THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 19, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m., in public, to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act, and in camera, to study a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, my name is René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to chair today’s meeting. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second part of its study on the perspective of official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Today, we are pleased to welcome Francis Sonier, President, and Linda Lauzon, Executive Director, from the Association de la presse francophone. The Association de la presse francophone is the anchor of French-language minority newspapers published in Canada. We also have Marie-Hélène Eddie, a doctoral student in sociology at the University of Ottawa. Ms. Eddie is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Ottawa and a research assistant at the Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would invite the members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Poirier: Good evening and welcome. I am Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Mr. Sonier, the floor is yours.
Francis Sonier, President, Association de la presse francophone: Senators, Mr. Chair, the Association de la presse francophone (APF) is appearing before you this evening as a member of a consortium of official languages community media serving the francophone and anglophone minority populations. The other two members of this consortium are the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada (ARC du Canada) and the Quebec Community Newspapers Association (QCNA).
Since the summer of 2016, the three-member organizations of this consortium have been speaking with one voice. As part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, we do not intend to talk about possible amendments to the wording of the legislation, because that is the mandate of our colleagues from advocacy organizations across the country. They are doing a very good job. What we would like to share with you is our experience directly related to the implementation of Part VII of the act, from filing a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to the attempts of our consortium to move our file forward urgently after the submission of the commissioner’s final investigation report.
Let me provide you with a timeline. First, in the fall of 2015, a series of complaints were filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages by a number of organizations, including the APF and the ARC du Canada, alleging that federal institutions are using the Internet more to carry their advertising and to communicate with the public, to the detriment of traditional media, such as official language community newspapers and radio stations, meaning those in a minority situation. One year later, in September 2016, the interim commissioner shared her interim investigation report with the complainants and the four departments concerned in order to obtain their comments. In June 2017, eight months later, the interim commissioner submitted her final investigation report in which she concludes that the complaints are well-founded against two of the four departments involved, and she made recommendations indicating that she will follow up in 2018. We have learned that the follow-up is usually done 12 months after the tabling of the final report.
You know without a shadow of a doubt the hard knocks on traditional media since the advent of the Internet, including social media. For small official language media isolated in remote areas or in majority language urban settings, a state of emergency has been declared for a number of years already. Before a complaint was filed in 2015, it had been seven years since public advertising revenue for official language community media had been disappearing before our eyes, year after year.
It goes without saying that, in the seven years prior to filing our complaint, we did not sit on our hands. We have increased the number of requests to the responsible government authorities so that they become aware of how serious the situation is and in order to ask them for compensation. Our requests were ignored. We had no choice but to file a complaint in an attempt to win the case.
In the fall of 2017, building on the final investigation report and the recommendations of the interim commissioner, we began a series of meetings with a number of government representatives, during which we addressed the issue with a solution-based approach, while keeping in mind the urgency of the situation. We have established a series of measures that could be put in place very quickly, and in the short, medium and long term as well, under a harmonized action plan that would involve several departments, the much-touted “interdepartmental” approach that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has so often advocated.
There was significant openness from one department targeted by the report, but that was not enough. We had to diversify. We even reached out to a department that was not at all targeted by the Commissioner’s investigation report, but which agreed to partially support us. As for the main department targeted by the complaint, we ran into a brick wall, including because of a bogus study that the department ordered immediately after the interim commissioner’s preliminary report was tabled in September 2016, without consulting the community or members of our consortium, as required by law. The study, published in December 2017, cost Canadian taxpayers $200,000 and has been criticized by many francophone and anglophone official language organizations, as well as members of two House of Commons standing committees.
Members of the consortium had more cause to file a complaint following the publication of that study, a bogus study. However, the administrative burden and delays dissuaded us quickly. At any rate, we did not want to file another complaint when we had an investigation report and recommendations in hand. At that point, last December 22, we went to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We asked him to do something he had never done before. We proposed a sort of pilot project that would involve a meeting between the various levels of government that could help implement a harmonized action plan proposing emergency measures and short-, medium- and long-term measures.
To date, this meeting has not been held yet. Although there is openness on the part of the Commissioner, our request does not fall within his usual mandate or the responsibilities inherent to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In addition, the Commissioner informed us that some departments are reluctant to hold such a meeting. Why are they so reluctant, you will ask? Based on our experience working with the federal government, we can conclude that the Official Languages Act is seen as a ball and chain, not a tool for development. We must remember that, in most departments, the role of official languages champion or coordinator is not an independent position, but simply a pile of additional responsibilities.
Federal departments with obligations under Part VII of the act publish annual reports to demonstrate the positive measures put in place by their departments. We strongly urge you to analyze those reports more closely. You will be surprised to see the clear dichotomy between the measures put in place by the departments and the real needs of the community. Furthermore, you will also be surprised at the duplication in the departments.
In light of the foregoing, we submit that, as part of a modernization project for the Official Languages Act, serious reflection is required. Community bodies are neither multinational nor government agencies. They have only one role and one priority: to contribute to the vitality of their communities. They must be considered partners by the federal authorities and recognized as such in the legislation. We cannot continue to do the same things and expect different results. History is repeating itself. Based on the experience of the members of our consortium in the last 10 years, as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, we recommend that: you review the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner of Official Languages so that they become much more strategic and give him the latitude to advance matters that have a direct impact on the vitality of official language communities; and you recommend that federal departments and agencies with obligations under part VII of the act first have access to the resources necessary to enable their full implementation within their department or agency, and that they have the obligation to establish permanent consultation mechanisms with key community stakeholders and to guide their actions according to the needs and realities of official language communities.
Consortium members remain available if you have questions and would like more information. Thank you for your attention and your invitation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sonier.
