Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 9:30 a.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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum and I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba, and I am the chair of this committee. Before I introduce the witnesses that are before us today, I would like to invite the members of the committee who are here to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Champagne: My name is Andrée Champagne, and I am from the Province of Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I am Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I am Senator Michel Rivard and I come from Quebec City.
Senator Tardif: Good morning. I am Claudette Tardif and I come from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Munson: I am Jim Munson, Canada, but my heart is in New Brunswick.
Senator Fraser: I am Joan Fraser, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: We welcome today the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Honourable James Moore; and the senior officials who accompany him: Daniel Jean, Deputy Minister, and Hubert Lussier, Director General of the Official Languages Support Programs.
The committee heard several witnesses as part of its study on the English-speaking community in Quebec in the last months. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is a key player given his role in enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development, as well as promoting Canada's linguistic duality. The committee is looking forward to learning more on the steps and initiatives of the department that are relevant to its current study.
Furthermore, this appearance is an opportunity for the committee to hear from the minister on the annual report he tabled in Parliament recently, dealing with the government response to the third report of the committee on Part VII of the Official Languages Act and on other issues related to his responsibilities with respect to official languages.
Minister, it is always with great pleasure that the committee welcomes you to its meetings, and on behalf of the members, I thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
I invite you to take the floor, and the senators will follow with questions.
Hon. James Moore, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages: Thank you, Madam Chair and parliamentary colleagues.
I would first like to introduce you to Daniel Jean. Some of you might have had discussions with him in recent years. He replaced Judith Larocque as Heritage Deputy Minister a little over a month ago. This is his first appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
You also know Hubert Lussier, Director General of the Official Languages Support Programs Branch. He accompanied me during my last appearance before your committee. They are here to answer any technical questions you might have.
We are appearing before you today to talk about key issues. I know a few new members have joined this committee, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome you. Like me, you share a passion for our two official languages, and this committee is doing great work in promoting and protecting bilingualism in Canada. This is not the first time I have appeared before this committee, and I also recognize that I am only able to be here for one hour. So let me get straight to the point.
[English]
Madam Chair, your committee has undertaken tremendous work with its study on English-speaking communities in the province of Quebec. The consultations you have held throughout the province and that are ongoing here have allowed this community to be heard, to have their concerns raised and for us to seek solutions on an ongoing basis to ensure those concerns continue to be recognized by the Government of Canada. Like you, I recognize the contribution of the anglophone community in Quebec and what that contribution means to our society.
I want to share with the committee some of the investments our government has made recently that will help provide support for this important community.
As a result of agreements that we have concluded with the provinces and territories on education and services, Quebec receives $64.9 million per year. This funding means that more than 100,000 young anglophone students are able to study in the language of their choice.
Those of you who know Montreal will be pleased to learn that many organizations in the city have received financing for their projects through several federal government programs. For example, Youth Employment Services has implemented a project to support young anglophones who come from different regions of Quebec and who want to settle in Montreal.
In addition, various programs, such as the Canada Summer Jobs, Skills Link, Youth Awareness and the Opportunities Fund all received funding from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to help the economic development of young Quebec anglophones. This funding means that anglophone youth are able to find jobs and the work in the official language of their choice.
In the arts we have provided support for a project entitled, "Making It Montreal: A View on English Artists who Chose to Make Montreal Home." This project showcases the work of anglophone artists who have chosen to settle and work on their art in a francophone province. By showcasing the success of these artists, this project helps to shatter the myth that anglophone artists cannot be successful within the province of Quebec.
We have also created a discussion group on arts, culture and heritage with anglophone communities in Quebec. This group includes participation from the National Film Board, Telefilm, the CBC, Canada Council for the Arts and the National Arts Centre. This group means that cultural agencies are more aware of the needs of anglophone Quebec artists, and the artists in turn are more aware of how they can receive the federal government's support.
Our anglophone and francophone communities throughout the country play an important role in the promotion and protection of our two official languages. The communities are a reflection of who we are as Canadians.
With this role in mind, I can assure you that we cooperate closely with organizations working on behalf of minority communities, such as the Quebec Community Groups Network and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. Only this past week, my office met with both groups to further the discussion on how we can better the situation of minority language communities across Canada. These organizations are valuable allies in our efforts to promote the development of our two official languages. These productive partnerships will also help us move forward with our Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013.
Before I turn to the roadmap, I want to discuss the committee's third report on the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I recognize that the report was a massive undertaking by this committee and I greatly appreciate the work put into that report by all members of this committee.
