Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 20 - Evidence - Meeting of February 5, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, February 5, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:01 p.m. to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello. I am René Cormier, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to chair the meeting this evening.
The Standing Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second part of its study on the views of official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Today the committee welcomes organizations in the arts and culture sector and cultural industries in Canada’s francophone communities.
We are pleased to welcome Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Frédéric Brisson, Executive Director of the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens, and Benoit Henry, Executive Director of the Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale.
Before I give turn it over to our witnesses, I would ask the committee members to kindly introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You have the floor, Ms. Pilon.
Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada: Hello. First of all, I would like to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before you and in this way contribute to your study on the Official Languages Act.
The alliance I represent is crucial to the vitality of francophone minority communities in Canada: every day its members produce television programs, documentaries, drama and youth series, as well as other media content that tells the stories of these communities. Our images give francophones in Canada the opportunity to see themselves on the screen, recognize themselves, and forge a distinct cultural identity that makes them full-fledged members of the francophone communities in Canada and around the world.
My remarks will therefore pertain primarily to factors that support the vitality of francophone communities in Canada and to the importance of audiovisual productions for the development of strong and vibrant contemporary communities. I would like in particular to talk about Part VII of the act which addresses the promotion of French and English through measures that the federal government has a duty to implement to foster the vitality of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada.
My remarks are intended to give committee members a few examples of positive measures that have had a significant impact on the vitality of francophone communities in Canada. These measures should serve as inspiration to the government in modernizing the act.
Living in French in all provinces of Canada is first and foremost a cultural undertaking. It is indeed through culture that our shared French language becomes a specific identity, be it Franco-Ontarian, Acadian, or that of the francophones of Saskatchewan, and that we are not merely speakers of French spread out from sea to sea, but rather representatives of the country’s cultural richness. As the authors Hédi Bouraoui and Jacques Flamand noted in 1949, we are in a double minority relative to the anglophone majority in all of North America, but also relative to francophone culture in Quebec. Yet the choice to live in French and our community members’ determination have led to the development of unique forms of cultural expression that reflect that distinct cultural identity.
The whole network of French-Canadian arts and culture organizations has stressed this fundamental link between language and culture for years. Cultural practices are in fact what give meaning to the use of language, since it is through those practices that we can access cultures that would be foreign to us without a mastery of the language. It is also by enjoying cultural products, films, books and performances that we refine our knowledge of language, that we support it, and develop a sense of belonging to our linguistic group, which contributes to our sense of linguistic security.
This logic is especially important for minority communities such as ours since the language of the majority is everywhere and English-language cultural products provide strong competition for French-language products. Thus the threat of assimilation is still very real in many communities across the country today, especially in the current context where perfectly bilingual young people are huge consumers of English-language cultural products. With regard to the media, it goes without saying that the competition between the two languages and two cultural worlds is not fair, since their productions have seemingly unlimited resources compared to ours.
It is in fact because of demographic imbalances that the Parliament of Canada wisely established a legislative framework to foster the development of linguistic and cultural minorities in Canada. The Official Languages Act is a major component of this legislative framework that preserves our distinct culture. Part VII of the act stipulates that positive measures must be taken by various federal institutions to support community vitality.
With the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of this act, however, we must recognize that these positive measures are too often left up to the good will of department heads. As a result, francophone communities in Canada take one step forward and one step back, depending on the sensitivity of the successive heads of federal departments.
I would like to provide two examples of concrete measures related to media production that illustrate that more was done than simply appeal to the leaders’ openness to the francophone cause. In both cases, clear criteria were established for the institutions’ commitment to French-language media production in Canada.
Since 2004, the contribution agreement between Canadian Heritage and the Canada Media Fund provides that a minimum of 10 per cent of the annual funding for French-language media must go to French-language production in minority communities. This measure has had a significant impact on the media production community that I represent. In 2015-16 alone, for example, close to $29 million went to French-language production, which means there is a lot of media content on our screens right now that supports francophone communities in Canada. Further, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission also imposed requirements and quotas on public and private broadcasters in Canada, which creates broadcasting space for Canadian productions.
As a result of these two measures combined, stories about Canada’s francophone communities are being picked up by producers who have the resources to tell them and the broadcasting space to show them off to all Canadians. These two examples illustrate how positive measures with specific and long-term criteria can have a profound effect on the communities’ means of expression. The fact remains, however, that French-language production in minority communities accounts for just 4 per cent of all French-language production in Canada, which is far below its demographic weight. While this gap must be closed, we believe this is a model that should eventually be extended to other agencies that support the arts and culture.
Alongside these mandatory measures, we believe that incentive measures have also yielded very good results. This was the case with the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities, or IPOLC, managed by the Department of Canadian Heritage from 2000 to 2008. This program enabled federal institutions to obtain funding matching their own investments in community support programs.
With regard to media production, this led to a number of very interesting initiatives. For example, the National Film Board created the Tremplin program, which helped young francophone directors write and produce their first film, while Telefilm Canada developed fiction training for media production in minority communities. Unfortunately, the end of the program meant the end of certain initiatives, but they had a significant impact nonetheless. By way of illustration, for the first time in our history, four drama series were created in a single fiscal year last year. Moreover, the APFC welcomed six new members in 2017-18, showing once again that the importance of sustained measures in order to support community development.
These examples clearly illustrate that strengthening institutions’ obligations produces results. In updating the act, we think therefore that the current framework of obligations for federal institutions must be strengthened in order to create more specific obligations toward the communities. Whereas these institutions are constantly asking small organizations such as the one I represent to demonstrate the impact of their actions on community development, it only seems fair that the same standards should apply to their own actions.
The Official Languages Act is vital to cultural life in Canada. It is thanks to this legislation that Canada has been able to preserve and develop a distinct culture that is the very essence of the country. This distinct culture enriches the lives of Canadians every day, while projecting a unique image of our country internationally. In preparing the next version of the act, the Canadian government must not forget that Canada’s bilingualism and biculturalism are among its greatest assets and that it is more important than ever to promote them within and outside our borders. The arts and culture, and contemporary media production in particular, are outstanding calling cards in this regard. The boom in these sectors right now can only further the objectives of the federal government’s cultural and international policy. The federal institutions that support the arts and culture must therefore take full advantage of the outstanding potential of our productions and help us promote them to all markets.
Frédéric Brisson, Executive Director, Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens: Hello, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today. I represent the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens, or ERFC, an organization that represents 17 publishers right across the country: four in Acadie, nine in Ontario, and four in Western Canada. These publishers are the heart and soul of their communities’ literary networks. Not only do they publish works by authors from all over that all communities can enjoy, but they also help authors who attend schools and cultural institutions in their region to be creative and active on the literary scene.