Marie-Hélène Eddie, Doctoral student in sociology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual: Mr. Chair, senators, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today. Let me introduce myself. I’m a Ph.D. student in Sociology at the University of Ottawa. My work focuses on official language communities, on minority media, and on minorities and how they use the media to mobilize. In my presentation, I would like to clarify the link between minority media and the development of official language minority communities or the vitality of those communities. Let me provide a brief overview of the situation of the media in minority settings, talk about their role for francophone communities, and mention ways to include the media in the Official Languages Act.
Right now, as we know, western media are facing significant challenges and are in a period of transition. In Canada, the media are operating in a rapidly changing context that comes with challenges for both francophone and anglophone media. Specifically, the media have, for the most part, started the digital shift, but in many cases they have not yet managed to find a profitable digital model.
Francophone media in a minority setting are facing those same challenges plus other challenges. For example, they are smaller and have fewer financial and human resources than many other media in the country. They also have smaller readerships and audiences often scattered across a larger territory, which causes challenges for newspaper delivery, but also in terms of public expectations of media content. Some are also operating in a context of media concentration and must compete with conglomerates. Finally, they serve official language minority communities, which are already in survival mode.
Their role is therefore doubly important, because in addition to having the role of providing information, as for any other community, they need to have access to specific resources, in order to continue the fight as they have done from the beginning. The media play specific roles for communities that are directly related to the government’s commitment to official language minorities, as set out in the Official Languages Act, particularly in part VII.
First, they represent those communities. They allow communities to see themselves, to remember that they exist, that people live in French, and that the French fact is something real. They act as a mirror, but also as a window open to the world. As a mirror, they reflect an identity, an image of the community. They play a part in developing the francophone identity. As public spaces, they also help support the presence of French in the public arena, in the public discourse. They help develop and promote the French language, and they support the development of the francophone identity.
Second, in relation to the first role, they bring together communities, they unite individuals who are sometimes geographically far apart, who do not know each other personally, but who feel that they are part of a community through their media. The act of reading the newspaper or listening to the radio is often done alone, but with the knowledge that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who are doing the same thing at the same time. So when we meet someone on the street, how often do we talk about what we read on the front page of the newspaper? In other words, when you live in a region where your culture is a minority, a newspaper or a radio station provides a strong connection with your community, your world, your culture. We start having points in common, with news concerning us and issues to discuss together as a community. In this sense, the media allow members of a community to develop a stronger identity, to grow and to strengthen their sense of unity.
Third, the media are the watchdog of democracy. Minority media, which play a crucial role for francophone communities outside Quebec, tend to be more specifically the watchdogs of the language rights of communities. Many of their resources in time and money are used to relay information about what governments do or do not do to help language communities. They inform us when governments do not comply with the Official Languages Act, when they implement a measure that negatively or positively affects communities. In addition, when groups mobilize around issues that affect them, they must go through the media to make their demands public. When they want to talk to the government, they do so through the media. Without those media, francophone communities would lose much of their ability to hear and be heard. Without strong, independent media, we must worry about the future of francophone minority communities. If those media are not dynamic, the community’s ability to mobilize suffers.
So with respect to the Official Languages Act, the media are a pillar of democracy. It is important for a democracy to have vibrant and independent media. In a bilingual country with two linguistic communities, one of which is in a minority compared to the other, the role of the francophone media becomes doubly important in order to respect this bilingual identity and the Official Languages Act. If the government wants to ensure the vitality and development of official language minority communities, it must ensure that communities do not lose their ability to come together and act. It must remember that the media are their instrument for action. With a heartfelt appeal in recent months, the media are sounding the alarm and warning us that the situation is serious. There is an opportunity, in the overhaul of the Official Languages Act, to ensure that the media do not have to sound the alarm every five years, and that funding for the media is less at the mercy of the governments in office when a funding decision is made, and more stable, perhaps by incorporating an obligation into the legislation.
Various western countries are using different models to support the media, a number of which focus on funding local, minority or private media, or media in a fragile situation. In other words, it is possible for a state to support the media that it deems particularly important for diversity of opinion, media that are considered particularly fragile. So it would be a matter of incorporating the protection of media in minority settings into the Official Languages Act, either through a section or a regulation that would stem from the act. It would be a way of protecting those media specifically, media that face particular challenges and that play specific roles, media that no other media can replace. That is why it is important to think about how the federal government can support them, and not be afraid to support them as part of the Canadian media as a whole.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. We will begin the round of questions.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentations. I have some questions. These are general questions that I ask most, if not all, witnesses. I think it is important to be familiar with the position of the various witnesses who come to talk about the Official Languages Act and to share their ideas on certain things.
For example, in 2002, the Government of New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province, started revising its official languages act. I was a member of the legislature when it was done. We had incorporated a provision in the legislation stating that it had to be revised every 10 years. The federal legislation has not been revised for many years. In your opinion, would it be important to incorporate a provision into the legislation to revise it after a certain number of years? If so, what time frame would be acceptable for this revision?
Mr. Sonier: I am not playing politics, but given the circumstances we have experienced, with the Commissioner of Official Languages being in favour of our file after a complaint, but with no action taken, I would say that there are shortcomings here.
So, I think a fairly frequent renewal would be appropriate. As for giving you a time frame, 10 years seems reasonable to me, but I think it would be a recurring exercise over the years. What made sense a few decades ago is perhaps less appropriate today.
Linda Lauzon, Executive Director, Association de la presse francophone: I would like to add that we must remember that the francophone and Acadian communities are constantly evolving. If we go back 50 years and we observe the evolution up to today and the current level of autonomy, some sectors, such as the arts, culture, economy, and so on, are very developed, and they were not around 10 or 20 years ago.
I, too, cannot propose a specific time frame, but the rate at which francophone and Acadian communities have changed over the last 50 years should be assessed to understand what has happened and connect it with a regular revision of the legislation.
Ms. Eddie: Yes, I think it would be a good idea to include that in the new legislation. Contexts are changing, and perhaps the need for media was not as urgent 50 years ago. Today, the context has completely changed with the advent of the digital age. This is one example among many that demonstrates the need to adapt the legislation to new contexts.
