Evidence of meeting #13 for Official Languages in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was it’s.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Good morning, colleagues.
Welcome to meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I would first, on behalf of the committee, like to welcome Mr. René Arseneault, who is with us today. He is a former MP and the former chair of—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Mr. Arseneault. The fellow who responded to your points of order during the last Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
I feel even more pressure than with Mr. Godin.
Welcome, Mr. Arseneault. Thank you for visiting us today. We are honoured to have you here with us. We miss you a lot here in Parliament.
Secondly, before we start the meeting, I wanted to take a moment to mention that the draft regulations on administrative monetary penalties under the Official Languages Act were tabled in the House of Commons yesterday, and they have been referred to our committee.
If you agree, I propose to set aside 15 or 20 minutes at the end of this meeting to discuss the approach the committee wants to take to study the regulations in the upcoming meetings.
Do you agree with this proposal?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Unfortunately, it does.
I propose to remove 10 minutes of speaking time for each group of witnesses. We have two groups of witnesses. So it would remove 10 minutes for each group of witnesses. So, we’ll have 15 to 20 minutes to—
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You can remove that time when the Liberals and Conservatives ask questions.
Conservative
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I’m sorry, but Mr. Beaulieu is right. If you take away speaking time, it will be the Liberals and the Conservatives who lose it. We’ll need to allocate speaking time.
Mr. Beaulieu, you’ve said too much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
I propose that we do what we did during the last meetings. I know we tried a different approach last time. If there is consensus, we could come back to that.
I will go back to the old approach, meaning I will reduce the speaking time proportionally for all parties each time they take the floor. That way, no one will be penalized. Everyone will have proportionally less speaking time.
Do you agree with this procedure?
Liberal
Madeleine Chenette Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
For our part, we believe it’s reasonable to distribute the time fairly. I trust my colleagues, who always ask good questions. I prefer this way of proceeding so everyone can have more time during question period rather than focusing on one person when adjustments need to be made. I would prefer to maintain our rule of good distribution.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
In fact, I want to understand what’s being proposed. We have always maintained and applied the rule of fair distribution. When a longer period was granted to group two question periods for the same party, it allowed us to go more in‑depth during the question period.
That said, if we want to share our speaking time with another person, as Ms. Chenette just pointed out, I think it’s legitimate.
Maybe it’s up to us to handle this.
Liberal
Madeleine Chenette Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Basically, I’m saying that we maintain the principle of distributing speaking time.
Liberal
Madeleine Chenette Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
If one of the parties decides that it prefers that a single person ask questions, that’s their choice. In our teamwork, the principle is more about distributing speaking time.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
You’re saying the same thing in different words.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
To make it clear for everyone and to avoid any confusion during the question period, I want to clarify that, in the second round of questions, five MPs will speak in the following order: one Conservative, one Liberal, one Bloc Québécois, one Conservative, one Liberal. That’s the plan. I will continue using this distribution, but I will reduce the speaking time for each party proportionally.
That said, I would now like to hear from the witnesses.
Before we begin, I would like to say a few words.
In accordance with paragraph 108(3)(f) of the Standing Orders and the motion adopted by the committee on September 25, 2025, we are meeting today to begin our study of the quota of French-language music imposed on French-language media.
For the first hour, we welcome Jean‑François Leclerc, vice‑president at Leclerc Communication.
Welcome, Mr. Leclerc. Thank you for being with us.
You will have five minutes for your opening statement. We will then proceed to a question‑and‑answer period with committee members.
Mr. Leclerc, you have the floor for five minutes.
Jean-François Leclerc Vice-President, Leclerc Communication Inc.
Mr. Chair, committee members, good morning.
During the latest public hearings of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, we stated that the ability of French‑language music radio to survive was seriously compromised in the disrupted media ecosystem in which we operate. For radio to remain a strong cultural vector, the federal framework must restore the flexibility it deserves and correct the structural inequity that exists between traditional radio and online platforms, and do so in depth.
