Canadian Heritage Committee on April 23rd, 2021

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think what Mr. Shields said is correct. This is not prescriptive. This is a requirement to consult. If there are certain parts of the way this is worded that cause issues because of the inconsistency that has been pointed out, I'm perfectly prepared to support amendments to remove those. For example, in paragraph one, what I understand is that the words I've added, “shall take the necessary measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities” cause a problem because the “take the necessary measures to” changes the original wording from the Official Languages Act “the commission shall”, requiring them to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, so we could just remove the words “take the necessary measures to”—if somebody wanted to amend that—and just say “the commission shall enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist in their development.”

As for the second paragraph, I understand the concerns about the broadness when making regulations under the act. I think it would be totally fair to amend the next proposed subsection, 5.2(1), to say, “The Commission shall consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that would adversely affect them” and remove the words “when making regulations under this Act”.

The duty to consult would only apply when the CRTC was making a decision that could adversely affect the minority communities. Perhaps somebody who's allowed to do that, like Ms. McPherson, whom I see is coming up next, could perhaps propose that as an amendment to this. I'd totally be prepared to accept that.

I think it is fair to ask for a duty to consult when we know that there's been prejudice caused in the past, and there's no reason that we shouldn't take steps in the Broadcasting Act to inspire those who are amending the Official Languages Act to make the same types of duties to consult. I understand the need for some amendments. I will accept them and happily so, but I think that, with those amendments, this should be accepted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Ms. McPherson—I'm trying to follow the dots here in this conversation—it seems to me that maybe we should go to Mr. Shields first for clarification.

Mr. Housefather mentioned amendments. I think he meant subamendments.

I'll go over to you, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If Ms. McPherson wants to make those subamendments, that would be great. If she doesn't, I will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I see.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm happy to have either Martin or I do it, but I have them right in front of me, so can I propose the following subamendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madam, that is entirely up to you. The floor is yours.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I always want to sound like I'm being very co-operative, Chair. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Duly noted.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I propose that new proposed section 5.1 would read as follows: “In regulating and supervising the Canadian broadcasting system and exercising its powers under this Act, the Commission shall enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist their development.”

I also suggest that new proposed subsection 5.2(1) be amended to read as follows: “The Commission shall consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that could adversely affect them.”

Those would be my subamendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

In the second one, you're going straight to “when making decisions that could adversely affect them”. All right.

Rather than go through a longer period of time in deliberation, may I ask you, Ms. McPherson, just so that everyone is clear, to repeat them again slowly?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't think there's enough here that we have to email it and so on and so forth. If you could do that again, that would be great.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This would be new proposed section 5.1: “In regulating and supervising the Canadian broadcasting system and exercising its powers under this Act, the Commission shall enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist their development.”

The second one would be new proposed subsection 5.2(1): “The Commission shall consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that could adversely affect them.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Colleagues, are there any points of clarification before we go to a discussion?

Again, I'm trying to avoid having a longer process. Maybe I'm defeating the purpose with my own words.

Nevertheless, is everyone clear on the subamendments to 5.1 and 5.2(1)?

Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I have a quick technical question, Mr. Chair. One vote would cover both of those. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. There's one subamendment vote regarding both of those changes. Then we go back to the main motion, whether amended or not.

Seeing no further discussion, I will take this as full comprehension of what was proposed. Let's go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We go back to the main motion.

Again, just for keeping track, this is LIB-6. This is the amendment by Mr. Housefather.

We will go to a vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Dare I sound biased for just a moment? That was a good discussion, folks. That's what law-making is all about.

We'll now call the vote on clause 4....

I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. Go ahead.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was waiting to request a health break because I thought we'd be proceeding much more quickly. Once we've finished voting on clause 4, would it be possible to have a two- or three-minute health break? I could use one, but I wouldn't want to miss the discussion.

I apologize for waiting so long to request a break, but I thought our business would proceed more smoothly. I was waiting until we had at least finished deciding on this clause before requesting a break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I should apologize as well, Mr. Rayes. I forgot to mention off the top that if you want a health break, please request it. Otherwise, I'm just going to go through.

Mr. Rayes wants a health break. Let's do that.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

The break would be after the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, let's do that after the vote.

Shall clause 4 as amended carry?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

On division.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now, without further ado, we'll have a health break. Please be back within five minutes.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Once again, we're doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I won't get into the details about all this. If you've been following along, you know how this works. We're going to go right to new clause 4.1.

The first one up is G-7, put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.

Ms. Dabrusin, are you with us?

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm taking this for Ms. Dabrusin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Ms. Ien, go ahead.