Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 18 - Evidence - Meeting of November 27, 2017
OTTAWA, Monday, November 27, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m., in public and in camera, 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 René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon; my name is René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and it is my pleasure to chair this evening’s meeting. Before giving the floor to our witness, I will invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Poirier: Good evening, Madam Minister. My name is Rose-May Poirier and I am from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Good evening, Madam Minister. I am Senator Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Madam Minister, I am Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Welcome. Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Good evening. Lucie Moncion, from Ontario.
Senator Tardif: Good evening, Madam Minister. I am Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
Senator McIntyre: Good evening, Madam Minister. Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. The committee is continuing 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.
This evening, it is my pleasure to welcome the Honourable Mélanie Joly, P.C. MP, Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is joined by Mr. Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, and by Mr. Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Director General, Official Languages Branch, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions.
Madam Minister, it is our pleasure to welcome you again, and on behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for having agreed to take part in our meeting. You have the floor.
Honourable Mélanie Joly, P.C., MP, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Heritage: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for welcoming me before this committee once again. I am accompanied, as you said, by Mr. Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister for Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, and by Mr. Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Director General of Official Languages, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions.
First, I want to greet the members of the committee and acknowledge the tremendous work the outgoing chair, Senator Tardif, has done over the years with this committee. I sincerely thank her for staunchly defending the linguistic rights of Canadians — particularly young people — in Alberta and throughout the country.
I would also like to congratulate the new chair. I am pleased that he has joined this committee to study issues that are important to Canadians. And in fact, I thank all of you for the work you have already done, including the study you completed in the spring on French education in British Columbia, as well as your current study on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Already we’re nearing the end of a year of celebrations. Canada 150 has highlighted everything that defines our society: our diversity; our democratic values; reconciliation with indigenous peoples; our official languages, which are an integral part of our identity; and, of course, the contribution of English- and French-speaking Canadians from every part of the country.
Our government is committed to promoting our official languages and supporting official language minority communities. We’re taking concrete action, as shown in the reports I have submitted this year. Today I’m here to discuss those very reports.
The first is the annual report on official languages for 2015-16, which represents Canadian Heritage’s achievements through its official language support programs. As you know, Canadian Heritage administers two major official language support programs. The first one is designed to support the development of official language minority communities. Among other things, this program helps us to support the provinces and territories, providing government services to official language minority communities in such areas as education, justice, culture and health. The other focuses on promoting the use of English and French in Canadian society. The report includes the efforts made by 72 federal institutions to support the development of official language minority communities and promotes both languages in Canadian society. It also evaluates the third year of implementation of the Roadmap for Official Languages in Canada, which expires on March 31, 2018. At the time the report was submitted, 96 per cent of the expenses forecast for 2015-16 had been disbursed.
[Translation]
The next annual report on official languages, for 2016-2017, is in production. It will include all of the work accomplished during the consultations held in 2016. For me this work and these consultations were crucial. It was the first step toward fulfilling one of the commitments of my mandate letter, mainly to develop a new action plan for official languages.
In June, I released the report on the Cross-Canada Official Languages Consultations. The report explains the background of our project, the scope of the consultations, and the methodology used to learn what Canadians had to say. It contains information about the 22 round tables held across the country, the only survey that received more than 6,500 responses — three times more than in 2012 — and the more than 100 briefs submitted by Canadians.
We exchanged views about a number of things, including the vitality of official language minority communities, the rate of bilingualism in the general public, the effect of immigration on the vitality of minority francophone communities, community needs with regard to early childhood, the many community infrastructure needs, and the frontline services often provided by provinces and territories.
[English]
I understand that Canadians have high expectations for the next action plan, and I know we must develop an approach that reflects the results of the consultations and our current situation.
I will say more about action plan in a moment, but I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the latest Statistics Canada data on official languages.
The data released in August has shown us an up-to-date portrait of our two official languages. They clearly remain an important tool for unity and inclusion in an increasingly diversified society. Even so, we can do better. We must continue our efforts.
The data highlighted how important it is for our government to continue to promote official languages and official language minority communities.