[Translation]
As you have learned through our government's response to the report, supporting official language minority communities remains a priority for our government. Our actions are consistent with the recommendations made by this committee.
Of course, you know the Commissioner of Official Languages recently reiterated that federal institutions must deliver on the commitment under Part VII of the act. We agree with the commissioner, which is why we are adopted measures that will allow our government to encourage federal institutions to comply with this part of the act.
Here are some of the things we have done. We are requiring institutions to submit an annual results-based status report as well as an action plan on their advancement of English and French. We have developed a range of accountability tools for use by the entire federal government and have made numerous recommendations. A recent study conducted by our department will help improve reporting procedures by federal institutions. Finally, we have set up regional and national coordination networks. We have a leading role to play and are determined to follow through on this work.
[English]
The members of this committee definitely know that the road map for linguistic duality is something our government is proud of. At this point, about halfway through the time period covered by the road map, more than 71 per cent of the funds have been committed by our government to organizations and to causes and efforts to ensure that Canada's official languages are well served across the country.
I am pleased to say that we will continue on the same track this coming year, which means that even more projects and organizations will receive benefit from this support. For example, the creation of 22 community learning centres has helped meet the needs of English-language schools in urban and rural settings. These centres provide English community access to a range of English-language services. The result is that children are able to participate in activities and learn in their own language.
Before moving to your questions, I will bring to your attention one other subject — a subject that I know has been discussed at this committee by some of you and, indeed, in the media. That is the question of official languages and the Pan American and Parapan American Games in 2015.
It may interest you to know that we have asked the games organizing committee to provide an outline on how they plan to respond to official language requirements as part of their business plan, and to have that plan submitted to us next year. We are engaging proactively on this file and before we approve the plan, we will ensure the organizing committee is strongly committed to complying with the official languages requirements, including in both the opening and closing ceremonies.
I want to be clear, as well, that our government will build on the legacy of the Olympic Games and ensure the Pan American Games in 2015 will be available to Canadians in the language of their choice. That commitment includes the opening and closing ceremonies, signage and translation for over 10,000 athletes who will compete in 37 sports. This event is a large opportunity, like the 2010 Olympics, to move forward.
Again, I want to thank you for the invitation to be here and I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to remind you that our meeting with the minister will last one hour and will end at 10:30 a.m. And so I would ask members to be brief and concise in putting their questions. I would also ask witnesses to be as brief and concise as possible in giving their responses. Each senator will have five minutes for questions and answers, and if time permits, we could have a second round.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would first like to thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing before our committee with such a positive presentation. Like many, I thought that anglophones in Quebec were quite well off and that everything was fine.
However, during our study in the province of Quebec, I was surprised to learn that some anglophone communities had serious problems: high drop-out rates, inadequate school transportation costs for children, senior citizens left isolated because their children were off studying or working in other provinces — that is something that greatly affected me because those people are often alone and ill, without anyone to drive them to the hospital. We also noted a lack of communication. I am sure that other colleagues will be able to question you on that issue.
As well, a number of groups mentioned that their funding was decreasing dramatically. We often heard the same comments from those groups, whether in Quebec City, Sherbrooke or elsewhere, i.e., that despite making repeated requests to the Government of Quebec to find out the total amount of your government's transfers — for example, earlier you mentioned some $64 million a year for education — they are never able to get an answer. They ask for the information, but the Government of Quebec does not know. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Moore: It is difficult to make a comment on a group that is itself commenting on its relations with the Government of Quebec. However, I can tell you that we will continue to meet our commitments with those groups, which play a very important role for bilingualism in Canada. I cannot comment on their relations, but I am aware of the frustrations and concerns that are expressed on the ground with regard to funding. That is why we made a number of changes in our funding process, such as moving up the date when they receive their grants. For the first time, we have multi-year agreements with community organizations. Such agreements are very important to them, but many of those organizations are very small and don't have the funds to come to Ottawa, despite the fact that they do very important work. I am talking about organizations that might have one, two or perhaps three employees and which have a lot of work to do. They cannot make their voices heard as strongly as other groups that receive more funding.
That is why I want to thank you, the members of this Senate committee, for having gone to meet with them and hear what they had to say. We are aware of their concerns, and that is why we made real changes to the way we provide funding. Mr. Lussier might want to give some details about the former funding mechanism and the changes that have been in effect for nearly a year.
Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage: Indeed, we have improved the way Canadian Heritage allocates funding. There has been a real shift. Some of the groups that you heard from might have talked about support from other departments, but that is not something we have the same level of control over.
