Evidence of meeting #26 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just wanted to follow through. This is not intended to make it harder for smaller players because that's not been defined. It's actually to prevent the loophole that is created for the bigger players, I think.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further conversation, we will now go to a vote on amendment NDP-10.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Can it be negatived on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here's what the amendment would add:
(i) recognizes that market forces, competition and the growing choice of programming made available over the Internet are contributing to achieving the broadcasting policy objectives set out in subsection 3(1);
(j) encourages all forms of competition to ensure that high-quality and innovative programming is made available to Canadians using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost; and
(k) ensures that regulation is necessary, efficient and proportionate to its purpose.
That's it.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.
For me, it's really about keeping the spotlight on the cultural aspect of this. When it's all said and done, the Broadcasting Act should really be a cultural piece, not an economic one. It's not necessarily the point that if a company brings profitability to this that they are upholding culture. I think that culture is important here.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further debate, we will go to a vote on amendment CPC-7.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
That brings us to amendment BQ-14.
Mr. Champoux.
2:10 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, having discussed the matter with various persons, I propose to withdraw amendment BQ-14.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That's all right, Mr. Champoux. It hasn't been moved yet, so it will be deemed as not being moved.
That brings us to amendment LIB-6 on page 61.
Mr. Housefather.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by congratulating all of the parties on the work we have already done to bolster both official languages under the act, whether they are minority language communities, French across Canada or indigenous languages. This amendment is one that speaks of a right to consultation.
We heard from many of the participants from official language minority communities that decisions of the CRTC had very negative impacts on them and they were never consulted on those decisions.
The CRTC has a duty to support the development of official language minority communities. However, as some of its decisions may have a harmful impact on those communities, I want to introduce a right to consultation for them. That's a request that they made. Some CRTC decisions have had very negative effects on those communities, which have not had a say in the decisions that were made.
I believe this is a good step forward. We should consider this aspect not only in the present circumstances, but also when we proceed with the reform of the Official Languages Act later this year.
I repeat that I'm extremely grateful to all my colleagues for their cooperation on all the amendments we've brought to date on the two official languages and language communities in Canada. I hope this amendment also receives the committee's support.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I find the intent behind this amendment entirely noble and laudable. However, from the standpoint of its feasibility, my impression is that we're undertaking an extremely complicated process.
Taking the time to consult is a very good idea, but we already have hearings for that purpose. Generally speaking, the CRTC consults people in various circumstances. Consequently, I don't see any need to add an obligation to consult the official language minority communities. First of all, I wonder how we can determine who the official representatives of those communities are. In short, I feel that the proposed addition would enormously complicate the CRTC's work without really achieving a conclusive result.
I'd like to know the opinion of the departmental experts on this point. I'd like them to enlighten me on the way this could be put into practice without unduly complicating the CRTC's process.
2:15 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
I'll begin with a few remarks on the amendment, and then my colleague Ms. Tsui may wish to comment.
As you know, as a federal institution, the CRTC is already subject to the Official Languages Act and required under certain provisions to conduct consultations as part of the process.
The purpose of Mr. Housefather's proposal, as I understand it, is to add consultation obligations to the Broadcasting Act. As a result, if the proposal is adopted, the CRTC will be required to meet some obligations under the Official Languages Act and others under the Broadcasting Act. Those obligations may be consistent with each other, but there may also be imbalances.
Perhaps Ms. Tsui wishes to add to my comments.
April 23rd, 2021 / 2:15 p.m.
Kathy Tsui Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
First of all, I see that the expression "necessary measures" in new section 5.1 doesn't appear in the Official Languages Act, which refers to "positive measures." Consequently, I'm afraid this amendment may create a conflict between the two requirements to which the CRTC would be subject.
Because the term “necessary measures” doesn't appear in the Official Languages Act, which also applies to the CRTC, there may be a conflict in terms of what the level of requirement would be for that organization.
I would also point out that the Official Languages Act is currently being modernized, and there are proposals under way to clarify in regulation how consultations should occur. I do worry that if we are prescriptive about what the CRTC should do in terms of consultation, that might be problematic and might enter into conflict with future regulations that are put in place.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I've heard some interesting words here. When we talk about consultation, I don't think we're talking about prescriptive. I'm just saying they should listen to somebody. I don't find this prescriptive, and I don't know where the imbalance is in having people listen to people with legislation that might affect them.
Unless somebody can suggest to me how this is prescriptive by asking them to listen to people.... It doesn't say how to consult. It just says they should do some consulting with people. I'm having a hard time finding that very prescriptive or unbalanced, unless somebody can clarify it for me, because I'm not there.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I believe Ms. Tsui was going to respond. I'll wait to hear from her first.
2:20 p.m.
Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
You're right. The requirement to consult is a very noble and honourable one and one that, as public servants, as the government, we should be taking on board.
The concern here is that this motion, as I understand it, would require the CRTC to consult on every regulation that it puts forward. The CRTC puts forward a lot of regulations, and regardless of whether or not the regulation would apply to OLMCs or have any kind of impact on the official language minority community, the CRTC, with this amendment, would be required to consult those communities. That's part of the prescriptiveness here.
I would also point out that there are a few terms here that could be kind of subjective. For instance, what does it mean to “meaningfully consider”? What does it mean to “openly” consult? There are some nuances here that are not spelled out.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Wait one second, Mr. Shields.
I'm going to get you to follow up, but I have to go to Mr. Housefather first.