[Translation]
Let’s look at what is really happening in our communities. The absolute number of francophones living in French-speaking minority communities has increased, and francophone communities are growing especially rapidly in the three territories. What that means is that more and more Canadians whose mother tongue is French are living in minority communities — Canadians who contribute daily to our country’s development, diversity and excellence. Overall, however, the relative proportion of francophones is declining. It has dwindled from 4 per cent in 2011 to 3.1 per cent in 2016. In light of this, the government’s support is crucial.
[English]
What about linguistic duality? As you know, never before has Canada had so many bilingual citizens — 6.2 million people. But the situation varies widely from region to region.
Francophones are highly bilingual, at 89 per cent outside Quebec and 41.5 per cent within Quebec. Anglophones in Quebec are also highly bilingual, at 66 per cent. However, only 6.6 per cent of anglophones outside Quebec are bilingual.
There is potential for major progress here. Immersion classes are gaining in popularity across the country, and Canadians have frequently told us how attached they are to their official languages. Our government has taken note of this data and intends to fulfill its official languages obligations.
[Translation]
The current roadmap will end on March 31. We will be ready to continue the initiative with a new action plan.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to make an important point. The investments linked to the roadmaps of 2013-2018 are now permanent, that is to say that the projects presented in the roadmap will extend beyond March 31, 2018. The new action plan, which will be in place on April 1, 2018, will build on the investments made over the last 15 years. I look forward to announcing that once the plan is ready. In the meantime, I can assure you that we are working very hard to meet Canadians’ expectations.
Thank you for your attention. I would now be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I will now invite my colleagues to ask their questions. We will begin with the deputy chair, Senator Poirier, followed by Senator Gagné.
Senator Poirier: Welcome to our committee, Madam Minister, I have a few questions for you. Although CBC/Radio-Canada is receiving some $650 million, and Netflix is tax exempt, community radio stations are greatly concerned. According to last Friday’s edition of Francopresse, a total of nine community radio stations out of 25 are in danger. Community radio is essential to the survival and growth of our linguistic minority communities. Their funding depends on your action plan, and as of today, there is no indication that they will be receiving any funding. Why are you waiting until the last minute to announce the details of the action plan, and thus jeopardizing the survival of community radio stations?
Ms. Joly: It goes without saying that before our government came to power, during the 10 years of the mandate of the previous government, minority linguistic communities suffered a great deal. We heard about it during public consultations, and we can still see that there is anxiety on the part of the different communities. We want to respond to the different issues, and with regard to community radio, I have clearly heard the importance of the role they play in order to maintain a sense of linguistic and identity security within the communities. It is important that people be able to hear their accents and recognize themselves in the information that is given to them. In that context, radio plays an important role. And so we will be broaching that matter in the context of the action plan.
Senator Poirier: When will the stakeholders be informed?
Ms. Joly: As I said, the action plan will be in place by April 1, 2018. At this time, we are holding a lot of consultations with the various groups to ensure that we meet their needs well. As I also mentioned, the new action plan will build on the entire base of the previous action plans, from Mr. Dion’s action plan to the roadmaps that followed it.
Senator Poirier: I have a second question. In appendix 1, you present a table of expenditures. Two hundred and twenty-eight million dollars are recorded as expenditures for 2015-2016. However, the real expenses for the year were $220 million, which is a difference of $8 million. This increases the spending shortfall from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 to approximately $34 million. These are important sums for our minority linguistic communities, in light of the Canadian government’s commitment. Why was this $8 million not invested as promised? When the promised funds are not spent, what happens to them?
Ms. Joly: I am going to let Jean-Pierre Gauthier, our director general, answer your question directly.
Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Director General, Official Languages Branch, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions: In fact, there are always practical gaps in the amounts that are spent, for two main reasons. The first may be related to accounting matters; sometimes expenditures are recorded based on the status of projects, and this can vary somewhat from one year to the next. Sometimes also some projects don’t work, or there are projects that were expected to work out, and the funds were extended, and when those projects fail, it is often too late during the fiscal year to redistribute those funds elsewhere.
