Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - Meeting of March 7, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, March 7, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:30 p.m., to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. My name is Senator Claudette Tardif. I am from Alberta and it is my honour and my pleasure to chair this meeting.
Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Good evening and welcome.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Maltais from Quebec City, Quebec.
The Chair: Today, the committee is hearing from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA. They will give us an overview of the main issues affecting their communities.
We are pleased to welcome Sylviane Lanthier, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, and Suzanne Bossé, the federation's director general.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for accepting our invitation to be here today. I would ask you to make your presentation as concisely as possible so that more senators can ask questions.
Ms. Lanthier, the floor is yours.
Sylviane Lanthier, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Madam Chair, honourable senators, it is a real pleasure for me to be before you this evening and I must thank you for inviting us to appear. My name is Sylviane Lanthier. I am the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. With me this evening is our director general, Suzanne Bossé.
Two weeks ago, the FCFA was invited to appear before your colleagues on the House of Commons finance committee. On that occasion, I announced two pieces of good news that I would also like to share with you. The first piece of good news is that there have never been as many people wishing to live in French in Canada, and the demand for activities and services in that language is constantly growing.
The second is that, all across the country, we have a network of builders who have taken the lead in developing the infrastructures we need in order to live in French. This network, spearheaded by the FCFA, is constantly searching for innovative solutions in order to better serve 2.6 million French-speaking Canadians in nine provinces and three territories, and to better meet their needs.
You asked us to tell you about our priorities and, as the basis for my remarks, I would like to focus on a significant event that will take place next year, the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation. The 2017 celebrations provide the opportunity to highlight everything in DNA as a people, to clearly affirm the great values we hold, including our country's linguistic duality.
Just the fact that French-speaking communities exist in all regions of the country enables us to speak genuinely of Canada's linguistic duality. The 2017 celebrations provide the government with a wonderful opportunity to make historic gestures to reaffirm the importance of that linguistic duality by supporting the vitality of our communities and the capacity of Canadians to live in French.
More specifically, I am going to share with you four major priorities that could guide the studies your committee will be undertaking. First and foremost there is the strengthening of the capacity of our communities, particularly with the infrastructure, services, and organizations and institutions working to develop French. There is no doubt about the value added by our community and cultural centres, our schools, our settlement and employment assistance services, our community media and our local francophone organizations. However, today, those institutions have reached the limits of what they can do with the resources they have available.
A number of our organizations receive funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Official Languages Support Program, but that funding has not been increased or even indexed for 11 years now. Given the increase in the cost of living, that represents a step backwards of 30 to 35 per cent in the resources of those organizations. Other organizations are experiencing difficulty, because the funding established in the Roadmap for Official Languages has still not been released, three years after it was launched.
Our media are also living in a state of fragility that is a cause for concern; in fact, tomorrow morning, the FCFA is appearing at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on that issue. It will come as no surprise to you when I tell you that the cuts at Radio-Canada have considerably weakened the regional stations that serve our communities. In terms of community media, last year saw L'Express Ottawa cease publication and, in Saskatchewan, Eau vive suspended its own for several months. Our newspapers and radio stations are experiencing a considerable drop in income from federal advertising. More generally, at a time when, for better or for worse, the entire media industry is moving towards a more digitally-based business model, our media need support in order to turn that corner.
As we look ahead, living in a digital world is not within the grasp of all French-speakers, particularly those living in rural or remote communities. It is difficult to live digitally when you have no cellular network, as is the case in the Port au Port Peninsula in Newfoundland. It is difficult to watch video content online when you have no access to a high- speed connection worthy of the name, as is the case in rural regions of Nova Scotia, or where the bandwidth costs are out of reach, as they are in the Yukon.
In a word, strengthening the capacity of our communities is essential if we want them to remain the champions of French-language promotion that they are at the moment. We must be able to modernize and improve our infrastructures in order to meet the growing demand. Our media must be able to turn the digital corner. Our organizations and institutions must be able to meet the emerging needs, such as francophone immigration.
That brings me to the second priority that I want to talk to you about today, demographic growth. Last week, at the Journée de réflexion sur l'immigration francophone, we met Minister McCallum and were able to update him on the major issues involved. He completely understood that, for us, francophone immigration is not a simple matter of providing services to individuals, but rather of strengthening our communities. It is a problem that we need to deal with collectively, and, if we are going to succeed, we must have the ability to promote our communities as places that are ready to welcome potential immigrants from abroad. We need specific approaches designed to increase the number of immigrants who choose our communities or who are recruited by the employers in our regions. Finally, we need increased support for reception and settlement services in French, services created by and for our communities.
The third priority will likely come as no surprise to you: the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I must acknowledge retired Senator Maria Chaput, because of whom you have before you once more a bill designed to modernize the act and the regulations that determine where, and under which circumstances, Canadians receive services and communications in the official language of their choice.
In recent years, we have seen a significant decline in the operation of the act. Without a central authority responsible for overseeing a consistent application throughout the entire federal apparatus, a number of institutions have been content with doing the bare minimum, and sometimes even less. Because of budget cuts, some no longer have the capacity to meet their language obligations appropriately. A recent report from the Commissioner of Official Languages has also pointed out how, in the deficit-fighting exercise of 2012, the Treasury Board no longer made any effort to require federal institutions to account for the impact of their decisions on those obligations or on the official language minority communities.
Still under the heading of the implementation of the Official Languages Act, it is important to focus on the way in which, when transferring funds to provinces and territories under various agreements, the federal government ensures that its linguistic requirements are met and that the funds also benefit our communities. It is important for the government to make sure that accountability in that respect is transparent.
The final priority that I would like to talk to you about this evening is the impact of plans for democratic reform on the representation in Parliament of our communities. As I am sure you know, the FCFA was a very active participant in the debate on Senate reform in the last Parliament. We certainly look forward to participating in the discussions on the new way of appointing senators.
We also know that another debate is getting under way in the House of Commons about the implementation of some form of proportional representation. In both cases, our main concern remains to ensure that those reforms maintain the political representation of our communities. That issue could also be the subject of a study in your committee. That is our recommendation to you, in any event.
Senators, there are a number of challenges, but we in the FCFA and those in our sphere of activity are optimistic. As I told you earlier, building is in our DNA; our vision is for a modern, diversified and committed francophonie to be our legacy to our children and grandchildren — and, to use a term coined by member of Parliament Randy Boissonnault — to all the country's franco-curious. We know that, with goodwill, effort and collaboration, we can achieve it.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. First, Ms. Lanthier, I must congratulate you for your appointment as president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I wish you much success. I would be remiss not also to highlight the good work done by Marie-France Kenny, your former president, whose reputation stands on its own merits.
Some of my questions were dealt with in your presentation, but I would like some clarifications. First of all, was the federation consulted during the planning of the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation?
Ms. Lanthier: I do not believe that we were consulted during that planning, no.
Senator Poirier: Can you tell me what the federation's expectations for those celebrations are?
Ms. Lanthier: As we mentioned in our presentation, we would like the festivities to be the opportunity to celebrate the francophonie in Canada and our linguistic duality. We would like Canadians to be able to remind ourselves about the importance of linguistic duality as a central thread linking the entire country. We believe that one of our great strengths in Canada is to have two official languages and that the fact must be celebrated by all Canadians.