Whereas the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens and its members have a shared vision of Canadian identity, wherein the First Nations and the two founding cultures have settled the country, and have developed and continue to represent the essential pillars in building the nation; whereas the REFC and its members believe that all francophone communities right across the country, including those in a minority, actively contribute to the expression and vitality of francophone cultural space, which is not limited to French-speaking Quebec and must be supported by federal cultural institutions as essential components of Canadian reality; whereas the objective of the REFC is for francophone culture to be omnipresent in its many expressions right across Canada and to include a pool of artists, a network of businesses and cultural organizations, an audience and markets throughout the communities; and whereas the REFC recognizes the vital contribution of the Official Languages Act to Canadian identity and acknowledges the willingness of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to consider the modernization of the act, especially Part VII, which pertains more specifically to the obligations of federal institutions — I will focus on certain issues within the committee’s mandate —, do the federal institutions themselves sufficiently recognize the importance of promoting the two official languages? Do the measures taken by federal institutions foster the development and vitality of official language minority communities? Should the mechanisms for consulting official language communities be strengthened? Should a regulatory framework be put in place for the implementation of Part VII of the act?
On these matters that are so vital to the REFC’s activities, we would like a firm commitment, while we are on the ground, to real community development and more upstream collaboration between federal institutions and official language community organizations. As to the firm commitment to real community development, Part VII of the act provides that the government is committed to “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities” and that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for fostering and encouraging coordination in the implementation of the act. Part VII also states that:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1).
In the mid-1990s, we saw strong political will to follow through on these commitments. First, there was the multilateral agreement between the FCCF, the Department of Canadian Heritage and federal institutions such as the Canada Council for the Arts and Radio-Canada. This agreement was very productive and had a significant impact. Second, as Ms. Pilon noted, there was IPOLC, a similar initiative, which shows that significant results can be achieved with good will and dialogue. Radio-Canada’s Prix des lecteurs initiative, for example, was a direct result of this dialogue and the stakeholders’ desire for results.
Twenty years later, it is all petering out somewhat. There is still dialogue, but the commitment is not as strong. We have had the official languages action plan, created when Stéphane Dion was Minister of Canadian Heritage in 2003. Then we saw the roadmap for Canada’s linguistic duality in 2008 and the roadmap for Canada’s official languages in 2013. We are now awaiting an official languages action plan for 2018. Those were structural initiatives whose impact must be recognized. As an organization that promotes and encourages the effects of the act, Canadian Heritage can be seen as a strong arm in fostering the implementation of the act.
For there to be positive results, however, this effort requires a strong commitment. A clear political commitment, reflected in both words and financial support, will set the tone for all federal institutions that will then follow suit.
There has been some erosion of this regard in the past 10 years. It is not the fault of any specific individuals, but rather can be attributed to change over the medium term that could be countered by a stronger commitment, either by Canadian Heritage or in the act. That is what brings us here today. Governments come and go, but the act is a stronger and more long-term commitment. If the act has teeth, if it leads to more specific commitments and stronger accountability, the machinery of government will follow suit. The work you are doing right now is absolutely essential for the future since it will set the tone for the next 20 to 40 years. This must not in any way be overlooked. On the contrary, establishing accountability and regulations in the act will produce real results which, in the opinion of the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens, are essential.
Second is the issue of encouraging stronger collaboration upstream with official language minority community organizations. In our dealings with certain federal institutions such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Radio-Canada or the Canada Book fund — I am referring to the publishing sector, of course —, certain events have led us to fear that the commitment of these federal institutions to official language minority communities is waning.
Let me give you a very simple example. The Canada Council for the Arts administers an official language fund that is funded by Canadian Heritage. This fund is managed at the discretion of the Canada Council to address the needs it sees on the ground. The fund is worth $800,000, that is, $400,000 for francophone communities and $400,000 for anglophone communities. In the opinion of the REFC, the lack of clear rules for the awarding of this funding leads to confusion. For a number of years, the RECF has received a modest $15,000 from this fund in January, but we do not know if it is recurring funding, whether it will be increased the next year or will be cut.
Moreover, with the revamp of Canada Council programs this year, the new approach is not discipline-specific, making it even more difficult to find out who at the Canada Council makes the decisions on awarding this funding, who makes sure it addresses the needs, and even how the money is spent since it seems to extend beyond the new programs.
In short, the official languages fund is intended as a tool for the development of community organizations, but it is proving to be less effective than it could be, and collaboration with organizations on the ground could occur much further upstream and be more effective. Essentially, since we do not know how or why these funds are awarded, the results are difficult to measure and not likely to be significant for the community. This money is important to us of course, but we would like to know how to work with federal institutions so that projects yield more significant results, and are more innovative and creative in order to achieve the flexibility that would move us forward rather than leaving us where we are.
On another matter, we would also like to mention the growing attention that institutions such as the Canada Council for the Arts and the Canada Book Fund are paying to cultural diversity and equity. This is slippery ground though. This greater sensitivity to the reality of all Canadian minorities is certainly very commendable, from the First Nations to visible minorities, to persons with disabilities, the LGBTQ2 community, and so forth. We strongly support the attention given to all minorities in Canadian society.
There are nonetheless some unexpected results of this openness, which I could describe as “fawning” in the forms. If at the end of the form, most of the population could check off that they belong to a minority for one reason or another, whether from an official language minority community, a First Nation, or have a disability, and so forth, ultimately this creates a statistical effect for everyone, but does not do justice to the official language minority communities, or the LGBT community which has struggled a great deal to effect change, or the First Nations which have their own challenges, or persons with disabilities who experience difficulties every day that are very different from those that official language minority communities and others face. Each has their own challenges that need to be analyzed and projects need to be developed to address those communities’ needs, rather than being part of a catch-all, a big grab-bag that is supposed to help the managers of federal institutions say they are attentive to minorities while in reality we get statistics that do not help the communities and organizations on the ground which are in tune with the needs and challenges involved in creating projects that will have significant and promising effects.
On the ground, we feel everything has been watered down in the past 10 years. In our opinion, as part of the study of the Official Languages Act, adding greater accountability and more appropriate regulations in Part VII of the act would provide for the more harmonious development of official language minority communities that better reflects all their needs and that will be more promising and winning for all of Canadian society.
Thank you.
Benoit Henry, Executive Director, Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale: Thank you for this opportunity to present my thoughts which, in my case, were prompted by the call from the committee clerk.
I will argue that, in the case of certain federal institutions, there are still ways of circumventing the act or not living up to its spirit. I will talk about positive measures, as well as the obligation to consult as regards what is currently in the act that should be strengthened or better enforced. The act includes a number of things which, if fully implemented, would further the cause of official language communities.
The third topic I would like to discuss is infrastructure governance in our communities. In parallel to the right to education, we ask whether the right to culture should not also be recognized. Just as school boards have won the right to manage their schools, for instance, should our communities not be granted recognition in the act to so they can fully play their governance role?