I would like to add that the amounts allocated for English-language schools amount to approximately 10 per cent of the Quebec government's investment. It is important to note that the federal allocation is an incentive, a way to support additional costs, but it is difficult to retrace exactly where our money is invested, since it is mixed in with provincial funding for English-language schools.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to say that we also noted extraordinary results. We also saw the mutual cooperation among anglophones. They do a lot of volunteer work. Anglophones are close-knit and take care of one another. During our visits, we noted things that were very positive. However, the fact remains that they cannot find out how the Quebec government uses federal money in its funding to anglophones. That remains an outstanding question.
The Chair: I would like to follow up on Senator Fortin-Duplessis's question. Mr. Lussier, you manage funds from Canadian Heritage, but not from other departments. Be that as it may, do you have a say in how the other departments, which are roadmap partners, allocate funds to Quebec anglophones?
Mr. Lussier: In his remarks, the minister noted that investments have been made in Quebec under the roadmap. For example, in the health sector, investments have been very targeted, and I am not aware of any problem concerning deadlines or roll-out. The same goes for funding to the Economic Development Agency and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, which focus on employability. Once again, significant amounts are specifically intended for Quebec anglophones, and that is a relatively new approach.
The roadmap brings together 15 institutions. Other departments invest in Quebec as well. I am a bit hard-pressed to answer your question regarding all of those institutions, because the funding is really quite diverse.
Senator Tardif: Minister, I would like to talk to you about our committee's report on the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, entitled Implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act: We can still do better and your response, which we received on November 25.
In our report, we deplored the fact that there is no clear, precise definition of "positive measures." Furthermore, the Commissioner of Official Languages agreed with our position when he indicated that the Government of Canada should ensure that the concept of "positive measures" be understood and that all federal institutions fulfil their obligations.
In its response, Mr. Minister, your government has still not given a clear definition of "positive measures." Could you tell us what, in your view, constitutes a definition of "positive measures?"
Besides, you said that the institutions that you are in charge of must submit a report and a plan to you on an annual basis. How do you determine whether these institutions are meeting their commitments pursuant to Part VII, by implementing positive measures, if you have no clear definition of what constitutes "positive measures"?
Mr. Moore: This is a rather subjective question. Success may be defined differently by different people. This is why our roadmap has been established for five years. We cannot measure success on a yearly basis. We must consider the five-year period, for the sum of $1.1 billion, which represents our funding for the roadmap. This is an increase of more than 20 per cent above the preceding roadmap.
We relied on the results of Mr. Dion's roadmap to develop this second roadmap. We did our homework and we conducted many analyses. We exchanged with volunteers on the ground and with organizations across Canada. We learned lessons from the preceding roadmap and we included our conclusions in the current roadmap.
There is more than one formula for measuring success. We must study the dynamics of our cultural and official languages communities in every region of Canada to find success stories. Every part of Canada is different. For instance, where I live, in Vancouver, the realities for francophone communities are different from those of Edmonton, because Vancouver francophones come mainly from Quebec. The Edmonton francophones also include Quebecers, but there are people from Africa as well. Their needs and their concerns are different from those found in other regions of the country.
Consequently, success depends on the regions, on the starting point where we are now and our future objective. There are many different realities on the ground. It is not enough to say whether there has been success or not. The work goes on and will probably never be finished. Every generation, during successive years, and new immigrants bring waves of new needs that our government meets with funds. Experiences are different from one year to the other. Consequently, it is difficult to measure success on a yearly basis. This is a continuous commitment.
Senator Tardif: I recognize that the needs of francophones vary greatly from region to region, and the same applies, for instance, to the anglophone minority in Quebec. However, do you not believe that instead of leaving this question at the subjective level, it would be preferable to set objective criteria? Our committee suggested three examples of criteria to identify positive measures, such as the taking into account of needs, consultation and the assessment of the linguistic impact of the decisions.
What do you think of our recommendations regarding possible criteria for implementing positive measures?
Mr. Moore: We use these criteria internally. However, let me emphasize that Mr. Graham Fraser has no simple formula to determine whether the measure is positive or whether it should improved. The formula is not just simply the level of employment in a given region or sector. It has to do with a continuous commitment to help the organizations on the ground deliver the goods, such as services to minority communities.
