Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - Meeting of April 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, April 18, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:19 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: Shall we adopt the order of reference presented to the committee regarding the study on access to French-language schools and French immersion programs? The proposed order of reference is as follows:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia;
That the papers and evidence received and taken, and work accomplished by the committee on its study of best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality during the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 15, 2016, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
May I have a motion to adopt this order of reference?
Senator Fraser: I move the motion for the order of reference.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
We will now move on to the budget. Last Monday we discussed the possibility of visiting the sites in Vancouver and Victoria and holding public hearings in Vancouver. A revised budget was adopted by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure on Thursday.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the request for a budget of up to $123,328 for a special study on access to French-language schools and French immersion programs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, be approved and presented to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Could I have a motion to adopt the budget?
Senator Rivard: I move adoption of the motion.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted. Before giving the floor to the witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Fraser: Hello, I am Joan Fraser, senator from Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Hello, I am Michel Rivard, senator from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Hello, I am Paul McIntyre, senator from New Brunswick.
The Chair: I would like to draw your attention to the newly appointed senator.
Senator Gagné: I am Raymonde Gagné, Senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Welcome. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is pleased to welcome the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) to provide an overview of the main issues affecting English-speaking communities in Quebec. The Quebec Community Groups Network is a not-for-profit organization that represents 48 English-speaking community groups from across Quebec. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Lamoureux, President of the QCGN, and Ms. Martin-Laforge, Director General of the QCGN. Thank you for agreeing to appear before the committee. I invite to make your presentations. Then, senators will ask you some questions.
[English]
Dan Lamoureux, President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Thank you for this opportunity. Good evening Senator Tardif and honourable members of the committee. It is wonderful to be back before this committee that has done so much to provide an equal voice to Canada's English linguistic minority communities, the English-speaking community of Quebec, in the national official languages discussion.
Your 2011 report, The Vitality of English-Speaking Communities: From Myth to Reality, continues to be an important source of evidence in our ongoing efforts to ensure that the vitality of the English-speaking community of Quebec is equitably supported by the federal government. The English-speaking community of Quebec is not equitably benefiting from the Government of Canada's official languages strategy, nor does our community have an equal voice in the national official languages discussion.
We have concluded three reasons for this. One, English is not a threatened language. A key purpose of Canada's official languages approach is to advance the equality of status and use of English and French languages within Canadian society — English and French from sea to sea to sea. We achieved this in large measure by supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, which ensures that Canadians have an opportunity to live, work and play in either or both official language across our country.
However, policy-makers and leaders often make the assumption that because the English language is safe, English linguistic minority communities need less attention. Presumptions, unsupported by evidence, are made about the vitality of the English-speaking community, and the significant differences within our diverse community of communities are not well understood.
Members of this community personally experienced this reality while meeting with our community in 2010. Our linguistic minority community is not fighting to preserve a language. If our 1 million community members left Quebec tomorrow, English would survive, even in Quebec. We are, however, working hard to maintain our English-speaking communities in Quebec and preserve our culture and identity, which is unique and distinct from Canada's English majority. We are doing so in the only Canadian jurisdiction that actively and intentionally legislates against the use of our official language in the public space.
So whereas it is true that, generally, English is not a threatened language, English-speaking communities in Quebec are, particularly those outside of the province's metropolitan areas.
Second, the degree to which English and French linguistic minority communities benefit from Canada's official language strategies depends on the cooperation and engagement of the community's home province or territory.
Most areas of public interest that affect our communities' vitality are provincial in nature: health, the administration of justice and education, to name a few. Federal institutions carrying out their duties do ensure that positive measures are taken to enhance our official language minority communities, while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.
Quebec does not recognize Canada's linguistic minority communities. As a result, it is the only province or territory without a strategic legislative, regulatory or policy framework within which to communicate with and support its official language minority. Thankfully, this seems to be changing at the political level, and the QCGN is grateful for the support and outreach of individual MNAs and ministers. We have reason to be optimistic that the Government of Quebec will eventually recognize and work with its English-speaking community in Quebec's relationship with the Government of Canada.
Third, the history of Canada's English and French linguistic minority communities is very different. Unsurprisingly, we are dissimilar in structure and capacity. English linguistic minority communities are all located within one province, and our community sector organizations are local or provincial in nature and scope, as are most sector umbrella organizations. Very few have the capacity to engage at the national, level and only one, the QCGN, is funded to do so. So even when a community is present at the national table, it often lacks the policy background and support to actively and effectively engage.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network: Canada's official languages strategies since the 2003 action plan have increasingly attempted to address the needs of English-speaking Quebec. Awareness of our community and the obligation of all federal institutions to take positive measures that enhance our vitality are growing. The level of support we receive from individuals within the Government of Canada is, on the whole, outstanding. We know there is a sincere wish to help us from most federal institutions.
However, some programs remain inaccessible to our community for the reasons outlined by our president, and we're clearly not equitably benefiting from federal support and from Canada's official languages strategies.
To be clear, the QCGN is not advocating for a bigger share of the current pie for English-speaking Quebec. We are saying that because the needs of English-speaking Quebec have not been equally considered by the Government of Canada, the pie is too small. Supporting Canada's English and French linguistic minority communities is not a zero- sum game. The vitality and interests of each is symbiotic, and they should never be placed in competition.
How do we think this committee might help English-speaking Quebec? Study how federal institutions can meaningfully consult with Canada's official language minority communities? In fact, talking is not consultation. We expect tangible results that bring real benefits to members of our community and that contribute in a meaningful way to our community's vitality. This includes clearly mapping out exactly how each federal institution can take positive measures to enhance the vitality of our communities.
Another way is to explore new ways to financially support our communities. The current system for providing financial support to our communities may be dated. Communities identify priorities and submit applications for support. The public partner weighs the application against government priorities and decides whether to approve the request. The community sector provides services and reports back to government. The process is repeated.
The shortfalls of this system are well known. Government rarely meets its own service standards, leaving community sector organizations stranded and desperate. The heavy reliance on "project'' over "program'' funding is the antithesis of predictability and sustainability, and makes it difficult to reinforce success since government's drive towards the "new'' often precludes continuing funding.
We think it's time to look beyond the current funding approach that stifles true partnership between the public and community sectors. Perhaps we should be taking a closer look at social financing in official language minority communities, which is already contained in the current roadmap; and the establishment of community-managed development foundations, seeded and sustained by the Government of Canada.
We need an approach that depoliticizes the current grants and contributions system and makes predicable and organic funding available to the community sector.
Minister Joly's recent decision to delegate funding approval is a step in the right direction.
Another solution or way of thinking is to find ways to make support for Canada's English and French linguistic minority communities flexible and responsive to the unique needs of each community. We said it before and I think you said it in your report: One size does not fit all. In the words of former Senators Maria Chaput and Andrée Champagne, the government needs to recognize that since the realities and challenges experienced by the English- and French-speaking minorities are sometimes similar but sometimes different, each minority must be treated in a way that takes its specific needs into account.
