Evidence of meeting #23 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 crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's not in the hands of this committee, but certainly some of us on this committee have strong views about that going forward.
Very briefly, I want to go to Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Cox.
You mentioned a definition change in terms of official language, minority communities and changing that definition. If you can, in 34 seconds or less, just tell me what impact making that definition change would have on the ground in the official-language communities in Quebec and across Canada.
3 p.m.
Co-Chair, Quebec English-language Production Council
That's very much in support of our francophone colleagues outside of Quebec, because in the English part of the definition it says, “English and French linguistic minority communities”, but in French it only says,
“minorités francophones et anglophones du Canada”.
They feel very strongly, and we support them, because it makes common sense that it should also incorporate the word “community” into it to distinguish it from the full...because “French minority” could mean Quebec itself.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Hirsch. Perhaps you could elaborate on that at another time.
Now for the Liberals, we go to Anthony Housefather for six minutes, please.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I will give Kenneth a chance to elaborate on that right now.
I very much want to thank the witnesses. It's a real pleasure to have them here.
Kenneth, I'm going to come back to you because last time, for Bill C-10, we worked very hard to get a considerable number of amendments into the bill to support both the official-language communities of Canada and the francophone majority in Quebec. We worked collaboratively with all of the different organizations involved to make sure we had the right wording and the right definitions.
I'm not sure whether my fellow member Mr. Champoux recalls, but we all worked together to find definitions in English and in French that had the same meaning in both languages. Now I realize that we have a problem: the English says one thing, but the French doesn't say the exact same thing. Certainly, the committee has a duty to try to find the right definition in both languages.
Kenneth, could you just advise everybody what the other organizations are besides the QEPC that support that change to revert back to the language we used in Bill C-10: “official language minority communities” and “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire”?
3 p.m.
Executive Director, Quebec English-language Production Council
The organizations are the APFC, which is our opposite organization in French; the FCCF, which is a broader cultural organization representing the French minorities outside Quebec; the Quebec Community Groups Network inside Quebec; the English Language Arts Network inside Quebec; and also the CDCE, which you heard from earlier today. If you look at their position, you can see that they raised this issue as well.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That would indicate to me that the amendment would have broad consensus with all of the different organizations, English- and French-speaking, across the country. I take note of that and thank you.
Given the fact that I come from the English-speaking minority in Quebec, I also want to give you a chance to talk to the committee about how Bill C-11 will support and enhance the ability of the English-speaking arts community in Quebec to thrive. Also, since we don't have the French-speaking organizations from outside Quebec today—
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
The interpretation has stopped.
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The issue is with the placement of Mr. Housefather's microphone. There is a lot of popping.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, the interpreter is indicating that the sound quality is poor. Can you check with Mr. Housefather on that?
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Do you want us to suspend, Madam Chair?
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My apologies to everyone. That's the first time the headset failed.
I was just asking if Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Cox could talk to us about the challenges that the official-language minority communities in this country face, and how they would be alleviated by the adoption of Bill C-11.
3:10 p.m.
Co-Chair, Quebec English-language Production Council
Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather, and thank you for all your work on this bill and the prior incarnation.
I'll start, and then I'll throw to Kirwan.
The most shocking statistic is that around the turn of the century—this century, so 2000—about 20% of all English-language production in the country was done here in Quebec. Now we've fallen below 6%. We used to be more than a quarter and now we're about 1/20th of the English-language production in Quebec. That situation has to be reversed. It's impossible to keep the community vital when we're in that kind of free fall.
The answer to your question is twofold. Bill C-11 is going to go a long way in saving the Canadian content business across the country, and the six or seven safeguards that we've hopefully been able to build into the bill for official-language minority communities in Quebec and official-language minority communities outside Quebec would guarantee that our communities and our cousin communities, the French-language speakers outside of Quebec, will be able to tell our own stories in our own languages for the foreseeable future. That, I think, is a necessary and vital step to ensuring the vitality of our communities.
3:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Quebec English-language Production Council
I would just add that Bill C-11, like Bill C-10, provides tremendous support for the production of official-language minority programming. It also requires that the CRTC pay close attention and consult with us on the question of what kind of programming we should be doing. It's a tremendous step forward and gives us a great step up in terms of where we otherwise would be in trying to reverse the decline we have been facing.
That's about it.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll come back to Ms. Paré and Ms. Desrochers in the next round.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
We now move on to the Bloc Québécois and MP Martin Champoux for six minutes, please.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is now my turn to thank the witnesses, who were kind enough to make time for us in their schedules. We certainly appreciate it.
Ms. Desrochers and Ms. Paré, thank you for being here today.
One of the issues that keeps coming up in our discussions on Bill C‑11 is the place of creators on digital platforms. That was also true when we were studying Bill C‑10 last year. Obviously, this is something you keep a very close eye on.
The bill contains amendments that would affect platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, in particular, new section 4.2. It has gotten a lot of attention and is being hotly debated.
What do you think of that new section and the proposed amendments?
Are you concerned?
I'd like to hear your comments on that.
May 24th, 2022 / 3:10 p.m.
Marie-Julie Desrochers Director, Institutional Affairs and Research, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
Good afternoon.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.
In our view, this is not the right vehicle for going too far too quickly in terms of what will and what won't be regulated.
Our preference would have been for the bill to be as flexible and as broad as possible to give the CRTC all the necessary tools to collect data and make informed decisions on what is actually happening—what the broadcasting services are actually doing.
What this bill does is help to allay fears by imposing reasonable limits; it represents an acceptable compromise. We hope those limits will truly help to allay the fears that have been raised.
We think it's essential that the bill not go any further in terms of tightening things up. Our concern is that doing so would result in outdated legislation and bake an underlying inequity into the bill. That would be quite the paradox since the original purpose of the bill is to finally restore equity.
The idea is to restore equity between conventional services and online services. However, if the bill excludes some online services, companies will try to use that exception, and that would introduce a new inequity. All of the work we are doing here would be meaningless.