Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 12 - Evidence - November 1 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, November 1, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:02 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it (topic: the English-speaking communities in Quebec).
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Chaput, from Manitoba, Chair of the Committee. Before I introduce the witnesses before us today, I invite members of the committee to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon. I am Senator Andrée Champagne. I am from Quebec, and I am the deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Good evening; I am Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.)
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Good afternoon. I am Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, from the riding of Rougemont in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wallace: Good evening; I am John Wallace, from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Good afternoon. I am Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I am Joan Fraser, from Montreal.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on the English-speaking communities in Quebec and will hear from representatives of the Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation.
The committee is interested in learning more about this organization and its approach to strengthening the local economies and employability of English-speaking communities in Quebec.
[English]
The committee is pleased to welcome, from the Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation, CEDEC, Ms. Elizabeth Kater, Board Member and Former President; Mr. John Buck, Executive Director; Mr. Grant Myers, Provincial Development Officer; and Ms. Michèle Thibeau, Director, Québec Chaudière-Appalaches Office.
Elizabeth Kater, Board Member and Former President, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation, CEDEC: It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon.
We are here to present CEDEC's background. I believe you have a summary of the address that I will make today. In communities across the Quebec, the Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation shares its experience in planning and developing partnerships. Its aim is to strengthen local economies and employability of the English-speaking and broader communities. CEDEC is funded by the Government of Canada's enabling fund, through the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future. The Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities acts as a leverage fund to provide the ability to stimulate additional partnerships and support for community economic development initiatives benefiting the English-speaking community.
The English-speaking community of Quebec has long been identified as highly entrepreneurial. While entrepreneurship does not represent a complete solution to address employment challenges within Quebec's English-speaking communities, entrepreneurial development nevertheless represents an important vehicle for economic growth and renewal.
For English-speaking entrepreneurs, access to these resources in their preferred language can be difficult to impossible, depending on their location. There is a great need and demand across Quebec for support mechanisms such as the community-driven CEDEC entrepreneurial support network model, which currently targets English-speaking entrepreneurs in the Montérégie area and parts of the greater Montreal area.
[Translation]
The English-speaking community is a vulnerable segment of Quebec's labour force. In almost every region of Quebec, unemployment rates for the English-speaking community are consistently higher than for the majority population.
This is especially evident in the areas of Gaspésie, Îles de la Madeleine, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Mauricie, Outaouais, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord, Basse Côte-Nord and Northern Quebec.
A variety of factors contribute to the employability issues of the English-speaking community in these areas, notably low levels of educational achievement, language competency and a reliance on declining and volatile primary industries such as fishing and forestry.
[English]
Michèle Thibeau, Director, Québec Chaudière-Appalaches Office, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation (CEDEC): Exacerbating the situation, the devolution of federal services and programs in Quebec has been a challenge. Many in the English-speaking community are unaware or have experienced barriers to accessing economic resources. In recent years, Emploi Quebec has increased its involvement in CEDEC initiatives. However, a more coordinated approach to addressing systemic issues is vital to the English-speaking community's future development. CEDEC and Emploi Quebec are at the early stages of addressing this challenge together. In 2010-11, we will study jointly the level of engagement of the English-speaking community with employment services throughout Quebec and develop a strategy to better integrate English speakers into Quebec's labour market.
One strategy to increase the level of services accessed by English speakers in Quebec is to increase the representation of English speakers in the public service. The Public Service of Canada is undergoing an unprecedented process of renewal with the impending wave of retirement among the baby boomer generation.
A significant number of international immigrants coming to Quebec choose English as their first official language spoken. This poses both a challenge and an opportunity. The means of integrating allophones into Quebec society is a complex issue that is loaded with political undertones. The fact remains that the multilingual skills within this community's sector are a great asset within Quebec's job market and should be considered a key element for the province's future economic prosperity.
We need to invest in understanding the nature and scale of the demand for multilingual workers with Quebec's labour markets and identify how we strategically capitalize on that demand.
[Translation]
The development of local tourism industries in many areas of Quebec represents untapped potential for English- speaking communities to showcase and market their unique culture, and promote the development of entrepreneurial growth and employment in the culture and heritage sector. This is a key area where government programs and funding can create a significant impact for the English-speaking community and the majority community.
In order to turn these opportunities into reality, the English-speaking community needs a strong commitment backed up by resources from our federal government to support community economic development and employability opportunities.
[English]
Ms. Kater: That line of thinking brings us to four general recommendations.
First, the Government of Canada must continue to invest in the National Human Resources Development Committee for the English Linguistic Minority as a vehicle for coordinated action between government and community, supporting economic development, labour force development, and within Quebec's English-speaking minority.
[Translation]
Second, the Government of Canada must continue to invest strongly in community-based initiatives aimed at building community capacity in the areas of economic planning, knowledge and skills development, and project implementation. There are myriad opportunities available to Quebec's English-speaking communities, but they must be equipped to harness and capitalize on these opportunities.
