organizations have worked with very limited means, to the extent that they have difficulty paying qualified staff, or the volunteers are exhausted and have difficulty doing a decent job. It is in that context that we are saying that organizations providing services to francophones in our communities are having trouble doing their jobs adequately.
Senator Tardif: I want to thank you for being here today and for your excellent presentations.
Both your presentations have left me with a very strong message; that there is a lack of leadership within the current government in a number of areas, with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act, the implementation of the roadmap and the implementation of the new Linguistic Rights Support Program.
I want to ask you to confirm if, in fact, this is the message that you are giving us because that is what I heard in your presentations.
Next, I would like to know, if there needs to be stronger leadership from the current government, what it should be, and what you feel the 14 departments responsible for implementing the roadmap should be doing now.
Ms. Bossé: I would like to confirm what you mentioned regarding the lack of leadership, except with regard to the Linguistic Rights Support Program. Staff at Heritage Canada have been extremely open and willing to collaborate. In fact, as to lack of leadership in relation to the implementation of the roadmap, I would cite lack of clarity, details that are provided to us in dribs and drabs, whereas we are being asked constantly to maximize the government's investments, which is quite normal and reasonable. I too am a citizen. It is quite difficult, even impossible to ensure value for money when we do not have the information we need to move forward. That is the answer that I would give you for now.
Ms. Côté: I would add one caveat. The question of leadership with regard to support to communities and the implementation of the legislation is nothing new and is not necessarily limited to the current government. We must be clear, we have been saying the same thing for a long time. We want to have legislation that is fully implemented and support for community development.
Senator Tardif: With regard to the communities and support for communities, the roadmap earmarks $22.5 million for official language minority communities support. What communities are benefiting from that money and how have the funds been spent?
Ms. Côté: The funding under the roadmap is a continuation of current funding that had been set out in the action plan. The action plan was announced in 2003, but with cumulative funding that would increase. Last year, investments were slightly higher. It is not really an increase as such, but rather, it ensures that current funding is being maintained.
Senator Tardif: It is an extension of the former action plan.
Ms. Côté: That is correct.
Senator Tardif: Were there new funds in the action plan, that were allocated in the roadmap? Have funds been distributed? Do you have any details about the implementation?
Ms. Côté: No, there is no new funding.
Senator Tardif: There is no new funding for the communities here.
Ms. Côté: We had this confirmed by Heritage Canada.
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: New funding is available for arts and culture. There was nothing for arts and culture in the first plan. So perhaps we can call this new funding. Once again, there were cuts last August in arts and culture; we have just lost the IPOLC, an important program, and there is also the Tomorrow Starts Today Program which ends in March 2010, and things are really unclear there. We do not know whether this program will be renewed and the current program ends in less than a year. These are the concerns that we have. This confirms what you said earlier with regard to the major concerns in the area of arts and culture.
Senator Tardif: You talked about the Language Rights Support Program. You signed an agreement in the belief that all cases that preceded the new program would be supported, programs funded under the former Court Challenges Program.
A change occurred in February 2009 whereby interveners would no longer be funded. Were you consulted, since you had signed and negotiated that agreement?
Ms. Bossé: There were no consultations. We learned through a member association that was acting as a new intervener that financial support would no longer be available for new interveners beginning February 6, 2009. Before then, new interveners received financial support.
The decision was announced, there were no consultations. We have been trying since then to get a meeting with Minister Moore about this to discuss the issue, because the agreement that we signed is not what is being implemented. We are still waiting.
Senator Tardif: This is cause for serious concern because this is a question of rights and you had negotiated in good faith.
Ms. Côté: Absolutely. To clarify what is happening, new interveners no longer get financial support under the former Court Challenges Program; that is the current problem.
Senator Tardif: They do not receive any support under the new program either.
Ms. Côté: We do not know with regard to the new program.
Senator Tardif: Based on the new program criteria, they will not receive support.
The Chair: Could we get a copy of the agreement that was signed?
