Evidence of meeting #14 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Dabrusin, before we do that, we don't have committee business scheduled here, so what I will do is this. I'm assuming you'd like to use up your time to have this discussion, and I can allow other members to...?
I just stopped your time. If you'd like other members to add to what you just said, I'll let you know that I will use your time to do it until it runs out. Then we will go to the next questioner.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm absolutely fine with that, because I believe that what we're seeing overwhelmingly from people who work in the industry is that they want us to move ahead with Bill C-10. That's what I'm seeing from the number of people who have put their names forward to speak to it.
I would really love to see how we can work to do this.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. You have about four minutes and 30 seconds left. I will open up the floor. I see that Mr. Rayes wants to speak. I will recognize him and I will resume with your time.
Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.
February 5th, 2021 / 2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What Ms. Dabrusin just said is very intriguing. I agree with us using her time to discuss her proposal. That way, we won't take up any of the time we have for questions to the witnesses who are here with us.
A few things concern me. We could discuss her proposal at the beginning of the next meeting, but we already have a busy schedule on Mondays and Fridays. At the end of the week, we all still have a lot of work to do. If we add an hour, it will mean even more preparation for each of us. We do not have very big teams, with due respect for the parliamentary secretary and the minister, who sometimes have more staff.
I'm concerned about another issue that we don't often consider: the interpreters. They have all told us how difficult their work is and how few of them are available at the moment. It's Friday and they have been working all week too. We're aware of all the technical difficulties at the moment. For these reasons, adding a third hour worries me.
However, Bill C-10 is important. Nothing is stopping us from adding more meetings, if the parliamentary secretary, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc wish to do so. We would be more than willing to extend the consultations by adding more meetings as necessary. We then could hear from all the witnesses who need to speak to this bill, for as long as the committee wants.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just hold on one second, Ms. Dabrusin. I have two other people who wish to weigh in. You opened the floor.
Ms. McPherson and Mr. Champoux have about three minutes in this time allotted. That would give some time for Madam Dabrusin, if she wants to. Again, folks, I have to be strict about this. I've stopped the clock right now, but we have three minutes left in Ms. Dabrusin's time, so I would ask that you please be quick about this.
I'll start the clock again, Ms. McPherson.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, may I please respond to the point raised by Monsieur Rayes?
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I just wonder, with the witnesses here, if it would be possible for us to have an extension of the meeting after our witnesses are completed—today or maybe even prior to the next meeting? I find it bad that we're having this conversation while we have witnesses, whom I'd like to talk more with.
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I agree with Ms. McPherson. I find it a little inappropriate on our part, especially since this hour was scheduled to hear from the witnesses that the NDP and the Bloc had invited. You know that we have less time and fewer opportunities to hear from witnesses. I'm a little frustrated that this issue is being raised during this hour.
I propose, as Mr. Rayes did earlier, that we set aside some time to discuss this issue before the next meeting, which will be held after the break week. I don't feel it's appropriate to do so in the presence of the witnesses. I would very much like to hear from them about Bill C-10 while they are here with us.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, that's why I put this fully within my time. I'm not raising it within anyone else's time.
To the point raised by Monsieur Rayes, the extra hour is in fact the time that is open to us. From consultation with the committees as to when we can have extra time, as I understood it, a slot was possibly available to us for extra time on Fridays. That's why that spot was chosen.
You are absolutely correct to point out that we do not have the ability to slot meetings wherever we want, because of the challenges we are facing.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, I hope this is a point of order. I will rule on it. Nevertheless, please proceed.
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I will leave it up to you.
I feel we have gone over the time that Ms. Dabrusin was allotted for this discussion. We can either get that time back at the end of the meeting or move on to today's topic right away.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Monsieur Champoux, let me just stop right there. There are a few seconds left in Ms. Dabrusin's time. I've granted her her six minutes to do this.
I've been asked by the clerk to suspend for a few moments. She wants to clarify something.
The meeting is suspended.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We are returning.
We have a couple things to clarify at the end of this meeting. One is about the motion that Mr. Champoux proposed. If you wish to carry on that discussion, we can. I'll try to do it within the time frame of about five to 10 minutes past the scheduled end of the meeting.
In the meantime, it was Ms. Dabrusin's intent to use her time to discuss this issue. She has a few seconds left if she wishes to conclude. However, I did see Mr. Champoux wanted to talk now.
Mr. Champoux did you want to finish your point of order?
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, you stopped the timer for Ms. Dabrusin's time, but the meeting time kept running. I want to make sure we can make up for the time we lost in order to hear the witnesses we have invited today. It's simply a matter of respect for them, Mr. Chair.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I truly appreciate your concern. Thank you very much. I am trying to be cognizant of the time as I juggle many things.
I'm going to return now to Ms. Dabrusin who has approximately 20 seconds left.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
That's fine.
I just wanted to check in with the other parties to see if we can make extra time, because I know that witnesses want to appear and we need to be able to make that extra time for them.
Thank you.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for their patience. We apologize for the hold-up. These things do happen.
Ms. Prégent, in your opening remarks, you used a great analogy, a wonderful image, I thought: the shrinking mirror. I found that very interesting. Television and, in general, anything we watch, whatever the medium, certainly influences culture.
In a cultural context like Quebec's and in the Canadian francophonie in general, how dangerous is it when the mirror shrinks, in your opinion? What are the risks of not regulating all broadcasting strictly enough? Basically, I am asking you to elaborate on what you said.
2:40 p.m.
President, Union des Artistes
Yes, certainly.
I can tell you about French, because it's the medium that the Union des artistes operates in. Actually, UDA also has jurisdiction over all languages other than English across Canada; most people don't know that. I could also tell you about other languages that are in a little more danger.
As far as I'm concerned, the people on television must absolutely look like the people who watch it. In my opinion, we should not remove that concept from our legislation. On the contrary, it should be recognized. That's what I meant by looking into a mirror. I can't imagine what television will be like in the future if that concept is not front and centre in our legislation to a greater extent. I can sense the danger.
We're talking about an extremely captive, extremely curious viewer of French-language television. I can talk about original French-language content, because that's the content I know. People watch TV and listen to music in French. It's an extremely significant concept that transcends language and expression. The vibrancy it creates is much more collective. That's why I talked about the mirror, and about seeing ourselves, about togetherness, about identity. Currently, the idea of language is not in the legislation. That's extremely unfortunate, given Quebec's linguistic and geopolitical situation. There are very few francophones in the Americas. That's why I find it's a shame that the concept is left out of the legislation right now.