We are constantly searching and analyzing, but it is not just a question of imposing a formula containing three or four points, a formula that, for instance, would be right for Rivière-du-Loup as well as Moose Jaw. The realities are entirely different. With some flexibility in policies and in funding, we can establish a formula that reflects the organizations on the ground.
Senator Tardif: Should consultation with the communities not be a compulsory standard? Thus, if we consult francophones in Moose Jaw and Edmonton, before making a decision, we might find out how to respond to their needs. Should consultation not be one of the key factors in developing programs or policies for official languages?
Mr. Moore: Absolutely. My department is carrying out consultations not only in the regions, but also in Ottawa, so as to understand the great diversity that exists in Canada.
Each time I visit a region, be it for Canadian Heritage or for official languages, I always hold a round table. I find that it is important to be personally involved in this file and to personally survey the specific realities of communities all over Canada.
A round table was held especially for the Acadian communities of Prince Edward Island. It gave me an opportunity to hear the real concerns and difficulties that these people had with my department with regard to the investments that were made in their area. After that, we were able to make changes, to formulate a new approach and to make multi- year commitments to the organizations on the ground.
I entirely agree that we must hold round tables and we must have a true formula of continuous commitment for my department, for the officials, for myself personally and also for the MPs in the house.
It is important, for example, that your committee and that of the House of Commons visit communities all over Canada so as to see what their concerns are and so as to understand what they are doing in various situations that are becoming increasingly difficult for organizations of this kind.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Mr. Minister, I have three factual questions and one more general question. I hope the factual ones can be answered quickly.
I was pleased to see you mention the community learning centres. We heard from three of them and they do miraculous work with next to no money. My understanding from them was that the federal money, which has been essential to them, was start-up money.
Can you tell us whether the funding of those extraordinary centres will continue?
Mr. Moore: I will say only that it was given as start-up money, but obviously the experiences we have on that will be ongoing. Some of this money is part of the engagement we have with the provinces, so we are, in some ways, at the mercy of what the provinces have decided their priorities are.
This money is based on agreements that we have with provinces, and in many ways this is a jurisdiction that requires cooperation.
Senator Fraser: What we heard about those centres from the Ministry of Education in Quebec was positive, so I urge you to be positive in those negotiations. That point leads directly to the next question.
We heard from a number of different witnesses that they have been unable to obtain the texts of the federal-provincial agreements for the spending of federal taxpayers' dollars to ascertain what their rights are under those agreements. I appreciate that not all of the agreements come under your ministry, but you are the lead minister on these matters. Do you have, and can you give us, any indication of what the guarantees are for, in this case, English Quebec organizations and individuals, under the various range of federal-provincial agreements?
Mr. Moore: Yes: When I made the announcement of the national agreement on official languages of the provinces, I made it at the Manitoba Legislature. We provided to the media copies of all the agreements, and then we posted them on our department website. If anyone is curious to see them, they can go to our website.
Senator Fraser: Are those agreements not only for your own ministry but for all of them?
Mr. Moore: Ours are: Not all the other aspects, but I am not sure which other aspects you might be referring to.
Senator Fraser: Do you know, for example, whether there was any provision for minority language when the Manpower training agreement was signed for devolution of manpower training?
Mr. Moore: I will be glad to check on that agreement. That was a decision of the previous government. I think I was in high school when that happened.
Senator Fraser: I understand that, but the agreement happened and it was a commitment.
Mr. Moore: In that particular case, I ask that someone contact either Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and ask for a copy or —
Senator Fraser: We have been told that they cannot, so I am asking for your help; we have been told by witnesses that they cannot access the materials.
Mr. Moore: I will look into it. I would be surprised if HRSDC could not provide it. As you know, this agreement was signed under the Liberal government and it was a great cause of celebration for the previous government. I would be surprised if there was a problem with language. I suggest that you or any group curious to see that information contact HRSDC to try to obtain it. If not, perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs might be able to assist.
With regard to my department signing the education agreement in particular, that agreement is available on our department's website. If anybody who is listening to me saying these words has any concerns about that agreement or wants access to it, feel free to contact my office and we will point you in the right direction.
Senator Fraser: I will go to my next question. How do we explain or justify the fact that funding for English Quebec in general is so much lower per capita than funding for francophones in the other provinces?
Mr. Moore: It is different. It is not quite true to say that; do not forget that the vast majority of the money for the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 goes to 15 departmental agencies and departments. That money is meted out across the country equally. The money for the roadmap is spread equally across the country.
However, some agreements — for example, the agreements we have with the provinces — are done differently. Those agreements are based on need, demand and requests of provinces. As you know, the Province of Quebec has about one million people who claim to be English-speaking —
Senator Fraser: Who are English-speaking.