Finally, we would encourage the committee to outreach to the Government of Quebec, and not just on matters related to La Francophonie. Parliamentary committees, House of Commons and Senate, can play a leadership role in highlighting the benefits to all Canadians, in general, and Quebecers in particular, of the Government of Canada and Quebec working together to support the vitality of English-speaking Quebec.
Mr. Lamoureux: We must continue to work together to dispel the myths surrounding English-speaking Quebec. We may be Canada's most inconvenient minority, but we are an integral part of Canada and Quebec's past, present and future, and our 1 million community members deserve the rights, privileges and the attentions due them under law.
Thank you again for inviting us here today, and please know that that the committee and its honourable members can count on the continued full support of the QCGN.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to thank you for this very interesting presentation. Before I give the floor to Senator Fraser to ask the first question, I would like to recognize Senator Rose-May Poirier, the Deputy Chair of the committee.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much for being here. Five years ago when we did our report, if memory serves, we found that English Quebec organizations were getting 13 per cent of total federal funding for language minorities. Is that number still accurate? That's the quick question.
The slightly longer question is related to the first question. As you pointed out, Mr. Lamoureux, francophone minorities are spread all over the country and are hence considered national, whereas English Quebec is just in Quebec, which means it's not considered national. What does all this mean in terms of what you can and cannot get? You said that some programs are not accessible to English Quebec.
Could you elaborate on that set of themes?
Mr. Lamoureux: I will start with the programs. A fine example where the English-speaking communities of Quebec are not participating is the recent search for new senators and the process that was put into place. It was nice that the FCFA, the francophone community, was consulted regarding the appointment of the senators. Unfortunately, there was no outreach for the English-speaking communities in Quebec. This is a very recent example of us being forgotten in the system and not being given due recognition. Again, it's like we have to be reminding government officials that there are two linguistic minority groups in Canada — the English in Quebec and the francophones outside of Quebec.
Senator Fraser: They are about the same size.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, it is about the same size. We're about a million plus, and I think the francophones in the other provinces and territories equal the same amount. It's a question of being asked for our opinion, and we'll be able to relate it to how it would affect the English-speaking minority. If I'm not mistaken, there is still a vacancy for one other English senator from Quebec, so it would have been nice to have been consulted on that.
Senator Fraser: Is the 13 per cent number still more or less accurate?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Yes, senator.
In Quebec, the capacity of the QCGN and its members and the community at large to get additional money from the federal government, we're stymied by the size of the pie and the competition issue, so it does not represent what would be needed in the community for substantive equality.
I'd like to give another example for the national conversation. One of the things that touches all of us is the capacity of the English-speaking youth in Quebec not to be part of the national conversation in Quebec. We have no structures or capacity for English-speaking youth to come here. If the senators asked for an English-speaking youth group out of Quebec to come and talk to about any of these issues, it would be very difficult to find. We have no group.
In terms of capacity to have national representation at tables such as this, the Official Languages Committee, we do not have that and that's a shame.
Mr. Lamoureux: And immigration?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We might come to immigration the next time.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations.
My question has to do with English-language education in Quebec. How does Bill 86, currently being considered by the Quebec National Assembly, conflict with the section 23 of the Charter? Will you challenge this bill before the court if it goes forward in its current form? And how can the federal government better support English-language education in Quebec?
Mr. Lamoureux: Besides being President of the QCGN, I'm also Chair of Riverside School Board located on the south side of Montreal. I've been involved with the discussion around Bill 86.
One of the major factors about Bill 86 is that it puts all the power and control directly in the hands of the education minister; therefore, the bureaucracy is running the show.
In the English-speaking community, we currently have nine school boards that respond to the English-speaking community and address the concerns in education in that manner. Oftentimes, especially when we look at the graduation rate, 6 of our 9 school boards are within the top 10 for graduation for the province of Quebec.
The English-speaking school boards are a direct link to the vitality of our community, and they respond to the needs of our English-speaking parents and families.
We try to consult with our community throughout the province. Jim Shea, President of the Western Québec School Board, is with me this afternoon. We're both used to dealing and consulting with our English-speaking community, and they give us the input to make sure that our schools are important and successful in the education field.
The problem we're having in regard to section 23 of the Charter is that ultimately the power and control goes directly to the heart of the matter. We do not accept the fact that the minister, in all the articles within Bill 86, would take all the control away from our community and put it in his hands.
On top of that, there was no consultation in regard to Bill 86 prior to its introduction. Now there have been discussions. They just completed the hearings, and we'll see what's going to happen.
The general feeling from people who have spoken in front of the committee is that they're not in favour of Bill 86. Even a lot of francophone school boards are against it. The francophone parent groups seem to be divided. There is no appetite to move this forward.
However, if it should be moved forward, I know that we would be looking at the capacity within the Quebec English School Boards Association to advance a legal challenge to the law. Under the LRSP or the Court Challenges Program, we'll definitely be in the process of looking at that.
Senator McIntyre: Last year the provincial government brought in a series of health care reforms. What impact did those provincial reforms have on access to English-language health and social services in the various regions of Quebec?
Mr. Lamoureux: I will give an example.
When Bill 10 was originally deposited, the QCGN had to use an article in Bill 101 to maintain our capacity to provide bilingual services in our health institutions. Interestingly enough, when the bill was deposited, there would only be one recognized bilingual health institution. That would have been the new MUHC, the McGill hospital in Montreal.
Under Bill 101, 23 or 24 recognized English linguistic bilingual services were eliminated. Fortunately, we were able to meet with the minister and have that reversed. Last year was a very difficult time.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: The QCGN decided to institute a Standing Committee of Health and Social Services. Eric Maldoff is the chair. He has deep understanding of health policy in Quebec. We have been relatively successful in the oversight of the bill. We campaigned over the bill and we got as good as we could out of a bill that doesn't connect to constitutional issues. The Constitution didn't have anything to do with health care.
We've been monitoring it for a year, and going to your point, we continue to be very worried. While we were given more powers under the health act and under Bill 10 in Quebec, the centralization of the power is within the minister's office, and the spirit of the law is not always understood correctly by the bureaucrats.
There is worry that we are still, even with the safeguards around Bill 10, at risk in our institutions. Our institutions are at risk. So the same way that the institutions in education are at risk through centralization, the institutions in health are at risk because of centralization.
Senator McIntyre: What about provincial health boards? Are your communities represented on those boards?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Yes, they are, but once again, you may be the one anglo on the board, or in some cases we're told that the boards are only functioning in French. It's never easy to be on these boards as the only anglo.
The complexity of Bill 10 and all the other pieces in health care reform means that no one quite knows where anything is, so there needs to be a lot of education, but the education is in French and we have to help people get there. Oversight is a big issue for the English-speaking community. If anything ever went wrong, we still want our institutions in five years.
Another big thing in health would mean we would lose what we have now, which would be, in the words of Eric Maldoff and others, terrible.
Senator Poirier: I would like to apologize for being late. My arrival was delayed and it was beyond my control. Due to that, unfortunately, I missed the beginning of your presentation, so I hope I'm not asking a question that you have perhaps already answered.
