Canadian Heritage Committee on June 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay. That's just so you know that. All right, so the west has got to look at this thing.

Is anyone opposed to the amendment? Put your hands up, please.

We have opposition to the amendment.

Now, Niki, what are you doing with that vote? Are you voting for the amendment or against it?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

On the amendment, I'm inclined not to support it given that it remains to be seen.

Yes, we won't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think we should call a recorded vote, because people were putting their hands up.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I withdraw the amendment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The motion doesn't say that they are or aren't airing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are you now withdrawing the amendment?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I withdraw the amendment before the vote.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. The amendment has been withdrawn. We don't vote on the amendment.

We're voting on the motion unamended and as is.

Is there any discussion on the motion finally?

Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I would like to say one more thing about this. While my voice is going.... I am so pleased to see the Conservative Party standing with the Edmonton Oilers, who expressed today their support for the 2SLGBTQI+ community by declaring it Pride Month and by using pride tape. I hope their caucus takes that signal and support for the Edmonton Oilers and brings it to their policies as well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

On a point of order, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Noormohamed, that's not a point of order.

Yes, Monsieur, on the motion?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

To my knowledge, unanimous consent is needed to withdraw an amendment. You began the vote, so let's finish it and move on afterwards to the initial motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, the amendment has been withdrawn. There's no amendment on the table at the moment.

We're going to the motion.

[An hon. member]

This is all on the motion.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

No, we don't have the right to proceed in that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further discussion? We're voting.

Sébastien.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The key point for me that's worth noting is that there cannot be interference in the CBC's programming, which has to remain independent of its senior management and, of course, the government. That's why we're going to vote against the motion.

For those who are interested, I would add, as the Bloc Québécois spokesperson for sports, that I'll still be cheering for the Edmonton Oilers in the finals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Now we'll call the vote on the motion unamended.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Having ended that, let's go back to the project. We have five minutes.

Are there any questions on Bill C-354?

On the bill, I have Taleeb Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have one question for my friend Mr. Champoux.

I have a lot of concern about government directing independent, arm's-length regulatory agencies to do something. In this case, the duty to consult the Government of Quebec would create unreasonable burden for the CRTC. It gives direction, frankly, from Parliament to the CRTC.

How do you reconcile the independence of the CRTC with specific directions from Parliament?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am delighted about my colleague Mr. Noormohamed's question. If the Liberals found such a simple-minded question to counter this bill, I feel reassured. It means that there are not many arguments against it and that their position can only be ideological. If I had been a witness who was unfamiliar with this committee, I would never have dared to give that kind of an answer to a colleague.

In response to his question, I would say that it happens all the time. It's the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. The act includes ways in which the CRTC must behave in applying the act, in studies and in its decisions. Asking it to consult Quebec is not telling it what to put in the decision. That is not at all the purpose of this bill.

Its purpose is rather to ensure that when the CRTC receives a new regulation to be introduced, such as a new directive from the government or the House of Commons, and it notices that it would have an impact on broadcasting, it would notify Quebec, the provinces and the francophone communities outside of Quebec that something new is coming. The CRTC could then ask them for their comments. That's it. It's nothing more than that, and it's not binding.

It's not giving Quebec power to influence CRTC decisions, but giving Quebec, and the other provinces that wish to have it, the opportunity to comment upon the final wording of this bill, to report on their expectations or concerns to the CRTC, just as an organization would do in its brief during a future study of the issue.

That would enable Quebec, owing to its cultural distinctiveness and the sensitivity shown repeatedly by successive Quebec governments, to tell the CRTC that it can do something, but that Quebec has some concerns to which it would like to draw the CRTC's attention. It's as simple as that. There's nothing more binding than that. Nothing that gives Quebec any power. It's just a way of doing things more straightforwardly with the Quebec nation, in a better informed and more elegant manner.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'll end by simply saying, as Mr. Champoux well knows, that the CRTC already consults with the Government of Quebec and other provinces. If that is his concern, he need not worry.

With that, I will give my time back to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Now I have Sébastien for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witness and thank him for coming.

My first question is: How does the bill affect the current CRTC consultation process?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In fact, it has hardly any impact on the current consultation process. All it really does is demonstrate the CRTC's awareness of Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and its unique broadcasting system, which is different in many respects from broadcasting in the rest of Canada.

As I was saying earlier to our colleague Mr. Noormohamed, all it does is require the CRTC to send a little signal to Quebec to say that it's about to begin conducting a study on broadcasting and that Quebec will no doubt have something to say about it. The CRTC would then ask Quebec to comment on the issue.

It's an effort to avoid what happened with Bill C-11, when Quebec's expectations were only received when the bill had almost got to the royal assent stage. There was, quite rightly, considerable disappointment and frustration.

The Bloc Québécois simply wants to take the initiative to prevent a situation like that from recurring. Bill C‑354 therefore has no real impact on the CRTC's consultation process. In fact, I think it would even facilitate it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I do in fact remember that.

Generally speaking, how would Bill C‑354 contribute to the protection of Quebec and francophone culture in North America?