Some departments also have trouble aligning all of their funding. It’s marginal considering all of the funding we do, because we did expend 96 per cent of the funds. When issues arise with the departments, we work with them to try to see what we can do to help release the funds. A good example of this was with Employment and Social Development Canada, which moved its funding to the end of a five-year cycle rather than doing what had been planned initially, year after year. It will catch up and even go beyond the total amount that had been planned. So in the reports, and in that case for instance, this gives the impression that the department spent less, but at the end of the cycle it will actually have spent more. That is one example.
Senator Poirier: So, if I understand correctly, the $8 million will be used.
Mr. Gauthier: Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases, the money will be used or reflected in accounting records for the following year. In other cases, it involves projects that fell by the wayside and for which we were unable to redistribute the funds. In certain cases, the departments can make things up during the following years. There is a mix of several scenarios.
Senator Poirier: So, these $34 million stay in government coffers. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Joly: Essentially, in fact, the objective is to spend 100 per cent of the money that was budgeted. I would even say that when funds are left over at the end of the year, they are always — in the vast majority of cases — distributed to official language-related projects, principally for infrastructure in minority linguistic communities. For instance, we know that at the end of the year, we can add funding to a given project, or fund a project in another province, according to the requests submitted by minority linguistic communities.
Senator Poirier: So, the envelope is always used for official language projects.
Ms. Joly: Yes, that is it.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here this evening. I also want to thank you for the commitment you have shown over the past few years; we are grateful to you for that.
On page 27 of the report, investments in Maillardville are mentioned; the École des Pionniers received close to $370,000 for its community infrastructure. I’d like to go back to the British Columbia issue. In light of our report entitled Horizon 2018, in which we recommended an intervention with the Canada Lands Company with regard to building new schools, I wondered how the infrastructure investment project for the École Rose-des-vents is coming along. In its response to our last report on French-language education in British Columbia, the government said it supported the demands of the francophone school board. I wonder if you are in a position to give us a status report on this file.
In addition, does the government intend to study the recommendation of our committee concerning the adoption of a regulation that would force federal institutions to take into account the needs of minority official language community schools when movable or immovable property is sold or disposed of?
Ms. Joly: That is a very good question. Of course, access to education in French for the young people of the French-language community in British Columbia concerns us. I sincerely hope that the provincial government will decide to go forward by developing an initial policy to support the provision of French services, and French-language education generally, since this is the last province that has yet to play a leadership role in this matter, given that Alberta did so recently.
I read your report. I also discussed it with various colleagues. We are open to the idea of studying various solutions, such as the role the Canada Lands Company could potentially play. This is a file that really concerns my colleague, Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, but also, as a minister and member from British Columbia, I know that this issue is dear to her heart.
I have in fact committed to discussing this with my British Columbia counterpart, Adrian Dix, in order to find solutions. I know that the community that is advocating for the École Rose-des-vents has worked hard for years, and I would be happy to find ways of supporting it in its demands.
Senator Gagné: And regarding access to land, can you tell us where things stand?
Ms. Joly: The mandate of the Canada Lands Company is a matter that falls under my colleague’s jurisdiction, because the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is in charge of that independent agency. That said, I can tell you that we did invest $80 million over a period of 10 years in community infrastructure, and that there is consequently more money to support different projects generally, aside from lands that fall under federal jurisdiction.
Quite recently, two weeks ago, we invested funds in the creation of a new school, and we allocated a sum of $7.5 million for a school in Yukon. The Franco-Yukon community had been asking for that school for years. This is how we exercise our leadership. The fact remains, however, that matters pertaining to the Canada Lands Company are in my colleague’s bailiwick.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. I will have another question during our second round.
Senator Maltais: Madam Minister, I would have two brief questions.
Do you think the English language is in danger in Quebec?
Ms. Joly: Would you also like to ask your second question?
Senator Maltais: I will wait for your answer first.
Ms. Joly: The reality of minority English-language communities, particularly in Quebec’s rural regions, is concerning. I had the opportunity of meeting with different members of that community, especially in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. Clearly, we can do more to support them; Quebec now has its first Minister of Anglophone Affairs, and I will have the opportunity to speak to her in the near future to hear more about the Quebec government’s perspective on this issue.