Later this evening we'll be receiving the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Have you had a chance to meet with the minister to discuss your expectations and needs on a federal level?
Mr. Lamoureux: No, we have not met with Minister Joly. We have sent correspondence to the office to try to arrange a meeting.
I will take this opportunity between us and her to introduce myself and try to push for another meeting as quickly as possible. I know that she must have a busy schedule, but I will make an attempt to pin her down for her time.
Senator Poirier: How do you feel the Minister of Canadian Heritage could better assist your communities? What would you be looking for from her?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Well, to be fair, we have not met with her yet, so it's for us to hear what she thinks of how she could assist us.
In general, we look to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be a champion. We look for her to be a champion on official languages, which includes the English-speaking community of Quebec. I guess that is the one big thing that we would expect from her, and not only from the Minister of Canadian Heritage but other ministers as well.
Senator Poirier: Have you had a chance to meet with other ministers such as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We're working on that as well. Our dance card hasn't recently been filled with meetings with ministers, but we have put in letters. For example, we are very interested in meeting with Minister McCallum because Commissioner Graham Fraser in his annual report last year made two recommendations about the English-speaking community and what Citizenship and Immigration Canada should be doing around the English-speaking community in Quebec.
We wrote to Minister McCallum to ask, "How can we help you better understand what your department should be doing?'' We're hoping to hear from him. We know that Minister McCallum and his department have to respond to OCOL by May 1, so we look forward to telling him how we feel that department has responded to us. That's another one.
Senator Poirier: During the process of the arrival of the refugees and on immigration in general, has anglophone Quebec had any at all come to their area?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Not for lack of trying.
Yes, they come to Quebec. They're welcome in Quebec.
One of our challenges, as you will know, is that we are not considered a welcoming community in Quebec, so any outreach we do to immigrants, including the Syrians on humanitarian grounds — we made our points on humanitarian grounds as to why they couldn't come to our schools. We would take care of "francicising'' them. We are the poster children for integration in the English-speaking community.
[Translation]
Quebec anglophones integrated.
[English]
We know how to work with people who want to integrate. But the fact that we're not seen by Quebec as a welcoming community, any attempt to bring them into our schools or to "francicise'' is seen by the provincial government, even with the refugees — as you know, the Cullen-Couture agreement is about immigration in general. But even with refugees it has been unfortunate, because I am told that the schools in the French sector are overrun with refugees, where we would have been able to accommodate these young people and "francicise'' them.
So it's not for a lack of wanting to, and I'm sure individuals have done so, but as a community, we are stymied by the fact that we are not seen — and it is politically incorrect to see us — as a support to the Syrian refugees, which is unfortunate.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Welcome, Mr. Lamoureux and Ms. Martin-Laforge. I see here that you appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages on March 9. You apparently said that, when you are in court, you would like the judge to speak English or at least be bilingual so that you are able to speak in your own language. Would you like this to be the case everywhere in Canada? It could be difficult to find a French-speaking judge in some regions, for example Yellowknife or Yukon. Do you still believe that what you would like to have in Quebec is desirable for all of Canada? Do you believe that we could have the same thing in the other provinces and territories so that a francophone living in Yellowknife could appear before a French-speaking judge?
Mr. Lamoureux: As I explained the last time, I believe it is very important that judges be bilingual everywhere in Quebec and Canada. We believe that stating our case in our own language is a fundamental right. In Quebec, we sometimes find that we are starting to have problems in this area. It is really important to me and to the FCFA. I believe we share the same vision with respect to having bilingual judges across Canada.
As a minority, it is important that we have the same rights no matter where we live. If we stop and reflect on the great visions, we know that minorities were not always treated well in the past for certain reasons. However, I now find that governments and the rest of Canadians accept the importance of minorities and of providing the resources needed to defend and support these communities.
[English]
I believe it goes to the heart of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: In recent years, one debate made the news. The former government did not bring forward the bill on the bilingualism Supreme Court justices. In your capacity as a representative of Quebec's anglophone community, and not as an individual, have you had the opportunity to speak to the pertinence of the issue of the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Definitely, our position on that issue is clear. The QCGN publicly stated that judges should be bilingual, and we supported Mr. Godin. We publicly expressed our support.
Senator Rivard: I have one last brief question. We know that we are some months away from the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation. Were you consulted or would you like to be consulted about participating in the programming for the 150th celebrations?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Consulted, no. We learned just like everyone else that there were funds available for the celebrations. As Canadians, we are all interested in the 150th anniversary. The QCGN submitted a proposal to the government for our network. There are other network members who have some very interesting proposals for celebrating the 150th anniversary. We are engaged.
Senator Rivard: The Minister of Canadian Heritage will be here in half an hour, and we will take the opportunity to strongly suggest that she consult Quebec's anglophones and francophones to ensure the success of next year's celebrations.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting. You highlighted three issues: consultation, financial support and the cooperation of two levels of government, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. I would like to go back to the issue of financial support and social financing.
I would like you to tell us more about your vision for social financing opportunities for your association and for Quebec's anglophone minority.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We have been working with the concept of social financing for a few years now. The concept is a little overused. It is difficult for all of us to find our role in social financing. As a group, for example, it is important that the community take responsibility for itself. We often do so through partnerships. Social financing is one avenue for discovering what partnerships can do to support our communities.
[English]
It's an experiment still.
[Translation]
We will be using social financing enthusiastically for the next few years. However, it may not work for everyone. What I mean is that we should not rely solely on social financing. We have to think about it. A government has a responsibility towards its minorities. For example, in Quebec, it is not easy for the English-language community to work with the private sector. It is not easy because such efforts are often perceived as being politicized. When the English-language community asks a company to fund an activity, it raises the issue that this community is asserting its rights. It is complicated.
Therefore, it is important to depoliticize the issue, and we will see to what extent we will be able to do that. However, I think that most of us in the community believe that the federal government — and governments in general — have a responsibility to provide funding and support to sustain this community. We are ready to try this experiment and are prepared for the adventure of making new concepts work.
[English]
I would say that it's not "either/or''; it's probably "both/and.''
[Translation]
We have to determine how we can ensure, by any means, the vitality of the community. That is one way to do it.
[English]
Senator Fraser: It's been 10 years since a bill that originated in the Senate of Canada made Part VII of the Official Languages Act obligatory. The late senator who initiated that bill was my seatmate for a while, and he was an inspiration to work with.
How has that change in the law affected you? In listening to you, I get the sense that you sometimes experience a certain reticence among federal institutions, perhaps because it seems less than politically correct, but I may be wrong if I'm gleaning that from what you said. Just in practical terms, what difference has it made and how you found dealing with the federal system?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: With regard to the new Court Challenges Program, if you've been watching, we've asked that Part VII be included in the areas for litigation because Part VII has not really, in our opinion, been implemented by the federal government. They are still struggling from a political standpoint.
It's still difficult for federal departments. Some federal departments have a better sense of it. Certainly, the ones within the official languages strategy have a better sense of it.