On the first matter, the issue of positive measures, certain federal institutions — and I will mention just one, the Canada Council for the Arts — are able to circumvent this. By applying certain basic principles such as the recognition of excellence and peer review across the board, the Canada Council hurts or does not take positive measures for francophone and Acadian communities. This can be understood in various ways and has a variety of effects. There are separate disciplines, such as the media arts. Why do Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto get the biggest piece of the pie? Very simply, it is because big cities have infrastructure that supports the media arts. Our communities are much more rural and do not have the necessary infrastructure, that is, production studios. In short, applying the criterion of excellence means that excellence in our communities is not recognized. Excellence is recognized at the national level.
Music is quite a good example. The main form of music in francophone and Acadian communities is singing. Beside the noble art of classical music, however, the little songs of our communities are never excellent enough to get the support of my peers. Right now, I am having problems with the Canada Council myself, and it is bothering me. When they tell me that there is no excellence, I am sorry, but there is excellence in my community. As to the judgment of my peers, who are my peers? I am from the Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, or ANIM and I work with artists and managers, professionals who are starving. The jury of peers who will assess my application is the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra and institutions like that. How can we win? As a result of this principle, the Canada Council is not serving its intended role or does not adequately meet the requirements of the act as regards positive measures.
There is also the obligation to consult. I would like to refer to a study carried out by the University of Ottawa in 2002. The legal experts Mark Power, Perri Ravon and David Taylor of Power Law conducted an impact study on the obligation of federal institutions to consult official language minority communities. The study is available on the university’s website. I could provide it to you. Let me quote a short passage from it, which can be roughly translated as follows:
While section 41 does not specifically refer to the government’s duty to consult official language minority communities, there are several convincing legal arguments that the obligations set out in section 41 require that consultation.
Will we leave it up to the courts to decide again? There were many legal challenges a few years ago, such as the Desrochers case. There have been many legal decisions about the duty to consult. Yet this is not clearly stipulated in the act. No doubt it should be.
Further, there are certain areas in which this duty to consult is not acted on as it should be and this hurts our francophone and Acadian communities. Canadian Heritage does not recognize the CRTC as an institution that offers programs and services, even though it is a quasi-judicial body that makes decisions that constantly affect our communities in multiple ways. A few years ago, in 2012-13, the CRTC was designated as a federal institution under the Official Languages Act, and a working group turned into a discussion group. It implemented an official languages action plan. It works much further upstream in terms of informing us of notices and upcoming hearings, but we are a small group of 10 people and we are about the only ones who are informed. I do not think the Acadian community is aware of the hearings that might be of interest or even that such hearings take place. Under the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has the duty to inform the public through major newspapers. Has the CRTC even once advertised in the local newspapers or on community radio to inform people across the country of a hearing? Although the CRTC agreed to be designated — it had no choice other than to be designated under the Official Languages Act —, and it has taken a number of measures, even today there are things that do not add up.
In 2012, ANIM was at the public hearing when Sirius undertook a major transaction that would affect the development of Canadian content, resulting in radio broadcasters having to make percentage-based contributions to funds such as Musicaction, FACTOR and the Community Radio Fund of Canada. I attended the hearings, which lasted days, if not weeks. In short, the issues associated with mandatory consultation were addressed, but the mechanism needs to be strengthened, in my view.
Lastly, we have an entire network that is active in communities, one that could often be said to resemble a municipal authority. I was also director of Carrefour de l’Isle-Saint-Jean in another life. Where could you find the most books? At the Carrefour de l’Isle-Saint-Jean library. Where could you watch French-language plays and listen to musical performances in French? At the Carrefour de l’Isle-Saint-Jean. Although it is not enshrined in Canada’s Constitution in the same way that the right to French-language education in our communities is, the right to culture duly raises the following question. Should we not think about how to integrate the notion of empowerment, of capacity, in other words, the act of giving a person or group the legal ability to make decisions? How could the act allow for such a thing? Is it even possible?
Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks to the three of you. We will now proceed with questions.
Senator Mégie: Thanks to the three of you for your presentations and for the vital points you raised.
Ms. Pilon, I’d like to discuss with you the current impact of the digital shift. You said it poses a danger to Canadian content. Dealing with the challenge requires a financial commitment. From what Mr. Brisson said, funding allocations have been eroded over the past decade.
Have you given any thought to how to overcome the challenge and how the Official Languages Act could help in that respect?
Ms. Pilon: The government announced that it would review the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. We wholeheartedly believe that the road to changing how support for Canadian content is provided in Canada is through both of those acts. If major changes are not made to those acts, it could undermine all the work that has been done over the years, not to mention our broadcasting sovereignty in Canada.
Of course, the Official Languages Act could strengthen any mechanisms established under the two acts. In light of its obligations under the Official Languages Act, the CRTC must demonstrate that it has taken tangible measures. The CRTC is also required to take positive measures and must consult with communities before making decisions that could negatively affect them. That said, the CRTC nevertheless did away with the Local Program Improvement Fund. Despite the fact that communities rallied in favour of the program to underscore its importance, the CRTC still made the decision to eliminate it.
The act has its limits. A complaint was filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages but went nowhere because the commissioner lacked the power, I believe, to make the CRTC fulfil its obligations. I definitely think it’s necessary to strengthen the enforcement mechanism available to the Commissioner of Official Languages so that the commissioner can force institutions subject to the act to respect it.
I know I’m a bit off-topic, with respect to your question about the digital shift, but my point is this. Short of aligning all of these elements in way that subjects the country’s other acts to official languages scrutiny, all we are doing is taking one step forward and one step back. Something else that is important to understand is that we have to fight, we have to fight, we have to fight. Small organizations like ours have to go to court and make representations — Right now, you have the APFC before you, sitting at the table. Clearly, we get involved, we want to be consulted, but, at the same time, I think the government has a responsibility to make sure that official language minority communities are protected when changes are imminent.
Senator Mégie: If I understand correctly, part of the solution is also to give the Commissioner of Official Languages more power.
Ms. Pilon: Yes, but it has to be triggered by a complaint, and what we want to see are positive measures, before a complaint is necessary. If we have no choice, though, we would like the commissioner to have the authority to impose changes and reverse decisions that contravene the spirit of the act.
Senator Maltais: Welcome to all three of you, and thank you for expressing your points of view with such eloquence and passion. I’d like to discuss the quote unquote Canada Council for the Arts. How well does it work for francophones outside Quebec?
Mr. Henry: Our figures are a bit outdated. A few years ago, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française published a facts and figures document entitled Chiffres à l’appui. It was somewhat hard to get a hold of. The figures fall well short of our demographic weight. It’s important to point out that the application of the excellence principle has led to an urban-rural gap.
I did some quick calculations a couple of years ago, and I came to the conclusion that Quebecers receive twice as much funding per capita as New Brunswickers. We are talking double.
Senator Maltais: At the last Acadian World Congress, which took place in Edmundston, a small group of francophone senators and I visited different parts of French-speaking New Brunswick, attending plays and taking part in other activities, against the backdrop of the congress. We also enjoyed performances by singers and small symphony orchestras. We had some very interesting discussions with the artists, but when we mentioned the Canada Council for the Arts, it was as though we were speaking gibberish. They asked us what planet we were on. The council isn’t very popular among francophone minorities in Shediac, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary or Winnipeg.