[English]
Ms. Thibeau: Third, the ability to cultivate and support economic leadership is paramount to the ability of the English-speaking communities of Quebec, not only to ensure their own survival but also to contribute to the overall prosperity of Quebec and of Canada.
The long-term vitality and viability of Quebec's English-speaking minority must be recognized as contingent on its value within the broader fabric of Quebec society.
[Translation]
Fourth, the terms and conditions of federal development programs within Quebec must have the ability to respond to the unique social, political, geographical and cultural context of Quebec's English-speaking communities.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Fortin-Duplessis will ask the first question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, I want to tell you how much we appreciate your agreeing to appear before our committee, because even though we travelled all over the province and held hearings there, one week is not really long enough; we would have liked to meet with members of English-speaking communities in a number of other regions.
I want to ask you about the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013. I was under the impression that certain investments targeting the areas of immigration, literacy, early childhood and justice went more towards French- speaking minority communities in English-speaking provinces. I would point out that, under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal government has a duty towards both of Canada's linguistic minorities.
My first question is this: Do you feel that Quebec's English-speaking communities received their fair share of the funding?
Ms. Kater: That is really a difficult question to answer. I do not envy your position of having to make that determination.
Of course, we are mostly concerned with development in terms of the economy, the community and so forth, but we are not the body responsible for meeting the service needs of individuals in Quebec. In rural areas, our communities are in great need of support for community economic development. A number of rural areas are lacking in this regard, but the problem is more acute in Quebec's minority communities. Nevertheless, it affects municipalities with large cities such as Montreal. That is our focus. When it comes to minority community investment, we are not very fortunate in Quebec. Of course, we have initiated a slew of projects for which we would like to receive more funding. The purpose of our presentation today is to make politicians in Ottawa more aware of what things are like for us as a minority group in Quebec. Anglophones do not tend to see themselves as a minority in North America. Our focus is development. We want to encourage people to participate in their local economy, to stay in Quebec and to become catalysts for change within the Quebec we know today.
[English]
John Buck, Executive Director, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation (CEDEC): If I may expand with a very specific example in response to your questions, the question of resourcing is very pertinent in this venue. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to a question about the road map because we have in the past referred to this as a very important investment for the linguistic minority communities across Canada and certainly in Quebec.
Perhaps the most important element of that in terms of investment by the Government of Canada in the English- speaking community comes through the enabling fund that is earmarked for economic development in the road map. It is well documented that $69 million is set aside over the five-year period for linguistic minority communities across Canada. There are 12 eligible recipients of that funding, including CEDEC in Quebec, which is the only recipient working with the English linguistic minority community in Quebec.
The enabling fund is a very important success story in the road map because it already had traction when the announcement was made on June 23, 2008.
The amount invested on an annual basis is about $12.9 million. Of that, about 15 per cent is assumed by HRSDC, the sponsor of the fund, for its internal operations, so that is not directly invested in the communities across the country. On an annual basis, $2.7 million goes specifically to the English linguistic minority community in Quebec.
The way in which that fund is distributed is unclear to our communities. This is a question we have posed in the past. There does not appear to be a specific formula. If we look at it on a per capita basis, look to the English-speaking community in Quebec, and compare that in numbers with the French speaking communities outside of Quebec, we see there is virtually an equal number of English speakers in Quebec and French speakers outside Quebec, or roughly 1 million in both places. If we look at the relative investment of funds, however, we see that the English-speaking community in Quebec only receives $2.7 million of that $12.9 million.
In a very direct response to your question, and with all due respect to the way that the money is being invested across the country, we would like, perhaps in another iteration of the road map more clarification on the model or the formula that is used for distribution of resources. The formula remains unclear to us. We work with partners across the country and there is terrific and impressive work being done everywhere in this country.
The $2.7 million being invested through the enabling fund in the English linguistic minority community in Quebec has been the same since 2002-03, without any indexation or any changes. A tremendous number of important initiatives have started since that time, in which we have played a key role. However, the relative amount of funding available in 2010 versus 2003 means we have about 21 per cent to 24 per cent fewer resources to do our work with than we did then, simply because of questions around inflation, cost of living, travel and all of these factors. Relatively speaking, that is also a very significant concern for the English-speaking communities across Quebec in terms of the investment.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much for that answer. My last question is this, and please feel free to answer in English if you prefer, even though I am asking the question in French; we have interpreters.
Do you have any other suggestions to improve the implementation of the road map under Part VII, or is everything covered in your recommendations?
[English]
Mr. Buck: I will take advantage of your kind offer to speak in English again because some of my notes are in English. One thing is clear in terms of the work that we have done with the road map. Again, we have been privileged to be a recipient of some of the funding that is dedicated through the road map to the linguistic minority communities. As you examine more closely the briefing we have been able to share with you today you will see many opportunities. Resources do become one of our key issues. Perhaps one of our key suggestions is that unequivocally we think the road map is important and needs to be continued and maintained through 2013 to 2018 or longer, if feasible, but we need to request that we re-examine the amount of resources. That is an important component to this.