The hat doesn't fit all of the departments. In English speaking Quebec, it is very difficult to get innovative thinking out of federal departments around Part VII because they don't quite know how to deal with the province.
So Part VII for English-speaking Quebec is still an uphill battle in terms of implementation.
One of the things that Part VII does for Air Canada, for example — Air Canada is supposed to do Part VII. How do they do that in Quebec? In Quebec they fund the Goldbloom Awards. They give us a sponsorship for the Goldbloom Awards because the Goldbloom Awards are for the vitality of the English-speaking community, and that's a good thing. If that's the way Air Canada can accomplish their Part VII obligations, tant mieux.
We have to ask the departments to be a little bit more imaginative. It's more complicated in other departments. For example, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada hasn't figured out how to do Part VII in Quebec. In fact, some might even feel that they don't have to do Part VII in the Quebec because of the Cullen-Couture agreement and all of that. We keep saying, "You know what? You could do research.'' They promised to do research and we still can't get the research. Senators, it's still a tough slog regarding Part VII.
Senator Fraser: Some of this, I suspect, lies with the natural tendency of all bureaucracies everywhere, at all times, to resist change and to resist being told thou shalt do whatever. That is going to be a problem always and everywhere.
Do you think there is more difficulty for the English-speaking community of Quebec than for francophone communities in other provinces? You don't have to tell me; the circumstances are not the same everywhere. They are not the same everywhere in English-speaking Quebec either. The Côte-Nord is not the same as downtown Montreal. Nonetheless, do you think there is more resistance or just unawareness for English-speaking Quebec, or is other stuff the problem?
Mr. Lamoureux: If you look at the history in Quebec in the 1950s, the view was that the economy was very much controlled by the English-speaking Quebecers. Outside Quebec there was another view regarding the French minority groups.
In the last 50 years we've seen a stronger recognition by the provinces of their French minority groups. Whether they have required a premier to be the spokesperson for the group or whether it falls under a minister, whatever, they have had that. As an English-speaking minority group in Quebec, we are not seeing the same sort of support from our provincial government, which is making it extremely difficult. We've alluded to Bill 10 and Bill 86. It makes it very difficult to have a dialogue with the government that would try to support us.
Historically, in my view, over the last 50, 60 or 70 years there has been a change in how we view our minorities. Because of that, I think the federal government rushed — and properly so — to support and defend the francophones outside of Quebec. They needed that. Now the time has come in Quebec for the English-speaking community, because we need this now. That's how I view what has been going on, in my mind, anyway. I'm just a volunteer.
Senator Fraser: Are you getting rich from this?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, I'm getting rich. I'm fortunate enough to sit in front of a Senate committee, a Commons committee, a parliamentary committee. It's been an interesting ride. That's my view about it.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I would say, senators, that if we look at it coldly, we might have lost ground since Bill 101, where things have changed; loopholes have been closed that were there with Camille Laurin and people who understood our community.
We do have a historical place in the charter in Quebec. However, I was very surprised recently to see the new cultural policy come out of Quebec, where in 1992 there was a whole page that talks about the English-speaking community in the cultural policy. In this recent iteration of the consultation for the cultural policy in Quebec, there is not a word about anglophones.
Senator Fraser: Is that also true in federal terms?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Well, I would say to you that much of the support that comes to the province comes through federal support. If people in the federal government are not watching this and are not commenting on this and don't say, "Oh, my Lord; in Quebec they are writing their new consultation on arts and culture. We give a lot of money to arts and culture out of Canadian Heritage. We should be worried.'' Now, the feds didn't tell me this. It's just by reading the one policy in 1992, and the one just recently, that I realized there was a page for anglophones in 1992.
There is a way of helping English-speaking Quebec as well by the feds. There is support that we need. When we talk about policy capacity in Quebec, it's very difficult. We don't have a lot of policy capacity. ELAN, the English Language Arts Network, is a small organization that does not receive a lot of policy capacity. To keep an oversight on all of these things that might look provincial but have a very strong federal link, you have to have policy capacity in your organization to be able to raise the flag and say, "Hey, federal department, this is happening,'' and to get help. So there is always a link with the feds.
Senator McIntyre: Quebec's laws are drafted in French and then translated at the end of process. Is this creating a problem for ensuring equal access to justice?
Mr. Lamoureux: The easy answer is yes, definitely. In the process, the law actually gets accepted, adopted in French, and then there is a translation process that it goes through afterwards. So nuances are being missed in the law. We have esteemed friends of QCGN who are involved in this process. Oftentimes the translation is a poor substitute for the French language.
I think what we're observing is that decisions by judges or laws by provinces are not clearly — I'm looking for the right word for this. The nuances are missing, and what happens is that the law could be adopted or changed. It's a serious issue.
We have a committee —
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I think it is important to tell you that the translation is not done by lawyers either. That is one thing that the folks who work with us are concerned about. They are done by translators. So the nuances are a problem, and there is a whole host of other problems around having translation not done by lawyers, not at the same time.
In our community, some of our folks are looking at different models that they could suggest to the provincial government in terms of what they could do to help themselves out on this, because it's not constitutional.
Senator Fraser: This is not so much a question. Like Senator McIntyre, I sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I was very impressed a few years ago now to learn how the laws are drafted in the Department of Justice here. They are drafted simultaneously by lawyers — an anglophone and a francophone. They do it simultaneously, trying to be faithful to the jurisprudence and traditions of both streams. They want to be so certain that they are saying the same thing. Maybe that could be a funding project for somebody to apply.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: The province would have to agree to that.
Senator Fraser: They might; free money, you know.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Perhaps your justice committee can invite some of our folks to come and talk to you.
There was a very interesting discussion in November amongst the legal community around the federal model and the Ontario model, where they do it after but with lawyers, so they don't use translators. That is something for senators to think about at another committee.
Senator McIntyre: I want to go back to the issue of cooperation between the federal government and the Quebec government as it relates to supporting the vitality of Quebec's anglophone communities.
Can you describe both governments' cooperative work in that regard? Does the amount of cooperation vary from one department to the other? Which departments perform best?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I will give you the best example I can around the folks who are the gatekeepers to federal government money coming in; it's the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, or SAIC. They are the gatekeepers.
Any big federal money has to go through cabinet and through the SAIC. There is a whole process around that. I would invite senators — if you haven't already looked at it recently — to look at M-30, which describes the financial relationship that the Governments of Quebec and Canada can have about money coming in. If you are getting more than 50 per cent of your money from the feds, you can't get money from the province. There are criteria in there that complicate the life of the English-speaking community to get money.
A good example is the federal money that comes in for health. The coming in the money has got to be negotiated with the SAIC. A good portion of it has to go to the provincial government for support of francophones learning English — there are mechanics in that — and it also has to go through cabinet. You just can't send money into Quebec and have the community have it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to thank you for your presentation. I usually do not sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, but I find it very interesting.
In my other career, I was a police officer and I sat on the committee for the appointment of judges that was responsible for recommending Supreme Court justices. We did our best, for example in the Montreal and Abitibi areas, which are near the Ontario border, to recommend bilingual judges who knew English.
