Evidence of meeting #128 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I just have a quick question for Mr. Ripley.
The bill refers to “markets”. Are we specifically talking about television and radio in this reference, from your perspective?
As outlined in the original legislation, when it refers to “markets”, does this term refer just to television and radio?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
The context of the Broadcasting Act is radio, television and online streaming.
My read of the term “market”, though, is that it's more about a language market as opposed to a reference to radio or television market rights. It's those places in Canada where there's a French-speaking community—a French-speaking market. We can think of Franco-Ontarians or Franco-Manitobans, etc.
That would be my reading of that term.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
When I think of “market”, I do think of CRTC—television and radio.
If this passes, is it pretty clear what it's making reference to, from your perspective?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
To my knowledge, it's not a term that is used elsewhere in the Broadcasting Act. There is a certain degree of novelty or newness about it. It does introduce a degree of ambiguity. It's not a defined term that you find in the Broadcasting Act.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for the mover.
On the consultations that took place, how were these done, specifically?
Maybe the mover would like to just give us a bit of a reference point on that, if possible.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Ms. Ashton, are you with us?
Mr. Coteau has asked you a question.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I repeated numerous times that the Fédération des communautés francophones is a main champion of this amendment. This is the national body for francophone communities outside of Quebec. I hope we can respect them.
I'm frankly a bit shocked at the Liberals, who claim to want to take the decline of French seriously. I don't know why we're wasting time on this critical amendment that's being championed by francophone communities outside. If we want to see support for francophone communities, the Liberals would get behind this amendment.
I'm looking forward to a vote, ASAP.
Conservative
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
The assumption that one wouldn't care about French markets outside of...in Ontario and across the country.... I think there's lots of evidence out there that Liberals have supported French communities and specific rights right across the country. I don't think that asking questions on the definition of what “markets” refers to or what type of consultation is done is in any way trying to take away from the respect for the French language across the country as a whole.
As members, we all have a right to ask questions for clarity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to begin by echoing a little of what Mr. Coteau said. When we're asking questions about an amendment that is, quite frankly, important, given that we're talking about the actual mandate and what the CRTC does, that should not be construed as lack of support.
As Mr. Champoux knows, we spent a lot of time together in my riding this summer, visiting and talking to francophone communities. There's the support that I and others of a lot of political parties are giving to ensure that francophone communities are heard. I don't know if that's really in the spirit of trying to get to a good place on this amendment.
The question I would ask of Mr. Ripley—very sharp, very specific, not trying to delay—is this. We've heard about the CRTC's consultation process from the CRTC. We're talking about making sure that francophone linguistic minority communities like the ones in my riding are actually heard and that these markets are reflected. However, we're using terminology that is now outside what is normally used, so I want to know how this specific amendment is going to improve or enhance or assert any improvement to the detailed consultation that CRTC already does. If the organizations implicated are not feeling like they're being heard, is this the right way to go about it? I do want to make sure that the aspirations of the francophone community across the country are actually heard, but is this the best way to do it? That is what I would like to know.
September 23rd, 2024 / 12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
There are two things, MP Noormohamed.
The first is that obviously Ms. Ashton is best placed to speak to what the objective of the proposed amendment is, but from where I sit, it seems to be ensuring there is a broader range of perspectives brought to the table in terms of this obligation to consult, and that it wouldn't be just provinces and territories but also official language minority communities who, again, may have a different perspective from the provincial government that they wish to be considered.
The second thing, in relation to your question, is.... There was a lot of debate about this in the context of the Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11. Parliament ultimately did put in an obligation on the CRTC to proactively consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that could adversely affect them.
You see that at subsection 5(2) of the Broadcasting Act, where there's a positive obligation. There's a positive obligation on the CRTC to share information with them, to consult them before decisions are made, to support their participation in the consultations, and then, at the end of the process, even to provide them with feedback after a decision has been made.
The Broadcasting Act was already significantly strengthened to ensure the participation of official language minority communities during public proceedings and consultations by the CRTC.
Conservative
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I had one more. If we were to make this amendment, what does that do—positively or negatively—potentially for indigenous communities and other communities who may or may not currently feel like they're being heard by—
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
If my Liberal colleagues simply want to drag out the time remaining until the end of the meeting to prevent us from voting, they should say so; we will settle this quickly.
Now, bringing in indigenous communities on this issue has no relevance, neither to the amendment nor to what is already in place. I think there are very clear processes set out for indigenous communities in the consultation processes. We're talking about an amendment to a clause contained in the bill.
We could really speed things up by staying on topic.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Since we started about six minutes late, we've asked for an extension to 1:06, so Mr. Noormohamed, please wrap up your question for Mr. Ripley, if you don't mind.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I disagree with my friend Mr. Champoux, for whom I have a lot of respect.
In my opinion, the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, already has the capacity and the obligation to hold consultations with francophone communities and the province of Quebec. What bothers me is that, if we open that door, it could create a desire to make other changes, for example, for indigenous communities. I'm just expressing a concern.
Are there any consequences that we are not aware of or that we are not considering in this situation if we open that door?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Chair—
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The question is not to establish that we should not do more to hold consultations, but rather to determine whether there are risks that have not been considered.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Effectively, if the committee supports Bill C-354, it is creating a new consultation mechanism that is giving privileged access to those listed in.... It's whatever the bill reads. Again, we talked about the potential of a perception of influence in giving that privileged access to provincial and territorial governments. Broadening it to include others obviously raises a question about who has access to that mechanism versus who doesn't.
That's why the government's view remains that the best one is a public consultation, one open to everybody to participate—where everybody's views are put on the public record and the CRTC makes a decision based on that public record, including the views and perspectives put forward by provincial governments.
Conservative
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On the last thing Mr. Ripley said, the way he phrased it would imply that it happens. The bill seems to imply that it doesn't.
Where is the disconnect?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Again, Monsieur Champoux outlined some of the concerns that have been voiced by the Government of Quebec. That said, nothing prevents the Government of Quebec from participating in the CRTC consultations.
Mr. Champoux has made the case for why he believes there should be a positive obligation, but again, from the government's perspective, it introduces certain risks. Therefore, perhaps it is not a question of positive obligation but of ensuring that all participants, including provincial and territorial governments, know when a consultation is under way, and that they are welcome and encouraged to participate if they have views they would like the CRTC to take into account.