Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2024

[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.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

If I may just continue, then, it would make sense for an independent tribunal to have that independence, and for that to extend and to stay the way it is would be most consistent with the mandate and the tasks of the CRTC. There isn't a void or a need that we're addressing here with this piece of legislation. It creates more of an inconsistency. I guess that's what I'm trying to understand.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

It creates a new category or a new obligation for the CRTC to do this specific consultation with Quebec and other provinces in a context where, indeed, there is nothing preventing those provinces from making their views known and putting them before the CRTC. It would put this added burden on the CRTC, but, as I mentioned to you in my previous answer, from the department's perspective, it also creates a risk of potential influence or perception of potential influence on the CRTC, because, again, our reading of the bill as crafted is that it would require them to do this consultation before even exercising a single power. Even before they get to the point of saying they were going to do a public proceeding, they would have to do this consultation. It just creates that risk of influence on their decision-making.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Gainey.

We'll go to Mr. Godin.

Welcome to the committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, I think the bill tabled today on the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and the francophonie outside Quebec is very important.

There is a contradiction between the independence of the media and the rights of francophones. As a country, we have an obligation to listen to people who speak our two official languages. In my opinion, the bill is relevant, but it needs to be tweaked.

You mentioned that the 10 Canadian provinces, including Quebec, can be consulted, but the bill states that the CRTC shall hold consultations.

Can you confirm that the bill requires the CRTC to consult Quebec and francophones outside Quebec?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Godin.

The current bill would create an obligation for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to consult Quebec, the other provinces and the territories on matters relating to the francophone communities of those provinces or territories.

Currently, before holding a public consultation, the CRTC publishes a notice of consultation. Everyone can attend, including the provinces and territories. So it is up to the provinces, including Quebec, to decide whether or not to participate in the consultations. The CRTC is not formally required to seek Quebec's or the other provinces' point of view when holding consultations.

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

In your answers, you mentioned that the proposal to require the CRTC to consult the provinces was dangerous because it would give power, or the semblance of power, to provincial governments. However, I believe that the subject matter falls under their responsibilities. In addition, if we want our country to remain bilingual in French and English, we have to acquire the necessary tools. French is currently in decline. This must be recognized and action must be taken now: The situation is urgent.

You also made the argument that it would create a burden on the CRTC's operations. In what way does this proposal, which would allow us to achieve our objective, create an undue burden?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for your question.

First, it should be noted that the government also believes it is important for Canadians, stakeholders, provinces and territories to be consulted on CRTC decisions. So it's not a question of consulting or not consulting, but rather how the consultation is structured.

As I mentioned, the bill proposes to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to require the CRTC to consult Quebec and other provinces and territories before exercising the powers set out in the act. That creates a challenge. However, the challenge is not that the consultations could be perceived as having an influence on the CRTC. Rather, it is the fact that before the CRTC even makes the decision to look at a given issue in a public forum, it should consult the provinces. This would create the risk that the CRTC could change its viewpoint before even launching public consultations. The way in which the consultations are set out would create that perception.

The government also believes in the importance of supporting francophone communities in the context of the act. A number of amendments along these lines were made during the process of passing Bill C‑11. In addition, there is an obligation in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to consult official language minority communities.

So the difficulty lies not with consulting the provinces, but rather doing so within a framework that preserves the CRTC's independence.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, thank you for answering me in French. Your French is very good.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you. That's kind of you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We move next to Mr. Champoux.

[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.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Dhillon, I do not see your headset. That's problematic, number one, because you will not be able to speak. However, if we ever get to the subamendment vote, we'll ask you to hold your thumb up or down for your vote, if you don't mind.

Mr. Noormohamed, I see your hand is up, followed by Ms. Ashton's and Ms. Lattanzio's. That's just to let you know that all three of you have been identified here.

Mr. Noormohamed, you're first.

[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?

[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. Ripley.