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
As you can probably guess, my second question concerns Netflix, a service the Government of Quebec has decided to tax as of January 1, after making a few small legislative amendments to its tax law.
Will the federal government forego the GST, or is it going to collect it? If it foregoes it, there is no problem. However if it collects it, according to federal-provincial agreements, the provinces collect the GST. If the federal government wants Quebec to send it the tax that will be collected, would you commit to having that tax reinvested into the cultural and linguistic domains in Quebec, elsewhere than in large cities? Cities such as Montreal and Quebec are well structured, but there are other towns in Quebec that could benefit from these sums.
Ms. Joly: I presented a cultural policy, and not a fiscal policy. On any matter concerning taxation or financial issues, I invite you to contact my colleague the Minister of Finance, Mr. Morneau, who is responsible for taxation in our country.
That said, with regard to funding culture, we invested approximately $2.2 billion in culture since we formed our government. This is the most important reinvestment made over the past 30 years. We allocated $675 million to CBC/Radio-Canada, precisely to support regions throughout the country, because the budget cuts had had a direct impact on newsrooms in the regions.
We also doubled funding for the Canada Council for the Arts, investing $550 million to support artists across the country. By increasing the funding for the Canada Council for the Arts, we are putting the money directly in the hands of artists, so that, no matter where they live, they can practice their art. We also allocated funding to Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. Obviously, we plan to make a significant reinvestment in francophone content.
Under the new cultural policy I announced, we set out stable funding for the Canada Media Fund, which supports all Canadian television production. Usually, the funding is based on an agreement between the federal government and private cable companies, but given the trend of subscribers turning to the Internet, these companies are generating less revenue for the fund. With less money in the Canada Media Fund, the future of Canadian television was at stake, so the federal government stepped up to the plate and made a reinvestment in order to make up the shortfall. That means millions more in funding a year. Of course, supported production activities are based in big cities, but they also take place all over the country. The fund also has criteria in place to support official language minority communities.
Senator Maltais: You’re from Montreal, Ms. Joly.
Ms. Joly: Yes, and I’m very proud to be.
Senator Maltais: I understand. I am from Quebec City, and I, too, am very proud of that.
Laval is a big city next to Montreal. Do you think Laval is getting its fair share of funding in terms of cultural transfer payments?
Ms. Joly: I can’t comment on the funding allocated to different cities in Quebec. I know Laval well, having grown up there. I know it is home to a vibrant cultural community, including the Laval symphony orchestra, whose board of directors I used to be on. The orchestra could potentially receive more funding through an application to the Canada Council for the Arts, since the council suddenly has a bigger budget. The same goes for the visual artists in Laval’s Sainte-Rose district.
In a nutshell, what we were trying to do with our cultural policy was put more funding directly in the hands of the artists, themselves, as opposed to the go-betweens, so to speak. I think our new investments will help production centres emerge all over the country.
Senator Maltais: Thank you. I hope the Minister of Finance scraps the tax.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Minister, for being with us this evening. Thank you, as well, for your kind words. They are very much appreciated.
Minister, I’d like to ask you a few questions about the government’s response to the committee report entitled Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-Language Learning in British Columbia. When I read the response, I was glad to see you were committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages informed the official languages action plan and the next education protocol. However, you don’t set out any specific or tangible measures in your response. According to you, we should expect the next action plan to address all of our requests, expectations and needs. I hope the next action plan satisfies all those expectations, as they are very high.
You did not make commitments further to three of our recommendations. They involve intergovernmental cooperation on education, cooperation with the community sector and intergovernmental cooperation on services.
In recommendation 15, the committee had called for support for school infrastructure and school transportation in francophone schools. You did not address that in your response. Furthermore, as part of the next action plan, your department committed to increasing the envelope for cooperation with the community sector, especially with regard to support for community spaces in French, as indicated in recommendation 16 of our report.
Can you provide more specific details on the measures you will be taking in response to the committee’s concerns?
Ms. Joly: In terms of community infrastructure, Budget 2017 earmarked $80 million over 10 years to support community spaces in official language minority communities.