Ms. Côté: Absolutely.
The Chair: You could send it to the clerk, who will then distribute it to the committee members. Senator Champagne has the floor.
Senator Champagne: I thought of something earlier. You would like better leadership with regard to sustainable development of minority language communities, particularly with regard to arts and culture. Ideally, what would you like to see, and in your opinion, what would really be possible?
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: Of course what is ideal and what is possible are two very different things.
Senator Champagne: I am aware of that.
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: Ideally, it would be our wish to see multi-year, stable funding. We mentioned it earlier, and it is not just in terms of arts and culture, but other sectors as well. Organizations have increasingly fewer resources to employ qualified individuals in various fields, because they do not have the means to pay them. Often, we don't have the means to pay for office space or adequate computer equipment.
What we do note on a regular basis is that there is staff turnover, of course, but one of the current issues is that it is difficult to ensure the next generation of employees. Our members are hitting a certain age and we do not have the financial means to ensure competitive salaries with other areas — financial, technological or other sectors. So, obviously, we want to have stable and multi-year funding.
These days, we see new programs coming out, but often the programs are project-based. People often talk about results-based management, but in order to get results, we need to have people on the ground who are able to successfully implement those projects. It is not just about salaried staff, it is also about volunteers, about people working and taking part at a local level.
Ideally, we would like to see multi-year and stable funding.
Senator Champagne: Finally, many people would like to see a specific amount, for example, for a three-year period instead of just one year; this would make things easier, including the hiring of staff and so on.
Ms. Boulay-Leblanc: Senator, I have been working in arts and culture for 25 years now; I am saying the same thing today that I did when I first arrived. I think that the most important thing to remember is that until we invest in keeping people on the ground, it will be difficult to obtain results. Having high staff turnover means constantly starting over.
I often say, when I meet with members of Parliament or public servants, ``Give us the means to do things on the ground and we will be able to go and get project funding.'' Ultimately, at the local level, we do not really want the funding for projects. We want to be there to ensure progress in various areas to ensure community development, guarantee that development; and then we can diversify this funding and so forth.
Senator Champagne: I want to briefly touch upon another subject because it has been in the news a lot lately: I am talking about Radio-Canada. In minority language communities, how important is it to have Radio-Canada in regions that are — I was going to say remote, because that is the impression that you get when it is really a minority within a vast majority — how important is French Radio-Canada, for example, in anglophone provinces? How important is local news? I would like you all, one by one, to tell me how important this is.
Ms. Bossé: I am from a very small town in New Brunswick that is extremely isolated.
Senator Champagne: What part of New Brunswick?
Ms. Bossé: The town is called St. Quentin.
Senator Champagne: I was there a few months ago! Not very far from Saint-Isidore.
Ms. Bossé: Radio-Canada teaches our young people about culture, helps develop the new generation, and maintains our sense of identity. If services are no longer provided in French at Radio-Canada, you know, Canada is a very vast country, then what will we belong to? What kind of identity will we develop without such a service?
Senator Champagne: Now I remember that St. Quentin is the land of maple syrup.
Ms. Bossé: Absolutely.
Senator Champagne: I told you I knew the area! One of the things that bothers me a lot right now is that people are saying that the government has cut off funding to Radio-Canada. This is not in fact the case; Radio-Canada is getting exactly the same amount from the government. The shortfall, be it in French or English, is the result of the recession; Radio-Canada's public revenues have dropped so much that Radio-Canada no longer has the funding it needs.
Radio-Canada will have some extremely difficult choices to make. But this is a recession, and there is a limit to what the government can do without creating unfair competition for the private networks. If you could tell them to ``do something diffently if you must, but there is one thing that is extremely important for our regions,'' what would it be?
Ms. Bossé: First, I think it is appropriate to mention the issue of the royalties that Radio-Canada should get, as do other radio broadcasters.
Senator Champagne: And these royalties are from cable distribution, correct?
Ms. Bossé: That is correct. Then, following the launch of the new media fund, we need to amend the program criteria and terms, so that financial support is not based on solely or almost exclusively on ratings.
