Official Languages Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Good morning. Today we will be discussing support for francophone minority media with our three witnesses, Ms. Lajoie, Mr. Paquin and Mr. Ouellette.

Mr. Ouellette, I believe you have some opening remarks to make, for approximately 10 minutes. The committee members will then ask their questions.

[Roger Ouellette, President, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you.

The Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada currently has 30 members, including 21 stations on the air, three at the start up stage and six at the implementation stage. We are active in nine provinces and two territories. Our network has a potential audience of 450,000 listeners and employs 110 permanent staff. Another 1,000 active volunteers are involved in local radio on a daily basis.

Community radio stations are essential communication tools for the development and vitality of Canada's francophone and Acadian minority communities. Our community radio stations respond to our needs to have access to local information, to promote culture and local identity, and to protect and promote the French-language. They support the social and economic development of the communities they serve, contribute to social cohesion and encourage collective and individual involvement in local issues.

On March 24,2004, a number of organizations representing the francophone and Acadian communities, including the ARC du Canada, appeared before the committee in response to the government of the day's decision to place a moratorium on media buys. That announcement was a serious blow to the francophone minority media and provoke a crisis that called the very survival of our media into question.

In May 2004, the committee submitted its report entitled Impact of the Plan to Strengthen Management of Government of Canada Advertising on the Official-language Minority Media. That report produced two recommendations. The first was that the Government of Canada should immediately set aside a minimum of 5.4 per cent of its media buys for the official language minority media. The second was that PWGSC should comply fully with the Official Languages Act and other requirements set out in the Communication's Policy of the Government of Canada. That same report mentioned that, and I quote:

[...] the committee is aware that it is not always easy to reach both language groups in all parts of the country in a perfectly equivalent way using the existing media. [...] The anglophone community in Quebec thus has access to a range of information sources containing Government of Canada advertising, while francophone minority communities do not.

The Government of Canada's response to the committee's May 2004 report was based on the fact that the measures that had been put into place since the report was submitted had made it possible to attain the committee's objectives and that a minimum level of media buys was not necessary. This finding was based on the statistics generated between June 1, 2004 — the date the moratorium was lifted — and February 10, 2005. This finding showed that 7.65 per cent of radio advertising have been directed to the official language minority media.

In fiscal year 2003-2004, the member stations of ARC du Canada had their best year in terms of media buys by the Government of Canada. On March 31, 2004, the year before the moratorium, 19 ARC du Canada's stations shared $208,000 (gross). Starting the following year, the stations experienced a drastic draw in their advertising revenues, with a total, on March 31, 2005, of $74,000 (gross), a 65 per cent drop. The past fiscal year was scarcely better, with a total, for 20 stations, of $87,500 (gross). Had it not been for a media bias of almost $30,000 by Elections Canada, the result would of been even more disappointing.

You will find that information in the annexes.

During our most recent annual general meeting, on June 1, 2 and 3, the delegates attended a PWGSC presentation entitled “Demystifying Advertising within the Government of Canada”. You will find this document in the annex. We learn that since the management framework was established, the advertising process has had clearly defined steps. According to the information we were given, it takes over a year between the planning of a departmental advertising campaign and the dissemination of messages in the media. In addition to the departments, the Cabinet Operations Committee, Treasury Board, Privy Council Office and PWGSC are involved in this process. The effect of this long process is to discourage many departments from using conventional advertising to inform the public of policies, programs, services and other initiatives by the Government of Canada.

Over the past four years, federal government spending on advertising has declined dramatically. From $111 million in 2002-2003, advertising expenses tallied no more than $33 million (estimate) in 2005-2006. What is even more disturbing is that of $71 million in advertising activities approved by Cabinet for 2005-2006, only $33 million, including public notices, was carried out. According to our analysis, this performance is in part attributable to the long and complex process in the federal government's advertising management and accountability framework. It would be interesting to calculate the direct and indirect costs of the management and many controls, including the activities of the auditor general, in this area. Although we cannot say for certain, we would not be surprised if the costs were greater than those of the advertising itself, which is rather curious.