Senator Poirier: In the past, with events of this magnitude, would it not have been normal for the FCFA to be consulted?
Suzanne Bossé, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: If I may, the FCFA appeared before parliamentary committees twice two years ago. The framework of the Canada 150 program then appeared and we have had no further discussions as to the directions or the use of funds.
Senator Poirier: My second question is about Radio-Canada. This has been quite a delicate subject for some years. The federal government has promised additional funding for Radio-Canada. What are your expectations for that additional funding?
Ms. Lanthier: It is our fond hope that a part of that funding will be directed to Radio-Canada's regional stations, so that they can be re-equipped with human resources, with people, in order to provide francophone communities with good service. Since the previous funding, which supported regional programming, was abolished, we have seen that the cuts at Radio-Canada in francophone communities and regional stations have brought with them major changes and we are losing ground. The journalistic capacity of Radio-Canada in covering events in our communities has been greatly diminished, so we believe that reinvestment in new services is essential. We also believe that funds should be invested in programming other than news in order to reflect the vitality of our communities.
Senator Poirier: We cannot ignore the Federal Court of Appeal's decision overturning the Federal Court's decision about Radio-Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to the crown corporation's language obligations. In your view, if the commissioner could investigate, would there be a better reflection of francophone and Acadian communities?
Ms. Lanthier: Yes.
Senator Poirier: We are going to be meeting the commissioner about that shortly.
My final question is about refugees. Did the federal government consult the FCFA in order to find out the capacity to receive refugees in francophone communities and, more specifically, in minority francophone communities?
Ms. Bossé: The FCFA took part in a number of conference calls organized by the Department of Immigration. Certainly, in our communities, we organized ourselves. School boards, families, health services, all the organizations that have anything to do with our francophone immigration network, were very well organized.
However, refugees were not steered towards our francophone services, even though they existed. The settlement services provided for immigrants are very rare, especially francophone services by and for francophones. Manitoba is the only place in the country where there are services in French for refugees.
Otherwise, there are none for refugees as such. In terms of the assessment of language skills, language training and employment onboarding, services in French are very rare, except in central southwest Ontario and in Manitoba.
However, we still have had some success. In our communities, some parents have managed to identify Syrian refugees in schools, for example. We sought them out to welcome them and to make sure that they were receiving services in French, despite the limited resources we had to do so.
Senator Poirier: Does the officially bilingual province of New Brunswick not provide services of that kind?
Ms. Bossé: The province does not provide specialized reception services for refugees.
Senator Poirier: Of the 25,000 refugees, how many have received services in French?
Ms. Bossé: We do not have that information. We have asked the department for it. We told Minister McCallum that, despite all the efforts we made in the communities, it remains very difficult to provide services because, most of the time, the refugees end up in anglophone reception organizations. They are not referred to our French services. We are working very closely with the department to try and change that, but there is still a lot of work to do.
Senator Maltais: Ladies, thank you for your excellent presentation and for the very important work you are doing.
In terms of the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation, would there be a way to gently remind the Minister of Heritage that Canada was discovered first in French, in Acadia, where you come from? Sebastian Cabot was not the one who discovered it. Canada was built because of two nations, and the first Canadian nation spoke French. That is clear. Moreover, the explorers did not arrive in Alberta; they arrived in Port Royal, with apologies to our chair. We have to hammer that point. It is inconceivable that you are involved to such a minor extent.
Let us talk about Radio-Canada now. When the Conservative government was in power, it was blamed for everything. The Liberal government has announced its very clear intention to give Radio-Canada and envelope of $75 million in its first budget and $150 million in the following year. That is what the minister has hinted. Do you think that that money will be directed to minority francophone communities or is it your impression, as it is mine, that Montreal is going to grab most of that funding?
People are already waiting. People from Radio-Canada are not waiting for the day after the budget to knock on the door and submit plans and whatever. They are doing so openly. I am really afraid that the $75 million will not be going to Moncton, Fredericton, Halifax, Saint John, Prince Edward Island, Sudbury, or to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
What guarantees can you get from the minister that the money will be spent in communities where the budget cuts were made? When a Radio-Canada employee is laid off, it is always in the regions, never at the head. No one in Montreal has lost their job. The corporation has 30-storey buildings and there is no problem. I come from a region in the north of Quebec and I can assure you that Radio-Canada does not you get out of there. So I would like to know whether you can get a guarantee from the minister about that.
Ms. Lanthier: We have not yet met with Minister Joly. When we meet with her, we will have quite a list of topics to present to her and Radio-Canada will certainly be on it.
As I said, it is important for investment to be put back into Radio-Canada's regional stations. We recently appeared before the CRTC, which was holding consultations on regional television. We proposed a new fund specifically for regional and local television that would close the gap that presently exists and that would give the stations where we live the resources they need to do their job properly. We are talking about news again, but also about other types of programming that would reflect what is happening in the communities.
So we are working along those lines and we are doing all the advocacy we can. It is important for us that Radio- Canada, and the community media, are able to do their job and reflect life in our communities.
Senator Maltais: For Radio-Canada at the moment, francophone communities outside Quebec hardly exist, or do not exist at all. When programs are made in those regions — I usually watch Unis TV myself — they have a humorous edge that I do not like at all.
Canadian reality is A mari usque ad mare. According to its mandate, Radio-Canada should be shining the spotlight on Canadian unity, not going around sowing discord. When I hear about thoroughbred horses being raised in northern Ontario, I find it really interesting because I had no idea that it was happening. But things should not be made fun of.
If you are talking about the aboiteaux in the Annapolis Valley, you have to focus on their architecture to the point of almost making it into a university course, because we are talking about structures that were in existence 500 years ago. Unfortunately, what francophones have done is not valued, not enough at least.
Two years ago, during the francophone festivals in New Brunswick, I had the privilege of touring a number of New Brunswick municipalities and attending their parish fairs. I came back flabbergasted at the talent of the young people. For example, I saw Évangeline done as a really amazing play. The youngsters did it in a humorous way that Charlie Chaplin himself would have appreciated. The talent there is extraordinary. I mentioned it on CBC and, two days later, Radio-Canada people were in town looking for that little play. They did not find it because there were only two performances. That shows you that they are far from being on the cutting edge.
I am asking you to pay very close attention to where the funding is going, because I am afraid that it will go only to the Radio-Canada tower in Montreal, which, by the bye, is up for sale. If you want hosts and producers, there are a number in Montreal who are not doing a great deal and who could be recycled back to the regions. It would do them good to see what Canada really is. That is my hope for you.
I would like to add a word about refugees. What you are experiencing where you live at the moment is just as improbable as what we are experiencing in Quebec. However, we have brought in a good number of them, specifically because of a language law. Quebec is the only province to have legislated in this area, making French the official language. Young people arriving in Quebec are subject to Bill 101. However, their parents are not. The common language is Arabic, but the parents are going to have to learn English and the children French. Imagine how an employer is going to have to sort that situation out. It is a problem at the moment. The two governments and the host communities are working very well together. However, they are facing a real problem and the short-term solution is not yet clear. I was watching a report on the matter from Toronto and it turns out that they are facing serious problems there too.
Given the 25,000, or even 40,000, refugees by the end of the year, I do not know how we as Canadians will be able to react in each of our own languages. That is just my suggestion to you.