Senator Champagne: Can the new media fund really help producers outside Quebec, in particular?
Annick Schulz, Director, Communications and Public Relations Director, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Our expectations with regard to the new Canadian Media Fund, created from the merger of the Canadian Television Fund and the New Media Fund, are high.
Our independent producers outside Quebec have always had access to a specific budgetary envelope for independent production. According to the Independent Producers Alliance of Canada, this envelope will be maintained, which is good news. Negotiations are still underway to find out the exact terms. We intend to continue our fight to ensure that independent francophone producers outside Quebec are taken into consideration. They produce regional programming that reflects the realities of francophone and Acadian communities. These programs are broadcast in our francophone and Acadian communities by Radio-Canada. Our communities must be able to see their lives reflected on screen and our young people have to see themselves reflected. This is essential to ensuring the vitality of our francophone culture and that of our francophone and Acadian communities, in order to bolster that sense of belonging.
The situation is desperate. University research has shown that our young people are abandoning their francophone culture. So we have to help them rediscover the vitality and richness of their francophone culture outside of school. The FCCF has a lot of work to do in this area. In fact, it is one of our main files.
Senator Champagne: Keep up the good work.
Senator Comeau: Ms. Boulay-Leblanc, you have been working for 25 years in arts and culture. I am celebrating my 25th anniversary on Parliament Hill — I also started quite young. In talking with senators, we have noted over the past 25 years that there is a cycle to our work. The arguments you are making are ones I heard 25, 15 and 5 years ago.
As Ms. Côté said, the situation is far from new. People working on behalf of the communities are exhausted and cannot always depend on stable multi-year funding. Senator Goldstein said that he had never heard such pessimism. In 25 years, I must tell you that I have seen very difficult times. I believe that, despite everything, we need to remain positive.
The roadmap defines the following areas of government action: emphasizing the value of linguistic duality, youth, economic benefits and governance. They are related to the following five pillars or priorities: health care, justice, immigration, economic development and arts and culture. Were you consulted with regard to the areas of action or the five pillars?
Were you consulted with regard to developing those areas of action or the pillars? What is the difference between the areas of action and the pillars?
Ms. Côté: As you know, Mr. Bernard Lord held consultations across the country. He then tabled his report to government, and the government used some of Mr. Lord's recommendations in developing its roadmap.
Senator Comeau: We are talking about the five areas of government action and the five pillars. However these pillars seem slightly different. Perhaps I should ask the officials this question.
Ms. Côté: The pillars?
Senator Comeau: The five pillars are as follows: health care, justice, immigration, economic development and arts and culture. The pillars do not seem tied to the areas for action. Perhaps this question should be asked of the officials.
Ms. Bossé: It might be best to have the government define and clarify its plan to you.
Senator Comeau: Community economic development is both an area for action and one of the pillars. After consulting people in my community, it seems that this is more important than immigration. However, I note that in remote regions far from Ottawa, the economy is more important. Young people are leaving their communities, because there are no jobs. Others want to return to their communities, particularly in western Canada, but they are unable to find a job.
As a result, I see that the priority is not immigration but rather the economy. Am I correct?
Ms. Côté: In my opinion, they go hand-in-hand. Economic development is essential to our communities. The vast majority of our communities are in rural regions. People in those communities are leaving to go and live in urban centres.
However, immigration is a much broader issue. If nothing is done in Canada and Quebec in terms of francophone immigration, the demographic figures will continue to drop. This phenomenon is because francophones from other parts of the world are not being invited to come here. Immigrants from other countries are being allowed in, but we do not have any policies in place targeting francophones. So, Canada needs to have such a policy.
Senator Comeau: Now I understand why you consider immigration to be so important.
In my community the economy is a short-term concern. However immigration is a long-term objective.
Ms. Côté: It is both an intermediate and long-term objective.
Senator Comeau: Could you tell me about the IPOLC program? It was in regards to interdepartmental discussions with you. But what was its exact role?