Senator Poirier: The Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages ends on March 31, 2018, and Minister Joly is expected to announce a new action plan soon. Have you been consulted by the minister on this new action plan?
Ms. Lauzon: As part of the pan-Canadian consultations that began in the spring of 2016, we submitted a tripartite brief, with our two colleagues from the ARC du Canada and the QCNA, to clearly state how we perceive our role in the next action plan. Perhaps in a slightly different way, and we continue to use this approach on the consortium side, we have proposed solutions. We have suggested approaches and measures that could be put in place within the framework of the action plan. We were very visible with the brief we submitted. We hope that the minister will take this into account in her action plan and incorporate some of our recommendations for positive measures that would support us on the community media side and make all the difference if they are implemented in the action plan.
Senator Poirier: You have not been consulted?
Ms. Eddie: Not me, no.
Senator Poirier: As you know, we have started a long study on the modernization of the act with the government’s recommendations. I would like to know what you would like to see in the modernization of the act. I know you’ve talked a little about the challenges you have right now. You mentioned funding that is an issue for official language minority communities.
Are there other things you would like to see in the act that could help the media? As representatives of the media, is there anything you hear from the people you do business with from official language minority communities? Do they have suggestions about specific parts of the legislation that should be changed?
Ms. Lauzon: Yes, I think Mr. Sonier talked about it earlier. In our case, the problem he raised was the challenge of having to go through an extensive administrative process with the complaint, and then the reports, and so on, and then end up with a favourable report. We are not the only ones in the media world to have gone through this. A number of other francophone bodies and organizations have ended up with a favourable report, but absolutely nothing is happening.
It is really frustrating for official language communities. This is a systemic problem. The Commissioner follows up 12 months after the report is tabled. It is important to understand the mechanism, and I think you are very familiar with it. What happens next is that, over the course of those 12 months, we and the other stakeholders who have filed a complaint expect things to move, but that is not the case.
The measures taken are so minimal that the decision has no impact on fixing the problem. That’s the difficult part. When you come in as a community worker to work with the departments, you are always faced with this discomfort. It seems that their hands are tied, that there are not enough resources. I think Mr. Sonier said that, in your study, you have to dig a little deeper, because there is a systemic problem within the machinery of government that does not allow the Commissioner’s decisions to go further.
I have been working in minority communities for over 20 years now, and I can tell you that things have not changed. It’s the same thing over and over again. We have fine decisions, but when it comes to implementing those decisions, we are at a standstill. The outcome is so minimal that people now no longer want to go through the complaint process.
Senator Poirier: We often hear that the Commissioner should have more power. Mr. Sonier, my question is about Acadie Nouvelle. Could you tell us more about the current issues you are facing? Could you comment on the fact that, in the last federal budget, the government promised $50 million over five years starting in 2018-19 to support local journalists? Could you tell us whether you will have access to those funds?
Mr. Sonier: In terms of Acadie Nouvelle, what we have done over the past few years, and much has been said about this, is to limit the reduction in staff and journalists, meaning those who produce high-quality and original content about Acadia, specifically. To do this, other jobs had to be sacrificed. I would say that, over the last 10 years, people’s positions have been cut, support staff in charge of layout, graphics and technical support. We are convinced that we must keep the content, what we create every day about people in the community. That too will soon have to be sacrificed if nothing happens. It’s going to be tragic; we’re relevant today because of our quality content, but if we do not receive a hand, that’s likely to change. It’s very troubling.
However, you are talking about the budget; that is your second question. As for the $50 million over five years, we do not know the eligibility criteria, we do not know how that will be done. However, I can tell you that tomorrow, the Association de la presse francophone, community radios, the ARC du Canada and the QCNA will be meeting with Canadian Heritage officials to discuss this aspect, to figure out how we could play a role in organizing, managing or distributing a portion of that amount as minority media.
We are hearing through the grapevine that some organizations are interested, but the organizations whose names we have heard are not very effective in our experience. We believe that we can help improve things for newspapers and we want the money that has been announced to go directly to the newsrooms to help create quality content in the newspapers. We do not have details, but we will ensure that, tomorrow, we start a discussion to see to what extent we can work together. It’s a starting point, I think.
Senator Poirier: I wish you good luck.
Mr. Sonier: Thank you.
Ms. Eddie: Can I answer your second question? You asked us about other points that would be useful in the legislation. To go beyond the media, what surprises me is the concept of vitality mentioned in Part VII of the act, the concept of community development. In both English and French, the word “vitality” — “vitalité” is used. In my opinion, this is a difficult concept to measure. In concrete terms, we do not know how to achieve vitality. You cannot reach it, it’s an ideal.
I do not know to what extent that can be done, I’m not a lawyer, but it would be useful to amend this section of the act. I would suggest thinking more about real equality instead of vitality. Vitality is very difficult to measure, whereas with real equality, we can compare two communities. This would define a sort of anchor and a goal to achieve. This goes beyond the media, of course, but they are still involved because they contribute to the real equality of communities.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. That’s interesting.
Ms. Lauzon: This is very interesting. I would like to add that, in the evaluation of its applications for funding under official languages support programs, Canadian Heritage is facing a major challenge in assessing or determining the vitality indices. This problem dates back 20 years. Organizations are asked to demonstrate their contribution to vitality, but Canadian Heritage has not yet found a way to measure it. It is a very vague and open concept.
This recommendation is really excellent. I am sure that Canadian Heritage would welcome this change. Real equality is measurable. Given that Canadian Heritage’s management is results-oriented, that would bode well.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. My first question is for Mr. Sonier and Ms. Lauzon. In fall 2017, your association unveiled its Charte de la presse écrite de langue française en situation minoritaire au Canada, a charter for French-language print media in minority situations that its member newspapers must adhere to. They serve over a million francophones and francophiles a year. I understand that a lack of resources has put some newspapers in a precarious financial situation, and they are no longer able to provide the same quality of service to their local population. Could you briefly talk about this charter?