The Chair: Did you want to respond, Ms. Lanthier?
Ms. Lanthier: I agree with you when you say that Radio-Canada has a national mandate. That is also what we tell the people from Radio-Canada. We hope and wish for, we want and demand a better job of encouraging a kind of conversation between the various regions of the country and the people there so that, in Quebec, they understand what is happening in other francophone communities, not just the opposite. I feel that Radio-Canada is there to build bridges between the various regions of the country and the various communities. Not enough is being done. There is still a lot of work needed to improve things, including allowing Quebeckers to better understand who we are, those of us who live in French outside Quebec. That is one of our demands for Radio-Canada and it is a message that we are constantly sending them. The regional stations are still doing a good job but it could be improved if there were more resources. We want them to have more resources.
We will be checking what happens with the additional funding for Radio-Canada, because we are demanding that it does not simply go to Quebec but to all the provinces. We met with Radio-Canada executives last week. They said they have already identified vulnerable areas where they intend to reinvest. We do not know exactly what those vulnerable areas are, but we can guess that some of them are in the regions.
The Chair: The report that our committee produced in April 2014 about CBC/Radio-Canada and its compliance with its language obligations is just as relevant today as it was in 2014. Some of the recommendations that you have made and to which Senator Maltais was referring, have already been prepared.
Senator Maltais: When you meet with the minister, talk to her about the place of radio on Radio-Canada. Let me give you an example. I drive between Quebec City and Ottawa every week. There will be no hockey to listen to this year, of course. So I have to listen to Radio-Canada because it is the only station that you can always get everywhere.
There are some interesting shows about young people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Acadia, with reporters going into schools. However, the shows are broadcast at 11:30 at night. Who listens to them except people like me who have not gone to bed yet or night security guards in hospitals? The time slot is important. Why not broadcast them in the afternoon or at 4:00 p.m. when the kids are getting out of school so they can tune in, inside and outside Quebec, to find out what is going on in French-speaking Canada? The time slot is important.
Ms. Lanthier: We exist in prime time as well; I really agree with you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, chair. Thank you, witnesses. My question to you is, out of the key issues affecting the francophone minority, which one would you consider the highest priority? For example, would it be immigration, ministerial mandates, availability of the public service or any other things you are concerned about?
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: Thank you for your question, senator. Our biggest priority, if we had to choose one, would be strengthening our capacity, because living in French requires strong communities and organizations on the ground that are capable of organizing life in French. So, when we talk about strengthening our community capacities, we are really talking about strengthening the cultural centres, the organizations where children can play soccer in French, can take swimming in French and can buy books in French. Really, it is about everything that lets children go to school in French and creates a public space where French is heard.
So it is important for us that French should live outside people's homes and be recognized in public. In order to do that, we need organizations that foster life in French and become French-speaking workplaces, French-speaking lifestyles, thereby generating passion and vitality. That is very important for us. In recent years, there has been a reduction in the capacity of the institutions, not least because of funding that has not increased. Organizations are closing their doors in some places and often those are the places that are also the most vulnerable.
We would like to reverse that trend so that we do not lose that vitality and so that the francophones in our communities, and the anglophones who want some life in French — because there are still a lot of them — can find a way to live part of their life in French.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Lanthier.
[English]
You mentioned to us the current road map, 2013-18, and you mentioned certain disappointments with it. I would like to hear you elaborate on that a bit and perhaps tell us what you feel are the strengths, what have been the successes. We're in the midst of it, but you mentioned issues with the implementation of its schedule. It seems to be behind.
Then you could tell us what the key weaknesses are and what your expectations are going forward. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: Thank you for your question. We have two main concerns with the roadmap. Our first concern is about the transparency of the roadmap, by which we mean our ability to access the information that allows us to find out whether it really is being implemented, how that is being done, and how the money is being spent. Our second concern is to find out whether the money has been spent.
We understand, for example, that for francophone immigration, under the roadmap, there is quite a considerable sum that was supposed to be spent to encourage francophone immigration. Theoretically, $120 million is being spent and will be spent in this area. What we observe in our communities, however, is that organizations providing services are not able to do promotion, recruitment and sometimes not even settlement. So there are gaps because there are no resources. If those amounts have been spent, we do not know how.
There are also some programs linked to job creation and social development. For example, $4 million were spent in francophone communities, but the money took an inordinate amount of time to start coming. I read in a report from the official languages committee that it seems that the money is beginning to be spent, but it took a lot of time and during that time not a lot happened in the area. It is in areas like that that we wonder what is happening with the roadmap.
[English]
Senator Seidman: So these are the specific weaknesses and disappointments that you talked about. Is this particular to this road map, or is this a problem that has happened in the past? We know there are five-year plans, basically, and this is not the first. Has this been an ongoing issue?
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: Yes, it is indeed an ongoing problem.
Ms. Bossé: Perhaps I could add something. Yes, it is an ongoing problem, but it has also got worse. On top of the lack of transparency, on top of the fact that the money has not been released, it also turns out that the government has a new approach to funding. You might call it social finance, you might talk about the fact that in health, job creation, social development, literacy and skills development, for example, the government has decided to expand the calls for proposals. That means that organizations in our communities have not received the investments they need to provide services to the public. The organizations chosen were anglophone, or they were from Quebec, but they know nothing at all about our communities. That situation is more and more difficult and the result is that minority francophone communities have taken a step backwards.
That being said, you asked us if there have been successes. There certainly have been in health projects. A lot of money has been spent in the area, through universities, in order to train more health care professionals in French. As for economic development, several million dollars have been invested and community organizations know how to use the money well. I imagine that you will have the opportunity to hear from those organizations as well.
As for our aspirations for the future, the FCFA has begun to hold discussions with the 42 organizations that are part of the francophonie network. Last November, we began to examine, sector by sector, how our next plan for improving the official languages could contribute to community development. In fact, the communities will be the ones benefiting, rather than other institutions or other organizations.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I presume, like all of us, you've seen the mandate letters for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, so you're familiar with that. Have you some expectations with regard to that, that somehow there are things there that would help you with your issues of transparency, for example, and where the money is really going?
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: What we see in Minister Joly's mandate letter in particular is the idea of creating a new action plan for the official languages in collaboration with the francophone communities. From the outset, we found the idea that we are going to be part of developing the plan very positive. We know that consultations have been announced for this summer. So, as my colleague Suzanne said, we are in the process of working with our communities to determine what our approach might be, starting in 2016, and what our next priorities might be. That is an area where important work needs to be done.
A modern version of the Court Challenges Program could also be reinstated. We worked on that issue too and we established an expert committee in order to propose another program that could meet the needs of francophone communities and of the anglophone minority in Quebec. So we are ready to work with the government on that.
There are some items that interest us a great deal, such as the whole issue of bilingual judges on the Supreme Court and the issue of ensuring that the Official Languages Act is implemented.
The Chair: Before we go to a second round, I have a few questions that follow on questions that have already been asked.
You indicated that you think some funds have not been released. Do you know the amount that apparently has not been released? Have some sectors been affected more than others? Speaking of the new social finance formula, do some departments use this formula more than others? Have you had to work with departments that use this formula?
Ms. Lanthier: Under the roadmap, Employment and Social Development Canada is mentioned. We are specifically talking about $4 million, which we know very well has not been spent so far. That is a concrete example.