Mr. Moore: Yes, who are English-speaking, but who declare English as their first language. Two thirds of those people are Anglophones and one third are new Canadians who say that they speak English as a first language but it is not necessarily their first language.
Therefore, we are speaking about the funding that my department provides under the road map, but there is also funding that exists in other departments. I know the Department of Citizenship and Immigration also provide funds for that one third of Quebecers who speak English as their first language but for whom English may not be —
Senator Fraser: Their mother tongue, yes.
Mr. Moore: A number of programs exist there. Quebec has its own immigration policies and dynamic, so these are often shared responsibilities.
I do not think it is fair to say that Quebec receives less money, because the relationship between the federal government and the Province of Quebec, legally and politically, is much more complicated than the rest of the country.
With the roadmap, there is no shortage of funding for this group. We are spending 20 per cent more than any government has spent before in Canadian history. We are spending much more money than people realize with regard to supporting official languages in this country.
Senator Fraser: And long may you and successive others do so, but I was interested in the discrepancy.
I will go now to my more general question. What do you see as being the core differences between English-speaking Quebec and the French-speaking communities elsewhere, and what are the main challenges that need to be addressed for the two? How do you see the difference, or do you see a difference?
Mr. Moore: Are you asking about the differences between the English-language minority in Quebec and French- language minorities elsewhere? That is a big question. I think I have 45 seconds.
Senator Fraser: If you want to write us an answer, you may.
Mr. Moore: I come from the West Coast of Canada in an ocean-front riding. However, my sense is that the vast majority of English-speaking Quebecers are specifically in the city of Montreal. The dynamic in the province of Quebec is one that has quite a division. If one is an anglophone Quebecer and not living in the city of Montreal, I think the difficulties one faces are absolutely on par with the francophone community living in Peace River, Alberta. That is to say, one might be in a really distinct, aggressive minority situation, and I think that is a real problem.
The politics of language in Quebec are so difficult and so charged that a lot of these groups need the federal government support and engagement of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Official Languages Commissioner, myself, the Prime Minister and everybody to ensure that their voices are heard, respected and understood, not only within the context of federal funding, but as an ongoing political engagement.
Conversely, regarding francophone communities that are in a minority situation outside the province of Quebec, I have a miniscule francophone community in my riding. They are earnest, they try and work hard. Their proactive engagement is incredibly impressive, but both situations face real challenges.
I think an anglophone community outside of Montreal, specifically in rural Quebec, is a community that is not heard often enough. That is why the road map is important. If I may say, this is why I think the Senate is important. Many of these communities are represented by Bloc Québécois members of Parliament who wish such communities were not there at all, and I think this is something that is not said often enough, and I think it is a real challenge.
Madam Chair, I know I am trespassing on the time of others, but I have to say that I find it refreshing to read Senate reports, see Senate engagement on official languages, and recognize that everybody around this table looks at official languages in the context of national unit, although we might quarrel about amounts of funding and the way funding is delivered. That is not a debate that happens in the House of Commons and it is not a debate that happens on the ground when it comes to delivering these services.
It is difficult for anglophone communities in real situations of being real minority communities that have elected members of Parliament allegedly acting on their behalf who are aggressively trying to squash any federal funding for their very existence. I think that is something we who are nationalists and real federalists have to continue fighting against.
Senator Seidman: Mr. Minister, thank you for your enthusiasm and your commitment to promoting and protecting bilingualism in Canada.
I think you will see that our questions are similar this morning. That is probably a testimony to the travels in Quebec. The Anglo communities who met with us sounded similar themes and concerns, and I will continue to pursue these issues in my questions.
As we travelled in Quebec and as we spoke with members and organizations of the Anglo minority communities, they all referred to the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 and its importance in providing much needed resources. Often, we heard that because the Anglo minority communities are all in Quebec, in one province, that they may not receive the same attention, focus and "fair share" of the resources.
It is true that the federal government is spending about $1.1 billion, I think that number is correct, and there is an additional investment of, I think, $266 million. However, how do we ensure that the Anglo communities in Quebec receive their fair share and that there is real continuity to ensure their vitality?
Mr. Moore: Without repeating myself, we obviously have an ongoing engagement. The funding that we have put in place and the agreements that we have with provinces ensures that this funding is spread equally across the country, to the best of our ability. I am looking at my notes here.