How is Radio-Canada treating francophone minorities these days? Have things improved since the government gave the public broadcaster an injection of $875 million — $75 million this year and $150 million in the years thereafter? Have you reaped any benefits at all?
Ms. Pilon: I can tell you that our relationship with Radio-Canada has never been as good as it is now.
Senator Maltais: I see.
Ms. Pilon: It’s important to note that Radio-Canada will soon be undergoing a renewal.
Senator Maltais: In terms of dollars, though, how much more did you receive this last year?
Ms. Pilon: I wish I could tell you, but that would require figures and information we are not allowed to access without the CRTC’s permission through Radio-Canada.
Senator Maltais: Minority francophone communities also look at us as though we are speaking gibberish when the topic of Radio-Canada comes up. Is Radio-Canada going to cover communities in Western Canada, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? How involved is Radio-Canada in francophone culture outside Quebec? Have you noticed an improvement service-wise or dollar-wise?
Ms. Pilon: The news and media coverage are one thing. Independent production is something else altogether. They are two different things. I can tell you, though, that, on the independent production front, things are going fairly well.
Senator Maltais: What additional content will you be producing this year over last year?
Ms. Pilon: Radio-Canada launched two dramas in the Acadie region this year, with a single independent producer. That is unprecedented.
Senator Maltais: Very well.
Ms. Pilon: When it comes to drama series, Radio-Canada has always engaged in coproduction, usually with Quebec. This year, 2017-18, is the first time we have seen two francophone independent productions for drama series in the Acadie region. It’s never been done.
Our relationship has gotten stronger. Measures have been taken. Mr. Brisson mentioned the multi-party agreement that we are a part of and that is being led by the FCCF. The agreement has spawned working groups, bringing the APFC and Radio-Canada, the NFB, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund and Heritage Canada together for discussion.
This past November, the tremendous difficulty around the development of feature films in Canada’s francophone community was acknowledged. The people at Radio-Canada told us that they had long stopped investing in feature film development, but they promised to speak to their teams and get back to us. In January, we held a two-day workshop in Winnipeg, and Radio-Canada announced to the group that it was going to start investing in feature film development again. That tells us that these mechanisms are working; they are producing results.
Senator Maltais: You’re in communications. In Quebec, Radio-Canada isn’t getting the ratings. Why? Because it doesn’t tell Quebecers what is happening in the francophone community. Never. If you watch the 10 o’clock news broadcast of “Le Téléjournal,” you will never see any coverage of the francophone community outside Quebec. They did mention New Brunswick when two police officers were killed, but that was all.
Quebecers are not dumb; they want to know what is going on in Canada’s francophone community. They want to know more about it. In Prince Edward Island, we were treated to performances by fantastic musicians and singers. I would like an answer from Radio-Canada. What is it doing outside Quebec to tell us what is happening in Canada’s francophone community?
Mr. Brisson: To your point, I would say that we have found deficiencies in Radio-Canada’s coverage, as well as issues with the Canada Council for the Arts and other federal institutions. There are certainly deficiencies, but the situation is not black or white. It is possible to find examples of the opposite: coverage by Radio-Canada of Radio Radio, Damien Robitaille and Georgette LeBlanc, who became Canada’s official poet. It depends on the people. The message is being heard by certain people in the working groups or thanks to the multi-party agreement. However, the fact that Radio-Canada is headquartered in Montreal, that the Canada Council for the Arts is based in Ottawa and that other institutions are based in Toronto has a sociological impact. People on editorial teams tend to connect with their friends or friends of their friends, or to adopt a certain Montreal-, Ottawa- or Toronto-focused aesthetic, putting those who live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or New Brunswick at a structural disadvantage.
That does not necessarily mean that the people at Radio-Canada in Montreal are doing it because they want to. They simply do not have the editorial team to extend their reach, hence the need for meaningful measures at a structural level. Human nature is always to favour the familiar, so — just as a stake is needed to support a plant and help it grow upright — measures are needed to help keep people’s minds open to what is happening elsewhere.
Senator Maltais: You will find allies, because in Quebec, Radio-Canada is very Montreal-centric and takes no interest in the rest of the province. From Radio-Canada’s standpoint, the Plateau neighbourhood is all of Montreal, and the rest of Quebec does not exist. Places such as Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean, Baie-Comeau, Matane, Rimouski, Gaspé, Rouyn-Noranda and La Sarre receive no coverage, as though they do not exist. The cultural mindset at Radio-Canada is that Montreal Island, small though it may be, represents the true reality of Canada’s francophone community. That is the very reason why Quebecers do not support Radio-Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Maltais. Time is growing short and other senators have questions they would like to ask.
Senator McIntyre: One thing is certain: the Official Languages Act, in its current form, is ineffective at combatting the linguistic and cultural assimilation of official language minority communities. That is why, as Mr. Brisson pointed out, certain parts of the act need amending, especially Part VII. It clearly needs to include provisions that deal with arts and culture.
You told us about your concerns. My question is this. Your organizations are calling for infrastructure development support, guaranteed stable funding, cultural activities in schools, training for artists, the use of new technologies, showcases to promote artistic and cultural activities in French, and strong linkages, among other things. What are your top asks? Do they tend to reflect certain findings and observations or everything I just listed?
Mr. Brisson: I would say they tend to reflect all the findings and observations. That was a great list, albeit not exhaustive.
To my mind, the common thread in all this is clearly to put in place every possible condition conducive to the vitality of francophone minority communities. That means all the things with a direct impact on the community — be they schools, libraries or cultural centres — as well as all the entities that revolve around that. They could be called institutions that are essential to the community’s autonomy. It is often the case that some communities feel isolated because they do not have access to the same cultural tools as majority language communities. It is necessary to go beyond the numbers and provide people with quality institutions they can be proud of.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your input. As Senator Maltais mentioned, you speak with passion and conviction.
Since the committee is examining how to modernize the Official Languages Act, I would like to explore ways to promote arts and culture, not just because that is your field, but also because it requires legislation.
In addition to the Official Languages Act, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for implementing a number of other acts, including the Physical Activity and Sport Act, whose preamble I’d like to read for you:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes that physical activity and sport are integral parts of Canadian culture and society and produce benefits in terms of health, social cohesion, linguistic duality, economic activity, cultural diversity and quality of life;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to increase awareness among Canadians of the significant benefits of physical activity and the practice of sport;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to encourage and assist Canadians in increasing their level of physical activity and their participation in sport;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to promoting physical activity and sport, having regard to the principles set out in the Official Languages Act;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to encourage cooperation among the various governments, the physical activity and sport communities and the private sector in the promotion of physical activity and sport. . . .