As for social finance, that is the department in charge of the project. Our concern with this is that our communities are very small, making it very difficult for them to attract the attention of private companies that would be willing to invest in social finance projects with organizations while still making a profit. So there is not really a market for it. That is a concern, and that is why we have asked the government to conduct an impact study on the repercussions if we use social finance as a way to fund our operations.
We know that organizations have already responded to or participated in the calls for proposals that had a social finance component, but that is not always an easy route to take in our communities.
Ms. Bossé: So Employment and Social Development Canada's $4 million initiative is for the Social Development Partnerships Program. At this point, four organizations are involved and have worked for over a year on developing a project, but we are still waiting for an answer from the department. I am referring specifically to the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, the Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada and . . . .
Ms. Lanthier: . . . the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française.
Ms. Bossé: Thank you. The amount of $4 million actually comes from the 2008-2013 roadmap budget. The envelope had been invested in activities aimed at strengthening early childhood networks. So all the early childhood networks in our organizations were able to benefit from those investments. Early childhood has been removed completely from the 2013-2018 roadmap. So the organization faces significant challenges. The Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences (RESDAC) has not received any financial support from the Department of Employment and Social Development. The roadmap funds were instead allocated to other organizations, forcing RESDAC organizations to shut their doors.
As for social finance, at least a year and a half ago, the FCFA submitted a proposal to the Department of Employment and Social Development to conduct an impact study to determine whether the model can work in our communities. We are still waiting for an answer from the department.
The Chair: Thank you. We move to the second round. Do you have a supplementary, Senator Maltais?
Senator Maltais: I have a short supplementary question. I wonder whether you have a control mechanism, or whether the federal government has one. Let me give you a concrete example. The federal government invests $5 million in the francophonie in Alberta. Does the federal government have a control mechanism to ensure that the funds are actually invested in the education sector or the francophonie, not in public works or road work? Does the federal government have an oversight mechanism?
Ms. Lanthier: To our knowledge, the federal government directly funds francophonie organizations through, for example, support programs provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments. The federal government also funds initiatives within the francophonie through federal-provincial agreements in education or in other areas. Are there ways to monitor that type of funding? I don't think so. I also think that is an excellent question, because we hear that it would be useful to obtain more information on how those funds are spent, their impact, and what the departments do with them.
We also know that, with respect to the issue of federal-provincial agreements, in other sectors, such as job creation, what is important is to ensure that any language-related provisions allow the transfer of linguistic obligations from the federal government to the provinces, and that the provinces meet their obligations.
Senator Poirier: Earlier, you talked about four different organizations drawing up proposals; can provincial governments apply for those funds, or is the program for organizations only?
Ms. Lanthier: Are you talking about roadmap funding?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Lanthier: For cultural matters, provinces can apply under the cultural fund of the roadmap.
Senator Poirier: No, not the cultural fund, but the other one we were talking about.
Ms. Bossé: Is it the Social Development Partnerships Program?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Bossé: I don't know the answer. You would have to ask Employment and Social Development Canada, but I don't think so. To my knowledge, the department would like to be able to work with organizations in our networks and communities, but the problem is that nothing materializes. In other programs, such as the ones at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a call for proposals was launched in the summer of 2015, and the eligibility — in terms of who could submit a proposal — extended to provincial governments, municipalities and individuals abroad who could provide settlement services to immigrants in our communities, across the country. In our communities, our networks have submitted proposals, but in terms of the Social Development Partnerships Program, that would surprise me.
Senator Poirier: Do you know whether they have applied for and received funding?
Ms. Bossé: No, you would have to check with those departments.
The Chair: I would like to pick up on a few of your points. You indicated that you were hoping to strengthen your infrastructure capacity and that you appeared before the House of Commons finance committee.
Have you proposed an amount in your requests? How much are we looking at to strengthen the infrastructure in the areas identified?
Ms. Lanthier: We have asked the finance committee to index the amounts being paid to community organizations under the Official Languages Support Programs. These amounts have not been indexed in 10 years. First, we asked for indexing, and then we asked that the unreleased roadmap funds be invested, because that helps increase community capacity and strengthen our capacity within our communities.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentations. I have two different questions. First, the Court Challenges Program is close to my heart, and you mentioned that. I wanted to hear from you whether you are hopeful there will be funding. I know we're looking at it again, but are you hopeful? It was very robust at one time, and it has disappeared now.
I'd like to hear from you on that, and then I have another question in another area, if there's time.
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: Are we optimistic? We have no choice but to be. We are really promoting the fact that strong, active and dynamic francophone communities are added value for all Canadians, and that active and dynamic francophone communities truly contribute to a more active and dynamic Canada. Yes, we strongly hope that the government will hear our message and will reinvest in our communities.
Linguistic duality is a value that belongs to everyone, but there can be no sound linguistic duality in this country if the francophone communities outside Quebec are not dynamic themselves. In the last 10 years, there has been no real reinvestment or indexing of core funding for the majority of community organizations, the ones that contribute to life in French in our communities. In some cases, especially in the cases of the most vulnerable, organizations are barely surviving, others are closing their doors or facing significant challenges, especially in the case of community media. In these cases, the organizations really need the funding to move forward instead of falling back. We want to make sure that our francophone communities do not fall behind. They need this support to be able to grow and thrive. We remain optimistic, and we will keep repeating this message to put forward our needs and our commitment to ensuring that our communities are very much alive.
Senator Jaffer: I am from British Columbia and, in my province, many families want their children to learn French. However, the funding is a challenge.
[English]
In the community of Maple Ridge, quite far outside of Vancouver, the parents fought to have French. In the end, they lost. For me, that's a real loss for all of us. Even though there are a great number of immigrants coming to my province, immigrants want French. There is this perception that people who come from outside don't necessarily want the language.
I'm putting this request to you to say let's not forget that there is a great thirst outside of Quebec, and right across the West, for people to learn French, and we need to grow the language.
I find that many people from the francophone communities who come first to Quebec and then, for whatever reason, move to B.C. find it tougher to have their children continue in French schools. Either they are put in immersion, which is not where they should be, or they are absolutely not offered French. There is that place where people who were part of the Francophonie are losing their heritage.
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: For a number of years, francophone communities have been expressing a desire to become more diversified and welcoming through francophone immigration. With the arrival of anglophones in our families, they are increasingly exogamous, meaning that children are growing up in both official languages. We have this understanding that we are one big family and that French is a gift that we should be able to offer to everyone. In some provinces, immersion schools receive less funding than anywhere else, but there is also a great demand for those schools. British Columbia has waiting lists for parents who want to enroll their children in immersion schools, but are not able to, because there are not enough spaces. That is an issue in our country, and we are missing a great opportunity. We should correct the situation quickly to ensure that people who want to learn both official languages are able to do so in schools without any problems.
Senator Maltais: I believe that Quebec is the only province with a ministry of francophone affairs. There may be one in Ontario as well? I'm not sure. Are there enough francophones in Canada — 12 million or so, apparently — for each province without a ministry of francophone affairs to have one, a ministry that would report to the federal government, but whose agreements would be between the federal and provincial governments? This would ensure the survival of the French language. Whether you are a francophone in Quebec or elsewhere, you still pay taxes. There is no exception to the rule. I sincerely believe that each province should have its own office of the commissioner of official languages, with executive, not advisory, powers. That would be something different.
