Bill C-354

An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities)

This enactment amends the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to provide that the Commission must, in furtherance of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, consult with the Government of Quebec or the governments of the other provinces, as the case may be, before regulating aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec or that concern French-speaking markets.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to express my deep disappointment that we were unable to adopt not only a single amendment, but also a bill that contains a single clause on a subject on which everyone's position was established. We did not necessarily agree, but positions were known. I find it extremely disappointing today, and I wanted to put it on the record. We have not exactly covered ourselves in glory, to say the least.

This is a request from the Government of Quebec, so if we had the slightest respect for Quebec and for the recognition of the Quebec nation, we would not have dilly-dallied so much. I am extremely disappointed with today's turn of events.

I think this item should be on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting, so that we can finish our study of Bill C‑354.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Effectively, if the committee supports Bill C-354, it is creating a new consultation mechanism that is giving privileged access to those listed in.... It's whatever the bill reads. Again, we talked about the potential of a perception of influence in giving that privileged access to provincial and territorial governments. Broadening it to include others obviously raises a question about who has access to that mechanism versus who doesn't.

That's why the government's view remains that the best one is a public consultation, one open to everybody to participate—where everybody's views are put on the public record and the CRTC makes a decision based on that public record, including the views and perspectives put forward by provincial governments.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment that my colleague Ms. Ashton is proposing does indeed reflect the expectations of francophone communities outside Quebec, those communities that we consulted in the spring, and even over the summer. It also reflects Quebec's request to be consulted, pursuant to the clause contained in Bill C‑354. I am hoping that we won't spend an inordinate amount of time discussing this issue. We already have the answers to all the questions we put to department officials.

I therefore urge us to vote quickly on Ms. Ashton's amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

We still have speakers lined up to speak to this bill. Until we hear everybody on the debate, we cannot go to a vote.

I will say this, as the chair here today: It's a bit different from when we dealt with this bill, Bill C-354, four months ago, in summer, and then we've had new committee members around the table. There's an education process on this bill, I think. We had it months ago; then we adjourned for the summer. Now we're back, and now we have two or three new committee members just catching up. I'm not defending this; I'm just stating the obvious, that people around the table and others wanted a better grasp of Bill C-354, with the recent amendment of Mr. Champoux.

Saying that, Ms. Lattanzio, your hand is up, and you're welcome to speak.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

As I mentioned, nothing currently prevents Quebec or any other province or territory from taking part in public consultations launched by the CRTC. The difference, as I mentioned to Mr. Godin, is that, in this case, the proposal seeks to require the CRTC to consult Quebec or another province or territory before exercising one of its powers.

That's the structural difference the department sees. Currently, it is up to the CRTC to say that it plans to make such and such a decision and that it will hold public consultations on the matter. Then it issues a notice of consultation regarding the decision in question. It follows that process, and the CRTC's decision must be based on publicly available evidence.

The proposal contained in Bill C‑354 says that if the CRTC were to even think about making a decision or exercising one of its powers, it would have to consult Quebec and the other provinces and territories on these issues.

In conclusion, that's the structural issue we see.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Ripley.

Mr. Ripley, I agree with Mr. Godin that the CRTC should consult francophone communities across the country, including those in Quebec City, and even in the province of Quebec. However, I do not understand how Bill C‑354 would enhance or strengthen these consultations or give them more weight.

Do we need this legislation to make sure that the CRTC will consult with these important stakeholders and actually listen to the voices of the francophone community?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a couple of comments on what was said earlier about the fact that the minister had written to all the premiers, or all the provincial governments, and to Quebec, to get their input and to invite them to participate in the hearings. Indeed, a call has been made, as is done every time, to all stakeholders, organizations and groups interested in the legislative changes or the regulations that are in the works.

However, that is not at all what Quebec is asking for. Quebec's request to be consulted applies when it comes to French culture, the French language and francophone media, i.e., something that will have an impact on Quebec's cultural distinctiveness; it is not asking to be lumped in with the numerous other interested stakeholders. We do not want to hear that if Quebec considers itself a stakeholder, it should raise its hand, put its name in a hat, get in line, and then wait until it is its turn to speak.

Quebec has the right to be treated as a nation, as the House of Commons has recognized.

When the subject matter falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, such as the French language and its protection, I think it is entirely natural and justified for Quebec to make that request. That has been done. The Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications wrote a letter. We all became aware of it here following the study of Bill C‑11. The minister never received a reply to his letter from the government or Canadian Heritage. Bill C‑354 is the beginning of a response to Quebec's request.

I think we are looking at this issue in two different ways, and the right way to do it is to consider what Quebec is. Quebec is a nation and is recognized as such by the House of Commons. Quebec is therefore asking to be considered as a government that has responsibilities with respect to these specific matters we are talking about. I don't see that in any way as a threat to the operation of the CRTC. I don't see it as cumbersome either. It's a simple process to put in place. The commission consults the Government of Quebec.

It's really quite simple. We're asking for a little transparency, and the amendment proposed by the Conservatives requires that a report be published on the discussions that will have taken place between the CRTC and the Government of Quebec. It's a very simple request, and I think we're making it complicated. We are making it more cumbersome to implement this measure, which simply responds to a request from Quebec, which only wants, once again, to protect French, to protect francophone culture, and to protect vehicles for francophone culture, such as the media, cultural products, and so on.

I just wanted to make that point, because we're touching on a lot of subjects that are making the process a little too cumbersome, a little too complex, something that, when all is said and done, is really simple and seems to me quite natural to put in place, i.e., consultations when it comes to the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and francophone groups outside Quebec. I just wanted to say that I think we're going around in circles here, Mr. Chair.