In response to Senator Poirier’s question, I will say that when the department has money remaining in its budget, it is used at the end of the year to fund community infrastructure linked to official languages, in addition to any previously allocated funding. That applies not just to official languages funding, but also to all funding allocated by the Department of Canadian Heritage.
As part of the new official languages action plan, we are currently negotiating a new protocol for education agreements that will take into account the priorities of official language minority communities. We reached a historic strategic agreement with the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commission nationale des parents francophones. We have committed to conveying their points of view, concerns and requests to the provinces in the course of our negotiations. We took into consideration the facts surrounding their proposals, and made sure to consult with the school boards and to listen to their concerns about the need for better accountability mechanisms. The negotiations with the provinces began earlier this year and are ongoing. We are also in the midst of finalizing the official languages action plan.
Senator Tardif: I will admit that $80 million is a lot of money, Minister, but it’s a rather modest sum when you spread it out over 10 years across the entire country. Is there a deadline for the agreements to be signed?
Ms. Joly: The funding for the official languages action plan will be set out in the 2018 budget, and we need to have completed our negotiations by March 31, 2019.
Senator Tardif: Will funding for the action plan exceed the $80 million?
Ms. Joly: Senator, you will have to wait for the action plan to be released.
Senator McIntyre: Hello again, Minister.
As I understand it, your department manages federal-provincial-territorial agreements in two areas: education and minority language services.
Ms. Joly: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: My question has to do with intergovernmental agreements and the accountability component, specifically. As you know, when it comes to the education agreements, official language minority communities have been calling for improved reporting practices for years.
The Senate committee has, in fact, been critical of the problem in a number of its past reports. The official languages commissioner also condemned the situation. I would remind you that, on October 24, 2016, you made a commitment before this committee to work with the provinces and territories to achieve better accountability in future intergovernmental agreements.
That said, I would also point out that, in the government response provided to the committee on November 9, your department does not make any further commitments to improving reporting practices in education. On November 20, francophones in Newfoundland and Labrador reacted strongly. In a Radio-Canada article, they condemned the fact that the bulk of the funding transferred to their province goes to schools of the majority with little consultation of francophone schools.
I’d like an explanation.
Ms. Joly: Thank you for the question, Senator. Over the course of our consultations, that concern has often been raised. The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, too, has called for action on the matter. It’s one of the things we are asking the provinces and territories for in our negotiations. In other words, we are seeking better accountability for funding provided by the federal government — essentially money the Department of Canadian Heritage provides to help fund the education system in minority language communities.
Senator McIntyre: The year 2015 marked the 10th anniversary of the amendments made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Have you done a progress report? I believe your report makes no mention of that. Would you mind elaborating on the matter?
Ms. Joly: I will start, and then I’ll ask my colleague Hubert Lussier to round out my response. The Official Languages Act was amended 10 years ago, and its 50th anniversary is around the corner. Of course, our government wants to mark the anniversary given that the legislation forms an integral part of our social contract, paving the way for significant improvements for official language minority communities across the country.
I also know that the committee is currently studying the modernization of the act. I am eager to learn more about your study. Clearly, we know that we can always do better as a government, so I welcome your thoughts and ideas and would be happy to consider all options for making official languages improvements in the country.
Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage: I’d like to comment further on the coordination and accountability by federal institutions subject to the act in relation to Part VII. Although our report may be modest, we have made progress if only from a quantitative and measurable standpoint. Previously, only about 30 or so federal institutions had reporting obligations.
Now, however, three times as many federal institutions have to submit annual reports to our department. My deputy minister, on behalf of Ms. Joly, is the one who signs the reports or comments on how the departments meet their reporting obligations. The type of criticism or constructive feedback we provide has become increasingly detailed.
Senator McIntyre: Coming back to the modernization of the act, I gather, then, that you agree with the need to revisit Part VII. Is that correct?
Ms. Joly: Yes, there is always room for review for the purpose of improvement, whether in the case of Part VII or just in general. I very much look forward to reading your report.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for being here. I have a few questions related to our consultations with Canadian youth. One of the things we heard from young Canadians was that the Official Languages Act, in its current form, had no teeth because it did not set out penalties. I’d like to hear your thoughts on penalties and the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Joly: I have heard a number of official languages commissioners raise the possibility of being given greater powers. I know that, during our consultation, numerous community members called for a review of Part VII.