Ms. Lanthier: Yes, absolutely. Each province already has a francophone affairs secretariat.
Senator Maltais: I was not aware of that. That's news to me.
Ms. Lanthier: The territories do as well. That is one step taken care of. All provincial ministers responsible for francophone affairs meet at least once a year at the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie. They work closely on various issues, including early childhood and economic development. Currently, they are looking into the vitality of tourism across the country in order to showcase francophone communities everywhere. Some work is already under way in cooperation with the provinces. The federal government takes part in these conferences. So we are hopeful.
Some provinces are passing legislation on French-language services. Over the past 10 years, a great deal of progress has been made on the francophonie front, and the provinces are increasingly sensitive to it. In parts of Western Canada, mayors are bilingual and are supporting francophone communities. The message of linguistic duality is being increasingly heard. When you are far removed from that reality, you see it less, and it is surprising to see how linguistic duality is a given for some people. It is a value that they defend and adopt. Senator Jaffer said that immigrants in British Columbia want to learn French. We meet people in every community who are from abroad and who choose to live in Canada because of its linguistic duality. Since they are not proficient in both official languages and have learned only one language, they want their children to attend immersion schools to learn both languages. I meet a lot of people who say that.
Senator Maltais: I am glad to hear that. You see, Madam Chair, the francophonie has progressed over the past 10 years.
The Chair: Yes, that is true. That being said, there are still many challenges.
I want to thank our witnesses this evening, Sylviane Lanthier and Suzanne Bossé. I congratulate you on your excellent presentation, your work and your commitment to the francophonie across Canada. Ms. Lanthier, good luck with your new mandate as president.
Ms. Lanthier: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Our second panel is the Groupe Média TFO, which is a French-language educational and cultural television channel available everywhere in Ontario and in parts of Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba.
We are pleased to welcome Glenn O'Farrell, President and CEO of Groupe Média TFO, and Michel Tremblay, Executive Director of Special Projects. Welcome.
Please start with your presentation, and senators will ask you questions afterwards.
Glenn O'Farrell, President and CEO, Groupe Média TFO: Honourable senators, Mr. Clerk, members and staff of the committee, thank you very much for your welcome, which is greatly appreciated.
We are here this evening to tell you about a success story that is the result of a great deal of ambition and that still needs a lot of work. This is the story of Groupe Média TFO, whose mandate is to expand the reach of its educational French-language television service in order to better serve the Canadian francophonie.
I am Glenn O'Farrell, President and CEO of Groupe Média TFO, and to my right is Michel Tremblay, our Executive Director of Special Projects.
Michel is well known in media circles as the veteran of a number of wars, at the CRTC, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the CBC. So he can answer all your questions about the CBC.
Before I begin, please allow me to congratulate you, Madam Chair, for your appointment as Officer of the Legion of Honour. It is a clear sign of appreciation for your commitment, sensitivity and passion in matters related to the Francophonie, not only in Canada, but with all its magic around the world.
I will first provide you with a brief overview of Groupe Média TFO. In 2011, TFO was a conventional television channel in decline, a channel in search of its audience, because, as you know, there is this turmoil in the media where people are constantly looking for new content on new devices. So Groupe Média TFO was asked to make a shift to the digital and technological era. The goal was precisely to enable it to better connect with its clients, to better adapt and to align with the new consumption habits of its target audience, young people.
This transformation was essential for the company to once again be relevant and to better fulfill the expectations of its clients. The transformation I am referring to can be properly explained in facts and numbers. TFO became Groupe Média TFO in order to fully encompass its new multimedia and multiplatform approach.
Its presence today is greater thanks to over 40 cable companies and an extensive presence on digital platforms, including 10 YouTube/Dailymotion channels, 150 websites, its tfo.org website — which contains over 9,000 videos — and 14 social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. In addition, our educational content is also featured on other entertainment systems, including those of Air Canada and Via Rail, which really helps to expand its reach.
The quality of our content has played an important role in this wider reach, quality that has always been there. We have made a lot of shifts, as I explained, but the quality of our content is the source of our company's success. The content has been recognized for its innovative, engaging and educational quality, from Austin, Texas, to Amsterdam.
Our youth programs are our greatest strength, but TFO also aims to reflect the vitality of francophone communities in Ontario and across the country, through shows such as 24.7, Carte de visite and BRBR, which focuses on emerging musical talents in the francophonie outside Quebec, and we must not forget flagship series, such as Le rêve de Champlain, which was Groupe Média TFO's contribution to the 400th anniversary of French presence in Ontario.
But Groupe Média TFO is far more than a content broadcaster. TFO is available to 2 million students and 30,000 teachers in Canada, all of whom can access its multimedia educational tools. We serve 72 French-language and English-language school boards in Ontario, as well as over 60 school boards from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, which subscribe to our content.
To better respond to growing needs in the world of education, on February 17, Groupe Média TFO launched its new platform, IDÉLLO, which I can describe in more detail later on. This platform is for teachers, parents and francophone or francophile students, as well as people learning French.
Over to you now, Michel.
Michel Tremblay, Executive Director, Special Projects, Groupe Média TFO: Groupe Média TFO has become Canada's largest French-language educational content producer and broadcaster. We want to make our content accessible to the largest number of francophones and francophiles possible, especially those who live in minority communities and have limited access to such content.
Here is what Canadians told us in a survey conducted by Ipsos for Groupe Média TFO, in April 2015: 88 per cent of respondents consider it important for francophones and francophiles in Canada to have access to a minimum selection of French-language television services; 56 per cent of respondents were interested in having access to French-language educational TV shows through the selection offered by their local cable providers; and this percentage increases to 77 per cent among those whose children are signed up for a French-immersion program in school. That is in line with the general trend that demonstrates the extent of the needs.
This brings us to the primary reason for our appearance before your committee. In a letter addressed to the chair on January 27, we explained Groupe Média TFO's approach to providing better access to the educational shows available on the TFO channel.
As you know, the CRTC has ordered all distributors to provide their subscribers with a basic service, commonly called ``skinny basic'', at a cost of $25, starting March 1. This entry-level service includes a more limited number of channels, such as local and regional live TV channels, the proceedings of the House and of provincial legislatures, as well as other services considered mandatory.
The CRTC also allows terrestrial cable providers to add an educational service, such as TFO's, to this entry-level basic service in provinces and territories where a French-language educational broadcaster does not exist. We therefore offered all cable distributors from Atlantic and Western provinces the attractive possibility of providing TFO to their subscribers at no cost, for six months starting March 1. Our offer was designed to meet the needs expressed by francophone communities and to promote the learning and the vitality of one of our official languages. Our proposal offers substantial benefits for all those Canadians who live in communities where French-language content is scarce, while requiring little cost and effort on the part of cable providers. Some large companies have demonstrated leadership and have accepted our offer. Others are more hesitant.
Today, we are turning to you, the committee, to request your support and invite you to contribute to expanding the reach of French-language educational services such as TFO's. This is a matter of national interest, because bilingualism and education are the cornerstones of a strong, competitive Canada.
Mr. O'Farrell: We conclude our presentation with a short video that might tell you in images what we are trying to tell you here tonight.
[Video presentation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that fine presentation, accompanied by audiovisual media. It enabled us to have a clearer picture in our minds of what you are asking us to do.