Mr. Sonier: I’ll give you a short history. The purpose of establishing such a charter came from a few events that made us understand that, in some communities, the advocate organizations seemed to want to lobby newsrooms. We didn’t want to blame anyone, so we assumed our responsibilities and thought that a charter would clarify the role of the media in the eyes of newspapers and organizations that must understand the boundaries.
It also allowed us to clearly establish values and principles, and to show how the media works. We are in the process of clarifying the application of this charter. We will discuss it in the coming months with various organizations, to raise awareness, if you like.
There is such proximity in some communities that people do not fully understand the role of the media. Community media are not conduits or public relations organizations to relay the organizations’ messages; they are there to contribute to the vitality, the debates, and the exchange of ideas. The media can sometimes be critical, and we talk about successes and failures, but all this helps to build a community that is more informed, more enlightened.
The charter essentially contains values and principles, and establishes parameters. So it’s much clearer for everyone.
Senator McIntyre: My second question is about the Official Languages Act. I understand that you think the Official Languages Act should be amended to respond to your needs in terms of government advertisements.
I’m asking you this question because Pierre Foucher, who is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, proposed amendments to section 11 of the act. Having said that, when he appeared before the Senate committee in October 2017, he pointed out, and I quote:
There is a recurrent problem due to the fact that the government does not always publish its notices and advertisements in the media of OLMCs.
He then recommended that it be a requirement under the act. In fact, his brief contained more specific recommendations to highlight three different steps. The first would force the government to publish in community media; the second would eliminate the words “wherever possible” in section 11; and finally, the third would include provisions to regulate electronic publications.
So far, no other witness has made such recommendations to the Senate committee. Do you think amendments should be made to the wording of sections 11 and 30 of the act?
Mr. Sonier: If it isn’t indicated, basically, the government has a responsibility to inform the population. In francophone minority communities, sometimes the newspaper is the only tool to reach the communities. The government’s role is to inform its population, and the ideal channels are community newspapers or radio stations. So, yes, in this sense, the government should assume its responsibility.
Advertising also has another role, if you will, because it helps to finance newspapers. It’s advertising in a way. Right now, we have a government that may not be showing the best of examples by buying advertising in GAFA. Money is being taken out of our country, invested with the Americans, who don’t pay taxes here, and during that time, the media, radio stations and newspapers get paid. These decisions were made 10 years ago, and we are feeling the consequences now.
This would contribute to the growth of newspapers, which are the pillars of the communities. I sincerely believe it should be amended.
Ms. Eddie: I agree with amending section 11, to give you a very short answer. I think it would help the media. However, I hope we can go further and help them in another way. I don’t think this is necessarily enough.
Senator McIntyre: How so?
Ms. Eddie: By making amendments to part VII of the act or having regulations on the media, I don’t know. I tried to do a little research to see what other countries are doing, to get a sense of the options that might be available to us. I’ve tried to see which countries are taking action for particular media, which countries see that it is acceptable to give more funding to the media that no longer need it.
Several countries give grants to print media. There are a lot of them, actually. To give you some examples, Austria gives grants to all its dailies, but gives more to certain newspapers it considers important for diversity of opinion. In Sweden, grants are given to newspapers that are considered economically fragile to support them in competitive markets, and Portugal gives a set of bonuses for technological modernization, digital development and vocational training. Studies have apparently shown that it is the weaker local and regional media that benefit more from these bonuses, to ensure that they can continue to provide an essential service to their community. There are all kinds of examples that demonstrate it.
In Switzerland, the disproportionate allocation of envelopes to linguistic minorities is being developed. Specifically, these are television programs that aim to ensure equivalence in the three languages. In addition, an article of law explicitly calls for the protection of print media and stipulates that, in return, print media does not need to fulfill a specific mandate. The government has no impact on its activities. There are all kinds of possibilities for Canada in this sense.
Senator McIntyre: To come back to the obligations in the act, and in reading up on the subject, I note that it is important to require the federal government to advertise in community media, hence the need to eliminate “wherever possible” from section 11. Could you expand on this famous term? In other words, it should be removed.
Ms. Lauzon: Yes, it definitely should be removed. Because, by definition, a francophone or anglophone in a minority situation can live in Quebec, for anglophones, and anywhere else in Canada, for francophones. Clearly, a francophone in Nunavut should have the same services as a francophone in Eastern Ontario.
The word “obligation” scares me, and therein lies the problem with the act. It’s the implementation that really rubbed us the wrong way. When we get to implementation, it seems that the work is not being done on the interdepartmental side. I’ll give you a concrete example. Advertisements come from Public Services and Procurement Canada, and their representatives constantly tell us that the directive comes from the Privy Council and the money comes from the Treasury Board. They wash their hands of it. For them, if the obligation is not accompanied by monetary envelopes, it is worthless. More in-depth analysis of the government machinery needs to be done to bring these interrelations to light when implementing this obligation. Right now, it’s very easy for a department like Public Services and Procurement Canada to blame another department. We need to go a little further and define this obligation, even if we appoint a government official. It is the Treasury Board that has to ensure that departments that have obligations under the act have sufficient funds and resources to fulfill them. If it were clearer in the act, perhaps the word “obligation” would be justified.
Senator McIntyre: In other words, it’s not just a question of strengthening the obligations in the act, but also the obligations in the policy on communications and federal identity.
Ms. Lauzon: Yes, definitely.
Senator McIntyre: I will conclude by saying that using “wherever possible” is a bit like a crutch for the federal government. If it’s not possible, they move on.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. My question is for our three witnesses and will seem very mundane to them.