One of the first things we wanted to do was include a reference to the Court Challenges Program in Part VII. The idea was to ensure that, in the event of a violation of Part VII, funding was available to official language communities in order to launch a legal challenge. It was also a way for us to strengthen Part VII, giving it more teeth.
Our government is entirely open to considering how it can do a better job of addressing the needs of official languages communities. That is why I’m so interested in your study, something the communities have long been calling for.
Senator Moncion: The burden of proof is always on the person making the accusation, not on the accused. We realize that efforts are also needed on that front.
My second question addresses another issue raised by young Canadians. I am referring to the challenges associated with creativity. In many cases, youth organizations have been receiving the same funding for years, without any increases to those amounts. As you know, young people are bursting with creativity. They come up with all sorts of projects and are not afraid to try all kinds of things. Regardless of whether a project is successful or not, these youth are out there trying things. One of the challenges they told us about was the fact that their funding had been stagnant for years.
How do you intend to address that issue? It’s one a number of organizations have raised. This is an issue that comes up again and again, a recurring theme among stakeholders, whether they work in education, early childhood development, daycare or the youth sector.
Ms. Joly: One of the most common things we hear during our consultations is the clear need for a review of the support provided to various organizations in official language minority communities, whether they are active in the justice, immigration, health or early childhood development system. It’s a concern I will be able to address in the action plan.
Senator Moncion: I am going to offer you some further food for thought, and I don’t want to minimize its importance.
Youth representatives also told us that, when it comes to their fundraising efforts, they are penalized for the amounts they collect, so they cannot engage in fundraising. As a business-minded person, I think that, if they can manage to raise money while receiving program funding, we might do well to encourage their entrepreneurial spirit, which goes hand in hand with their creativity and contribution to bilingualism initiatives all over the country. We should work with them to find the right balance.
Ms. Joly: You make a good point, and I often hear that with regard to funding for the arts and culture. When certain organizations that are more inclined to use a philanthropic approach to fundraising, sometimes they get less funding.
I propose further study. I would say that my main priority right now is instead to meet the funding needs of organizations whose funding has not been increased in 12 years. I think that is the priority the federal government would like to address in its plan.
Senator Mockler: I would like to go back to Senator Maltais’s question about Netflix. I would also like to ask you about the appointment of a commissioner of official languages.
Can you explain the anomalies we see with respect to Netflix? This entertainment giant wants to invest $500 million in Canadian content without a guarantee that part of that money will go toward the creation of new content in French, and without a minimum for French-language content. Can you explain that to us? I know you were asked this question on the program Tout le monde en parle.
Ms. Joly: At present, there is nothing in our regulations pertaining to the contribution of digital entertainment giants to our culture. Our law dates back to 1991, long before the Internet. One of the things announced in the new cultural policy entitled “Creative Canada” is a reform of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. We also asked the CRTC to study the various options and to make recommendations on how to support the creation, production and distribution of Canadian content in both official languages in the digital era. We asked the CRTC to examine this pursuant to section 15 of the Broadcasting Act. The CRTC is working on that right now and will table a report before June 2018, I hope.
As to the agreement, it is an investment by Netflix which, for the first time, has decided to create a Canadian production company. It will in fact be the first time that Netflix has launched a production company outside the United States. Since it has decided to create this production company in Canada, this triggered the mechanism under the Investment Canada Act. That is why we insisted on clear criteria for contributing to the Canadian content system. There were no negotiations on tax exemption. That is absolutely not one of the criteria. There were no negotiations about there not being potential legislation on foreign digital platforms. It is an investment of $100 million per year net over five years.
The production company does not have access to any other type of tax credit, since it is after all still a foreign-owned company. That $500 million will go toward original Canadian production in English and in French.
The agreement also includes $25 million to develop content in French. This provision pertains not only to Quebec, but also to linguistic minority communities and francophone communities.
Finally, we focused on the discoverability of content in both French and English. Essentially, through the algorithms on the platform, Canadian content will from now on be clearly indicated.