The Quebec anglophone community is a major recipient; in 2009-10, 22 per cent of the Development of Official- Language Communities Program components' budget went to Quebec's anglophone community. Quebec is roughly 23.5 per cent of Canada's population, so I think 1.5 per cent margin of error is not bad. We can tighten that a little bit but we are doing pretty well.
Of that budget, $46.5 million was allocated to the government of Quebec for their minority language education system. Quebec anglophone community organizations received $4.2 million from the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is obviously a substantive amount; and we have $450,000 allocated to Quebec's anglophone community from our Cultural Development Fund.
I take Senator Tardif's point about not only equal distribution of funds, but ensuring the funds are supported and spent effectively with an analysis. That, of course, is the aspiration of all of us.
However, there are funds that are not within the context of the roadmap that go to support organizations and events — for example, Canada Day events. In some communities, those events are organized by many people in the anglophone community, whereas they may be competing sometimes with funding from the Province of Quebec for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and other things.
These funds are for the federal government to have a presence by supporting cultural organizations and events on the ground that allow everybody in the community, francophones and anglophones, to come together in celebration of events that are uniting and not dividing. Hopefully, communities do not see people as anglophone or francophone, but we see ourselves as all members of Saint Jean, Quebec or wherever — that everybody comes together for these events. This funding does not have a tag of official language funding for the anglophone community in Quebec, but it is beneficial because it draws people from the communities together in celebration.
This is why I want to underline that we added a new pillar in the roadmap, which is to create a new envelope of funding for arts and culture. Arts and culture bring people together. Sport does it too, but arts and culture do it better. They bring people together in community events: They take people out of their homes, off their couches and out into a community event where we can have a shared cultural experience.
If it is performing arts, dance, music, a community parade or engagement of a celebration of something that is important in our past, it brings all people together to have a shared cultural experience, where we all experience something that unites us.
That funding is not only in the roadmap. We have committed $14 million to cultural events and arts and culture within the road map, but beyond that, we have programs across the government — the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program and the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, et cetera — that form these functions.
This funding is a subjective thing and it is hard to peg, which is why I get my back up a little bit when people suggest that funding is not necessarily divided equally across the country. We have a 1.5 per cent margin, but Quebec is receiving more than its fair share in this regard from the roadmap.
Keep in mind, by the way, that Canada is the only country in the G8 that has increased — not maintained, not cut — our funding for arts and culture in a recession. We are the only country in the G8 that has increased funding. We have increased funding because we recognize the importance of arts and culture when it comes to keeping communities healthy and strong in the time of an economic downturn. That importance is well reflected when it comes to official language communities and keeping people united through difficult times.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate that response.
Senator Munson: I am a guest here as the Liberal whip, but I want to expand upon that comment on economic tough times. Sometimes we lose sight of how important the investment is in language, art and culture. These days, when the government is preaching economic restraint, departments are being squeezed and Minister Day probably has a shopping list of what he has to do, do you think this restraint will hamper your efforts in delivering programs to English-language communities in Quebec? I also have one other question, briefly.
Mr. Moore: I do not think so. As you know, the roadmap on official languages is a five-year agreement that goes until 2013. This roadmap is something that came, as well, out of consultations with arts and culture organizations, not only official language communities across the country.
When I was appointed Minister of Heritage just over two years ago, I jumped into this portfolio. Prior to that, I was the transport critic. Prior to that, I was the foreign affairs critic from the opposition. To be fair, this portfolio was new for me.
With the greatest respect to my ministerial folks here in Ottawa, I wanted to go outside of Ottawa and listen to cultural organizations across the country. There was some diversity in views of cultural organizations across the country, but there was also unanimity of views from cultural organizations across the country.
One view was, of course, listen to us; two was, please do not cut us; three was, please increase us; and four was, if you can, make these agreements for our funding on a multi-year basis so we can plan, going forward.
If you look at the funding envelopes we have put in place for the Canada Book Fund, the Canada Periodical Fund and the Canada Council for the Arts, almost all of these funds are on the bases of two-, three- and five-year funding formulas. For example, when we announced our funding for the Canada Music Fund — the music industry is under a great deal of pressure, which is one reason we have our copyright legislation before the house — we gave record amounts of funding. We increased the funding and locked it in for five years. Canada's music industry across the country has record levels of funding locked in for five years so that the industry has certainty.
As I said when we made the announcement for all these cultural funds, this funding will ensure that arts and culture will not be a target of cuts and will not be impacted by the recession. The announcement was incredibly well received.