Mr. Godin also used the word “independence”. On the other hand, what risks would we run if we went down a path where we were dictating what the CRTC should do? Does this kind of thing put its independence at risk?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I thank the member for his question.

Yes, we see some risks. As I mentioned, the ways in which a government can communicate with the CRTC are formal and very structured at present. These processes are framed by transparency measures to avoid a situation where there would be a perception that the government of the day is pressuring the CRTC to make certain decisions based on the importance of journalistic and media independence.

Indeed, we see some risks in requiring the CRTC to consult the provinces and territories before even exercising a power provided for in the Broadcasting Act.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

I have one last question for you.

You have now told us that there's no real.... Again, I'm struggling with this, because I am trying to find a way to make sure that Monsieur Champoux feels confident that what is in place currently will work. You have now told us that we don't really need this bill to do the thing that the bill is trying to do. We also see tremendous risk in terms of potential influence on the CRTC if this is passed.

In a nutshell, I guess, as you look at the pros, and you have looked at the cons and the challenges here, objectively, what's the one thing you think we are missing in this conversation? What I am worried about is working on the back of assumptions, when you have given us every assurance that this is already what the CRTC is, and should be, doing and that there's nothing this bill does to improve on that. However, we are hearing considerable risk in respect of the independence of the CRTC.

What are some of the unintended consequences that we might be missing if this does get passed?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate as well. Just to take a step back, I would go back to it being important to remember that the Broadcasting Act is a policy framework. We spent a lot of time debating, over the last several years, that policy framework, and there were many amendments made to that policy framework in terms of what the Broadcasting Act is supposed to do and what it's supposed to accomplish. Then that is given over to the CRTC to give effect to that.

In that context, while I certainly have a lot of respect for the position of different governments on a decision that the CRTC is going to take—their view is important, and the considerations they put forward are important—but they do need to be balanced against the considerations and views put forward by other stakeholders, including official language minority communities that may live in that province.

Again, the risk comes back to whether this bill would be seen to be elevating Quebec and other provinces above some of those other perspectives and views that need to be considered in the context of a CRTC decision. That's not to take anything away from the views and positions of those governments, not at all. However, again, the system as constructed is one in which the CRTC is supposed to be independent from the federal government, as well as from provincial and territorial levels of government. Therefore, again, elevating them in that way creates that risk.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

That's very helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We're getting some clarification.

Ms. Ashton.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am a bit concerned with what we have seen unfold during this meeting. I think we were all very clear; this bill is just one clause. There are obviously two amendments and, now, a subamendment. I think we all hoped that it would move a lot quicker, especially since we already heard from witnesses and had an opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

I think a number of questions have already been asked now of the officials, and I think what certainly stays with me is that this is a reinforcement, perhaps, of a direction that the CRTC believes is important, which is consultation. I think a particularly important piece—Mr. Ripley alluded to it—is respecting minority language communities.

That is why our second amendment, which we have not yet managed to talk about, deals with the priority that must be given to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and francophone minorities elsewhere in Canada. Those consultations have to take that into account.

This amendment reflects the position of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, a national organization for the francophonie outside Quebec in Canada. A number of witnesses have said that such an amendment would strengthen the bill.

I believe it is an important tool in our fight against the decline of French, which is a very serious problem in our country.

Media and communication are important tools, and the role of the CRTC is crucial. We must ensure that minority language communities across Canada are consulted.

For that reason, this important point, certainly championed as well by minority language communities, particularly francophone communities outside of Quebec, I'm puzzled as to why we're wasting so much time going around this bill. Folks have expressed concern from all sides. There's support from others as well. I think we've exhausted the range of questions on a bill that is extremely brief. I would certainly like to move to a vote on this, and I would ask the chair to direct our committee to move on this bill so we can get through it and move to other important business.

[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.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Ripley.

The bill before us would require the CRTC to hold significant additional consultations on many of its decisions.

In your opinion, would this not increase the CRTC's administrative burden, both in terms of time and resources? In addition, could it hinder its ability to fulfill its mandate?