So this is the first time the company has invested directly in Canadian content. Regardless of the types of taxes that could have been applied, we secured $500 million in funding for our own production, which would not necessarily have been the case if taxes had been applied, broadly speaking, to the funding of services supported by the Canadian government.
As to the commissioner of official languages, as I announced in the summer, our open, transparent and merit-based process has continued in order to find a new candidate for that position. In the summer, we sent letters to the leaders of the three Senate groups seeking their input. We also wrote to the opposition party leaders in the House of Commons and to the chairs of the House and Senate official languages committees to get their input on the type of candidate desired.
Last week, I spoke to my critics on official languages and the prime minister also sent letters to the leaders of both opposition parties. We should therefore be in a position to appoint an official languages commissioner with all the required qualifications, and the appointment could be announced in the coming days.
The Chair: We will now move on the second round of questions.
Senator Poirier: About three weeks ago, your colleague Scott Brison came to present his annual report. In comparing the two annual reports with the recent report of the acting official languages commissioner, a different picture emerges and different information is provided.
On the one hand, you are saying that French and bilingualism are doing well, but on the other, the complaints received by the commissioner’s office have increased steadily over the past five years. The information is contradictory.
Do you not think greater powers could be given to the official languages commissioner to ensure that federal institutions more fully examine the complaints received?
Ms. Joly: The official languages commissioner plays an essential role. I know that your committee is currently considering the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I look forward to reading its recommendations.
If you address the powers of the official languages commissioner in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act, I will be pleased to review and study your recommendations. I think the time has come for a comprehensive study.
Senator Poirier: In your annual report, you mention that 44,607 economic immigrants had signed up for language classes, but those figures lack certain details. Among the classes taken by these 44,607 immigrants, how many were French classes and how many were English classes? In which provinces were those classes taken? Do you follow up with the people enrolled in the various classes to assess their effectiveness?
If you do not have those details handy, could you provide them to the committee later on? We would appreciate that very much.
Ms. Joly: I will be pleased to ask the team to provide you with a more detailed answer to that question.
Senator Gagné: I would like to refer to the paragraph on page 44 of the 2015-16 annual report, which is entitled “Federal institutions are in close collaboration”. You mention in your report that Canadian Heritage has developed an important tool, the Guide to Developing Official Languages Clauses in Transfer Payment Agreements at Canadian Heritage, and that this innovative tool will provide for the more effective inclusion of English and French in the administration of transfer payment programs.
I am pleased to see that the content of agreements is mentioned in the accountability reports. In this context, I am wondering whether this guide was designed for the development of contribution agreements for all federal institutions or for Canadian Heritage only.
Mr. Gauthier: The guide was prepared by Canadian Heritage to help its program officers. That being said, we shared the guide with other federal institutions, through the Network of Official Languages Champions, for instance. It was also prepared in cooperation with Justice Canada. So this guide does have some impact and will likely influence a number of other federal institutions that will use it as a guide with practical examples that could be tailored to the respective institution.
Senator Gagné: Under section 42 of the Official Languages Act, however, Canadian Heritage does have a role to play in encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach to the implementation of measures by federal institutions and their commitment set out in Part VII.
Consider the national child care program, for example. Does this agreement include a language clause? And what is your role, as minister, in those negotiations?
Mme Joly: It goes without saying that the federal government takes a horizontal approach to official languages. My colleague, Scott Brison, the justice minister and I are responsible for the implementation of the act. On the whole, however, all departments have a role to play in supporting the vitality of official language minority communities.
My colleague Jean-Yves Duclos is our lead on this. As the Minister of Social Development, he developed our first federal early childhood strategy and took an approach that supports communities on early childhood.
Mr. Duclos would therefore be able to give you a more detailed answer about the various agreements. I know there have been some breakthroughs, in Ontario in particular, that make the community happy. I also know that negotiations are underway. It goes without saying therefore that work has been done at the political level to support Mr. Duclos’s approach.