As you will see through the briefing we provided, it is true that concepts such as community economic development and entrepreneurship are key to the sustainability of the English-speaking communities in Quebec, but we also believe that the role that the linguistic minority communities play in this is key to the sustainability of the entire province of Quebec. The investment is not only in that linguistic minority community, but the impact is for the entire community. When we look at numbers, they change the dynamics significantly when it changes from affecting 1 million individuals to affecting over 7 million individuals. I would dare say it is even greater than that because of our partnerships across the country, in particular with the French-speaking minority communities in, for instance, Alberta and New Brunswick, through other organizations that we have an opportunity to work with. We have the opportunity to work with them, so resources are key.
Another important element is the amount of investment that has been made through the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions which is an important engine for our economic development opportunities. We see an amount of about $2.1 million is dedicated there. In addition to hoping that it will be continued and perhaps even grow in the future; we view that as an important investment to allow us to achieve our goals as an English-speaking community. We feel there can be additional coordination of the way in which those funds are invested.
The funds amount to some $2.1 million per year over five years, which is what is anticipated, roughly $11 million over the five years. We see those funds being invested, however, without a great deal of coordination, so some of the impact may or may not be as sustainable as possible. There has been a tremendous willingness on the part of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions to work hand in hand with us in efforts to coordinate the investments. However, that could be enhanced in the next round of opportunities as we look to the future.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Mr. Buck.
Senator Tardif: Welcome and thank you for your wonderful presentation. I wanted to ask you about — and you touched on this in your answer, Mr. Buck — the strategic partnerships you have forged in an effort to set up initiatives tailored to the economic needs of Quebec's English-speaking population. You began listing off some of the strategic partnerships that had been formed. Could you elaborate on that and talk about the importance of those partnerships, as well as the resources they can provide?
[English]
Mr. Buck: Thank you for the opportunity, Senator Tardif. We have had an opportunity to speak previously about the importance of some of these partnerships. At the root of one of the federal government's investments, the enabling fund is this desire to leverage these funds and create and form partnerships. We believe that this is not only an important model but an essential model for the sustainability of our communities. As we look forward to that, we see without question the relationship with the federal government being very significant. Perhaps I can elaborate on some of this and allow my colleagues to respond with some additional examples.
In 2002-03, we received an award, along with our government partners in Quebec, from the Conseil fédéral du Québec for a committee called the national committee that recognizes the English linguistic minority community across the country — however, for obvious reasons, that really means the English-speaking community in Quebec — working with our federal government partners.
The national committee is a fundamental and important place where we have an opportunity to work. We occupy 19 seats at a committee composed of 38 members. The committee, with government representatives, involves individuals working from national headquarters from no fewer than 10 federal departments, along with their regional counterparts that, for the most part, work out of Montreal or other places.
This model is essential and has allowed us to achieve tremendous things. You will be able to see excellent examples of this in the briefing notes that we have provided.
This model allows us to work at more than an operations level with individuals within Quebec where we can influence the way in which our communities can access programs and individuals who are working in the different regions. It also allows us to interact with our colleagues at national headquarters who are developing policies that will play a role in the way in which we work.
If we look back historically, the Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities announced formally in 2003-04 was a product of the relationship between community and government. Communities played an important role in helping to pen policy that resulted in a program called the enabling fund. We can see the legacy of that. We used this as one of our success stories moving forward.
The coordination, interaction and partnerships that exist between the federal government and our communities through the national committee are key and fundamental for the sustainability of the English-speaking communities in Quebec. There is an equivalent French-speaking national committee for the rest of Canada as well. It is an important instrument.
More recently, we have been able to form important relationships with the Government in Quebec. This has allowed us to work in many ways. Our model, where we have offices strategically located in nine areas of Quebec, permits us to participate in things like provincial consultation tables. We can interact locally and influence provincially some of work that is being done. That unique model has been tremendously helpful.
We are proud of an emerging partnership and opportunity that we see with Emploi-Québec that plays a critical role in terms of issues around employability in Quebec. We have heard and witnessed throughout the wonderful work that you have done through your committee some of the concern expressed around the devolution of federal programs and powers to provinces. I can think of no better example of a success story than the work we are currently undertaking with this important provincial partner. This work is being done with willing partnerships on both sides of the table. There is a tremendous amount of engagement and a willingness to get important work done.
We are proud of that, and we will see more results in the coming months.
Ms. Kater: The same dynamic that Mr. Buck is describing in terms of our work across Quebec and with our federal partners within Quebec is being built within communities. Our communities go from a large urban area like the greater Montreal area into a lot of vulnerable rural areas that have similar challenges to many of our rural areas.
In that context, we have been important in terms of putting together examples of ways that we might be able to react at the community level, building partnerships at the community level as well as at the broader provincial or national level. That weave of those three different levels helps us make our point more visible in terms of that approach.
We see ourselves sharing tools that are developed outside of Quebec, within Quebec and within communities in Quebec. I think of something like the Community Vitality Index and the Business Vitality Index that we have used in vulnerable communities in Quebec. They have been good tools for helping us focus on how to help a community, and focusing with the community on how to help itself.