It felt good to get that off my chest. Thank you.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

No, there's nothing in Bill C-354 that would require a consultation with the federal government. In fact, there's no obligation on the CRTC to consult with the federal government before it takes any decision. Again, this is something new. It would not extend to the federal government. The position of the department is that it would be inappropriate for the CRTC to have to consult with the federal government before it made a decision, because, obviously, that then encroaches on its independence as a media regulator, and in a democratic society, where we believe that the media should be at arm's-length from the government of the day, that would be a concern.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As I mentioned, it's already open for provinces and territories, including Quebec, to participate in CRTC proceedings. The way that Bill C-354 is structured makes an amendment to the CRTC Act, which, as I mentioned, is the act that creates the CRTC and sets out its powers. It's not in the Broadcasting Act.

What Bill C-354 proposes to do is require the CRTC—and there's a reading of the bill that would require the CRTC—before it exercises any power under the Broadcasting Act or does anything under the Broadcasting Act, to consult with the Government of Quebec or other provinces as it relates to the French-speaking communities in those provinces. It elevates that kind of duty of consultation with the Province of Quebec or other provinces above the current structure.

The concern is that you are elevating these governments and putting them in a privileged position, and the concern would be that it could give rise to a perception of influence on the CRTC, again, because, before they exercise any of their other powers, they have to go and do this consultation with Quebec or other provinces. It's not just a question of redundancy from the department's perspective. It introduces a risk, because you are elevating these provinces above other stakeholders who may want to participate and put their perspectives on the record.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're back.

The subamendment has been sent out to your P9s, so you can take a quick look at that.

I still have a speaking list to deal with. I have Mr. Noormohamed up first, then Ms. Gainey and Mr. Coteau, I believe.

For everybody around the table and online, we're going to deal with Bill C-354 for as long as it takes us. We're here until at least one o'clock. I know we were going to have a closed session, but we are going to try to get Bill C-354 completed here today, so make the adjustments to your schedule.

Mr. Noormohamed, I don't see you, but you were up next. I don't know whether you got bumped out, or if you've just gone away for a second. We're back, and we're dealing with the subamendment of the Bloc.

Ms. Gainey, if you're there, we'll move to you, if you don't mind.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rather like the Conservatives' proposed amendment. I would also like to point out that they were very vocal when the Government of Quebec sent a letter to the government, just as Bill C‑11 was about to be passed in the Senate.

The letter from the Government of Quebec contained important recommendations on measures that should have been taken earlier in the process. The Conservatives were vocal in promoting those recommendations. In the letter, there is a recommendation that we wanted to put into legislation; the result of which is Bill C‑354. I find it interesting to see a willingness to collaborate to improve this clause. However, although I agree with the Conservatives' proposed amendment, there is one thing that bothers me a bit, and that is the first sentence. I would therefore like to propose a subamendment to the Conservatives' proposed amendment.

I simply propose removing the part that states that “The Commission shall hold public consultations with the Government of Quebec” and going back to the original version contained in Bill C‑354, i.e., “the Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec”. So I would just propose that we remove the first part of the Conservative amendment and go back to the original wording.

Holding public consultations is a cumbersome process. In my opinion, if we want to make things simple and respond effectively to Quebec's request, there should simply be a consultation between the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Government of Quebec.

That is what I am proposing as a subamendment. I propose that we go back to the original wording for the first sentence.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

We're dealing with Ms. Thomas's amendment that Bill C-354 in clause 1 be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

(1.01) The Commission shall hold public consultations with the Govern‐

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 1 the following:

(1.02) The Commission shall publish on its website a report on the results of the consultations held under subsection (1.01).

(1.03) Before participating in the consultations under subsection (1.01), the Government of Quebec and the governments of other provinces shall consult with audiences in the French-language markets in their respective provinces.

We're dealing with CPC-1.

Mr. Jivani, you still have the floor. I would like you to comment on the first one. We have a short...as duly noted here, CPC-1.

Mr. Jivani, could you please deal with CPC-1?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Jivani, for the questions.

Bill C-354 amends the CRTC Act, as the chair set out in the beginning. That's the piece of legislation that creates and sets out the powers and structure of the CRTC.

Mr. Chair, as you know, when officials are invited to clause-by-clause we fulfill a particular purpose in terms of supporting the members in considering that legislation and answering technical questions or potential amendments they may have about the bill. While I certainly respect Mr. Jivani's desire to get answers to these questions, it is outside the scope of why we are here today.

Departmental officials would be pleased to pick up those questions in a more suitable forum, Mr. Chair.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, when a member is called to order several times, as has been the case since the beginning of the meeting, I think the chair has a duty is to take away his right to speak.

The member has not mentioned the bill since the beginning of his speaking time. We have reacted enough and you have clearly understood the concerns of all committee members. Talking about films funded by the Canada Media Fund is in no way relevant to Bill C‑354.

Bill C‑354, which you say is very broad, is not actually that broad in scope. It asks the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to consult Quebec on issues affecting francophone culture, the French language and francophone media. Its scope is not broad, but rather narrow and easy to define.

Right now, debate could be at best qualified as scattershot. Given the number of members around the table rising on points of order since the beginning of Mr. Jivani's speaking time, I think it is time for you to get tough and cut him off.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

I will say that Bill C-354 is really broad, and many Canadians have questions. The consultation, along with the accountability, are some areas that, even when I sat and asked questions, I had concerns about. Those were two things that, when I looked at the bill, I had concerns about when I was told I would be chairing this meeting this morning. That's all I'm going to share about the consultation process, along with accountability and the good governance that is needed on this bill. I don't know if we have talked about the good governance needed on this bill, Bill C-354.

There are issues with this. It's a broad bill, coast to coast. It's just not Quebec. This deals with other provinces as well.

Mr. Jivani, I think you've heard the concerns about this.

Please stick to Bill C-354 if you can.