Ms. Côté: Canadian Heritage had $5.5 million to support the departments that wanted to work with the communities. The department was to provide at least 50 per cent of the funding and Canadian Heritage would provide 50 per cent. That is how the program operated. These programs mainly benefited arts and culture. I will let them speak.
Ms. Schulz: This was a significant loss for us. The cultural agencies in particular had benefited from the IPOLC. Among them were the Canada Council for the Arts, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. In the case of the National Film Board, the IPOLC ensured the provision of training to producers and directors. Without the IPOLC, such training will no longer take place, because they will not have the means to provide it.
There is more optimism with regard to the Canada Council for the Arts.
In its strategic plan, the Canada Council for the Arts said that the IPOLC will take steps to make the funding available to francophone and Acadian communities. This is a new strategy in relation to the Canada Council for the Arts. We do not yet know what Telefilm Canada's position is. We will continue to follow this.
We were a little disappointed not to have any idea as to what will replace IPOLC. Will there be any incentives to encourage cultural organizations to continue to provide such training to francophone and Acadian communities, or are we losing ground by losing an essential program for our artistic and cultural artists and organizations?
Senator Comeau: Was there a program evaluation indicating that it was or was not a good program?
Ms. Schultz: The assessment was done in consultation with our agencies. The program was ending, and it needed to be changed in order to adequately meet our needs. We were in the midst of thinking about ways to do that when the decision was announced. We did not expect to see the program end so abruptly while we were still conducting our assessment. Not all agencies were consulted, which explains our reaction and why we have filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages about the lack of consultation.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I would like clarification on the issue of immigration. I was pleased you talked about immigration. In order to keep our bilingual nature, it is very important to have people speaking both official languages across the country, not just in Quebec.
When you talk about increasing the number of francophone immigrants, where should they be increased?
Ms. Côté: Where should they be recruited?
Senator Jaffer: Where should they be recruited to? To what parts of Canada should they be encouraged to come?
[Translation]
Ms. Côté: Everywhere, in all regions of Canada. We are currently working with all the communities and they are creating immigration support networks. So no one is being excluded.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: If we want to do that, we have to ensure it gets done. My province has very little in the way of programs to help people who speak French to get settled there. We will not make any difference only in saying this; rather, we need to provide programs in my province. I will just talk for B.C. because I know the province. We need to provide programs if we want to increase the numbers.
[Translation]
Ms. Côté: In recent years in British Columbia various initiatives have been implemented to support francophone immigration, but it is not enough. That is why, to some extent, we had said that it was one of the poor parents of the roadmap. We would have liked to have seen a more significant investment. You are quite right, if immigrants are not being adequately welcomed into our communities, they gravitate to the English language, and that is clearly a problem.
Senator Goldstein: I am quite intrigued by your last answer. How can we convince potential immigrants to come and live in one region of the country when they know that, by going to Quebec, they will be immediately and fully immersed in a francophone culture?
Senator Tardif: To learn English!
Ms. Côté: They are already doing so. In many cases, many of our immigrants go through Quebec first and then move to our communities. It is one of the realities we face and also a challenge for us. While they are in Quebec, they are entitled to all the government support services to which immigrants are entitled, and when they come to us, they are no longer entitled to such services and then there are other problems.
We would like the government to adopt a francophone immigration policy to enable us to recruit from countries belonging to the francophonie, to have an annual quota of francophone immigrants, and that it not be done randomly based on the applications.
Ms. Bossé: And that the government indeed make these recruitment efforts, that skills be clearly identified, that the labour needs within our communities be defined, and that the focus be placed on these necessary skills during the selection process. This is not being done currently.
Senator Rivard: Quebec is now responsible for immigration to its own province. With the exception of political refugees — people who are welcomed regardless of the language they speak — sufficient knowledge of the French language is a prerequisite to immigrate to Quebec. This may have benefits or disadvantages but since Quebec is responsible for immigration, this is the rule.