Section 30 of the Official Languages Act does not exclude the possibility of using different media for each language community in order to ensure effective communication with each individual in the language of his or her choice. This principle is particularly important to consider in those cases where the communication medium chosen for the majority language has no counterpart in the minority language community, or the equivalent medium is not an effective way to reach the official language minority community. The desired impact of the dissemination of the message should be equivalent in the majority and minority communities. This can mean using different media and at different frequencies. For example, if an ad is published five times in an English-language daily for the majority, it could be published more than once in a French-language weekly and also be broadcast on French-language radio to obtain an equivalent impact.

PWGSC acknowledged this concept of equivalence and, in April 2006, published a guide entitled “Advertising to Official Language Minority Communities: Best Practices in Government Advertising — Series No. 1”. See the annex. While the practices described in this document could be a solution to the problem of under-use of minority community radio stations, this document is designed simply to provide information. For the moment, PWGSC has made this document available on its Internet site as a reference, where, in our opinion, it will have little impact, and in fact, none at all, on the advertising campaign planning habits of agencies and departments.

In addition to the specific obligations set out in sections 11 and 30 of the Official Languages Act, Part VII of the Act states that the federal government is committed to enhancing the vitality of Canada's francophone and anglophone minorities and supporting their development. Consequently, federal government institutions can undertake communication initiatives specific to the official language minorities without it being necessary to communicate them in the majority language. The changes made by S-3 strengthen the Official Languages Act in part by making it enforceable. Section 41(2) states that:

41(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (3).

The positive measures apply to all federal institutions with the obligation to act. In the aftermath of S-3, new official language regulations are required, and the scope of these regulations is clear on the government's obligations in terms of communication and services — Part IV — and development of communities and promotion of linguistic duality — Part VII. One of the guiding principles of such regulations is to implement the principle of real equality, and by extension, the concept of equivalence.

With S-3, the departments and agencies must put the emphasis on innovative alternative service delivery methods and the regulations must be sufficiently flexible to encourage innovation. The regulations set the floor, not the ceiling.

In light of the preceding, the ARC du Canada proposes that the members of the committee make the principle of equivalence contained in the document “Advertising to Official Language Minority Communities: Best Practices in Government Advertising — Series No. 1” enforceable for any advertising campaign by departments and agencies of the Government of Canada.

Given the enforceability of the government's commitment to require federal institutions to ensure that positive measures are taken; given, furthermore, the government's obligations regarding communication, community development and the promotion of linguistic duality, and pursuant to the adoption of new regulations for the Official Languages Act with S-3, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada proposes that the members of the committee ask the Treasury Board to set aside $500,000 annually to allow federal departments and agencies to meet their obligations. Each year, the ARC du Canada will target certain key departments and agencies to propose a promotional campaign on French-language minority community radio stations, designed to meet the Act's objectives. We suggest to the members of the committee that this $500,000 investment by the Government of Canada not be subject to the advertising management framework but instead that a simple, transparent and accountable mechanism be set up with every department in order to ensure the best use of public funds.

Our minority French-language community radio stations have suffered, and continue to suffer, the fallout from the sponsorship scandal. There's no need to remind you that at no point was advertising enmeshed in this scandal. As we have shown, following the moratorium on the federal government advertising in 2004, the revenues from government of Canada media buys from our radio stations fell continuously, to a negligible amount. The majority of our member radio stations operate in remote regions or within very small communities. As a result, it becomes practically impossible to sell local advertising and the revenues from federal government advertising become a significant source of income. Many of our radio stations are experiencing hard, and indeed alarming, times and have to be propped up by francophone associations. The amendments introduced by S-3 oblige the government of Canada to take positive measures; that is exactly what the two proposals we are submitting to you today are. It is up to you, members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, to act accordingly.

Thank you for your attention and your concern. We are now ready to hear your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ouellette.

We will start the first round with Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ouellette. If I understood correctly, you would like us to recommend that Treasury Board set aside $500,000 to promote Bill S-3 within federal departments. I understand your point, but from what I have noted in the House of Commons, given our financial situation, the president of Treasury Board will be considering the possibility of cutting $1 billion over the summer, at his chalet I imagine. That is not very encouraging for you, but I do support your association.