For many years now, all the media have been preparing for the famous digital shift. We know that it hurts all those who don’t have a lot of funding. Is everything free for you? Do you receive no remuneration other than what you get from the government? Can you get your physical newspaper by subscription? Do people pay for advertising on community radio? Is that how it happens?
Mr. Sonier: I will speak for the majority of APF newspapers, of which Acadie Nouvelle is a member. It’s the same model. The vast majority of newspapers are paid. It’s a subscription model, even on the Internet. In the case of Acadie Nouvelle, 26 per cent of subscribers are digital. They have a replica of the newspaper, unlimited access to the website and other benefits. We don’t give away our material. We believe it is too valuable to give away. This is a niche market. We really touch on topics and themes that aren’t covered by other media. So most of the time, it’s actually profitable.
Senator Mégie: Have you noticed a drop in demand for subscriptions with the digital shift, or have you managed to create a niche market in the conversion to digital?
Mr. Sonier: In the specific case of Acadie Nouvelle, we have lost only 100 subscriptions in two years. There was a shift from paper to digital. These were either the same people or new people, but the numbers are the same after two years. There really is a shift going on, and there are also people who are willing to pay for the information. That said, the digital model is not profitable. Both elements aren’t enough to support the model.
Senator Mégie: You will have to fight for it to be adequately funded by the government, especially as part of a model, as Ms. Eddie pointed out earlier, where it is a question of giving a little more to those who need more. This might be a model to focus on. But where could we slip an amendment into the act to allow it?
Ms. Eddie: I don’t know about a specific amendment, but I think it fits perfectly into part VII of the Official Languages Act. During my presentation, I tried to show you that the media are key players in the development of communities. While part VII of the Official Languages Act focuses on community development, the promotion of both official languages and the development of communities, the media play a key role. I think it can fit in part VII somewhere, but I don’t know where exactly. There is also the possibility of a regulation that flows from the Official Languages Act that would be a regulation on the media.
Senator Poirier: Following up on Senator Megie’s question about the newspaper in both electronic and paper versions, all newspapers, both French and English, are turning to digital. Are advertising purchases different in both versions? Are advertisements seen more in the digital version than in the paper version? Have you noticed a difference?
Mr. Sonier: Digital advertising is increasing a bit, but much like the federal government right now, there are people who are attracted to social media like, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. These are platforms. Basically, when the federal government posts the advertisement on the Internet, even if my site reaches a quarter of a million people a month, I do not see any advertising from the federal government, and that’s not normal. I have a lot of visitors, but I don’t see it. So people are looking at social media, and it’s money leaving our country that isn’t being reinjected here. There is no tax either. When you buy $1 of advertising on Facebook, there is no tax. It’s the same for Google. That seems problematic to me. If we were going to get the tax on these ads, we should have a fund to reinvest in original content from here.
Senator Poirier: I imagine you have already shared this problem with the government.
Mr. Sonier: Yes.
Senator Mockler: For those who don’t know, Acadie Nouvelle is a very important work tool for us.
First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Sonier and his team from Acadie Nouvelle, for both the digital and web side, and the paper side. I know that Ms. Eddie and Ms. Lauzon are aware of the importance of tools to inform our population, so that our communities develop in terms of culture, democracy and knowledge. We are very familiar with the history of L'Évangéline, with what people have done with Acadie Nouvelle, which is an important icon for the development of our rural and urban communities.
I don’t think we should let people say that Acadie Nouvelle is a luxury. Acadie Nouvelle is not a luxury. It is a need, a necessity for promoting our socioeconomic development. Even previous governments have turned a deaf ear to a tool like Acadie Nouvelle in our regions. Mr. Sonier, when I come to Ottawa, I read this newspaper and am surprised to see the number of subscribers in the Madawaska, Restigouche and Victoria regions out of a population of 70,000, and to see the young people who are shifting to digital. Be careful. We must preserve our work tool. In western Canada, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, Canadians in minority situations face the same issues we do.
I was listening to Michel C. Auger on Radio-Canada this morning. He was addressing the issue of part IV of the act. My two questions concern Ministers Joly and Qualtrough. With respect to part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with communications with and services to the public, do you think the act should be strengthened to ensure the equal quality of the services offered to the public? Should the definition of service delivery to the public under the significant demand test be amended to allow you to experience and develop your communities?
The digital shift that Acadie Nouvelle has taken represents an immense and successful job. It is important to remember the other regions of our country if we want to send a message to the current government. We need to stop being taken for granted. We need to take specific steps that will help our communities to survive. Otherwise, Canada’s official languages will be threatened.
Mr. Sonier: Several times in recent years, departments have turned to newspapers to obtain free advertising outright. In the Northwest Territories, I believe Parks Canada asked for an important message to the public for a particular park. We were asked for advertising space for lack of money. If it is important to convey the message, why is there no money? This means that newspapers are important. If you want to put a message in a newspaper, it means that it is an important tool for reaching the community. It’s that simple.
The federal government started making cuts to advertising. If you look at the statistics, there was an incredible spike in newspapers with the H1N1 crisis. Why? Because newspapers reached people. It was decided at that time. We have seen it on a few occasions. This means that newspapers have their relevance.
These are two examples. It often happens that different departments approach us to announce a press conference. What appears in the newspaper, be it advertising or editorial content, is important. It is difficult to follow their reasoning. It is important, but they don’t want to give financial assistance. The government is responsible for advertising its programs and for recruiting, particularly with respect to National Defence. Community media, which is often the only local media, is the best channel to reach communities. We must not ignore them. On the one hand, this supports them and informs the population. The government is responsible for talking about its programs under part IV. It should be strengthened and respected.
The Chair: I would like to ask you two questions. The first has to do with the relationship of community media with Radio-Canada. We know that there are local media groups that ask that CBC/Radio-Canada be funded 100 per cent so that the public broadcaster is no longer competing with local media for advertising revenue.