My question has to do with the right to culture you mentioned earlier. Would similar legislation promoting arts and culture better serve our communities? Should the Official Languages Act include these same principles, with a specific provision on arts and culture in both official languages?
Mr. Henry: I would say yes. Similar wording could certainly be incorporated into official languages legislation and should also stipulate that Canada’s specificity — the existence of minority francophone communities — is the fundamental expression of Canadian culture. In our view, the legislation should focus on culture.
The right to arts and culture in these communities needs to be protected. It is equally important to recognize and note that people’s ability to exercise that right across the country is very limited, whether they are in small rural communities in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island or elsewhere. In short, the answer is yes.
Ms. Pilon: I would add that it is also necessary to protect the right to culture in one’s language: the right to culture that is the reflection of the community. It would be wrong to think that communities’ cultural needs are being met simply because movies made by Quebec artists tour francophone communities with fairly decent coverage. When we talk to the institutions, they tell us that they tour films, and when we ask them whether they are francophone films, the answer is Quebec films.
I’m fresh off a two-day workshop in Winnipeg. Some of the participants were from France, because there is independent production outside Quebec. We somewhat expect that attitude when we talk to people from around the world, but when Quebecers or people from Canada’s majority community still make the same comments to us, it means two things: there is a problem and the act is not doing its job.
Senator Gagné: I have a follow-up question. You mentioned the importance of implementing Part VII. Should the act directly address the importance of culture in both official languages elsewhere than in Part VII? Is that something that should be dealt with in the preamble?
Ms. Pilon: It should indeed be part of the preamble. It’s important to underscore the fact that this involves not just language, but also culture, which is very diverse from coast to coast to coast. There needs to be recognition of the richness all this brings and, as Mr. Henry was saying, of the fact that this is what sets us apart and defines our Canadian identity.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much.
Mr. Brisson: I’d like to echo Ms. Pilon’s comments, in relation to the absence of a cultural component in the official languages roadmaps. That, alone, makes no sense and proves the need for inclusion in the act in order for action and change to flow.
I found the parallel you drew between physical activity and culture quite interesting. Although we may be able to choose to become physically active or not, I don’t think we can choose to sing or to know the proverbs of our parents or the stories told to us as children. We cannot stop our cultural enrichment. This would be a more accurate parallel with physical activity: culture is to language as breathing is to walking.
Senator Moncion: It deals with physical enrichment rather than artistic enrichment, development a person engages in alone versus development on a broader scale. Something all three of you talked about was accountability and funding allocation. There seems to be a major inequity or disparity when it comes to the allocation of funding and accountability.
Could you elaborate on the accountability issue and the areas where you are not seeing results? Since you don’t appear to have received any funding, the accountability you are looking for is tied to how the money you should have received is spent. I’m not sure whether you understand the connection I’m trying to make. All three of you mentioned the issue of funding allocation and accountability.
Mr. Henry: Unfortunately, in recent years, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s ability to support federal institutions in their reporting efforts has diminished significantly. It has undergone staffing cuts. As you will recall, three or four years ago, we were told at the interdepartmental meeting that each institution no longer had to systematically produce annual reports, because it was not possible to perform the function as a result of staffing and other reductions in recent years.
I wanted to call someone today for an answer on that issue, because I don’t know where things currently stand. Given that the accountability mechanism was weakened, parliamentarians no longer hear about certain realities in the communities.
Senator Moncion: Is it worse today, or has it been this way for a long time?
Mr. Brisson: A current example is the reorganization of the Canada Council for the Arts. With the council’s budget being doubled, everyone obviously has very high hopes. Aside from the council’s regular programming, however, the Official Languages Fund seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. The people at the council do not seem to know how to award financial support under the Official Languages Fund.
Despite all the questions we have asked so far, that is one for which we have no answer. The example illustrates the fact that official languages matters are viewed as supplementary, akin to an autumn leaf falling aimlessly from a tree. No one knows where the money is going to land or how it will be used. For them, it’s a problem that needs fixing. We, however, want to be part of the solution; we want to be involved in the decision-making and accountability process in order to know what is going on.
I will just finish up by pointing to something else I see as problematic: official languages is being lumped together with diversity or equity. There seems to be some confusion within federal institutions, and because of this blurring of lines, official languages issues are no longer the priority they used to be. We are advocating that they should be, given their place at the very heart of Canada’s identity, but the waters seem to have become muddied within federal institutions.
Senator Moncion: It would appear they have found a way to lump everything together in a sort of catch-all.
I have another question. In reference to the Canada Media Fund, you said that 10 per cent was tied to Canadian productions, and you also mentioned $29 million. Is that correct?
Ms. Pilon: The $29 million is not tied to the media fund; rather, it represents all independent production. The total figure for independent production in Canada includes investments by the Canada Media Fund and investments by broadcasters who grant licences, also covering all the provincial measures and federal tax credits. That makes up the total figure. As for the Canada Media Fund, it stands at about $11 million for last year.
Senator Moncion: You said 4 per cent of that amount goes to minority communities.
Ms. Pilon: No, the $29 million covers all the investments, including what producers invest in their productions. The total for independent production comes from that amount. In 2015-16, the amount was $29 million, which is four per cent of the total, the total being $672 million. Of that, our share was $29 million, or 4.3 per cent.
Senator Moncion: Is that for all francophone production across the country?
Ms. Pilon: All francophone production in Canada represents $672 million, as compared with anglophone productions, which account for $1.823 billion.
Senator Moncion: That’s double, meaning that francophone productions receive about half of what anglophone productions do.
Ms. Pilon: Francophone production in Canada makes up about a quarter of all production in the country, and our share of that quarter is four per cent. The people at the Canada Media Fund realized that francophone culture needed a boost, so two-thirds of its funding goes to anglophone production, and one-third goes to francophone production. However, anglophone production makes up three-quarters of production in Canada, while francophone production accounts for one quarter. They wanted to use positive measures to encourage francophone production across the country, so that is why the fund is divided in that way. Telefilm Canada does the same thing.
Senator Moncion: Is it fair?
Ms. Pilon: In this area, I believe so, as regards the anglophone and francophone allocations. There is an effort to achieve fairness by making make a proportional investment that is slightly larger than the demographic weight would dictate. Conversely, the inequity and inequality is clear when it comes to Canada’s francophone community, since we account for 13.5 per cent of the population and just four per cent of production.
The Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses. The thorough input you so generously provided will no doubt inform our study. Thank you for being with us.
We will now continue our consultation of arts and culture organizations, with our second group. From the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, we have with us Martin Théberge, President, Maggy Razafimbahiny, Director General, and Marie-Christine Morin, Assistant Director. The floor is yours.
Martin Théberge, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Thank you for inviting us to be here today to discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We cannot underscore enough the importance of the work you have undertaken.