This is my question. Do you feel that you are well served by Quebec's justice system in Montreal for instance, where there is an anglophone majority?
Mr. Lamoureux: It is easier to have an English-speaking judge in Montreal given that there are more anglophones in the greater Montreal area. However, it is much more difficult in outlying areas. In my opinion, the system works well, but there are instances where things do not happen like that.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Our groups in the regions tell us that there are problems with access to justice. We are trying to set up a project that would allow us to do more research in order to identify the problem in the regions.
In Quebec, the capacity of anything related to justice is weak. There is no FAJEF or association of English-speaking jurists in Quebec. I will therefore go back to the roadmap.
[English]
In the feuille de route, there is something about access to justice and a good chunk of change for access to justice. In the community, it has been used mostly for Éducaloi, which has a wonderful website about justice, but you have to go on the site.
The community itself has not been able to access Justice of Canada money in terms of doing research and work in the community because we don't have the capacity. We don't have an association or a group that is set up like in the rest of Canada to do that policy program work that is so important to tell you, to answer your question properly, senator.
[Translation]
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official languages, I would like to thank you very much for taking the time to appear before us. Our committee will certainly take into consideration the challenges that you shared with us and your aspirations for the well-being of Quebec's anglophone minority. Many thanks to all of you.
We will now continue with the next part of the meeting. We have a request from the media, who would like to enter the room for a few minutes before the minister begins her speech. Is it agreed that the media be present for a few minutes to film the committee and take notes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Welcome, Minister. We are very pleased to have you here this evening together with Mr. Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Director General of the Official Languages Branch. Welcome everyone.
The senators would like to listen to you and ask you questions this evening. We would like to discuss three topics with you: your mandate as the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the Department of Canadian Heritage's 2012—13 and 2013—14 annual reports on official languages; and the place occupied by the linguistic duality in the celebrations marking the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The senators would also be very pleased to ask questions.
Minister, please begin your presentation.
The Honourable Mélanie Joly, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage: Thank you. I'm delighted to appear before you as Minister of Canadian Heritage. As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Citizenship, Heritage and the Regions, and Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Director-General of Official Languages.
I am very happy to meet with you, and I have heard a lot of good things about you. I have already had some exchanges with some of you, and I have learned about the work done in the past by the committee. I am well aware of your proven expertise, and I would like to thank you for the important role you play in the promotion of our two official languages.
As minister, I want to contribute to the development of both French and English in all provinces and territories. I can also count on the steadfast support of my incredible Parliamentary Secretary, Randy Boissonnault, a proud Franco-Albertan, as I carry out my duties.
I have also been in touch with some key players in the area of official languages, at the community, provincial and territorial level. I have had some very interesting conversations with francophones from Yukon, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, and with Acadians from New Brunswick during my travels to Whitehorse, Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax. I discovered talented and passionate people who, as you well know, are committed to the vitality of their communities. They inspired me quite a bit.
[English]
Today, I would like to explain how I intend to fulfill my responsibilities in regard to our official languages. I will ensure that the English and French languages are promoted in those activities and programs in my department that are dedicated to linguistic duality and the development of official language minority communities. In fact, I will ensure this for all of the activities in my department.
[Translation]
I would now like to tell you about the 150th anniversary of Confederation. For example, in March, I presented to Canadians the Government of Canada's vision for the celebrations marking the 150th anniversary of Confederation. This is a very important anniversary for our country, and it will be an opportunity to celebrate in our communities everything that makes our country rich and strong: our languages, our culture, our diversity, our openness, our desire to build a bright future together. As I have mentioned in different statements on this subject, we will be focusing these celebrations on four themes: youth, reconciliation with our indigenous peoples, the environment and, I wish to emphasize this, our diversity. The diversity that our Canadian society is known for is based on, among other things, our two official languages.
My department is already ensuring that the celebrations will respect and promote our official languages. We want to see the contributions of our official language minority communities presented in Canada 150 projects and celebrations. We also want to see the linguistic duality reflected in the activities related to the 150th anniversary. Our contribution agreements contain linguistic provisions that set out the requirements related to our official languages.
We will also send recipients of the Canada 150 Fund some useful information and a guide to holding a successful bilingual event. These documents have been produced by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages especially for promoters of Canada 150 projects.
By sharing this information with them, we hope to get them to think of the two official languages when organizing and implementing their projects. These projects include SESQUI, a high-tech, interactive multimedia experience using digital technology, which will tour communities across the country. And also Experiences Canada's "Canada 150 +Me'' project involving cultural exchanges for Canadian youth who will travel across the country as part of student exchanges between different linguistic communities. In 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation will be the ideal time to promote and celebrate Canada's linguistic duality.
Now, I would like to talk about my mandate letter. The Prime Minister gave me several specific responsibilities in regard to our official languages, which are set out in my mandate letter. In particular, I will concentrate on developing a new multi-year official languages plan by 2018. I intend to consult with Canadians on this subject very soon. As I mentioned earlier, I have already met with a number of stakeholders and groups working to ensure the vitality of our linguistic minority communities across the country. I have already had some very good conversations with these stakeholders.
It is important to always remember that official languages are a concern for more than just one department. The issues related to official languages touch all the federal institutions. To treat them seriously, we need to mobilize a great many federal departments and organizations, as such a plan allows us to do.
[English]
As we work towards a new plan, I will consult with Canadians on the best ways in today's world to promote the development of official languages in minority settings. During these consultations, I will have the opportunity to discuss key issues dealing with the vitality of minority communities, such as immigration.
[Translation]
Minister John McCallum, who is responsible for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and I recently announced a new international mobility program stream, called the francophone significant benefit program, which will take effect on June 1. This program favours the settlement of francophone newcomers outside Quebec.
[English]
As set out in my mandate letter, I will also supervise the establishment of a free online service for learning and maintaining proficiency in English and French as second languages. Canadians from coast to coast to coast will benefit from this service.
[Translation]
With my colleague Scott Brison, the President of the Treasury Board, I will ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act.
I will also work with my colleague Carolyn Bennett, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, to provide new funding to first nations. Our goal will be to promote, preserve and protect first nations languages and cultures, which hold a central place in our heritage.
Finally, our government committed in budget 2016 to reinstate the court challenges program. I am working with Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould to update this program. These goals are ambitious, and I am enthusiastic about the idea of working with my colleagues to achieve them.
Before I conclude, I would like to mention that the 2014-15 Canadian Heritage Annual Report on Official Languages is being prepared. I will be happy to discuss it with you soon. However, I would like to highlight right now the accomplishments resulting from our support for official languages. For example, there are French-language schools everywhere in the country and enrolment in immersion schools has increased by 39 per cent in 10 years. Our partnerships with the provinces and territories have enabled us, over more than 40 years, to support education in minority situations, learning of a second language, and service delivery in the minority language. Our agreements with minority communities have made us efficient partners.