For over 10 years, we have been alerting the CRTC about the imbalances in the current system and their harmful effects on French‑language music stations, whose listening times are declining at an alarming rate. In Quebec City and Montreal, nearly 60% of listening times have been lost among listeners aged 18 to 54 in 15 years. The trend is relentless. Unless an in‑depth and structural change is initiated right now, the listening times dedicated to music stations will continue to decline. Many French‑language radio stations can no longer afford to fulfill their mission, as their advertising revenues have plummeted dramatically in recent years. The French‑language radio market in Montreal has not been profitable since 2023.
Meanwhile, Spotify and Apple Music are freely building their dominance without being subject to any content obligations. These platforms capture an exorbitant share of listening and revenue, while French‑language music stations are collapsing under the weight of regulatory constraints.
When the idea of imposing a quota on streaming giants is mentioned, the CRTC states that content requirements do not work for online platforms. The result is a blatant double standard. Traditional radio is tied to a regulatory ball and chain that dates back to the 1970s, while foreign platforms are free to broadcast whatever they want.
It is precisely this regulatory imbalance that jeopardizes the viability of French‑language music radio and the vitality of Quebec culture. Indeed, the current system no longer protects our culture; it marginalizes it. It is causing a growing disinterest among listeners for radio stations that should be promoting local music.
Without questioning the noble objective of a quota, we believe that maintaining the status quo, without considering the profound transformation of music consumption habits, paradoxically takes us further away from the goal. A quota is only effective if it actually reaches the audience.
When 65% of French‑language music is imposed in a market where listeners’ natural preferences are lower, the opposite effect occurs: listeners disengage and turn to foreign platforms where Quebec music represents only 5% of their listening, or even less. We believe we’re protecting the language, while in reality, we’re diverting the listener from the only francophone showcase that still belongs to us, namely the traditional radio stations here.
We found no comparable regulations in the world. There is no regulation that requires commercial radio stations to broadcast more than 40% of songs in a given language, a ceiling that belongs to France. Our quota of 65% French‑language music is nothing more and nothing less than a global anomaly that it is high time to correct.
In that context, we proposed targeted and reasonable adjustments to the CRTC, inspired by the French model, namely to reduce the francophone music quota to 40%.
We understand that some may view this proposal unfavourably. Understand us well: It has now been 13 years since my brother and I became owners of radio stations out of love for music and local culture, but the last 13 years have taught us that the consequences of maintaining the highest linguistic requirements in the world are far more serious for our culture than a relaxation of those requirements.
When music radio stations lose listeners and listening times, it weakens the discovery of local music. Maintaining a quota of 65% at all costs makes no sense if it directly drives the public to foreign platforms that are indifferent to our cultural goals. An audience that stays with radio is an audience that is still discovering.
Defenders of a rigid framework often forget that the concept of the reach of francophone music and culture goes far beyond the number of songs broadcast on our airwaves. Our stations do every day what foreign platforms will never do, and they do it in French: providing context for songs, interviews with artists, coverage of local festivals and cultural events and shows dedicated to creators and emerging talent from here.
However, radio cannot bear all this cultural responsibility alone. The modernization of the quota must therefore be part of a broader set of solutions, such as imposing content and discoverability requirements on foreign platforms, revising section 19 of the Income Tax Act, providing clear obligations for public broadcasters concerning the discoverability of local artists on these various platforms and adopting a government policy for advertising purchases that favours local media.
We want to continue doing our part for the vitality of French, but to do that, our stations must first survive. Modernizing the quota is not harming the culture; it’s ensuring that French‑language music will continue to be heard for generations to come.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Thank you, Mr. Leclerc.
We will now move on to questions from members.
Mr. Godin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Leclerc, thank you for being with us today. Your presentation covers the same concepts as those we heard earlier in the remarks from another entrepreneur in the communications field.
According to what I understand, you’re sticking to your position, which is to reduce the quota from 65% to 40%. To put it simply, we’re talking about a 25% cut.
Shouldn’t we make some adjustments?
You talked about providing context for French songs on your stations, interviews, shows and other promotional activities to highlight francophone songs on your radio stations.
Are these elements currently accounted for in the 65%?