I’d like to begin by taking you on a journey into the future. Imagine that, 20 years down the road, we are once again talking about a review of the act. Imagine, if you will, that it is a moment of pride in the work that has been accomplished. We will be there, appearing before the committee, overjoyed as we tell you that assimilation has been curbed, that our workforce is stable or on the rise, and that the arts and culture sector is playing a key role by fully contributing to the vitality of our communities and Canadian society as a whole.
Imagine that the public service is fully assuming its horizontal responsibility in the area of official languages, and that it automatically examines the needs and realities of francophone and Acadian communities through an informed lens. Imagine that, as a result, it has integrated flexibility into its programs and services to prevent systemic barriers.
Imagine the gradual removal of responsibility being transformed through a proactive attitude that focusses entirely on collaboration and joint action with measurable impact. It would be appropriate in that climate to boast about the path travelled and the result obtained.
Imagine the government taking rigorous stock of the reality on the ground in francophone and Acadian communities, and committing from the outset to work with us on innovative solutions and practices that would have to be implemented. Within the “by and for” concept we have been promoting, the notion of “with” is more important than ever to preserve the continuity.
The FCCF consists of 22 organizations, including seven national organizations dedicated to artistic practice or a cultural industry — such as the organizations of the three colleagues who appeared just before us —, 13 provincial or territorial organizations involved in artistic or cultural development, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, as well as an alliance of the three performing arts presentation networks in French Canada. Altogether, when we appear before you, it is on behalf of more than 3,125 professional artists and 150 organizations from 180 communities spread out across the country. It is on behalf of a strong and engaged network, which is innovative and creative by design.
Today, we are expressing a collective wish for true and integrated modernization of the legislation for the well-being and collective future of our francophone citizens across the country. As the voice of the industry, the FCCF has a vision to inspire, mobilize and transform Canada through arts and culture. In that role, and along with other people who have appeared or will appear before you on this topic, we are the experts and essential partners in the effective implementation of this legislation. We have the knowledge and experience that enable us to steer the modernization of the act, in order to strengthen its authority, even its enforceability. We would like users to also be the focus of the discussion and our community members to be invited to express their needs and their aspirations.
Although the entire piece of legislation interests us and is of concern to us, our comments are more inspired by Part VII of the act. We feel that to be a pure expression of the necessary commitment toward the task we all have at hand, which is our shared responsibility.
Let’s discuss the specific positioning of our sector. OLMCs are first and foremost a cultural project. As such, the legislation must emphasize the tremendous importance of the arts and culture sector in relation to their development and vitality. It must be recognized that arts and culture are an engine of development and vitality for minority francophone communities. The francophone identity is strengthened through its positive image of itself. The reflection of our reality strengthens our attachment and plays on our pride.
The growing precariousness we are seeing among our arts and culture organizations is affecting their ability to fulfill their role of main government partner. The current state of the affairs is sad. The red tape and the complexity of administrative processes continue to increase to the detriment of effective, accessible and quality delivery of artistic and cultural production from francophone and Acadian communities.
Our cultural and artistic organizations are experiencing a serious loss of momentum in terms of the support they are receiving from the government. Their weakening prevents them from fulfilling their mandate and affects the influence they can have on the communities they serve in terms of promoting French language and the rights of official language minority communities.
The community sector, as the government’s primary partner, does not receive an appropriate share of the resources intended directly or indirectly for the implementation of the legislation. Moreover, the resources provided through the transfers to the provinces and territories under official languages are obviously not being reinvested as they should be by those stakeholders in support of the development of francophone and Acadian communities. That situation goes against the spirit of the law and deserves close consideration.
Better and more focused attention must be given to the promise to promote francophone and Acadian communities. When the act was last revised, in 1988, the legislators added the priority to promote official language communities. However, that has not borne fruit. We deplore the absence of a comprehensive strategy that would be developed in collaboration with the community sector as a key strategic partner, by placing usage at the center of the discussion and in resulting strategies. We feel that a promotional campaign to raise public awareness and educate people would have a positive impact on all of our ecosystems. Canada’s public opinion on official languages is more positive than it has ever been. Canadians see a fundamental value and potential in official languages that sets us apart in the world’s view. We highly recommend a shared-leadership promotional campaign.
Let’s now talk about our solidary stand with the Canadian francophonie in all of its diversity. We need strong leadership and consistent political support. The legislation should be removed from the shelves. Let’s shake off the dust and sit down at the table as the partners we are. Let’s be brave and honest.
The time is right, and not only appropriate, to modernize the legislation; the time is critical. We have to give the act teeth and claws. Why not take a chance on planning the restauration of a positive and constructive view point? Unity and a strong national identity are an inspiration to us. The act is a pillar of carrying out that vision.
Supporting and promoting development requires strategies and clear plans, so that concrete measures can be put forward, so that we can proceed on a logical basis other than the one of strictly relying on numbers and marketing feasibility, so that indicators for gauging the change can be specified and so that the notion of “by, for and with” can be applied.
We must strengthen the framework for enforcing and accounting for the Official Languages Act. We must tighten the grip of the system used to deliver on the shared responsibility of the government and the institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. We must centralize the political direction at the highest level of the machinery. We have to get engagement from the agencies and institutions in question in terms of their responsibility to act, be accountable and transparent, and to be held accountable.
The mechanics of the action plans and annual reports have not given the desired results. No directive calls us to better succeed, to rise above the systematic habits, to adopt a proactive attitude, to innovate in terms of solutions. We have to wonder why we are so far from the directive to propose and adopt positive measures toward francophone and Acadian communities.
The accountability framework for the act must be strengthened. Recovery goes through the option of imposing disciplinary measures, but also and especially, to propose and set incentives.
The powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages must be increased, and the commissioner’s independence and impartiality must be protected. In addition to their law enforcement powers being strengthened, they should have the ability to impose disciplinary measures and to advance concrete and positive measures that would be guaranteed to comply with the legislation. So the method of consultation must be thoroughly revamped, so that the investments they will yield will have the desired effect. The consultations should have for a goal an open dialogue and the quest for solutions.
We must strengthen the authority of Canadian Heritage, as the department in charge of enforcement. The horizontal capacity of the Department of Canadian Heritage was severely tested by the implementation of interdepartmental approaches. The promise that the government’s contribution to the development of francophone and Acadian communities would be expanded by the contributions of departments and agencies subject to the act has not materialized. Red tape and administrative complexity have compounded for our organizations with too few results. A department cannot be asked to be both the judge and the jury. Canadian Heritage falls short when it’s time to increase the envelope of official language support programs. Its political stripes are not enough when it is not supported by a strong central political message.
We must also act with knowledge and sensitivity toward OLMCs. In their work, our groups and organizations are facing systemic barriers that are a sign of a deep lack of understanding for the realities and needs specific to OLMCs. We must reiterate the responsibility of departments and agencies in terms of sensitivity and a proactive and collaborative attitude to resolve these systemic issues. We need an ongoing dialogue, an open attitude and a climate of trust and collaboration.