We will now go to questions from senators, the first of which will be asked by the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Rose-May Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. You have proposed six months free. You are also suggesting a rate of $1.44 for usage. When compared to Unis and TV5, their rates are $0.24 in the English-language market and $0.28 in the French-language market. Could you explain how you reached that figure?
Mr. O'Farrell: That is in line with the approach of a business that is a government agency. TFO is an agency that receives most of its funding from the Ministry of Education of Ontario. We are not a corporation like TV5. We set the rate with the public in mind.
What we have proposed is to provide a rate of $1.44 per year to cable companies that would like to distribute our service, while the rates for those other stations are $0.24 and $0.28 per month. We did it at the lowest possible rate to avoid discussions about rates. It is cheaper than a Tim Hortons morning ``double-double'' for the year. We wanted to avoid the financial issue as much as possible. What we want to do is cover our costs. We are not trying to set a price based on a profit margin.
Senator Poirier: What you are looking for is support in order to be accepted by the CRTC, correct?
Mr. O'Farrell: The CRTC has proposed a policy to develop a new framework within which television services would be available to the public. We heard the CRTC say that it has encouraged cable companies to provide communities with a French-language educational service. So we seized the opportunity to say that we are the only French-language service in minority communities. We could provide this service from the outset to other communities that do not have it, and we could do it at a very low cost.
Our goal this evening is to make you aware of what is happening and ask for your support for a new service, a truly educational service, to the extent you think it is useful, timely and commensurate with the expectations related to your responsibilities for promoting bilingualism.
I have nothing against the other services. Anyway, the more French-language services distributed in Canada, the better. It is not a question of numbers. However, room needs to be made for educational services, knowing that parents, teachers and students themselves like to make educational content a part of their experience.
Senator Poirier: You made the request and the CRTC refused?
Mr. O'Farrell: We asked the CRTC to make us available as a service. The CRTC said no, that mechanisms are already in place, and it came back with the idea of inviting cable companies to provide an educational service.
In our view, the CRTC's decision to deny our request is a mistake, since a government agency such as the CRTC should have and could have made a decision to honour its obligations under the Official Languages Act, but did not. So we have turned around to see what other means are at our disposal to promote the distribution of our content.
Let me wrap up by telling you why we are doing all this. It is because our main shareholder, the Ministry of Education of Ontario, has encouraged us to do so. It is encouraging us to share our educational content. If one door closes, we will go elsewhere to see if we can open that door in a different way. Ultimately, we want to try as much as possible to distribute the educational content to the learners who want it.
Senator Poirier: I assume you are aware that the CRTC is an independent agency. Are other groups giving you this kind of support?
Mr. O'Farrell: Absolutely. The CRTC is out of the picture for us right now. The accountability is really to the cable companies, the companies themselves, to their subscribers, to the areas and people they serve. This has to do with them.
The CRTC has made its decisions and built a framework for its projects; we do not agree, but the CRTC is no longer in the game with us. For now, the game is with the cable companies.
Mr. Tremblay: I would just add something since you are talking about support. Last year, just when we were making the request to the CRTC, we were also working on renewing TFO's licence, and we received significant support from Canadians across the country. We received over 700 expressions of support actions from organizations such as the FCFA, which was here earlier, or just from regular people, mothers in Alberta with children in immersion schools who need tools to hone their skills.
A keen interest has been shown in this process and we continue to fuel it in order to put pressure on the distribution companies. In this digital era, it is not rocket science for distributors to add a service, such as TFO, either pay-per-view, with thematic packages or as a basic service, among the hundreds of channels that are distributed.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you once again.
[English]
Mr. Tremblay, you ended by saying ``to keep Canada competitive.'' One of the reasons I am on this committee is that I also believe that one of the jobs of television, and everyone — us as well — is to make sure Canadians know that French is our heritage as well. I'm sure you have that in mind, but I could not resist saying that.
From what I understand from our briefing notes, you're not as yet in B.C. Am I correct?
Mr. Tremblay: The good news is we have had discussions with TELUS, one of the main carriers in B.C. and Alberta, and they have told us that 100 per cent of their subscribers will in fact be receiving the service of TFO until the end of August for the six months we have put forward. This is very good news. This will apply to any of the packages that their subscribers choose to pay for. I would say that we are also having encouraging discussions with them about pursuing the carriage of TFO beyond August.
Senator Jaffer: My colleague did ask you, but I would like a further clarification of the difference in the price. You want $1.44, compared to what the CRTC is saying: 28 cents. Can you expand on that? Why are you asking for the additional costs? I get it that you have more costs, but can you expand on the reasons for it?
Mr. Tremblay: Most, if not all, of the carriers currently pay TFO a fee for the carriage of the signal outside of Ontario. This is a common measure and is designed to help contribute to the overall cost — satellite link and everything. It is essentially designed to cover our cost.
The CRTC has in fact no business in this aspect because this is purely now a commercial discussion between us and the cable companies. Our purpose was simply to lower the bar. This is costing less than a Tim Hortons coffee. Why should you make the case that this is very difficult to offer TFO? I think this is why there is a fee. To tell you the truth, I think this is negotiable. If we're talking to very small cable companies who have an interest, I think we planted this as a bit of a peg for discussion.
[Translation]
The Chair: If I understand correctly, the $0.24 was the cost per month compared to $1.44 for the year. Is that it?
Mr. O'Farrell: Correct. To clarify, the $0.24 is indeed a fee that some television channels receive every month, while in our case, we wanted to set the price as low as possible. We made it $0.12 a month, or $1.44 a year.
Senator Maltais: Before I ask my questions, I need to make a declaration of interest, since I knew Mr. O'Farrell's mother quite well in another parliament. In Quebec, the anglophones and francophones rub shoulders. You are from the lovely region of Saint-Malachie, a producer of excellent maple syrup. I have to tell you, I did not know Mr. Glenn, but I knew his mother very well. She was an exceptional and kind woman.
First, I want to congratulate your source of funds, the Government of Ontario, if I am not mistaken, for helping you produce what you produce.
I will talk to you about the CRTC and the difficulties we have in Quebec in getting you included in the basic service that cable providers offer us. They include perhaps 25 American stations, but not you. I had very vigorous discussions about it with my provider. I was referred to this person and that, and I finally ended up threatening to switch providers. It would seem that the problem can be resolved.
What is your recipe? In Quebec we have Radio-Canada, TV5, Télé-Québec, but we never hear five minutes of opera a year, when you produce it every week. How do you do it?
Mr. O'Farrell: I am not the one singing on Sunday night for your pleasure! To give you a bit of context, we produce content and acquire content. We showed you some of the content we produce, but we also acquire it. In wanting to be set ourselves apart, we asked ourselves what content we could offer that is not already being offered elsewhere.
We quickly understood that there was opera, but also cinema, such as festival cinema, French cinema from France, cinema from around the world produced by the biggest directors, and auteur cinema. You find that on TFO. I would be remiss if I did not tell you that extremely generous compliments about the selections we make quite often appear in La Presse or Le Devoir. It is because they are different. That is what we are and what we can offer.
That is the argument we make with cable providers, that adding TFO is a positive, complementary addition, and an added value. First, we are an educational channel by mandate. So when we are able to make certain acquisitions, we do it so that we can provide content that others do not have. We believe that, for things like opera and auteur cinema, there is an educational message and content in these major artistic productions that we help to promote.