With respect to the Official Languages Action Plan, the project is valued at $1.1 billion over five years, that is to say $290 million more than what the previous government set aside. In addition, the Official Languages Commissioner pointed out in his report that even the previous government had not spent the entire amount. That means that the $1.1 billion is actually worth much more, even with the additional $290 million, if we take the actual expenditures.
If the situation were to truly change, do you think it would be bad if the program were not to apply to the public service?
Ms. Côté: I am not sure I understand your question. There are funds for public servants within the $1.1 billion.
Senator Rivard: Funds are earmarked for public servants within that envelope, so the problem is resolved. I would point out that the $1.1 billion is $290 million more than the previous program.
As you know, there are currently nine judges on the Supreme Court bench who are appointed based on competence, but there is one unilingual English-speaking judge. This forces the other judges to deliberate in English, once a case is heard, even if the case was heard in French.
Do you believe that it is very important for Supreme Court judges to be bilingual?
Ms. Côté: Yes, absolutely. In fact, we took a position before the appointment of the most recent judge, and made political representations. We issued a news release. This is essential for us.
Senator Rivard: We cannot call into question the competence of a judge who is appointed to the Supreme Court, but out of respect for both official languages, judges should be bilingual. It is that your opinion?
Ms. Côté: Absolutely. We feel that this is an essential qualification, on a par with the other qualifications judges must have.
Senator Comeau: Senator Rivard said that judges must deliberate in English because there is one unilingual anglophone judge. I am not absolutely certain of that. An anglophone judge may have access to interpretation. Like us, judges may speak in the language of their choice. It is a clarification I wish to make.
Senator Rivard: To answer your comment, when a case is heard, a francophone citizen who appears before the Supreme Court may have his or her trial take place in French in its entirety. But before writing their ruling, judges must deliberate amongst themselves.
The fact that there is a unilingual anglophone judge forces others to speak in English. This is experienced daily. Attend any meeting — and I respect this, and I am saying that we want to improve the situation — the mere presence of a single anglophone speaker will force others to speak English. This is a situation that needs to be improved.
Senator Comeau: I do not wish to go any further than that.
Senator Tardif: I would like to return to the issue of ``positive measures.'' This is something that I have been monitoring since the Official Languages Act was amended in 2005, this whole issue of ``positive measures'' and the obligation of federal institutions to implement ``positive measures'' to meet the needs of official languages communities living in a minority situation. If I understand correctly, the FCFA documents positive measures that have been implemented by the various federal institutions or agencies. Where are you at currently, and what success have you had? Have the new provisions had an effect on the government and federal institutions?
Ms. Côté: We had an implementation plan, in fact we spoke of it. Unfortunately, we have not received a lot of collaboration within the communities, in terms of telling us how relationships between the communities and other departments are doing. Therefore, we have very little data in our data bases. I understand this, this ties into the issue of exhaustion that I was speaking about earlier; at some point, this no longer becomes a priority for people.
We are trying to take a new approach; we have a committee that was struck by the board of directors, and that will oversee the implementation of the entire act and seeks to address exactly what is happening within the communities.
Senator Tardif: But do you have the impression that efforts are being made to fully implement positive measures?
Ms. Côté: On the part of departments?
Senator Tardif: Yes.
Ms. Côté: Our assessment to date is that the effort is very moderate. Departments are not necessarily very enthusiastic nor proactive in that regard.
Senator Tardif: Do you feel the same way?
Ms. Bossé: In fact, we had a meeting recently with the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for the implementation of the roadmap, at the federal level. In fact the goal was to discuss how we can work together to identify these positive measures, assess implementation, discuss accountability, identify an array of indicators that prove that yes, the roadmap has made a difference. Finally, we received confirmation that each one of the departments is responsible for establishing its own indicators. This means that we, in turn, must go to each department, work with each one of them, and establish indicators. You will understand that this requires substantial work. We will continue striving, but it is certain that this is going to require long timelines.