We call for an expression of strong and clear political leadership on the importance of linguistic duality. We have to value it as an intrinsic part of the uniquely Canadian character and give it the impetus that vision deserves. The act is no more or less than the legal and moral foundation of that vision.
From our perspective, any revision or overhauling of the act should take into account the contribution of the arts, culture and cultural industries sector to the achievement of those objectives. At the same time, the mandates of the main actors and institutions that play a crucial role in the development of our communities on a daily basis should also be closely examined. As an example, could we not consider including the mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the next version of the act?
Finally, we are of the opinion that success breeds success. The FCCF, like all the organizations from the arts, culture and cultural industries sector, feels invested in this. Our approach is one of collaboration on the research and implementation of new solutions adapted to our needs and realities.
It is actually reasonable to believe that Canada’s exemplary performance in official languages is desirable and feasible. That gives Canada tools in other sectors where consistent support must be provided to the development and vitality of the civil society, such as First Nations and multiculturalism. Success in linguistic duality leads us to succeed in developing and strengthening the potential citizen.
The co-development work started with First Nations to implement a piece of legislation to protect official languages is the way we want to be involved. The future of official languages depends on our collective ability to innovate and work in close collaboration for the greater good. The arts, culture and cultural industries sector is inspired, motivated and ready to take action.
Thank you once again for your invitation and, especially, for listening. In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a quote from the late Fernand Dorais, Professor of Literature at the Department of French at Laurentian University, in Sudbury:
A culture is first and foremost history, a shared language, an ethnicity, a social style, a choosing of values, a will for the future.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation. You did a good job of listing the mechanisms that are lacking to ensure a full application of the Official Languages Act. I want you to know that I completely agree with you. That said, I understand that your federation consists of 22 members. As you mentioned, that includes 13 provincial and territorial organizations, seven national artistic groups, one community radio alliance, as well as a platform that brings together regional performing arts broadcasting networks. What kind of a relationship does your federation have with those organizations?
Mr. Théberge: I will summarize the role played by the federation with regard to its members in two main functions. The first is a cooperation function. The FCCF would never contact anyone without having consulted its members in some way, be it through an email exchange, a telephone conference or a meeting. We have two annual meetings. The second function is directly related to the first; it is that of a voice. As you were saying, when the FCCF takes the floor, it does so on behalf of all its members from the sector.
Senator McIntyre: Can you tell us in more detail about the collaboration agreement signed between your federation and federal institutions for developing arts and community culture in minority francophone communities, more particularly its objectives and challenges related to its implementation?
Mr. Théberge: The agreement has had several iterations over time. It engages seven entities: Canadian Heritage, the FCCF, the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the CBC. The agreement is actually up for renewal this year. We are currently at the evaluation and renegotiation stage.
So far, the agreement has encouraged us to have discussions to better inform and educate people on all the issues. Stemming from that agreement, among other things, are what we call bilaterals, which are annual targeted meetings between the FCCF and each of its partners. This agreement has helped build much stronger ties and create working groups.
As I was saying, the agreement is up for renegotiation this year. We would like to take it to the next stage, where we could talk about accountability and responsibility, but also about concrete mechanisms beyond the agreement, whose goal would be to enhance mutual communication and understanding. Today, we understand each other better, but we need to take things further.
Senator Gagné: Before I go to my question on a piece of legislation to promote arts and culture, I would like to know what your target audience is.
Mr. Théberge: Our actions are intended directly for our members, which are the 22 organizations that have been listed: national arts services organizations, provincial and territorial organizations for developing culture and the arts, the three broadcasting networks and the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada. We are taking the floor with a much broader perspective because our members are also organizations that have clients, members and communities they represent. The primary perspective considered is always that of our members, those 22 organizations, but it is always in a context where we are the only voice of the arts, culture and cultural industries sector in Canadian francophonie.
Senator Gagné: Regarding your members and their audiences, is French their mother tongue or the first official language spoken? Or are they anyone interested in languages?
Mr. Théberge: Every one of our members is different, but generally speaking, and with no prejudice, anyone who can speak French or is interested in the cause can join the table.
Senator Gagné: My next question is the same one I put to the three witnesses who came before you. You were here, so I will not repeat the preamble of the act on physical activity and sport. Would the arts and culture sector be better served if it had its own act?
Mr. Théberge: I will answer by referring to the question Senator McIntyre put to my colleagues. In our opinion, what is needed first and foremost is recognition of the sector and its role in communities. That can be done either through an explicit piece of legislation or a strong preamble, and everything else will flow from that. At that point, we can no longer talk about culture in schools, about community radio stations or about performing arts presented in French in our communities without referring to that legislation. Conversely, if we have a piece of legislation with a strong preamble, regardless of how it is expressed, it would become a precedent, an obligation, and there would have to be consistency with that piece of legislation or preamble.
Senator Gagné: My understanding is that the importance of culture should be addressed directly.
Mr. Théberge: I would go further by saying that we need formal recognition of the sector’s role in the development and vitality of our communities.
Senator Moncion: You talked about teeth and claws. I would like you to clarify what you meant by that. You also talked about indicators by, for and with. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Théberge: Certainly. When we talk about teeth and claws, we are talking about giving specific roles and more clear methods, such as allowing the Office of the Commission of Official Languages to play a role both in terms of positive measures and in terms of disciplinary measures.
Another example would be to centralize the political direction at the highest level of the machinery. We cannot expect the Department of Canadian Heritage to be able to play an interdepartmental role and create as many collaborations as possible with other departments to improve the condition of official languages, and to turn around the next day to chastise those same departments because they have not been playing their role. One cannot be judge and jury. We need a body, be it the Canada Council for the Arts or another organization, that can play that role. So that’s what I meant by “have teeth and claws.”
Maggy Razafimbahiny, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: I would just like to add something to what Mr. Théberge was saying about that preamble or that official recognition of our sector in the Official Languages Act. That recognition is very important to us because it gives us a sort of protection.
Senator Maltais: I welcome you all. We talked earlier to the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens and the Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale. Are all those groups recognized by Canadian Heritage or by the Canada Council for the Arts? Is there something in the legislation that designates you as valuable interlocutors of a particular group?
Mr. Théberge: A formal and explicit recognition in the act? No, aside perhaps from the Canadian Heritage contribution agreements that say that, for all intents and purposes, we are doing the department’s work. Other than that, there is no explicit recognition.
Senator Maltais: In the review of the Official Languages Act, under Part VII, would it be worthwhile for Canadian Heritage to officially recognize the FCCF as an interlocutor in the cultural world instead of having five or six sub-organizations? We need a valuable interlocutor, be it you or another organization.
Mr. Théberge: The important thing, first and foremost, is the recognition of the sector. The act was last amended 30 years ago. My crystal ball doesn’t work well enough to tell me what will happen over the next 30 years. As we know, saying something sometimes helps forget.
Senator Maltais: I was not referring to your association explicitly, but I was saying that the legislation should recognize groups of francophone associations, which would include cultural industries, the arts, and so on. Would that be something that would strengthen your proposal?