Heather Ostertag, who is the former chair of the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings, FACTOR, which is one of the largest funding organisms for music across the country, said:
What is provided in Canada to support our artists is the envy of the world.
In a recession, we locked in funding for five years, and that was unheard of. MUSICACTION, which is the French equivalent of FACTOR within the province of Quebec, received funding locked in for five years.
I know there are a lot of perceptions about my party and a lot of perceptions about our government. However, the reality is, we are the only government in the G8 that has increased funding for the arts in a time of recession, and we locked in that funding for the vast majority of our funding envelopes for five years. That support is unprecedented.
Senator Munson: To paraphrase you, you said that many of the ridings in Quebec are represented by the Bloc Québécois. You used tough language; I think you mentioned that they wished English Quebecers were not there at all. That is strong language about another group of people representing Quebec.
Mr. Moore: You should hear what I hear them say in the House of Commons. I sit opposite the Bloc Québécois.
Senator Munson: Right. And?
Mr. Moore: They say, "Allez-vous-en, les anglophones." You hear that said in the House of Commons. Obviously, they are elected members of Parliament and have a right to serve. However, I hope that all members of Parliament, regardless of political party, have as their operating philosophy that they have an obligation to represent all their constituents.
Obviously, from the things I have heard, from the questions I have received in committee and in the House of Commons, not all members of Parliament share that view, and that is disappointing.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Perhaps you will be able to answer the first part of my question very quickly, but then again perhaps not.
You have been in charge of official languages and Canadian Heritage for two and a half years. In your opinion, what was the main achievement of the federal government, for instance, in the implementation of Part VII? What do you consider that you have done since you occupy this position that has truly been a step forward?
Second, if you had to make a wish for the future, what would it be? What is the next step that you would like to take?
Mr. Moore: I think that it would be to obtain a clear commitment from the provinces to this Canadian project. For instance, in my province of British Columbia, under the government of Gordon Campbell, there was a minister in charge of La Francophonie. During the Olympic Games, there was a minister in charge of La Francophonie who was called Naomi Yamamoto. For the Olympic Games there was a minister for La Francophonie, but now, there is no longer a minister for La Francophonie.
Senator Champagne: He is no longer premier either, because he resigned.
Mr. Moore: Yes. But there is no one in charge of La Francophonie in his cabinet. In Vancouver, French is the seventh official language and this presents some problems. For each province, there must be someone in charge of making sure that the funds distributed by our government to the provinces be paid. These funds must not serve only for education and social services, but also the francophone communities. This is important for Canada as a whole and it is up to each government to decide what its cabinet is responsible for.
Senator Champagne: This is your wish and you are entitled to it. What are you the most proud of since you have been in this position?
Mr. Moore: It was the Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2010, from the beginning to the end with Pascal Couchepin, the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie who stated: "It is difficult to do any better than this for the Olympic Games."
When this big project began, let me tell you that we had many problems with VANOC. We had difficulty in getting real commitments from the City of Vancouver and from the Province of British Columbia. The websites, the road signs and the posters were in English only. The volunteers on the ground did not speak any French either. There was not even a telephone number that a francophone could dial to get information about the bus service.
[English]
In English, they would hear, "I don't know. I can't help you." From a complete standing start, we delivered the most bilingual games in Olympic history, and I am proud of where we started from to where we ended. It was an incredible achievement, not of any one level of government but everyone slowly coming to the realization in the weeks and months immediately preceding the Games, where the Mayor of Vancouver, the Premier of British Columbia and everyone woke up and realized, these games are being funded and supported by taxpayers in all of the country.
[Translation]
Marie-Claude and Jean-François who are at home in Rimouski, in Quebec, have the same rights.
[English]
They have the same right to watch the Olympics games in the language of their choice and to have full access to the games as somebody from Burnaby because they are paying for the games every bit as much as a Vancouverite is paying for them.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: As you know, we worked very hard together with you on this project. Given the fact that you cannot give orders to the CRTC, you can nonetheless express a wish or an opinion.
How do you perceive the importance of a network like TV5? For instance, for our minority francophone communities, we know that during the coming months the CRTC will have to decide whether or not TV5 should become a statutory network. I think that for francophones in all regions, these images of the cultural diversity within La Francophonie are certainly an asset, especially for those who only have Radio-Canada as is sometimes the case. Do you believe that it would be good for the francophone communities to keep TV5 as a network that they can access without having to pay a maximum price to the cable distributor?
