Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 5th, 2023

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No problem at all, Madam Chair.

I had expressed the wish that there be a slightly more specific place for both official languages and, as we do for other positions, that we alternate between a francophone and an anglophone. That's what we do for the Parliamentary Poet Laureate. With this amendment, I'd like to see this concept added to Bill S‑202.

New subsection 75.01(2) would therefore begin as follows:

The Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, acting together, shall select the Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate from a list of three names reflective of Canada’s diversity, consistent with the principle that the primary official language spoken by the holder shall alternate and submitted in confidence by a committee chaired [...]

The point is that I can see an argument coming that, in the case of the Parliamentary Poet Laureate, poetry being an art expressed in words, it is all the more relevant to have alternation to properly reflect the official languages. However, the vision of visual art in general will be influenced by the artist's background, whether in Quebec or in a French-speaking community outside Quebec. There will be a different way of presenting or valuing the arts of one's community.

Once again, I'm not reserving this position for a Quebecker, but I'd like it to be reserved for a francophone, alternating with an anglophone.

This is the purpose of my amendment. I'm willing to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, do you wish to speak to this?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I speak, I'd like to ask our witnesses to tell us what the scope of this amendment would be.

[Heather Lank, Parliamentary Librarian]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.

Perhaps it would be helpful to do the comparison with the poet, where there's a practice of alternating between poets who write predominately in French or predominately in English, although we recently had a poet who also had Cree in her writing. It's by practice rather than by statute that there is alternating. Of course, that could change, depending on the context and the decisions that are made.

In terms of the impacts on the committee that are in the act, it would mean, of course, that the process to call for nominations would presumably be different in terms of outreach, which communities we would reach out to asking for nominations for this position. It would affect the marketing, if you wish, of the programming and how we would get the word out. Who would be eligible to apply would also be affected.

That would all have to be worked out in the details. Of course, if the statute says that it must alternate, then, as chair of the committee reviewing the nominations, that would be something that I would have to ensure is respected by the members of the committee in reviewing the applications and ultimately in making the recommendations to the Speaker with the short list.

This would certainly have repercussions on the process. We would obviously have to comply with the law.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Normally, a person is referred to as a francophone or anglophone according to the first official language that the person understood and used. If a person's mother tongue is Cree or Inuktitut, and French is the first official language learned, that person is considered a francophone. The same applies to a person whose mother tongue is Punjabi or Hindi and whose first official language learned is English: that person is considered English-speaking, right?

[Heather Lank]

I have to admit to a certain level of discomfort, as a parliamentary librarian, in pronouncing how to decide if somebody is a francophone or anglophone and whether they would qualify. Perhaps that's a question for the official languages commissioner rather than for the parliamentary librarian. It's just a thought.

It seems to me that this would be something that, if the decision were made to have it in statue that it would be alternating, one could build into the process perhaps a self-definition. In the application, you could include questions that would have to be determined. This would be part of the consultation in setting up the program with the official languages commissioner, for example, who sits on the committee. How do we do this? What would be the proper process to respect the terms of the statute, and how can we implement this?

I think it would be something that would certainly have an impact on the process. At this point, I would be hard pressed to say, “Yes, this person would be considered francophone; this person would be anglophone”. I think that is outside my sphere of expertise.

Certainly it would be very helpful to have the official languages commissioner be part of the setting up of the program, should the committee and should Parliament go in this direction. We would need guidance. How would we do that? What does that mean?

How would it work, in this context?

It would definitely have an effect on the process.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much for these answers, Ms. Lank.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Now we have Ms. Hepfner.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I will conclude by saying that I will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I wanted to ask essentially the same question as Mr. Julian. Are we just talking about the two official languages, or are we including indigenous languages?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before Mr. Champoux answers that, we have Ms. Gladu.

Do you have a question for Mr. Champoux?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I have a question for the legislative clerk.

The French interpretation says, “de trois noms”, but the English interpretation only says “names”. It doesn't have “three names”. It doesn't have the same context. Is it correct?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

It's “a list of three names”.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Maybe I have a wrong version.

Okay, I have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Then I shall ask the question. Shall BQ-1 be carried?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on CPC-1, which is on page two of your package.

Ms. Gladu, would you like to move your amendment?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would.

Just by way of background, this is revisiting the discussion we had when the member who brought the bill forward was here. We spent the last parliamentary session trying to modernize a lot of the legislation to make sure we captured the digital changes that have happened.

We updated Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-27 to all reflect the digital age. We want to make sure that “digital creations” are included. Then, when we had the language discussion, we agreed that English and French were important but, as has been pointed out, there are indigenous languages that people do creative activities in and there may also be ethnic-specific ones. In order to reflect that diversity and the digital creations, this amendment is to add the following:

filmmaking and digital creations that reflect the diversity of Canada, including with respect to the languages in use and its ethnocultural composition.

That's brought to you by the legislative people who know the legalese terms.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

We have two speakers: Mr. Julian and Mr. Champoux.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to ask our witnesses what impact they see of this amendment offered by my colleague.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

The essence of the amendment is that it's adding “digital creations” to the list of all the things that are included, because we don't know what will develop in that realm.

Also, we're extending it to include with respect to the diversity of languages in Canada, so it will be the official languages plus any indigenous languages and any ethnic languages—like Punjabi—and there are a number of different art forms that we see in film and various things.

[Richard Davis, Director, Arts Policy & Federal-Provincial-Territorial Culture and Heritage Secretariat, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I may, I'd like to address the first question about the digital, and I'd like to maybe draw a distinction between the discipline and the medium.

The way the statute currently reads, what we have is identified a series of disciplines that would fall under.... I'm looking at “Definition of arts” in proposed subsection (6):

arts means drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography, videography and filmmaking.

Most of those disciplines also allow for the possibility of working in the digital space as a medium.

That having been said, if the will of the committee is to reinforce the importance of the digital in the current context, my view is that it wouldn't be problematic as far as the bill is concerned. It's just to state that certainly within the understanding of art practice that distinction is understood—like between the actual discipline itself and the digital as a medium.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gladu, you wanted to say something.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Sure. I have just a brief response.

I absolutely agree that the medium captures most of it, but we don't really know where the digital world is going. For things like animation and the deepfakes—not that I'm going to call that art yet—or those kinds of hologram things, it can go anywhere. I'm old, so I can see how far we've come. I just want to make sure that we put something in there that opens it up to that realm.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Martin is next.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Davis did answer one of my questions.

I find my colleague's amendment very interesting. Indeed, we often complain about the obsolescence of our regulations and laws. I find it interesting to add the notion of digital creation, because this term is very broad and opens onto something else. What's more, it's inserted into a context that won't be without limits; it's still a visual arts approach. So we can't expect any slippage by including digital creations in Parliament's official visual artist bill.

I also find what Ms. Hepfner touched on earlier very interesting, when we debated my amendment. She talked about indigenous languages. Of course, the two official languages in Canada are English and French, but I think it's also very important to allow indigenous languages to live and be revived. Unfortunately, some indigenous languages have practically disappeared. They're still spoken by a few elders here and there, but they're not passed on to the younger generations. I think it's very important that we take this into account.

In my opinion, adding Canada's commonly used languages and ethnocultural makeup through this amendment reinforces the previously adopted amendment on alternating between French and English.

So I'm going to support this amendment because I think it's very inclusive. It also allows us to evolve over time without becoming a bit sclerotic with a law that won't respond to the reality of the visual arts in five or ten years.

Bravo!