Regarding the collection, use and sharing of resources, we do a lot of that with the broader community, too. Within our communities, by and large, we are not living in an English community, so we do not want to work exclusively with the English community. Our take on it is the people of a community that speak English, but we work with the rest of the community. Certainly, in vulnerable communities where we have issues like when the fisheries closed or the textile mills closed, that is a whole community. We may have a specific cut about how that affects our community, but we look for partners within the community so that we are covering a broad community.
We seek that underlying level of partnership; in the way, that Mr. Buck has described many partnerships that we have sought across Canada nationally or provincially. We do that within communities, too, so that fibre we try to weave within the community continues to be strong and healthy.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for sharing with us some of the successful partnerships that you have established. That is great to see.
We deal mostly with concerns and issues surrounding the federal government. Do you feel that the federal government has been sufficiently receptive to consultation, for example, with the various departments and the different communities in Quebec? Do you feel there is coordination within the federal government to deal with the different concerns and issues that come forth, or is it different silos and there is difficult coordination across departments?
Ms. Kater: There are certainly some interesting initiatives to break down that silo effect; they are not always successful.
Senator Tardif: What would those be?
Ms. Kater: Mr. Buck talked earlier about the national committee, where we sit down with our government partners on a biannual basis in a full-day meeting. During these meetings, we can hash out some of our common targets. We have ongoing relationships out of that exchange where we have developed some funding, et cetera. It is always easier to say what could be done than to cause it to be done.
I should like to underline again that the one aspect of our situation in terms of being able to reach out and do those things is implicit in the funding story that Mr. Buck told you about earlier. When you have the same budget for six years, it is not the same budget. Your staff costs are constant; your rental and office costs are constant, if not rising. When you have the same amount that you had last year, it means that you have to cut somewhere. We have had a number of years of cuts because we are cutting out of that same amount.
I think there is a good sense of where we could be doing more. We have that sense, along with the credibility and the partnerships to develop those things. The biggest stumbling block is the lack of the resources to do it in terms of time and energy. We have built a lot of new systems; we have shared a lot of our savoir faire that has been developed over the years, but I do not think we are in a position to optimize the way we are using it at this point.
Senator Fraser: You have nine offices. How many paid staff and how many volunteers do you have?
Mr. Buck: With nine offices, we have about 32 paid staff. That is contingent upon the enabling fund, which represents upwards of 90 per cent of our entire envelope of funding. The number of employees will increase slightly depending on the contributions that we receive from additional partners where we can pursue projects, et cetera. We have 32 regular staff, which might increase to 40 staff.
In each of the nine areas, in addition to a group of 19 volunteers that constitute our board of directors, we have CEDEC committees. Between eight to 12 individuals work together in each of these committees to provide us with some of the guidance and advice that we need in order to achieve our local goals. A few hundred volunteers accompany that group of employees.
Senator Fraser: That is great. I want to come back to the $12.9 million. You receive $2.7 million.
Mr. Buck: That is correct.
Senator Fraser: How much is siphoned off for administration?
Mr. Buck: It is 15 per cent of $12.9 or roughly $1.8 million.
Senator Fraser: The balance goes to the francophone communities.
Mr. Buck: That is correct; it goes to the other 11 recipients. The same administrative amount of 15 per cent is not consistent with every envelope of funding under the roadmap — for example, the $10 million or so.
Senator Fraser: In this case it is 15 per cent.
Mr. Buck: That is correct.
Senator Fraser: You suggested in one of your recommendations that the government must ensure that it continues to invest in the national committee. Does that mean you think it might not continue?
Mr. Buck: A memorandum of understanding in place since 2002 has not been renewed, although there has been significant effort on the part of the community to renew that commitment. There is a desire on the part of all parties to maintain the national committee, but we want to highlight it as a necessity moving forward.
Senator Fraser: This is basically a contact group, a discussion group, a pressure group, a lobby group and a consciousness raising group; but it is not a decision-making group. Am I correct in saying that about the committee? I am sorry; I hate this jargon of tables, committees and whatnot, but I am trying to play the game here.
Mr. Buck: When you refer to the table, do you mean the national committee?
Senator Fraser: I did not mean the table; I meant the national committee.
Mr. Buck: You are quite correct. Employees of the Government of Canada work together with 19 volunteers from communities across Quebec that share information and ideas. It is not a formal decision-making body.
Senator Fraser: My last question is on funding. You said that you would like clarification of the formula. Have you tried to seek clarification of the formula? Have you asked for it?
Mr. Buck: Yes.
Senator Fraser: What have you been told?
Mr. Buck: We have been told that one will come, essentially.
Senator Fraser: How long have you been waiting?
Mr. Buck: It has been since about 2004.
Senator Fraser: Some institutions have been waiting 40 years, you know.
Mr. Buck: We have 12 years of history. The enabling fund has existed since 2003.
Senator Fraser: Can you give us the criteria upon which you make your decisions? Can you give us the criteria so that we know where we stand and what we have to deal with? Can you tell us what no one has been willing to tell you? that?