I will close by saying that I am a maple syrup producer, first and foremost, on the farm in Saint-Malachie. Had I known, I would have brought you some good maple syrup from home.
You know, there are basic values that are found in the policy that created these educational shows for stations like TFO. It needs to be said. There are places like Télé-Québec around that still create good educational content but, as Michel mentioned today, 94 per cent of our content does not air on Télé-Québec, and vice versa. So these are not similar channels; they are complementary channels that provide complementary services.
Which brings me to the point of my remarks, the basis of all of it. We wanted to create in Canada — and the model is almost unique in the world — media companies with an educational mandate to complement the public education service. There is one in Quebec, and Ontario has one in French and in English. British Columbia has the Knowledge Network, which is also an educational service.
What I like to tell people, without saying that everything is perfect, is that sometimes we need to recognize the real value of things. To my knowledge, there is no company like TFO in the world where a government offers a public education service to its entire population, to its majority and minority populations — because there are 12 French school boards in Ontario, in addition to French being taught as a second language and immersion classes in 60 English school boards in Ontario. We have also set up a media company with an educational mandate. That is why it is important to breathe life into it and push it further. It is an extremely generous demonstration by a majority toward a minority. It is something that I put on a pedestal, because we have other examples that speak less to how the majority behaves. That is why it is important for us to promote TFO's cause and its content, that we share it with other francophones and other communities.
Senator Maltais: You have great instincts and really lucked out, as we say. As for Champlain's Dream, we celebrated the 400th anniversary of Quebec, and you were the only ones to have produced anything on Champlain. The anniversary closed with a celebration on the plains. You created extraordinary and exceptional programs that were historically documented in a fantastic way.
Mr. O'Farrell: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: How were you able to do that in Ontario, when we have great universities in Quebec, comparable to all the universities world-wide, the greatest researchers, historians and so on? They were not able to produce five minutes on Champlain's arrival in Quebec. The monument is not even on the right side of the river. How is it that an organization like yours with, shall we say, modest means, managed to produce such wonderful programs?
Mr. O'Farrell: Thank you for the compliment. Quite frankly, it is because we are bold, we want to do it, and we do not want to stop when people tell us no. The project was very simple, ultimately. It was originally a magnificent book by a great American author, David Hackett Fisher who, in my mind, is among the greatest American historians, like John Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough. He is one of the great narrators of American history, but for some reason, he was interested in Champlain's story.
I had read the book, and others had as well, and so had our Minister of Francophone Affairs, Madeleine Meilleur. We were looking for a project to contribute to the 400th anniversary. Because we have an educational mandate, we were looking for something educational. So we tried to adapt the book into a docudrama with applications to make it something accessible for the young audience. We went with that.
Quickly, it was not an easy task because getting the rights for a Pulitzer Prize is not simple. We hired a literary agent to come to an agreement with the literary agent of the author, who was in London. They spoke two or three times, and the answer we received was not a no, but rather an expression of little interest. To press the matter, I suggested that we try to organize one last call and to make sure that the author was on the line. They agreed, and I took the call. I will be frank with you: we pulled out all the stops, which you heard about earlier, to explain why this project was important to us. David Hackett Fisher finally agreed. I made a long plea, and I ended by saying:
[English]
``This is why it's so important for us.'' He said, ``Glen, that's very interesting — really great.''
I'd just like to go back to one point. Who is TFO? I said to Mr. David Hackett Fischer, ``We're not HBO. We're TFO. We're small. We're educational. We matter; and this matters to us.
[Translation]
In the end, he was a wonderful ally, and we won a Gemini Award for Le Rêve de Champlain, something we are very proud of.
Senator Maltais: Well done, because it was something really very good.
Mr. O'Farrell: I have to say that it was produced by an Ottawa production company by the name of Slalom Productions, in association with a Montreal production company called Groupe Fair-Play. They were put together to produce it. We put the pieces in place, the funding, then we stepped back and the producers did a wonderful job.
Senator Maltais: Were you approached by Quebec or Canadian stations to sell these programs?
Mr. O'Farrell: Télé-Québec took it, and so did Canal Savoir. Now there is an English version that we want to make available for the 150th anniversary in 2017.
Senator Maltais: It is an outstanding history lesson. Thank you very much.
Senator Fraser: Yes, it was an extraordinary book, and I am thrilled that you took the initiative to transform it for another audience. I have three questions and one request. My request is this: could you provide us with the report on the survey you just mentioned, which sounds very interesting?
Mr. O'Farrell: I would be pleased to.
Senator Fraser: For the questions, I will play a bit of devil's advocate, if I may. I asked you this question earlier, before the meeting started, but I would like to ask it formally: are you not arriving a bit late? Cable providers have already decided what they will offer as part of their service. Is it not too late?
Mr. O'Farrell: I will ask Michel to answer you in detail, but the short answer is no. Madam Senator, we have just been getting going for a number of months now. The process will probably be long and difficult, but we are at the beginning. Michel, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Tremblay: In the past two years, the CRTC has done a major review of its policies, which was called Let's Talk TV. It changed the obligations of cable providers. These changes were put into the regulations and will be rolled out in two phases. The first phase starts on March 1 with the implementation of basic service and other aspects, and will be followed by an obligations phase in December 2016.
We are constantly working and in discussions with these companies. A company that has not done this on March 1 can always do it in the months that follow. We are constantly campaigning and in discussions to move things forward. We will not abandon the project if it is not done on March 1. That is not our approach. We are continuing to fight to advance the cause. Obligations will be added throughout the year, and our role will be to ensure that the companies meet their obligations and that an educational service like TFO occupies the place it deserves.
Senator Fraser: Thank you. Moving on to my second question: you made an extraordinary jump toward the future. You spoke about the 150 websites and other communications elements, of the present and of the future. It is impressive, to put it mildly. At the same time, is it not true that cable television is an industry that is almost one of the past — of the present too, of course, but not of the future? Why are you focusing on this component when you clearly have a vision and a capacity to launch into other platforms that have more of a future?
Mr. O'Farrell: Thank you for asking that question so well because it allows me to say just how much we are living in an extremely interesting time in the media world.
Our consumer habits are changing. Others may remain more stable, others are still being developed. Let me explain. This is at the core of why we worked to become Groupe Média TFO and to spread out across several channels and on multiplatforms. In some demographic segments, linear programming offered by a cable provider will probably remain quite relevant for a good while yet. There are many prognostications. Some say five years, others 10, and others still say 20 years.
The large investment portfolios still contain a huge amount of money from the American and European sides for cable television services. It is not because they just offer Internet. It is because there are still a lot of good business opportunities in cable television for baby boomers and many demographic segments. So it is important that we continue to be on this platform.
It is important to keep in mind that very young children are often directed in their habits or in what they watch, by the parents at home, and the television may remain relevant for a while. However, between the two, there is this ever- changing nature and this range. It is a media chaos. The most important thing these days is being discovered; discovered on websites, on YouTube, on Dailymotion channels, on CraveTV, Shomi, Hulu and Netflix. There are countless outlets.