Senator Tardif: Do I understand correctly? Canadian Heritage did not have the responsibility for horizontal coordination of official languages and now you are telling me that it still no longer does, and that each department is responsible for setting up its own criteria, that there will be no standardization or coordination?
Ms. Bossé: That is correct. We are told that Canadian Heritage is indeed responsible for horizontal coordination and following through on actions relative to the roadmap. However, the department is not responsible for the quality of these actions and accountability on the part of each department.
Ms. Côté: We agree that this has to do with the roadmap investments.
Senator Goldstein: It is a model that is not rewarding.
Senator Tardif: So they are not assuming any responsibility for the quality of what is offered nor are they responsible for ascertaining whether or not there are any results. In the final analysis, the results are not going to be evaluated.
Ms. Côté: Every department is responsible.
Senator Tardif: But not for the overall picture.
Ms. Côté: Apparently not.
Senator Tardif: Madam Chair, we will have to revisit this issue.
The Chair: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Champagne: I wanted to look at the positive side of all of this. We are getting bogged down in the ``this is so sad, this is so depressing'' type of statement; if I reread your presentations, there are nevertheless some positive things. I think that it is just as important to highlight these issues rather than always focus on the little thing that does not work. For example, the development fund, the call for tenders for the youth fund, the implementation of the health aspect, these are all interesting things.
You did, however, say, and I agree with you because I worked on another file and had the same reaction, that there is a lack of detail, that we do not know exactly how we are going to benefit from such a thing or how it is going to impact on something else. Without wanting to make apologies for people, I would say that the roadmap appeared in June 2008, we had an election, we got a new minister; there has not been all that much time to reorganize all of this.
However, you are saying that it was easy to work with the department and to obtain things. I find that very positive. I would point out that I was born optimistic, and you certainly are not going to change me at 70 years of age.
The other positive thing that I noted, Ms. Schultz, is that you stated earlier that you did perhaps have a great deal of hope for the Canada Council for the Arts. What makes things even more interesting is the fact that the budget for the Council for the Arts increased a great deal, it now receives $180 million per year. I cannot believe that there is no way for our francophones in a minority situation to work themselves in and for our artists to be able to benefit from everything that is being offered to the Council for the Arts with this $180 million.
Ms. Schultz: You are quite right, we are putting a great deal of hope in the Canada Council for the Arts. We have indeed praised the fact that the budget has been increased. We still have more work to do because the needs are great. As I was saying to you, there is a new strategic plan and we are hoping, in fact, that we can carve out a little niche, at least find our spot and have our faire share within the Canada Council for the Arts. Moreover, the artistic sector of the Canadian francophonie has spent years trying to carve out a place for itself within the Canada Council. With this new version of the strategic plan and these new broad strategic focal points that the council has established for itself, we are really hoping that we have found our place.
Senator Champagne: Similarly, with the Canadian Media Fund, is there any hope that a francophone producer outside of Quebec may be part of the steering committee, for example?
Ms. Schultz: Yes, the FCCF has been asking for this. Indeed, we lost our seat on the board of the Canadian Television Fund and the FCCF has been asking, in cooperation with the APFC member, for a seat on the board of this new entity which will come into effect in March 2010. It is very important that the Franco-Canadian realities be heard in these bodies, in this type of entity, so that everyone is aware of our needs and realities. So yes, definitely, we will fight to obtain a seat.
Senator Champagne: I want to say that we all hope that things will work out. If we can be of assistance, we will do so.
Ms. Schultz: That would be greatly appreciated, and I thank you.
The Chair: You spoke about your assessment of the IPOLC program. If there are documents available to that effect, could you send them to the clerk of the committee?
Ms. Schultz: We would be pleased to provide you with that document.
The Chair: I would like to thank you for having met with the committee this afternoon. Clearly, this is a difficult situation. Efforts are made on both sides to come to a settlement. You have shown an openness in your remarks, highlighting both the positive and the negative. We thank you for your presentations.
(The committee continued in camera.)