Mr. Buck: Yes.
Senator Fraser: I am putting it much more harshly than you did, but that seems to be what I heard.
Mr. Buck: That is correct.
Senator Fraser: I would like to make a quick comment if I may. One thing has struck me through these hearings: We keep hearing from groups that have next to no resources but have a great deal of imagination. Group after group after group comes here and expresses enthusiasm and drive. I have not heard very much whining in these hearings.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Fraser: You are typical of what we have heard. You clearly have next to no resources and yet you face a massive challenge. One of your offices is in Îles de la Madeleine, which is not just round the corner. This is interesting to hear about; and I thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for being here this evening. Senator Fraser began the line of questioning that I was to pursue to try to understand some of the things that you have presented tonight.
I am happy to have someone here to talk about economic development because that piece was missing when we travelled around Quebec. We heard from many different sectors but we never heard much about economic development. There is no question that economic development is important for the vitality of communities. The Commissioner of Official Languages studied that subject and made that point. You have highlighted a number of deficiencies; and we heard many when travelled across Quebec.
I am interested in learning more about CEDEC. Senator Fraser started to ask you about its structure and financing, and I would like to pursue that further, if I may. You presented us with documents but it would be good to have some of this on the record so we can discuss it now.
Is the Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation a public corporation or a private corporation?
Ms. Kater: We are a not-for-profit corporation.
Senator Seidman: A not-for-profit corporation?
Ms. Kater: CEDEC is a legal entity.
Senator Seidman: How are you financed?
Ms. Kater: Our funding comes principally from the Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities.
Senator Seidman: Are there other sources of financing?
Ms. Kater: Other sources come from time to time. When they arrive, it is for a specific objective, such as a project.
Senator Seidman: Could you give me some examples of the kind of funding that CEDEC would receive and the kind of projects?
Ms. Kater: I made reference earlier to the Business Vitality Index process with the group from British Columbia. We have run two projects in collaboration with them. One was in the Huntington area after the disappearance of the textile industry, which had been their major industry; and the other one was up the Ottawa River in Campbell's Bay, where we did a Community Vitality Index and a Business Vitality Index. Going through a number of defined steps, the process brings communities together not only to identify their problem areas but also to identify some preliminary solutions that they might be able to act on immediately. The process kick-starts action within a community. It was helpful.
Mr. Buck made reference to a number of other projects that we found funding for in collaboration with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec around networks for entrepreneurs, for instance. Often we will identify in one community or a series of communities something that looks like it might make some progress and might be able to fly. We will shop it around for some funding and try to get a pilot project going. That is part of trying to stimulate concrete action based on dynamic ideas that come out of communities.
Senator Seidman: How is such a project developed? Do people in a community who know of your existence ask for help with getting funding to deal with a problem? Is it sort of a consultation process?
Ms. Kater: The Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation is the entire initiative. However, when we talk about CEDEC within communities, it is usually a community development committee, and people from a variety of backgrounds within those communities sit on that committee. For instance, I live in southwest Quebec, and we cover from Châteaugay down to the American border, encompassing 30-odd small rural communities and a couple of medium-sized ones.
Members of the CEDEC committee come from a variety of geographic locations, backgrounds, occupations and preoccupations within that area. It is not a constant composition and it gives different perspectives on the communities. I referred to the textile crisis a few years ago in the town closest to me. For some time, many of the people on the CEDEC were related to that crisis. It is representative, but it is not formula oriented. I want to make that clear.
Mr. Myers: I will talk from a practical perspective about the mechanics of how it works. We talked about having nine offices. We have 11 volunteer committees that work with those nine offices. Every year we submit a proposal for a contribution agreement to Human Resources and Skills Development. The core of that contribution agreement is an action plan encompassing a number of projects that we undertake. This year we are undertaking roughly 35 projects.
Those projects emerge through the community in many ways. In some cases the community asks us to work with them around planning, for example. A good example of that is tourism planning on the Magdalen Islands. There we are working on both Entry Island and Grosse-Île to develop tourism plans for the entire community, not only the English-speaking community.
In other cases we identify a need or an opportunity and explore it. A good example of that is in Abitibi- Témiscamingue. Our committee in that region decided to survey businesses to find out what the demand is for English and multilingual workers within the local labour market. Those projects are funded through the enabling fund, although we do not have the resources to complete those projects with the amount of money provided by the fund. The fund pays for salaries, offices and phones, all the basic things to keep us in operation.
Last year, we leveraged an additional $1.8 million in real dollars and in-kind contributions to get those projects finished. Those funds came from municipal, federal, provincial, private and not-for-profit organizations. Of that $1.8 million, about 60 per cent was real dollars. That means that for every dollar invested through the enabling fund we are generating 84 cents. None of the additional 84 cents goes to pay our overhead; it goes directly to projects in the community.
Our struggle is that we have a shrinking budget for operations but an increasing ability to leverage money for community projects. In recent years, we have had about a 15 per cent increase in that ability.
Senator De Bané: Your organization has been in operation for 10 years and you have many results to show for what you have done over that time. I read your brief and have learned many things from it.