What is the relationship between local media and CBC/Radio-Canada, which is seen as a public broadcaster? Are there challenges posed by coexisting? I am asking you the question in anticipation of a revision of the act. Is there anything to be said in the act that concerns community media or Radio-Canada?
Mr. Sonier: Radio-Canada doesn’t have enough money, we know and understand that. People believe that Radio-Canada plays an important role. Now, Radio-Canada has funding, and the community newspapers have less. However, Radio-Canada uses public funds to compete with us on the web. We are no longer winners.
That said, we should not contrast Radio-Canada with newspapers because there is a complementarity that exists and must remain. If we keep only Radio-Canada, we risk favouring only one perspective, while newspapers favour a diversity of perspectives, something we think is important.
I will never speak against Radio-Canada. It is necessary. Should the funding be changed? It isn’t my place to answer that question. We believe that Radio-Canada has its place and that community radio stations have theirs. Acadie Nouvelle and other newspapers make publishing op-ed pieces possible, something Radio-Canada cannot do. So the newspapers favour debates or exchanges of ideas, and represent a complement to the information from Radio-Canada. In that sense, Radio-Canada is as important in the landscape, but simply put, we think we are, too.
Ms. Eddie: I fully agree with Mr. Sonier that the two are complementary. I think Radio-Canada plays a certain role and, at the same time, it isn’t everywhere either. In fact, Radio-Canada is not very present in the regions. I was recently doing a content study of French-language media in the Atlantic regions, and it is quite interesting that it isn’t always Radio-Canada that talks about language issues, as we might think.
There are often cases that are not touched on by Radio-Canada, and it is Acadie Nouvelle or other media and other weeklies in other provinces that address these issues. I had the impression that Radio-Canada was playing that role, but I realize that these are very complementary roles, as Mr. Sonier said.
The Chair: Thank you. My second question is for Ms. Eddie. You spoke about community media as being important watchdogs for democracy, of course, and for information. Should the Official Languages Act include a statement in its preamble that would allow for a better understanding of the relationship between the various sectors of society and the particular role that the media play in this development dynamic of official language communities?
Ms. Eddie: That’s an interesting question. I haven’t thought about it at all, but it is striking that we always talk about minority sectors, and I have the impression that we never talk about media, except recently. It is astonishing to see how we seem to forget that the media are fundamental to the ability of minority communities to flourish.
When you think about it, after their studies, how can adults educate themselves, other than through the media? It seems to me that the media play such an important role in strengthening the francophone identity in the ability to mobilize and act politically.
So, for me, it would be a good idea if any provision could be added to the act that would highlight the very strong link between media and the community.
Senator McIntyre: Obviously, we are lacking mechanisms to ensure that the Official Languages Act will be applied fully.
Mr. Sonier, you mentioned strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and I fully agree with you. Of course, there are other mechanisms. My question is this: should powers be given to a central institution responsible for implementing the entire act?
Mr. Sonier: What you’re suggesting is to sort of centralize the powers related to the act.
Senator McIntyre: A central institution that would be responsible for ensuring that the Official Languages Act is applied fully.
Mr. Sonier: I would have thought that the Commissioner of Official Languages would have this authority. But with what we’re seeing today and if it remains unchanged, we won’t get the results we want. To some extent, your suggestion would be fully acceptable, but we still think the commissioner should have that authority.
Senator McIntyre: I agree with you. Perhaps we wouldn’t need a central institution responsible for ensuring the Official Languages Act is implemented if we were able to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. That’s certain.
Mr. Sonier: If we don’t, another solution should be found.
Senator McIntyre: I think that strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages would resolve a lot of things.
Ms. Eddie, would you like to add anything?
Ms. Eddie: I agree with creating an institution.
Senator McIntyre: You can talk about it in your doctoral dissertation.
Ms. Eddie: At this time, it may be Canadian Heritage that plays this role. It is clear that there may be a lack of connection between the different departments. There is a problem in that area. I don’t know if you’re talking about a new central institution or giving more power to an existing one.
Senator McIntyre: It would be more of a central institution. Now, you mentioned the Department of Canadian Heritage. Should the powers granted to the Minister of Canadian Heritage be reviewed?
Ms. Eddie: I don’t have an answer to that question, but it’s something that needs to be considered.
Senator McIntyre: All of this is part of the missing mechanisms. We must ensure that the Official Languages Act will be applied fully, and there is a lack in this respect.
Mr. Sonier: You are quite right. The way we have experienced the situation is that even after a favourable decision by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, everyone passes the buck. If someone can play this leadership role somewhere, I think it’s necessary. The closest thing is perhaps Canadian Heritage, it should be looked at. In any case, the situation is untenable at this time.
In our case, we made a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages. When we approached that authority, the situation had been going on for some time. When you make a complaint, there is a process. It has been almost three years now, and we still have had no outcome since the time we made our complaint, so two and a half years. It’s quite slow, quite lengthy; it has to move more quickly.
Senator McIntyre: Perhaps institutions that don’t comply with their linguistic obligations should be punished?
Ms. Lauzon: I don’t think punishing institutions is the answer. I think that, instead of leaning toward the negative side, the act must have added value. We need to be able to demonstrate the added value in institutions, government bodies and departments. Mr. Sonier spoke earlier about how, at this time, the officials responsible in departments are almost cynical about the Official Languages Act. It is an albatross, it’s a burden and it’s an added responsibility.
You spoke earlier about creating an authority, because right now you’re right; it is the minister who is responsible for the full application of the act in all departments, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I don’t know how another authority could be created, but it’s clear that it has to be linked to departmental resources that allow this full application. There is an irritant in each of the departments, and the officials always say, “Oh yes, the official languages, we have to make a report, we must make positive measures, we must succeed in moving the issue forward.” We see it every time: they look for what they can that will allow them to make their report at the end of the year. It must not be like that.
Senator McIntyre: That’s fine, Ms. Lauzon, but if it doesn’t work, what do we do? Should the courts be used for non-compliance with the act?