I would like to know if, during or after the election campaign, any of the three of you had a conversation, read articles or received promises from the government with respect to the government support for the ARC or Bill S-3. That is my first question.

My second question is on your 2005-2006 report in which you talk about the social economy. I am not sure I understand those words. Does that mean the same thing as promoting Bill S-3? Perhaps the meanings are different, but could you explain that to me? Thank you.

[Roger Ouellette]

I will begin and then my colleagues can follow up.

Almost all the political parties, and even some members from a certain political party which did not feel it was appropriate to vote in favour of Bill S-3, made the decision before the election campaign to make the bill a priority and to vote in support of it.

Given that the bill is a priority for members of Parliament and given that there is the political will in the House, if the President of Treasury Board must make budget cuts, he should do them somewhere else because we have already suffered enough cuts. The numbers show that there has been an erosion of our income from the federal government. There is a firm will within all political parties — or the majority of them — to ensure that Bill S-3 will be voted on by the House. That political will has to be reflected in funding. Otherwise it is nothing but lip service.

Under the previous government, there was funding set aside in order to support the social economy. Discussions took place with the provinces. For various reasons, there was an agreement with Quebec, some things happened with Ontario, but that is all. We began discussions, negotiations and consultations with the previous government, specifically with the parliamentary secretary to the Industry Canada minister, Ms. Bakopanos, who was responsible for this file.

Community radio stations are designated as non-profit cooperative organizations or as non-profit organizations. In that capacity, they contribute to the social economy. They support the development of communities and are social economy businesses. We also wanted to be designated as such so that if there were federal funds set aside for the social economy, then our members would be able to benefit from that. Our approach is to focus on the various programs of the federal government and to ensure that our organizations benefit from them.

In answer to your question, there is no connection between the social economy and official languages.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

During the last Parliament, the first thing I did as chairman was to table the report. The government then announced its position on its investments in the media. If my memory serves me well, its position was that these investments were sufficient.

What has changed since the government's response to the report?

[Serge Paquin, Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada]

The new stringency surrounding media buys has resulted in a radical decline in conventional departmental advertising. It is somewhat strange to see that, out of a total budget of $71 million, only $33 million were spent. That is clearly indicative of the fact that the current accountability process is overly lengthy and burdensome. It discourages departments and agencies from advertising. They instead instigate alternative initiatives, because, as I am sure you would agree, it is fairly rare for budgets not to be spent in government.

As far less money is being spent, there has been an overall reduction in media buys. Coupled with this decline, is the fact that we are a small group with only 20 stations outside of Quebec. As a result, we do not have access to BBM ratings, and advertising planning agencies do not know who we are, we are not on their radar screen. This means that they do not automatically include us in their advertising campaigns.

That is why we believe that the guide, although on the right track and entirely laudable, has made no impact thus far. If an advertising campaign is run on television, equivalency cannot be attained even if the ads are also run in newspapers and minority language community radio stations.

We would therefore ask that the guide be adhered to for each and every advertising campaign.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

[Béatrice Lajoie, Chargee for National Development, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada]

Allow me to add something briefly. When we are talking about asking Treasury Board for money, we are referring to media buys. In the context of today's discussion, we are only talking about the advertising budget. We are not asking for funding from another envelope.

Secondly, I would like to point out that we were already experiencing difficulties in getting a share of the advertising budget before the sponsorship scandal. Now, the situation is even worse. We are only asking for a share of the advertising budget, we are not asking for money from elsewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Lajoie.

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for your presentation.

In your presentation, you reported that, according to the communications policy of the Government of Canada, the anglophone community in Quebec has access to a range of information sources containing Government of Canada advertising, while francophone minority communities do not.

That is obvious, it goes without saying.

Firstly, I would like to speak about the notion of equivalency, which I find interesting in this context, especially in light of your remarks that we must put the emphasis on innovative alternative service delivery methods and sufficiently flexible regulations. Implicit in this, is the notion of fairness, which is essentially what we are trying to promote in Quebec.