For example, for the last 30 years, the English-speaking community of Quebec has not received its fair share of positions in the federal public service of this country. You seem to be optimistic about the Government of Quebec. I have heard that the Government of Quebec has committed to doing something about that for many years, and it has never changed, but you seem to be optimistic that it can be corrected.
I also learned that in general, there are more English-speaking Quebecers involved in the arts and tourism than French-speaking Quebecers. This goes against the myth that it is the French who breathe arts, but the numbers are there.
You say that many young, educated English-speaking Quebecers leave the province and that those who stay have a higher unemployment rate than the general population, and that is sad.
You must be flexible in responding to the needs of the communities as the needs vary from region to region. I have learned over the years that there is a reason that the government has many programs. It would be easy for the Government of Canada to decide to have a program to strengthen the vitality of the English-speaking community in Quebec. It does not do that kind of thing, however, because it does not want bureaucrats to have total discretion on what to do.
You have many programs, each of which is very focused to ensure that every Canadian who knocks on the door for that program from Newfoundland to British Columbia will have the same answer. All your recommendations for federal government action are very general. I agreed that you should have maximum flexibility, but in order to get federal government to do what you want it to do, you have to recommend specific programs.
Recommendations that the government should encourage this, do this, and do that, are very broad. Think about a retired civil servant who knows how it works and could help you couch two or three programs that are needed by CEDEC. I like your philosophy. To use your terminology, it is employment, its economic development et cetera. Those things are ultimately the impetus for change. You help the people become self-sufficient entrepreneurs, et cetera. This is what we need.
I understand you are not getting enough support, but I want to tell you that the committee is very impressed by what you have achieved in the last 10 years in those different regions. Bravo. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I recall that, in his 2007-2008 Annual Report, the Commissioner of Official Languages said he hoped that the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions would review the agency's approach to better support English-speaking communities in Quebec. He also said that the minister should take into consideration the crucial role played by some non-profit organizations, all the NPOs working in the areas of economic development and youth in English-speaking minority communities.
I have been listening to what you said, and it seems that you receive your operating funds under the roadmap, so from the minister responsible for official languages. Not that long ago, you said that you received support for some of your projects through the department of human resources.
I know it is nearly impossible to have three ministers together in the same room at the same time, unless they have been summoned by the prime minister for a Cabinet meeting, but it may be necessary to have the minister responsible for official languages, who provides your initial operating budget, the human resources minister, who provides assistance in terms of tangible progress, and the minister for economic development sit down at some point with a view to coordinating their efforts so that all your activities are as successful as they should be.
What is your relationship like with Denis Lebel, the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec? Do you meet with him? How should everything be coordinated to achieve the best possible outcome? What would you suggest?
[English]
Mr. Buck: Senator Champagne, your questions are all so wonderful because they give us an opportunity to address some of the things that are important in terms of us moving forward.
It is wonderful to hear. I think I speak for my colleagues when I say that having the minister of HRSDC, the minister of CEDQ and the Minister of Official Languages in the same room would be a dream. In fact, I may have had that dream. It has never come to fruition. None of us has ever met formally with the ministers despite repeated requests for these meetings.
We recognize that there is a tremendous amount of coordination with respect to the road map and funds available through that initiative. We know, for example, that Canadian Heritage oversees the road map. We know that through CEDQ we are seeing increased investments. Minister Lebel, upon the day of his entrance into that position, made a specific point of reaching out to communities and, through his staff in CEDQ, made particular reference to not-for- profit corporations in Quebec. We appreciate that tremendously. Of course, through HRSDC with the enabling fund, we have seen continuous support since we formally became a corporation in 1999. CEDQ is interesting. I referred to a unique and important relationship that we have at the national committee that allows us to interact with individuals here in Ottawa and with individuals in Quebec. CEDQ, in its composition through Industry Canada, has a space here in Quebec, but the leadership and decisions around CEDQ happen locally, in Montreal, and with the regional offices throughout the province. This is where I talked about the flexibility of our structure.
Both Ms. Kater and Mr. Myers referred to our organizational structure. That becomes important, because we have an opportunity of meeting with CEDQ at their regional headquarters in Montreal and talk about bigger picture items, things that are strategic across the province. We also interact locally with regional directors. We had a staff member meeting yesterday in Sept-Îles and our director from the Lower North Shore, met and spoke with the regional director of CEDQ. It is at that level that those relationships with CEDQ become so important, because there is a lot of regional discretion. CEDQ is Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, often referred to as DEQ in Quebec.
The CEDEC model becomes very appropriate because it allows us to engage in discussions with CEDQ across the province, and we have that influence. Is that strong? Yes. As I said, since Minister Lebel has been in the position we have seen an openness. The investments that have emerged from CEDQ with respect to the English-speaking communities across the province since his tenure have been impressive. In all fairness, there was a bit of a delay in terms of funds being disbursed from CEDQ when the road map was initially announced. For example, there were no disbursements for an extended period of time, virtually a year or so, but now we are seeing a tremendous uptake. In fact, on September 20, a colleague and I were present to meet with regional directors from across the province in Montreal to talk about ways that we would work together and invest in the English-speaking communities across Quebec.