Ms. Lauzon: It doesn’t work. I think we need to find a model that will not be punitive, but one that will add value to departments.
Senator McIntyre: But it doesn’t work.
Ms. Lauzon: Not right now; it’s not an added value right now for departments.
Senator McIntyre: Don’t you think that we should turn to the courts for non-compliance with the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Lauzon: Personally, I’m against the punitive side because, first, court challenges, when you go to court, are long battles, and I will give you an example.
Senator McIntyre: But it works.
Ms. Lauzon: It works, but I will repeat an argument Mr. Sonier and I make to all of the departments we meet with. There are official language community media at this time that serve the communities. If we do not succeed, we are going to be forced to launch court challenges. That process can last from five to six years, and during that time, 85 per cent of our media will have closed their doors. That is the argument we make to the government.
We want to take a positive approach. At this time, what we say is that you should invest immediately, because in five or six years, restarting the community media machine is going to be much more costly, because 80 per cent of them will no longer be there. And so we are asking you to make a strategic investment to avoid all of that negative process and that waste of time; and we are asking you to work with us. That is when people start to listen. People don’t want to go through a whole process, they don’t want court challenges, so they begin to look at things differently. We are meeting with the deputy minister tomorrow about the $50 million. This is our approach: let’s invest right now to avoid a long process that will take us back to square one and force us to rebuild. That is our approach with the departments at this time.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a complementary question. You referred to the Commissioner of Official Languages, and you asked him, if I understood correctly, to play an upstream role in getting the departments together so you could discuss the issue of community media. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Are you hoping that the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages will be beefed up so he can help you in that way? That is my first question.
My second question follows up on Senator McIntyre’s question. Certain witnesses we heard spoke about Treasury Board as a body that could in fact be the main entity responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act, and in that way it could exert some influence on the various departments. What are your thoughts?
Ms. Lauzon: I can answer the first question. We saw that things were not working, not moving forward. Our consortium asked the commissioner to get all of the stakeholders who were named in the original complaints to sit down at the same table. We are talking about the Privy Council Office, the Secretariat of the Treasury Board, Public Services and Government Procurement Canada, and Canadian Heritage. We added Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, which now has an envelope for digital transformation, and the CRTC, because we have community radios. We specified that we would like to see a harmonized plan put in place. We understand that there are a lot of pieces in the puzzle to be put together. We want to develop a work plan or a harmonized action plan with all of the departments at the table and to see every one of them work on their part. As a consortium we can manage the puzzle, we can work with every department. We submitted the request to the commissioner. We told him that we know that this is not his usual role, but that we’re in a way asking him for an act of faith, a sort of pilot project with the consortium to see if that approach would be more conclusive than the current approach, with the follow-ups and all of that. The commissioner did not refuse, but he did say that his office would follow up, that he was preparing to do follows-ups, but nothing has happened since.
We believe that by furthering dialogue among community stakeholders and the key departments, this type of more strategic role would allow us to have a much more harmonized and productive approach. So that is an idea we had, and we still believe in it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much. In another life, I used to be invited to discussions, in which Senator Poirier also participated. When New Brunswick modernized its Official Languages Act — an activity you followed closely —, one department oversaw the implementation of the act in each department. At a certain point, the premier at the time, Mr. Lord, gave the responsibility to the Privy Council and Office of the Premier. I had the opportunity of chatting with the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick in the past, and he told me that it was a work instrument that proved very useful. Could we not recommend the same thing to the current government with the stakeholders, principals and partners? Should this not be managed not only by a specific department, but be led by the Privy Council or someone inside the Prime Minister’s Office? That could be more effective.
Ms. Lauzon: If the New Brunswick model was more effective, I think it deserves to be examined, and we should see how we might adapt it at the federal level. If a model exists that worked well once, why not use it?
Senator Mockler: With changes in government, many things changed. I don’t know what is in place currently. I know the minister who is responsible at this time, and we are trying to find mechanisms to move the file forward. It is a big machine.
I would have one last question. You made a request to meet with ministers Joly and Qualtrough. Was there a follow-up, and what would you propose to strengthen the role of the Office of the Commissioner?
Mr. Sonier: They did not turn us down, as such, but we are still waiting for an appointment with the minister. Tomorrow we will meet with officials from Canadian Heritage. We have the impression that people are listening to us much more attentively now than they were three months ago, when we sent a letter to the ministers. We feel that a certain responsiveness has developed, but we want action. When we have been promised certain things for months and months, action is what we need to see.
For a lot of newspapers, the fiscal year ends on March 31, and April 1 is the beginning of a new year. Some newspapers are going to have trouble next year, and I can’t guarantee that they will still be in business by Christmas. That is the point we have reached. There has to be movement. This is an emergency situation. The newspapers aren’t saying that they are having trouble for the fun of it. They have their pride, and when they say that they need help, it’s true. We aren’t talking about the large press groups, necessarily, but about newspapers that fill a void in the communities where the large press groups are no longer present. Whether it is Bell Media or other press groups, the newspapers have vacated the scene, and what is left are community newspapers and radios in some sectors. I’m not talking about Ottawa, but about some areas in the eastern part of the country, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, for instance. The situation is urgent. We still don’t have an answer. That said, we know that an action plan is going to be announced over the coming weeks, and we dare hope that certain things are going to move. We are patient, but action must be taken.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Chair, without asking other questions, it seems there may be an emergency, and we are at a crossroads. Perhaps the chair and the committee could follow up, send a letter to the minister concerned, meet with representatives in order to allow us to prepare an action plan? It’s life and death.
The Chair: The suggestion has been heard.
Senator Mégie: This isn’t a trick question, but I’m going to ask it. Do you see the government as being proud of the work that has been done in connection with the Official Languages Act? Do you get that impression? Do you get that sense, in your exchanges and reports?
I have another question for you based on your answer to that one.