However, when it comes to solutions, English-language minority communities are placed on equal footing with their French-language counterparts. Therefore, even if you are trying to defend the interests of French-speakers outside of Quebec, your proposed solutions, as you know, would also apply to English-speakers in Quebec.

Have you given any thought to that? What would you suggest?

[Serge Paquin]

We have no difficulty with the notion of Quebec's English-language community benefiting from an equivalency-based system.That is a fact and it is stated in the committee's report: It is far more difficult to reach the French-language community. Obviously, it is because of geographical and demographic factors.

Everybody agrees that the majority of English-speakers in Quebec live in Montreal. Around 95 per cent, if not more, of Quebec's English-speakers live in the greater Montreal region. They have access to newspapers, radio stations, TV channels. Living in Montreal means that they have access to media, BBM ratings, and conventional advertising. Good for them! They might get a little more money, although I would find it surprising if they did, because they already have excellent service.

However, it is an altogether different story for French-speakers. We are scattered all across the country, in remote areas that are difficult to reach. Although, I would have to say that it is also difficult to reach French-speakers in Toronto, because there is no real French district.

In short, we have no difficulty with the equivalency principle applying equally to English-language and French-language communities. I have no problem with improving services for English-language communities, although I get the impression that they are already doing well for themselves.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

The point that I was trying to make was that they will, inevitably, be given more resources. That is where the notion of fairness comes into play. Adding resources to a community that is already well established and has everything that it needs...

Obviously, I fully understand the necessity for you to have more resources. However, can we as Quebeckers really ask that additional funds be given to a network that is already flourishing?

[Serge Paquin]

By adopting Bill S-3, the government decided to introduce positive measures. However, thus far, the exact nature of these positive measures has not yet been defined.

A positive measure that we are suggesting here is the notion of equivalency. You asked whether the principle will apply, if it is felt that the English-language community is already well served and well informed. My answer would be that it may not be necessary; it may be felt that the English-language community is already very well informed. If not, and a little more is done for the English-language community — good for them! Implementing positive measures in keeping with the spirit of Bill S-3.

We therefore have no difficulty with the notion of equivalency, even when it is applied to the majority group. It is not a crime to do more to help the English-language community. Indeed, it would simply be an example of a positive measure and thus in keeping with the positive spirit of the act. At least that is our interpretation of the legislation, and we therefore have no problem with this notion. We have absolutely no objection to the English-language community enjoying even more benefits under an equivalency-based system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like us to turn our attention to another issue, the social economy. If I understood you correctly, you want to be considered as a social economy enterprise. However, to have such a status, a business has to put something back into the community. It has to provide social benefits to the people in the community, be it in terms of mentoring, or skills development, etc.

Are you in a position to do that?

[Roger Ouellette]

We have been working on gaining social economy enterprise status for the past year, and we meet all of the criteria. Allow me to provide some examples as to how our community radio stations are active in the social economy and the field of community development. I was the CEO of a very successful community radio station in Shediac called Radio Beauséjour; I am sure Mr. Godin is familiar with it. Radio Beauséjour regularly organizes fundraisers to help, amongst others, shelters for women who are victims of domestic violence, etc. We always raise between $130,000 and $140,000. The money goes directly to firefighters, for example, or to other groups. All of that should be taken into consideration.

I believe that community radio stations in the north of the province are also doing the same. All members representing a riding that has a community radio station know full well the role these radio stations play in the socio-economic development of the regions they serve. We fully meet the definition of a social economy enterprise.

Community radio is often the voice of the community. For example, it is community radio that can reach the French-speaker in Toronto. In other words, community radio allows everybody, be it women or young people, to speak out on any subject, be it culture or the economy. It is the voice of the people. When you look at all that they do, I do not see how community radio stations could not be considered as social economy enterprises. Without wishing to be arrogant, I would even say that we are leading the way in the social economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellette.