Senator Champagne: It is fantastic that there would be some coordination between the different departments. I know you are doing a lot and trying to do more, and let us hope that our ministers find a way to help you do even more. Thank you.
The Chair: You talked about the road map and the enabling fund. How many federal partners are you dealing with when you get your funding through the enabling fund and the road map? I have heard that there are three partners.
Mr. Buck: When we talk about actual funds invested, we are looking at primarily HRSDC, along with CEDQ and Canadian Heritage, which plays a role in some of the coordination. At the national committee, we have an investment in- kind in terms of the participation of the departments.
This stems from a memorandum of understanding, signed May 28, 2002. This MOU between the English-speaking communities of Quebec and the Government of Canada refers to some of the departments that are part of the national committee, along with a few that have been added since then.
Senator Tardif: There are 10 departments; is that correct?
Mr. Buck: That is correct.
Senator Fraser: Could you send us a list of who sits on the national committee?
Mr. Myers: If you look in your kits, you will find a very basic outline of our organization. There is a page in there that outlines all of the federal departments that are involved.
The Chair: If we have additional questions, we might send them to one of you and then we would expect an answer.
Mr. Myers: Certainly. Mr. Buck would probably be the best person to answer any questions.
Ms. Kater: We pass the buck.
Mr. Myers: I could walk around and show senators the list; would that be appropriate?
The Chair: Time is flying, so we will just go on with the questions. In the meantime, if you can find the page for us, we would appreciate it.
Senator Wallace: Thank you for your presentations; as a new member of this committee I found your presentations very informative.
You described your focus on creating partnerships and driving projects. That type of focus can be very challenging; it is a challenge to bring all of those silos together. How much of an obstacle is it for you to deal with the federal, provincial, municipal and local initiatives? How much of an obstacle is that for you in trying to deal with, I am sure, inconsistencies or incompatibilities in the policies of each of those silos?
Maybe I will narrow it to the federal and provincial policies. Do you run into significant inconsistencies and incompatibilities? Is that a serious obstacle when you are trying to affect these projects?
Ms. Kater: There are inconsistencies, they have different roles, and there is an incredible complexity to that. However, it is not always obvious to us, as I am sure it is not always obvious to you, how to simplify some of those complexities.
A lot of the role that we play is really trying to identify channels of access and let those be known to help to clarify, within our own networks, how those channels work. We have a very complex political system, a very complex service delivery system. Unless there is a very evident malfunction in that, I do not think it would our role necessarily to deal with it.
However, at the national committee, we do have the opportunity to share preoccupations. Sometimes we have preoccupations of that level, to say we had this experience or people in our community had this experience and it seems this is a very complex process; is there anything that can be done about that?
We do keep a log of issues that come up and what follow-up there is to them and how they might be resolved. We do that from meeting to meeting and try to keep that log. The log is complex and it covers many issues.
Within the community, our role is more around trying to give people a way of reaching out — the appropriate place to knock — and helping them address the appropriate resource. If we have an area of expertise, it often is in terms of where to knock.
Senator Wallace: The focus of your organization is at a grassroots level. I guess what I was thinking, from the projects you would have, you would have a provincial and a government department both interested in what you are doing. If you looked at the generalities of the focus of both federal and provincial departments, they may seem that they want to achieve the same thing. However, when you take it down to the level you are dealing with, you find there is an inconsistency; the provincial program will not enable it to work in conjunction with the federal program.
When you find that experience, would you point that out to the federal or provincial people and say look, if these changes were made, both of you could get to the goal line a lot easier than the way it is right now? Do you approach it at that level?
Ms. Kater: If we came across that situation, we would certainly mention it. That is one of the things sometimes where we might be able to play a useful role. However, we have not been running into situations where there are overlaps or those inconsistencies — gaps, yes, sometimes, but certainly not too much of the overlap.
We do share our understanding of what the possibilities are with each and how to work. You have other layers that come in, too, like municipalities, private funding, and other complexities, where some guidance to a group that is trying to put together a project or an initiative within a community needs that road map.
Senator Wallace: That is what I see your organization brings to it. It is not the theoretical; you bring the practical. You deal with driving actual projects so that advice you would give, just tweaking it —
Ms. Kater: We try to do both. In a community, that is what we are doing. At our national level, which is Quebec, we are trying to pull together those threads that are coming out of the community to make sure that we are weaving a textile that holds together, so we are playing both roles.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now begin the second round of questions. Senators Fraser and Seidman have questions. I would ask that all questions and answers be kept brief.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I will make a brief observation and ask a quick question, and I think the answer to it can also be short.
My observation is that you may be a little surprised that we have not been focusing more on your recommendations about worker training and job loss, particularly the availability of material and programs in English. We spent a session last week talking about that very thing. You are reinforcing that message; do not think it does not matter.