Mr. Sonier: I don’t know what to say to you. Yes, there is increased awareness, that is true. But I would add that it is not accompanied by any eagerness. Perhaps that is what is missing, when people are really determined to do something. You know, Mr. Smith, in sport when you are determined to accomplish something, you do it, you prepare, you forge ahead. I get the impression… there is an appearance. There may be certain things happening, I don’t know.
Senator Mégie: I’m asking that question because I was wondering if you felt any enthusiasm for informing people, since you represent regional media. The government should be proud to be able to inform the population in general about work that is being done to modernize the Official Languages Act. So you could suggest it, in terms of funding, while waiting for the big things to get going. It could be a small source of funding in the meantime. It’s just an idea that came to me in passing.
Ms. Lauzon: This is related to what you just said. The legalization of cannabis on July 1 will be accompanied by necessary publicity, and information will have to be transmitted. It will be a huge campaign. One of the emergency measures we propose is that all of the publicity for that campaign come through our newspapers and our community radios. For the moment, let’s go with such campaigns. It’s an emergency measure. It’s related to what you said. This type of campaign would give us a hand up so that we could move on to the second phase of our action plan.
If the government could call on our community newspapers and radios in the context of these major campaigns, we would have time to work with it to develop a harmonized action plan with solid measures. Canadian Heritage wants a harmonized project. We don’t want to come back here in five years. We want our media to be strong, solid, and not have to waste energy trying to survive, but rather to inform the population and serve the public interest and democracy.
Senator Poirier: You receive your funding from the federal government, through your clients who purchase your newspaper, and from advertisements; do you also receive funding from the provinces?
Mr. Sonier: Certain newspapers do, yes. At the Association de la presse francophone, some newspapers do receive some funding from provincial governments.
Senator Poirier: Do the newspapers and media that are not in a minority situation face the same challenges?
Mr. Sonier: Yes. However, in Toronto, for example, there are a lot of media; if some of them fail, the information still gets transmitted on radio, television and other platforms. In minority situations, the newspapers and other media are often the only source of information. Yes, all of the media are affected, but pursuant to the law, it is the government’s responsibility to contribute to enhancing the vitality of the communities, and it is in that sense that it is important to support those media. They are an important information channel, and must remain so.
Ms. Eddie: In support of what Mr. Sonier said, in modernizing the Official Languages Act, we have to ensure that the community media sector remains dynamic. That is the reason why some countries choose to invest, to subsidize specific media, because they recognize that some media are particularly important and that it is primordial that they not be lost. These are often regional, local or minority language media, or those that are considered fragile. That is precisely the situation of minority media in Canada. They are regional, they are local, they are fragile, they are small; they have fewer resources, and they are up against conglomerates.
The idea is that in five years we don’t have to come back before you again to try to find solutions for the next five years. It is important to establish short, medium and long-term emergency measures. It would be good that we not always have to resort to emergency measures.
Senator Poirier: So currently we are waiting for responses on two fronts; first, the action plan that will soon be presented; afterwards, the $50 million over five years we were talking about earlier, for 2018-2019. You are expecting good news on those two measures. Have you prepared an emergency plan just in case the news is not what you expect?
Ms. Sonier: The idea box is starting to be empty.
Ms. Lauzon: We have a plan with multiple interchangeable measures for the departments. But as Mr. Sonier said, the idea box is starting to be depleted.
To attempt to answer your last question, you cannot compare the daily newspaper in a village of 20,000 people in Quebec to the Franco in Edmonton. Why? Because the daily in the 20,000-inhabitant town benefits from a critical mass of business people who purchase advertising. The newspaper Le Franco in Alberta does not have that advantage. Is it worse for our media? Yes, 10 times worse.
Senator Poirier: Thank you very much for your replies.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your interventions. Without attempting to summarize your statements, I would say that they certainly support the idea that the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized. You are very taken up by the short-term challenges you face. You have a lot of aspirations and hopes with regard to the action plan on official languages and the other meetings you hope to have. You highlighted the challenges of implementing the act through mechanisms, for example, that would allow the various departments to work together in order to ensure that the act is implemented. You spoke about strengthening the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and I will conclude by saying that you also spoke a lot about the importance of community media for Canadian democracy and for the diversity of voices and freedom of expression. Since the Senate is here to further the vitality of minorities and regions, I think that you have enlightened us, and your statements will be very useful to us in the drafting of this report. If you have any other comments, I invite you to send them to us, of course, so that we can take them into account in our report.
Senator Mockler: I have a suggestion. You spoke about democracy, and I agree with you, this is a working instrument for democracy. Here in Parliament, we are political, in the sense that men and women who are elected by the people come here to do the best they can to contribute to improving the quality of life in every region in Canada. That being said, have you met any of the members and ministers who are responsive to the plight of the minority francophonie?
Ms. Lauzon: How many meetings have we had since the summer of 2016? We have lost count. I like the “in your face” concept; that is us. Before, no one knew us, but now they do. We have done an enormous amount of work to ensure that our message gets through, and to have our elected representatives understand the importance of an immediate strategic investment to avoid a catastrophe and the loss of our community media.
The tabling of our report launched everything in the summer of 2016. We have made a continuous effort to be here, in front of everyone. As you may know, the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons is doing a study on the media and their needs. It is making that study a priority, because it wants to send recommendations to the cabinet by the end of April or the beginning of May. So people are hearing us. It seems that our message is getting through, but we are starting to run out of breath.
Senator Mockler: They listen to us more attentively every four years.
The Chair: Ms. Lauzon, Mr. Sonier, Ms. Eddie, thank you very much for your interventions.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we must now adopt the budget application for the fact-finding mission of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages that will be conducted in the Outaouais and in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, from April 17 to April 20, 2018.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Poirier, seconded by Senator Mégie, that the budget application for the special study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The budget is accepted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some hon. senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is agreed to.
Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)
[English]