The next question will be from Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Lajoie, Mr. Ouellette, Mr. Paquin, it is a pleasure to have you here.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for believing in community radio. I would also like to congratulate you for the good work that you do. I believe that community radio has a role to play in our communities. Mr. Ouellette, you were right to say that it is the voice of the people. It is not a corporate entity, it belongs to the community. I enjoy listening to community radio when I am in my car in the evening. The volunteers do a good job and their work allows them to learn the tools of the trade. For some, it is a springboard to the next step. Community radio stations participate in community life, particularly in festivals. They also help the private sector through the advertisements that they run for stores.

That being said, the last time you appeared before our committee, you expressed concern about restrictions to the sponsorship program. I recall that the Auditor General said that it was not a matter of putting an end to the program, but, rather, putting an end to abusing the program. This should not affect communities, as they have a need for sponsorship.

Let us now turn back to your presentation. You spoke about millions and millions of dollars. You said that of $71 million only $33 million had been spent, yet you are only asking for $500,000. Is $500,000 enough? What are you going to be able to do with $500,000?

[Roger Ouellette]

Well, sir, if you would like to give us more...

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

On reading the figures that you have given us, I do not understand why you are only asking for $500,000.

[Roger Ouellette]

That is to say...

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Firstly, I would like you to tell us how budget cutbacks have affected community radio. What will the $500,000 allow you to do?

[Roger Ouellette]

Mr. Godin, I will give you a few examples. After the sponsorship's scandal, Radio Fredericton, in New Brunswick, experienced a significant reduction in its federal sponsorships. It has been struggling ever since. That radio station almost closed its doors at least twice. Members of Parliament from New Brunswick were made aware of this problem, especially Mr. Scott, the member for Fredericton.

We feel the problem is quite complex. There appears to be money; $71 million has been mentioned. In my opinion, there should be more. However, federal organizations are not even spending what is available. That is rather surprising. We are trying to understand why. Perhaps it is because of the monitoring mechanisms. I don't know very many departments that do not spend all their program money.

The auditor general said that there had to be an end to the sponsorships' scandal and that the government had to get its house in order, but she did not suggest that we kill the goose with the golden eggs. I think that currently we're strangling that goose. As I mentioned, I believe in accountability and in auditing. However we have to be reasonable. I think it would be interesting to request — you can do this but we can't — a study that would consider the costs associated with this process, that is, how much is spent, and why it is that, in the end, there is $71 million available. Thirty one million dollars has been spent and $20 to $25 million are spent on an audit.

I think that some serious questions have to be asked. We need auditing and we need to avoid scandals, but we cannot suffocate development and initiative. That is my first response to your question. We need more money for government advertising and rules that will ensure that the money can be spent. That will have an impact.

Five hundred thousand dollars is a modest amount; obviously we can ask for more. However, it should be clear that community radio stations do not want to restrict themselves to one source of funding alone. I think it is important to protect the independence of radio stations. You mentioned volunteers. If you were to quantify, in dollars, all the work carried out by volunteers in community radio stations throughout the country, you would be talking about millions of dollars. The volunteers are there, that does not pose a problem. Depending on their market, the radio stations that can, will obtain advertising income. We did it in your riding and in others.

However there are many other small radio stations that cannot pay for BBM surveys. Why is that? BBM surveys are only carried out in English in anglophone markets. In Montreal, there are surveys in English and in French but that is all. There are no BBM surveys undertaken within francophone markets outside Quebec. That is the reality. The small radio stations do not count. That is why there have to be other sources of funding. We think that government advertising is a good source of funding but it should not be the only source. The ingredients for the best recipe for community radio stations are volunteers, federal government advertising, bingo and fundraising campaigns.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot stay for much longer because I have to go to the House of Commons.

If that's the case, then we need to know if the money is spent on auditing or not spent at all. I think that our committee could ask Treasury Board to come and answer that. If there is money, then it should be used for the purposes it was allocated for and not only for audits. As the auditor general said, we don't want to eliminate all programs because some of these programs are good, but there has to be monitoring. We cannot just do an audit and then lose the money because of that audit. I think that would be an even greater scandal than the sponsorship scandal.