[English]
We can count on national institutions such as the Canada Council for the Arts, the National Arts Centre, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada to promote Canadian anglophone and francophone artists, artisans and creators. We support the creation and distribution of works produced in minority settings through our funding programs for arts and culture. We also provide grant programs, language assistance programs, and linguistic exchange programs to help our young people speak both official languages. Finally, we cooperate with the non-governmental sector to promote the use of our two official languages everywhere in Canada.
[Translation]
It is obvious that we have gained a lot of ground, but many challenges still remain. To meet them, we will need to appeal to collaboration. In our mandate letters, the Prime Minister asked us to give great importance to collaboration. For me, it is clear that many actors have a role to play in the promotion of official languages: the communities themselves, the representative organizations, our provincial and territorial partners, and all those who contribute to the work of Parliament. I am thinking especially of my fellow ministers and members of Parliament and of the committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. I intend to fulfill my mandate and to work with you in this spirit of cooperation.
Thank you. I am now ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. I would like to move on to questions from senators. The deputy chair, Senator Poirier, will ask the first question.
Senator Poirier: I want to thank you again, Minister, as well as your staff members, for being here today.
I have just a few questions for you. Previously, the minister of Canadian Heritage was also the minister of official languages. Why was this part of your title removed?
Ms. Joly: We have a government-wide vision for managing official languages, similar to the management of other files, especially with respect to reconciliation with the indigenous peoples. I am prepared to act as an official languages coordinator, but I will also work with the President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, whom you will have the opportunity to meet, with my colleague Judy Foot, who is responsible for Public Services, as well as my colleague John McCallum. Working with my colleagues will be the best way to take a much more comprehensive, or even holistic, approach. This way, we can improve our support of and response to different linguistic minority communities, and also promote bilingualism and respect for the Official Languages Act within the federal government.
Senator Poirier: To Canadians, it is important to have one person overseeing our country's linguistic duality, for example, through a department. In your cabinet, who is now responsible for official languages? Who is the contact person?
Ms. Joly: I am responsible for coordinating matters related to official languages, and I am here not only to defend language rights, but also to promote the vitality of official language minority communities. This is a shared responsibility, and it is a priority for all of my colleagues, in particular the ones I mentioned in my earlier response.
Senator Poirier: If someone has a question about official languages, in any area, should they contact the ministers you mentioned, or would you pass on the message?
Ms. Joly: Come see me and I can help get you an answer. If my colleagues need to get involved as part of their various responsibilities, I would be happy to work with them as well.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much for being here, Minister. Welcome to the Senate of Canada. I hope that this will not be the last time you are here.
Ms. Joly: Surely not.
Senator Fraser: I have two separate questions. As you may know, just before you arrived, we met representatives from the Quebec Community Groups Network, who represent Quebec's English-speaking community. I would like to know whether to plan on meeting with them to discuss the needs and priorities of anglophones in Quebec, and, more specifically, their participation in the 150th anniversary celebrations.
Ms. Joly: That goes without saying. My team has already set up a meeting, in fact. Although I cannot say that I have already met all the stakeholders, I have already met a number of parties involved. In a former life, I had the opportunity to work with Ms. Martin-Laforge, and it will be a pleasure for me to see her again. I would, of course, be happy to initiate this conversation.
In general, I look forward to hearing the proposed plans for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. You must know that a number of plans have been presented, including community projects that are specific to a region instead of Canada as a whole, and a number of worthwhile projects are connected to linguistic duality. However, no plans have been announced. That is why I am not at liberty to share the plans for the 150th anniversary that promote linguistic duality today, but there will certainly be some, for both francophone minority communities and anglophone minority communities.
Senator Fraser: I was fascinated by your comments about establishing a free, online service for learning and retaining French and English as second languages. Are we talking about fully developed language courses?
Ms. Joly: This is an idea — a plan — that was part of our election platform. It is written in my mandate letter, and the Prime Minister asked me to look at how we can improve access to this type of service online. I am working closely on this project with my parliamentary secretary, as well as my colleagues at Canadian Heritage.
Senator Fraser: Would it be a matter of offering language courses, or would Canadians be given links to learning services?
Ms. Joly: The goal is to improve access to these services, but my team and I are currently looking at all possible scenarios. We are trying to look at how we can develop this project. My parliamentary secretary and my colleagues have been working on this file for the past 150 days.
In the coming months, I will be able to explain the government's approach on this matter.
Senator Dagenais: It is a pleasure to have you here, Minister. I do not normally serve on this committee, so it is a privilege for me to ask you questions.
Ms. Joly: It is a privilege to have you here.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much. My first question has to do with CBC/Radio-Canada. As you know, Radio-Canada has undergone significant cuts in recent years, in particular in the regional services available to francophone communities in a number of our country's remote regions. Radio-Canada executives justified their decision by claiming that the government had reduced funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. Your budget contains $675 million for Radio-Canada.
Have you ensured that this amount will allow for Radio-Canada to restore regional services in remote communities?
Ms. Joly: That is a very good question. As you said, we have allocated $675 million to CBC/Radio-Canada over a period of five years. CBC/Radio-Canada operates at arm's length from the government, so it develops its own programming. However, we agreed on three criteria for the reinvestment, and one of those is improved access to local, regional content in both official languages, across the country.
I think that, with our investments, CBC/Radio-Canada is in a better position than ever to offer local news, stories and information that are relevant to the different communities. I sincerely hope that this investment will be used appropriately, not only so we can offset the harmful effects of the previous government's cuts, but also so we can invest in improving the information from the different communities, with a view to supporting linguistic vitality.
Senator Dagenais: I understand that you will ensure that this money is properly spent?
Ms. Joly: We will work together to develop an accountability plan so that, eventually, we can focus securing sound investments in our public broadcaster.
Senator Dagenais: I saw you on Saturday at the funeral for Jean Lapierre, which I also attended, as did representatives from all political parties. I was reminded that for years, Jean Lapierre had been critical of the poor quality of the French-language services provided by Air Canada. I will add that the French-language services provided by American Airlines between Montreal and Dallas are often better than those of Air Canada between Montreal and Toronto.
What do you know about this situation, which I consider unacceptable? Can you assure us that you will take steps to make sure that Air Canada respects the Official Languages Act and Canadian francophones?
Ms. Joly: That matter falls within the purview of my colleague, Marc Garneau, the Minister of Transport. It goes without saying that, in connection with the new bill before the House, respect for the Official Languages Act is one of the conditions that Air Canada must comply with. Of course I'm concerned about this issue, and I will follow it closely. It's one thing to say that the law must be obeyed, but it's another to obey it. I'm prepared to hear all complaints on this subject and to find solutions to ensure that the law is obeyed.
Senator Rivard: Welcome, Madam Minister. I would like to ask you about your presentation. In your mandate letter, you explained that official languages are a concern for more than just one department. You're right, and one of those departments is the Department of Justice.
In my seven and a half years in the Senate, I have seen minority governments, the previous majority government, and now, your majority government.