My question is about a recommendation I had missed earlier in your brief, which is that business succession must be supported and encouraged. By business succession, am I correct in assuming you mean the transition that must occur when the founding entrepreneur reaches retirement age or needs to move on, and the company will go bankrupt if there is no one there to take it over?
Ms. Kater: That issue, while it may be important in most areas, is particularly important in rural areas.
Senator Seidman: In our hearings, we have heard with certainty that there are very serious issues among people in the anglophone communities of Quebec when it comes to employment and economic development. I do not mean to undermine the importance of discussing that issue. However, I think that your corporation is unique and is doing such interesting and difficult work of enormous value. Trying to understand how you function is critical because if we understand, it becomes a bit of a model, so we can understand how we can push the envelope further to provide the help we need.
I would like to ask you about this so-called National Human Resources Development Committee for the English Linguistic Minority, which sounds important in the sense that you deal with the government table. How well does this national committee work, from your point of view? Does it facilitate CEDEC in achieving its mission?
Ms. Kater: It is certain that it does not work 100 per cent; but nothing does. We have had very positive results from access to knowledge, sharing understanding, being able to put together the weave of complexities at the government level, from our perspective, and appreciating some of that. From their perspective, we have been able to appreciate some of the complexities of communities. We all leave a little more sensitized to how things work on the other side of the fence, if you would. Certainly, there are some hesitations around its functioning. It is a heavy slow process. It is not the kind of process where you can see results and identify them immediately. However, I would not question the validity of maintaining it.
Mr. Buck: The national committee came together prior to the formation of CEDEC. Volunteers from the community were solicited to participate with then HRDC. It was one government department exclusively until 2002, when we were able to bring on additional parties. We now have 10 signatories and some others who are frequent guests.
Until 2003 or 2004, a strategic plan was in place for the national committee. We saw many tools being developed and emerging from the national committee. There were specific investments by the parties around the table.
The government table secretariat at the time was at HRDC and had offices in both Ottawa and Montreal. There were upwards of 20 employees at any given time working within those secretariats to support not only the linguistic minority communities in Quebec but also across the country.
For a number of reasons, which I am sure I do not need to elaborate on here today, we have seen that administration from the government table department decimated to the point where we have a team of roughly seven or eight individuals doing the same work that used to be done. We no longer have that direct connection in Montreal with an office of the secretariat to support the work.
At one point, we met quarterly across the province in intentionally remote areas, including the Lower North Shore, Grosse-Île, the Magdalen Islands, and in Rougemont, Senator Fortin-Duplessis. We had meetings throughout the province. Unfortunately, our partners in the federal government no longer seem to have access to the same number of resources to support the structure. Consequently, there has not been a strategic plan in place for the national committee since 2006, when we had a work plan and a strategic plan.
Certainly, the most recent reviews of the national committee have suggested that it is an important vehicle for us and needs to be supported. Despite the $1.8 million in administrative funds that are part of the road map and the enabling fund through HRSDC, we are not seeing that same dedication to the infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, we meet only twice a year now, but not in any of the wonderful locations where we had the opportunity to meet before. It was not an abuse of funds to visit these locations because we have constituents in Rougemont and elsewhere across the province. Certainly, that investment is having an impact on the national committee's ability and potential.
Senator Tardif: Was the $1.8 million — the 15 per cent — kept by HRSDC for administrative purposes used for the secretariat?
Mr. Buck: The guidance and spending of that amount was dictated by the direction of the secretariat, and continues to be so. Of course, we must recall that it is also for a secretariat that works with both the English-speaking communities in Quebec and the French-speaking communities across the country.
Senator Tardif: Do you know if your francophone counterparts have the same evaluation with regard to fewer meetings of the national tables?
Mr. Buck: Yes.
Senator De Bané: I understand well that CEDEC is mainly for English-speaking Quebecers. What happens when a French-speaking person knocks on your door? The way I read your brochures, you are open to all, even if your raison d'être is to serve the English-speaking community? What happens when French-speaking Quebecers come to see you for guidance?
Ms. Kater: We do not give services to individuals. We work within communities. It is not at all exceptional for us to find ourselves working with French people within the community because they live in the same community with English people. We really do not want to create divisions within communities. If there is a large portion of anglophone concern around a certain problem or around a project that they think might work or even some of the things that we initiate, such as the Community Vitality Indexes that I mentioned earlier, we usually try to work with both parties present. Our primary focus is to make a community in which the anglophone is comfortable. We know that it is in partnership, and we cannot ignore that. We look at the entire community in that regard.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Ms. Thibeau?
Ms. Thibeau: Yes, if possible. I wanted to add one thing.
[English]
I work in Quebec's Chaudière-Appalache region where we have French-speaking volunteers around our table. We have folks who are involved at the federal level in Service Canada. We have people who believe in our organization and have worked for it for a long time. We try to find a way to connect anyone who comes into our office. We try to build each person's capacity to collaborate. That is how we work.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing before the committee. You were very well prepared and knowledgeable. From the questions of the honourable senators, you must have realized how interested the committee is in the work you do.
(The committee adjourned.)