What we are trying to do is to have our voice heard by determining exactly who our target audience and primary audience is. That audience is children two to 12 years of age. That does not mean that we do not want to talk to adults or others. But to live up to our educational mandate, we really need to be there for young children in particular. We see that these children are watching on various platforms, but the situation is changing. A year and a half ago, Facebook did not offer a video stream. Now Facebook is one of the main providers of news — maybe not for you and me, but for many others who watch and get informed — like Twitter.
What we wanted to do was to acknowledge all of that. It is extraordinary because things are constantly shifting. We wanted to see where our target audiences are compared to their trends, to their ways of consuming media and their interest in adjusting and being on these platforms.
I will wrap up by telling you that we just started production on a new series called Maxi. Maxi is an animated series, a drama for children 9 to 12, dealing with climate change. It is a drama series for children with a lot of games. We consulted a company that does a lot of work in gaming. Although the series may eventually be on TV, its primary audience will see it on smartphones or tablets. The series is presented, designed and produced first and foremost to be on air. We are not talking about 30 minutes or 60 minutes, but 26 11-minute episodes adapted for that screen and that audience.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I'm sorry, but I remain confused about this whole question of cost. The CRTC and the famous 24 cents and 28 cents — that was what subscribers were paying to the cable companies. Am I right about that, before we go any further?
Mr. O'Farrell: You're referring to a document of some sort. I just want to make sure that we're answering exactly —
Senator Fraser: I'm referring to the report from the estimable Library of Parliament saying that the CRTC required TV5 to be distributed as part of the basic digital service, at a monthly, per-subscriber, wholesaler rate of 24 cents in English-language markets and 28 cents in French-language markets.
Maybe I was wrong, but I thought I heard you say that comparable numbers were being applied to TFO. What I'm trying to do is get a breakdown here. You were asking for 12 cents a month.
Mr. O'Farrell: Correct.
Senator Fraser: From the cable companies to you, which you thought would cover your costs?
Mr. O'Farrell: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Perfect. In addition to your costs, which are going to be reimbursed, how much cost, if any, does the cable company incur to distribute your service, and then how much profit does it want to make on that?
Mr. O'Farrell: Michel knows this better than I do, but generally, it's a really interesting range. The price that is paid by the cable operator to the program supplier is often, if not always, 50 per cent less than it charges to the consumer.
Mr. Tremblay: When some distributors, with which we are negotiating now, choose to offer TFO individually for $4, the classic deal is 50/50. We get 50, and they get 50, so I assume they're following the same pattern when they're transposing that charge to their subscribers.
[Translation]
Senator Fraser: But that 50 per cent includes a profit. Their cost is not 50 per cent.
Mr. Tremblay: Absolutely not.
Senator Fraser: Do you know what their profit would be?
Mr. Tremblay: It is hard to say because it varies depending on the services. Take expensive premium services like TSN, for example. The price is very high, but what we call the ``mark-up'' may be much lower. It is different for small services. There is no magic rule. It depends on the nature of the services and the base price requested by the provider.
If I may, I would like to make a small clarification. You asked us to send you the Ipsos study that we conducted. I would like to announce that we will start the second part of this study in April and May 2016, to understand the evolution of the demand and of the interest for the TFO service in western provinces in particular.
Senator Fraser: Madam Chair, could we ask to see that study once it has been completed?
The Chair: Could you please send us the documents that have been requested this evening, as well as any other document you think is relevant?
Mr. O'Farrell: We will send it with the maple syrup.
The Chair: That would be wonderful.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, gentlemen. French immersion is very popular in schools, and I know schools have to train a lot of qualified teachers for these programs. I believe French-language educational TV shows would be great resources to help out with this.
What are the major irritants for cable operators to add your network's signals to their basic cable service?
Mr. O'Farrell: I guess the obstacles, really, are commercial choices. I think that's what it comes down to. It's a matter of cable operators determining which are the services that are commercially the most attractive to distribute to produce the largest return for the cable operator. That's fine. They're in business, and we have no objection to that.
We have growing numbers of letters of support from communities — Michel was saying 700. The numbers keep rising because we're out there talking to a lot of people and encouraging them to write to their cable operators, which is what we're trying to raise here with you. It is this idea that if people talk to their cable operators, they're reasonable people and will listen if enough people show interest in French-language educational service, in particular, because, as you say, there is a growing popularity for immersion in all parts of the country.
In fact, there was something in The Globe and Mail yesterday that points out that that's even becoming a problem for some parents: Their children are learning French, but they don't have the tools to help their children with homework because they are unilingual English.
If you had services available that allowed for co-viewing, they would be made for the child, but the parents could watch and participate. Plus, online, we have a lot of pedagogical information and tools that work with much of the content we distribute, so it would be beneficial.
For us, it really is trying to convince people to raise their voices so that they can express those requests to cable operators. In the end, cable operators, as I say, are reasonably good business people and usually respond to what consumers ask.
Senator Oh: Are you also working with cellphone companies on apps in French?
Mr. O'Farrell: Totally. You know, we were talking about Le Rève de Champlain; we took the six-part docudrama that we produced and had one of our suppliers create an app. If you go now to your Apple Store and download Le Rève de Champlain, that will download an application onto your iPad that will act as if you were Champlain on his iPad, using Facebook accounts. So he's corresponding with his peers on a Facebook account. He's tweeting Pierre de Monts about what they're going to do at Tadoussac, the way they would have had a conversation, and the idea was let's make this relevant for younger generations by taking the content and bringing it into a context that is familiar to them.
So we are working with those. We continue. Another example: We found that parents who download educational apps from the app store or from Google Play often want to know, ``Are they really educational?'' We saw an opportunity to create a rating service. Nobody rates apps in Canada. So we created a committee of independent experts. We shaped and formed evaluators. Now, if you go to EduLulu, all the new apps that are available in Canada in the Google Play store or in the Apple Store are rated by this independent group that says four out of five, three out of five. Because Lulu is a dog, it's bones. If you get three bones, you have a good app. If you get no bones, it's not a good app. We're constantly trying to do this kind of thing because we feel that that's where we can add value.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I noted that the pedagogical approach you use in the educational programs is not in competition with that of Télé-Québec, for example, on the contrary. It is different, but the goal is the same. Are the people who design programs for children public servants, private firms, or teachers? How do you do it?
Mr. O'Farrell: We have specialized staff at TFO who are educators and specialists in this area, but we also work with independent producers, and we follow them very closely. Some providers have developed extraordinary capacities and qualities, but there are also new producers who want to work with us. We are willing to support them because we are a company that makes a lot of acquisitions. So we buy productions in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and out west. People offer them to us and, often, these are young, independent producers who come up with new ideas that, in all honesty, are the best.
Senator Maltais: Thank you so much. I am delighted to have put a face to TFO. You have my full support for the exceptional work you do for education and all of the Francophonie. Don't give up and continue your wonderful work.
Mr. O'Farrell: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the witnesses for accepting our invitation to testify before our committee. I agree with Senator Maltais, who congratulated you on your work. You have a vision for all Canadians that is based on innovation, on achieving a certain standard of excellence, and we see that in the success that you have had with your programs.
On behalf of the committee, I wish you much success, and I hope that your appearance before our committee this evening will serve as a springboard to raise the awareness of Canadians, who might watch TFO more, or if they do not have access to it, might ask their cable provider for it.
Honourable senators, do you agree to continue our meeting in camera to study a draft agenda?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: We will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee adjourned.)