Can you tell me if, for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, you considered introducing a bill requiring all future Supreme Court justices to express themselves in both official languages? As you may recall, the former NDP MP, Yvon Godin, made several attempts but never managed to get his bill past the House of Commons and into the Senate so it could be passed here. I think it would be a good idea to introduce such a bill to mark the anniversary.
Ms. Joly: That's a good idea. During the election campaign, we said that appointing bilingual justices to the Supreme Court was a priority for us. The Prime Minister mentioned that again just recently. I am following this file closely, and I am working on it with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould. I can assure you that it is a priority for us.
Senator Rivard: I wish you good luck in getting that bill passed.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation, Madam Minister. I understand that this is your first appearance before a Senate committee.
Ms. Joly: I have appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the equivalent of a Canadian Heritage committee. I'm very happy to be here.
Senator McIntyre: When you took office, you were given a ministerial mandate, a specific mission with respect to official languages. Of the commitments listed in your mandate letter, which ones are your top priorities? Did you talk about the new plan for official languages in your speech?
Ms. Joly: It goes without saying that our biggest undertaking with respect to official languages during my mandate will be to draft not just a roadmap, but a genuine game plan. We will begin consultations next year with a view to implementing the plan in 2018. We are in the process of wrapping up the former government's plan. We have also tackled some urgent files that were not included in the current plan, and one of those is immigration, which is crucial. Mr. McCallum and I were members of the ministerial committee on Syrian refugees, and we had discussions with minority language communities about issues related to integrating refugees. We then met with the Commissioner of Official Languages. It didn't take long for us to agree to relaunch the program I mentioned earlier.
The roadmap has its limitations, but we have come up with some solutions. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, my mission is to draft a new multi-year plan by 2018.
Senator McIntyre: In your speech and your notes, you mentioned a free online service for learning and maintaining proficiency in English and French as second languages. Can you provide more details about that? When will you be acting on that promise?
Ms. Joly: The Prime Minister asked me to look at various scenarios for providing online second language learning. I'm working closely with Randy Boissonnault, my parliamentary secretary, and with teams overseen by Mr. Lussier and Mr. Gauthier at Canadian Heritage to come up with various options. We will be taking action on this part of our mandate this year.
Senator Gagné: In a former life, I sometimes got very excited about official languages action plans or the Dion plan, as it was known, or the roadmap. I don't want to date myself, but I've seen quite a few. You say that you will be coming up with a game plan. I have to say that the past few years have been difficult for minority francophone communities as well as for anglophone communities in Quebec. A close look at the annual reports on official languages for 2012-13 and 2013-14 shows that budgets have shrunk in recent years except for in a few areas. That has a significant impact on communities. Has your department had a chance to assess the impact on minority communities?
Ms. Joly: That's a very good question. I will let my assistant deputy minister speak to that, and then I will share my thoughts.
Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, Canadian Heritage: Budgets fluctuate from year to year, but most of the official language programs have not seen cuts. Remarkably, budgets for Canadian Heritage, Justice, economic development agencies, and so on, have been maintained. However, since those budgets were not indexed, inflation took its toll, resulting in relatively less money for community groups. Every five years, there is a review of all of the programs in the roadmap and all Canadian Heritage programs. The last one was three years ago. A review is under way, and the results will be available in about 18 months.
Ms. Joly: In light of that information and the opportunity to examine the tax base, I decided to tackle two issues that various organizations had raised with respect to support for minority language communities. The first is that Canadian Heritage funds arrive late in the fiscal year. That was the case for minority language communities and many arts and culture organizations across the country. As minister, I have to sign about 8,000 contributions per year, which is 30 per day. Today is a very busy day for me, and I most likely won't have time to sign those 30 contributions. That probably won't change for the better this week, so on Sunday, I'll have to sign about 200 contributions ranging from $1,000 to $10 million. I have delegated some of my powers to regional authorities across the country, so they'll be responsible for contributions up to $75,000. That's a first for Canadian Heritage. Because of that change, organizations will get their cheques four to six months sooner than before, which will be good for their cash flow.
At times, delays and uncertainty forced many organizations to borrow money to fund their operations until the cheque from Canadian Heritage arrived. This delegation of powers, which will cover 90 per cent of Canadian Heritage's contributions, will also enable us to work on multi-year agreements lasting into 2018. When I was in Whitehorse, Yukon, I announced a two-year contribution for an organization that helps francophone women in minority communities in Yukon. It's the first time my department has had an initiative like that. The delegation of powers improves efficiency and predictability, and I have to say that it mitigates the slightly partisan feel and enables us to make things feel more personalized.
Here in Ottawa, I cannot be aware of what all organizations across the country are dealing with. Canadian Heritage staff, whether they're from the east or the west, do remarkable work. They know these organizations well, and they work closely with them every day. In the spirit of collaborating with public servants, and with a view to providing the best possible services to Canadians, I decided to delegate some of my powers. I'm trying to tackle real issues, and I think that people across the country appreciate my efforts.
The Chair: Before we move on to the second round of questions, Madam Minister, I would like to clarify for those listening that the bill to make bilingualism mandatory for Supreme Court justices was studied in the Senate, but then prorogation happened. The bill was passed in the House of Commons and came before the Senate. We talked about it, but the bill died with prorogation.
Senator Rivard: As they say, it died on the Order Paper.
The Chair: Exactly. Madam Minister, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you a question. The Senate committee tabled a report last June entitled "Aiming Higher: Increasing bilingualism of our Canadian youth''. We are waiting for the government's response to our report. I have received copies of letters that five organizations sent you in which they thanked our committee for undertaking that study and endorsed our recommendations. Those recommendations had to do with what Canadian Heritage could do to increase bilingualism among our youth, which has not increased proportionately as we might have wished. I believe that 17 per cent of young people aged 15 to 19 are bilingual. That is not very high.
What can we do to improve that? What can your department do to promote bilingualism? I know that we talked a bit about that this evening, but what else can we do?
Ms. Joly: There are a few things we can do to promote bilingualism among youth. I mentioned student exchanges. That will definitely happen as part of Canada's 150th anniversary. In budget 2016, we also planned for summer jobs for youth that will promote official languages. That's another example.
Also, more generally, cabinet's first ministerial initiative after being sworn in was to announce the return of the long-form census, which is essential to understanding the vitality of linguistic communities and to assessing rates of bilingualism.
I hear you, and this is certainly something I'll be talking about with various organizations across the country as we develop our multi-year plan. This issue is something we talked about as we were developing our election platform. Mr. Dion, whom you know very well and who is my colleague at Foreign Affairs, helped develop that platform, as did my colleague, Mauril Bélanger. That is where we came up with the idea of an online tool, and that's why the Prime Minister gave me a mandate to look at all of the options for implementing the project and for improving online access to official language learning. That is the reasoning behind the idea.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to add something to that question. The Chair mentioned our Senate report, but there is a second report, if I'm not mistaken, by the Commissioner of Official Languages, specifically his 2012-13 report, in which he asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage to take steps in increase Canadians' French-English bilingualism by 2017. I'm sure you're aware of that report, Madam Minister.