As to the work done by Canadian Heritage, I will be honest; there is still a lot of work to be done in the public service to make all departments aware of the importance of the official languages. This work is ongoing, and there is always room for improvement. In general, we studied the Mendelsohn-Borbey report in order to properly understand what is happening in the public service. It is not just between public servants, but more broadly, the awareness of the realities of linguistic communities must be improved. In relation to the action plan on official languages, we will present a governance plan associated with this action plan.
Senator Gagné: It is a question of creating reflexes then because, when you think of Part VII, positive measures, early childhood, community development and vitality, I think it is all interrelated.
Ms. Joly: That is exactly right, those reflexes must be strengthened. People must not always look to Canadian Heritage though because we already have good reflexes with respect to official languages.
Senator Gagné: You have to get your colleagues to have the same reflexes.
Ms. Joly: That is the best way because, if we work in silos, then it is not possible for us to support the very essence of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. If we do not call on my colleagues in the public service, they will not always have the reflex to take a robust approach to official languages.
Senator Gagné: Technically, section 42 gives you a lot of responsibilities as Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Ms. Joly: Exactly, but it is also a question of promoting and encouraging. I promote and encourage on a daily basis, but it does not end there. That is why I am pleased to see that you invite other ministers to the table from time to time to answer your questions.
Senator Gagné: So then perhaps we could modernize section 42.
Ms. Joly: I really look forward to reading your report.
Senator Tardif: I had another question, but since the door is open, I will pursue the topic of modernizing the act.
Madam Minister, you said that you had conducted a number of consultations regarding the next action plan. You published a report on the nationwide consultations on official languages. No doubt you heard that there are a lot of shortcomings in the act, that it should be amended to address these shortcomings, and that it should be modernized to reflect the social and demographic changes in Canadian society.
Can you tell us, Madam Minister, why you did not indicate your commitment to modernizing the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Joly: As I said, part of the work has been done by the Senate committee and I look forward to reading your report. Right now I am working on producing the action plan on official languages. So we are doing one thing at a time. I know that the action plan can address a reality, but it depends on the tools in place. I will be pleased to continue this conversation about the importance of the act. There will be a new official languages commissioner and a new action plan so we will be in a good position to improve the defence and promotion of language rights.
On the whole, I did observe an interest in modernizing the act, but even the various official languages organizations said they wanted to be ready should we decide to do it. We have to identify our priorities should the act be modernized. The previous government changed the way groups are funded, as regards justice in particular, and funding was concentrated more on projects and less on language rights activism. We want to develop a new action plan, work on funding issues, develop activism tools, and work with the communities to determine whether or not we need a new approach to official languages.
Senator Tardif: I can assure you that the evidence we heard from various sectors, groups, associations and communities right across the country clearly indicates that changes must be made to the Official Languages Act for all the reasons discussed today, and we could add others.
I would like to begin with one of the recommendations we made in our report regarding a special agreement with the British Columbia ministry of education to be included in the next protocol for agreements on education in order to meet the infrastructure needs of French-language schools in British Columbia. Can you foresee such an agreement in the next protocol for agreement with British Columbia?
Ms. Joly: The new government in British Columbia is good news for the francophone community because its election platform included developing a policy on French-language services. I look forward to following developments in this regard. Moreover, I have begun discussions with my colleague, Carla Qualtrough, to see how we can provide additional support for the project, especially the Rose-des-vents school. During the negotiations, I will of course look at what is happening in British Columbia in particular, because I know the francophone community has longstanding demands. The federal government’s role has always been to support communities, especially in cases where dealings with certain provincial governments can be more difficult.
Senator Tardif: You know there was a precedent in 1997 when Canadian Heritage concluded a special agreement with the British Columbia ministry to enable it to meet the section 23 criteria.
Ms. Joly: Yes, I am well aware.
Senator Tardif: I think the federal government needs to take very strong leadership on this file once again.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will have to stop here. I believe Ms. Joly has other commitments. I would like to thank the minister.
Ms. Joly: Thank you all.
The Chair: Thank you for being here and for your commitment, which is very clear to us. The Canadians we consulted would however like the Government of Canada and your department to be as well-equipped as possible for this role. So the modernization of the Official Languages is becoming increasingly inevitable. Once again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Lussier for being here.
We will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)