Mr. Moore: Personally, I have confidence in TV5. This is why during the last electoral campaign we made a commitment to help increase the funding for the TV5 network. We are now in the fourth year of the agreement that we reached with TV5.
Last year, we met the ministers in charge, especially Ms. Christine Saint-Pierre, Quebec's Minister of Culture who was present here in Ottawa. We congratulate TV5 for the quality of its programs. It is really fantastic and this quality is recognized the world over as constituting an important presence of La Francophonie.
I will not get involved in CRTC procedures. But as far as you are concerned, as a respected senator, a Canadian with commitments in the social and cultural environment, are you free to make any kind of commitment in favour of TV5. But as the minister responsible for the CRTC, I will remain independent when it comes to decision-making.
Senator Champagne: However, I understand that citizen James Moore is in favour of this.
Mr. Moore: Not me personally, but I believe that the government, with its funding and its multi-year commitment to help TV5, believes that TV5 is a very valuable entity.
Senator Rivard: I was sitting on another Senate committee and unfortunately I was unable to follow the hearings that took place in Quebec. Earlier, when Senator Fortin-Duplessis mentioned the problems that some groups of people were experiencing in some regions, I was surprised. I know that you have all that you need to remedy the situation so that the provinces are treated on an equal footing.
I was also very glad to hear that the government is making commitments for the 2015 Olympic Games. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, there was criticism from Quebec regarding the lack of French. This was probably exaggerated, but it was probably a wake-up call to make sure that in 2015 we do not come up short. We are relying on the government to normalize the situation and to avoid criticism.
You were born in British Columbia and you were saying that French was the seventh most spoken official language in your region. And despite your youth, you took the trouble to learn French, and your French is more than acceptable. It is an inspiration to me. I have spent my life in Quebec City. In my 30 years of political life in Quebec City, I may have had occasion to speak English for one hour per year. I am currently taking English classes and my challenge to myself is for my English to be as good as your French by the end of my term here as a senator. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Moore: You are too kind.
During the Olympics, Graham Fraser visited and we visited Maillardville, which is the largest francophone community west of Manitoba.
[English]
When we went to le Festival du Bois, I took him in and it was a special moment. I do not want to overstate it or sound corny, but it was one of those moments when you get a little lump in your throat. We were standing under a tent on a rainy, perfectly Vancouver day. It was miserable.
We were huddled under this tent for the Festival du Bois and I was standing there with Graham Fraser. A children's choir from the local elementary school came to the festival. This choir was two thirds visibility minorities; half to three quarters of the students there were first- or maybe second-generation Canadians. My constituency is more than one third first- and second-generation Canadians; we have a high immigrant community.
We had all these students from varied backgrounds, such as Chinese and Koreans — more Koreans live in my riding than any other riding in Canada. It was a diverse group of about 50 kids in front of us. They stood up and sang "O Canada" entirely in French.
I am an anglophone standing next to Graham Fraser, who is also an anglophone. There are 40 or 50 kids in front of us, singing "O Canada" entirely in French. The parents of probably half these students struggle in either of Canada's official languages. I do not think there was a person in the immediate audience who was francophone. Regardless, there we were, making an effort to ensure Canada's French official language was being well heard and sung.
It was a special and touching moment to see these kids who face all kinds of struggles because they are new Canadians — the kinds of language-and-cultural-barrier struggles I can only empathize with. Their parents might not speak either of Canada's official languages with a great deal of efficiency. Yet here they were, making an effort to learn Canada's second official language as a British Columbian, and sing "O Canada" in French to people who were huddled in the rain.
It was a special moment and I thought, "These are the kinds of efforts that, over and over and over again, will sustain the French fact well beyond the province of Quebec."
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Mr. Minister, I think you are proof that immersion schools can work and do work well.
I still hope you will find time to send that little message to our friends in Louisiana, who are currently establishing immersion schools to train people to become as bilingual as you have become. Thank you for coming to see us this morning.
Mr. Moore: My pleasure. Canada's immersion schools are a very important legacy of the past. We hope the Canadian provinces will continue to invest in them. They are an infrastructure for youth and for the protection of the French fact in Canada. They are essential for the future.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, on behalf of committee members, I would like to thank you sincerely for appearing before our committee this morning.
I would like to thank you for your commitment and for your kind words on the work of this committee. We want to keep up the work we are currently doing.
We count on your support and cooperation, and we also count on your understanding and your support for the recommendations resulting from the hard work of this committee. We have great expectations of you and hope that they will be lived up to.
(The committee adjourned.)