Ms. Joly: Yes, and that's why I mentioned the online official languages learning tool. However, I also want to let you know that some funds in the current roadmap have not been spent. My colleague, Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, recently announced $3.6 million to support various initiatives that promote the linguistic vitality of various communities.
I hear what you are saying about bilingualism. It is a fundamental issue, a priority, but it's not easy. I think we must address it with humility, but also with determination. That is why our government is quite hopeful about its new game plan to support the vitality of linguistic communities, and to ensure that the level of bilingualism is increased in Canada.
Senator Poirier: My question is about Canada's 150th anniversary, which you talked about. The budget mentions international celebrations. Can you give us more details on things like location, associated costs, and who will be participating?
Ms. Joly: The budget for the anniversary of Confederation is $200 million, of which $80 million is for pan-Canadian signature projects. I talked about those earlier: student exchanges, the SESQUI project, which is made up of geodesic domes that will travel to 50 different communities across the country and be more or less the 2017 version of the 1967 IMAX project. That money is for pan-Canadian initiatives.
There is also $100 million for community initiatives to allow every riding in Canada to develop a project to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary. There will also be celebrations for major events that will be held mostly in Ottawa to celebrate Canada's birthday.
The budget also includes $35 million for a cultural export strategy. Some of the funding will go toward promoting the 150th anniversary abroad. This will happen mainly through our embassies. I am working with my colleague, Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on this to ensure international representation. Our goal is clear and twofold: we want to attract tourists from around the world, here, and on the international stage, and we want to position Canada's trademark favourably around the globe. Of course, the 150th initiative is perfect for achieving these two objectives.
Senator Poirier: You also said that you are working with your partners to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to take part in local, national, and international celebrations. Who are those partners?
Ms. Joly: We have several partners, from Réalisations Inc. to our partners on the SESQUI project. I could name hundreds because in actual fact, it is rarely Canadian Heritage that develops the projects. The projects are presented to the 150th secretariat. For example, up to $450 million in projects have been submitted as part of the pan-Canadian projects and there is only $80 million in the budget. We have made our selections among those projects, as we have for the $100 million budget for community projects.
We know that the projects submitted by organizations across the country, in every corner of Canada, represent a total of roughly $500 million. Some of these projects applied for funding from $50,000 to $5 million. We have also made an agreement with community foundations, which includes 191 foundations across the country, to have them provide subsidies for a maximum of $15,000 in order to support small projects across the country.
For the 150th anniversary, we are taking a bottom-up approach to support the communities across the country, in every riding, in order to achieve a far more communal approach to the 150th celebrations.
Senator Poirier: Have the projects been approved? Is the process over, or has it started?
Ms. Joly: Almost all the pan-Canadian signature projects have been approved. As you know, as soon as we were elected we quickly tried to provide a new direction to a number of files. We found that four themes were not sufficiently supported in the former government's vision, as I mentioned in my opening speech. I am talking about youth, the environment, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and inclusion and diversity, including linguistic duality.
That is why we worked to have projects that could be approved, but that also respect these themes. Now, we are at the stage where we are starting to approve the community projects, but the proposal period is not over. The goal is to choose projects in every riding in the country, regardless the colour of the riding, and to have a pan-Canadian, non- partisan approach to organizing a huge party to celebrate 150 years of our confederation. We also want to have an optimistic approach to the future in order to leave a lasting legacy in the context of Canada's 150th.
Senator Dagenais: I want to bring you back to something that was in the news last week. The CBC criticized your colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, Diane Lebouthillier, for not speaking English. I hope you imagined the outcry this would have caused if the French media in Quebec had said such a thing about a unilingual Anglophone minister. I believe there are a few of those in your government. Have you taken any measures to call the CBC to order and defend the honourable member for Gaspésie?
Ms. Joly: Our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is independent. It is not for me to tell it how to do its job. One thing is for certain, the issue of bilingualism is very important. It is a priority for our government and the Prime Minister has said so many times. There are a record number of ministers who are bilingual within our cabinet. What is more, there is a real willingness to learn the second official language. I can tell you that I have seen that my colleagues want to improve their English and their French. I am already seeing my colleagues gaining the confidence, little by little, to ask and answer questions in French, and vice-versa. The ultimate goal is to achieve a very high level of bilingualism within our cabinet and government, and generally among all the elected members and all parliamentarians. I discuss this issue quite often with my parliamentary secretary colleague, but also with my parliamentary colleagues in general.
Senator Gagné: Minister Joly, the Prime Minister asked you to work with the President of the Treasury Board to ensure that federal services are provided in full accordance with the Official Languages Act. As we all know, Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Maria Chaput and is now at second reading stage. I wanted to know if you believe that changes to the legislation are needed. If so, what changes?
Ms. Joly: That is a conversation I will have the opportunity to have with many of you, including Madam Chair, and quite soon in fact. However, I think there are different ways to improve the vitality of minority language communities and that we can address the issue in different ways.
I'll tell you what I have in mind. Yes, there is the bill. However, I will be launching public consultations shortly on ways to support Canadian content in the digital age. I hope that the different minority language communities will take part because we are very certainly going to use the lens of linguistic duality and the importance of minority language communities. The general observation is that changes in how information is being consumed with the arrival of new technologies are having an impact, including on the different communication tools used by the minority language communities.
That is why we want to adopt a more comprehensive approach and examine this issue. I have read the bill and I would be pleased to talk about it at greater length with my colleagues.
Senator Fraser: I have a comment to make first. With all due respect to my colleague, never touch the journalistic content of CBC/Radio-Canada.
Now I will continue by being parochial for a moment. We are here for this reason, among others. As you may know, there are roughly as many Anglophones in Quebec as there are Francophones in the rest of the country. By last count, Anglophones in Quebec are receiving roughly 13 per cent of the federal budget's funding for minority communities. Can we reasonably hope for an improvement in this immense disproportion? I am not asking you to cut the budget for Francophones, but to increase the slice of the pie.
Ms. Joly: As part of the public consultations for drafting the road map, my objective is to understand the needs, but also to draw out the best solutions for supporting the vitality of the communities, including Anglophone minority communities in Quebec. To me, it is not necessarily about promoting English, but about the vitality of the linguistic communities. That is why I would be pleased to meet with the organizations, including the Quebec Community Groups Network. I generally want to understand how we can support the community, whether that means supporting a cinematic production, or supporting communications, through different programs. I am certainly open to these issues and have had the opportunity to discuss them with various counterparts in Quebec, such as ministers within the Quebec government.
The Chair: Thank you. Minister, since there are no more questions from the senators, I want to thank you and your colleagues for your generosity and for agreeing to appear before the committee. This was your first visit, but I know it will not be your last.
Ms. Joly: I am sure of that.
The Chair: I can tell you that based on your comments here this evening we are already seeing you as an ally to official language minority communities. We see that in the initiatives you are undertaking and the concrete actions you have taken with your colleagues. We thank you for that. We are pleased to have an ally and a true champion.
Thank you, minister, for being here with us this evening. Dear colleagues the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)