Mr. Théberge: Absolutely, at several levels. The recognition of the contribution of the arts, culture and cultural industries sector and its essential role in encouraging the development and vitality of communities, gives us and the government tools. Consistency would give our organizations the necessary funding. Our communities will have the tools they need to continue to strive for sustainability.
Senator Maltais: I have two other quick questions regarding community francophone radio stations. In another world, I was a member of another Parliament, in northern Quebec. I worked on setting up francophone radio stations, in collaboration with aboriginal and francophone communities, as well as regional municipalities from ridings that were financial partners. Does that type of partnership exist in the francophone communities you know? I won’t ask you whether that’s the case from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Théberge: My analysis does not reach that far. There are huge partnerships between communities and their community radio stations. The Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada is actually a member of the FCCF, and a direct link between art and culture is of the outmost importance. Community radio stations play a key role, both in terms of news and in terms of entertainment, but also in terms of developing our artists and promoting the art products from our communities. There are involved in that and have very strong partnerships with our communities.
Senator Maltais: You said earlier that you accepted francophiles, and not necessarily only old stock francophones. Is there any kind of a connection with anglophone organizations?
Mr. Théberge: Once again, I don’t have a full analysis of every project, but there are partnerships at the local, community and provincial levels, such as Anglophone music associations in partnership with the provincial cultural development organization. There are many partnerships.
Our organization fairly frequently discusses things with our anglophone counterparts in Quebec, the English Language Arts Network, or ELAN, and with our colleagues from national art services organizations, on a national level, be they anglophone or francophone. So those communication links already exist.
The Chair: You have established many connections over the years with the arts, culture and education, culture and media, as well as arts, culture and health. Could you tell us about your study on cultural hubs? Can you talk to us about how that instrument has managed to produce a diagnostic of the situation of official language communities through culture? That can have an impact on the vision that could be given to the revision of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Théberge: I will begin answering and will invite my colleagues to continue. Regarding the study on vitality factors in our communities, the study on cultural hubs was done with Laurentian University. First, we did a study of factors that ensure cultural vitality in our communities, be it a school, demography, the presence or lack of community media.
In the second stage, we tried to create collaboration models of collaboration between those factors, synergy models with each of those factors and those players to develop more and ensure cultural vitality in our communities. We have a summary, a snapshot of the results of the second stage, but we don’t have the entire study, which should be finished soon. Since we are talking about not only factors and what could have an impact on cultural vitality, but also about examples of models, this is something that we are awaiting impatiently and that could help at several levels, both for us and for the government machinery, to help us have a thorough reflection on sectors we could focus our energies and investments on.
Senator Smith: Mr. Théberge, to follow up on Senator Moncion’s question, how would you want to give the system more teeth? And what powers do you want to give the commissioner? If you were a major decision maker, what would be the three important points you would raise?
Mr. Théberge: I would first give the system the power of accountability. Accounts often require a report, but there is a lack of clarity and concrete data. I would also give the power to develop disciplinary measures. When I exceed the speed limits on the highway, I am breaking the law, and so I get a ticket. Couldn’t the Commissioner of Official Languages have a similar power? In addition, there are also what I call positive measures. Couldn’t the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages not have the option to work with agencies and institutions already in place to ensure the long-term sustainability and development of our communities?
Senator Smith: Do your association and other associations compete to obtain funding or is there truly a partnership between those associations?
I am establishing a parallel with the following situation. When we developed football in Quebec, we did it through networking with former players who played in the 1970s, and who became coaches from 1985 to 1990, and with the mothers of families — because they are the ones making decisions and not the fathers. With a lot of networking, over a period of 15 to 20 years, I was involved in the project for 10 years, and I made 200 trips a year across Quebec to talk to people.
I am wondering what kind of networking you are doing, not only to ask for money, but to develop skills, niches of entrepreneurs in your regions.
Mr. Théberge: I think you are getting to the very essence of our federation. What I am trying to say is that one of the major strengths of our federation is its ability to network and its long-arm reach. As I was saying earlier, we have 22 members, but when I speak to you, I am speaking on behalf of 150 organizations of 3,125 professional artists from 180 communities across Canada.
You are getting to the very essence of the federation and its strength. We have abilities. As I was saying in response to Senator Maltais earlier, we have the ability to network with both francophones and anglophones, with both businesses and other cultural institutions.
However, your question forces me to also mention that the reduced funding over the past few years and reduced government knowledge also force us, today, to pull up the corner of the carpet in a way, as we are having trouble paying our heating and Internet bills. We may well have the best ability, but it’s difficult for us to do anything if we are lacking the bare minimum to operate. That minimum to operate has an impact on our ability to play a role within the government machinery and support the implementation of Part VII of the act.
Senator Moncion: May I add something? You talked about business spirit, but I think that, if you raised funds, you would lose your funding. Am I mistaken in thinking that?
Mr. Théberge: That has happened before. To my knowledge, that is not a clear directive. As soon as there is a financial surplus through funding, it looks like the organization does not need it. However, if the organization has a surplus through other fund raising, there is a tendency to cut the funding, which leads to a precarious situation.
Senator Smith: I presume that you have already discussed this with members of other associations. Is it possible to change that mentality? You used fine words in your speech today. However, this is a business situation. I really like what you are saying, as it makes us discuss real options to truly bolster the strength and powers of your organization.
Mr. Théberge: This is a regular part of our discussions under our multi-party agreement.
Senator Maltais: You talked about accountability, which is a topic that has been close to my heart for several years here, at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Over time, we realize that it is very difficult to get any kind of accountability. We have heard from the President of the Treasury Board a few times, and he candidly told us that he was unable to establish accountability at this time for constitutional reasons. There is a whole story with section 93. We won’t get caught up in those explanations. Since you have no accountability, that brings you into a confrontation with Canadian Heritage and the Council for the Arts, and I feel like that’s unfair. The lack of accountability is not your fault. It is not that you don’t want to do it, it’s that you cannot do it. I don’t see why you would be penalized for something that you cannot resolve. I don’t understand.
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for your comments. I would take it further. When we talk about accountability, that’s true in federal agencies, but it is also true in terms of transfers to the provinces. This is a problem I would refer to as “transfer-related,” where we are subject to the political whims of provincial governments.
Senator Maltais: That is the problem. Canadian Heritage is giving money to the province, and it is up to the province to make sure that the money gets distributed. If the province leans more toward the left, so much the better for the leftist, but if it’s more to the right, too bad for the left. There is a bit of an imbalance.
The minister, despite all his efforts, told us that he was unable to do it right now owing to the constitution. That is what I wanted to point out earlier. I think this is a question worth raising.
The Chair: On that note, I would like to thank the Fédération culturelle canadienne française, Ms. Razafimbahiny, Ms. Morin and Mr. Théberge. Thank you for joining us. Your comments will guide us in our study. Thank you and have a good evening, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)