Bill C-354

An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities)

This enactment amends the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to provide that the Commission must, in furtherance of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, consult with the Government of Quebec or the governments of the other provinces, as the case may be, before regulating aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec or that concern French-speaking markets.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Ms. Ashton, I think you're going to get defeated here. Everyone kind of agrees with the Liberals on this one. Thank you, though, for bringing it up, because Bill C-354 has to be reported to the House by September 27.

I need someone to move to adjourn.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I think Mr. Méla wants to know about the deadline for amendments on June 13 for Bill C-354.

We're running over time here, so we have to—

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

I guess, regarding “loosey-goosey”, we could take out the “whatever”. I just think it's not very prudent for parliamentarians to commit to a June 20 clause-by-clause when it's likely we're not going to be sitting. If we're going to be loosey-goosey, that's the way to do it.

My proposal is that we move Bill C-354 to take over the two previous meetings, ending clause-by-clause on June 18. June 20 could be for online harms.

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

I'm suggesting bumping it up, so one of the online harms meetings could move to the 20th, in case we're still sitting, or into the fall.

I understand we wouldn't have the witnesses right away for June 11, so we could leave online harms there. We could do safe sport, or whatever, but if folks want to move with online harms, that's fine. However, we could move Bill C-354 to June 13 and make June 18 clause-by-clause, and then June 20 would be online harms or whatever.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We would need clarification on where you would want Bill C-354 to move to, if not June 20.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes, okay. We can do that.

We'll vote on Ms. Ashton's comments on Bill C-354, especially for June 20. We may not be here, and we need to get this....

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes. Bill C-354 has to be done by Friday, September 27.

Is there any discussion on this? I see none.

Do I call for a vote? What is the procedure with this?

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

Yes, exactly.

We have some thoughts on how things could be done more effectively. Our concern is with pushing Bill C-354 until the very end. I understand it has to be back in the House by the end of September. I think it might be more prudent to switch out even one of the online harms sessions to move Bill C-354 up, and then we could do online harms later.

I know we don't always sit until the very end of the House sitting, so in the hope of finishing Bill C-354 before we leave and in time for September, I'm wondering if folks might consider that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Just to recap, June 6 would be on safe sport and Bill C-354; June 11 would be on online harms for both hours; June 18 would be on Bill C-354 and the amendments; and on June 20 we would have Bill C-354.

Is there any conversation?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fully recognizing that there is a desire on the part of the committee to get safe sport and Bill C-354 done, as well as to do the online harms study, I move:

That, with respect to the review of Bill C-354 and other matters before the committee, the committee be scheduled as follows:

That:

(a) June 6 be dedicated in the first hour to reviewing the Safe Sport draft and in the second hour to the sponsor's appearance on Bill C-354;

(b) June 11 and 13 to witnesses on online harms;

(c) June 18 to witnesses for Bill C-354, and that the deadline for amendments on Bill C-354 be at noon on that date; and

(d) June 20 to clause-by-clause on Bill C-354.

That way, we can get at least those three things done.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I wasn't trying to pull your leg; let me reassure you on that score. I just wanted to say and explain to you that consulting could be useful in some future time and place. Bill C-354, which was sponsored by my colleague Mario Beaulieu, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, is a bill that concerns the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and that will eventually land here, on the table of this committee. In developing that bill, we considered francophone communities outside Quebec because it concerns them. We asked them questions. I think that's a habit that should be cultivated when something specifically concerns Quebec, where there's a lively bilingual culture. I think it would be appropriate to consult those groups. It's not that we're opposed to this bill—on the contrary—but I have a quick question that I could ask you about Bill C-316.

Do you think anyone has considered the idea of providing greater transparency so, for example, we can get access to information on applications to the court challenges program and applicants who are funded by it? Do you think it would be in the public interest to disclose funding amounts granted to different groups in various cases?

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading on Bill C-354 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑354, which seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to impose additional consultation obligations on the CRTC, namely the obligation to consult the Government of Quebec on its cultural distinctiveness and the governments of the provinces and territories on their French-speaking markets.

Our government is already working tirelessly to ensure that our broadcasting system is in tune with the evolution of our digital world and that it represents all Canadians. Our actions in this regard prove it. Modernizing the legislative framework for broadcasting is one way our government has been able to provide ongoing support for the French language. A good example of this is the Online Streaming Act, which received royal assent in April 2023.

That was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991.

This act will enable all Canadians, including members of Canada's francophonie, to recognize themselves more clearly in what they watch and listen to, thanks to a new framework that better reflects our country's diversity.

The reform of the Official Languages Act is just one example of our hard work in support of the French language. The purpose of the act is to protect and promote the French language by recognizing its status as a minority language in Canada and North America.

While the objectives of Bill C-354 are laudable and relevant, it is clear the bill poses more problems than it solves and would create redundant obligations and impede existing processes, and that is why the government is opposed to this bill.

Among other things, the bill has a number of problems. It proposes to impose redundant consultation obligations on the CRTC and it could be perceived as jeopardizing the CRTC's independence.

With respect to redundancy and increasing the burden on the CRTC, this administrative tribunal already holds extensive public consultations before making decisions. Quebec therefore already has the opportunity to participate in these consultations, regardless of their scope, and it does just that.

Furthermore, in carrying out its mandate, the CRTC must respect the Government of Canada's commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada.

The obligation set out in Bill C‑354 to consult the government of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories would, however, impose an additional burden in terms of time and resources.

While our government understands the importance of having regulatory measures in place to ensure that the broadcasting landscape is equitable and representative, it is hard to see how additional consultations would add value when the provinces and territories can already participate in said process and do so regularly. That is the issue with this bill. It is simply not necessary.

Another problem lies in the implications of this bill on other obligations under the Broadcasting Act.

As an administrative tribunal operating at arm's length from the federal government, the CRTC regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. With regard to broadcasting, the CRTC's job is to assess how best to give effect to the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act. One of these objectives is to support the creation and discoverability of original French-language programming.

In a democracy like ours, it would be inappropriate for any level of government to exert inappropriate influence on the day-to-day decisions of the CRTC, which is an independent body. Just as a requirement for the CRTC to consult the federal government would undermine its independence, so too would a requirement to consult provincial and territorial governments.

Bill C-354's requirement to consult directly with provincial and territorial governments on certain matters in the exercise of its powers would be unprecedented for the CRTC. Moreover, it would risk interfering with the decision-making process and undermine public confidence in its independence.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to remind the House and all Canadians that the government already actively consults the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to broadcasting. I understand the intention behind my good friend's proposal, but the reality is that the work that the CRTC does already takes into account the very requests that he is making.

The CRTC plays a critical role in regulating Canada's broadcasting system. It is essential that we give it the necessary flexibility to carry out its mandate effectively. Bill C‑354 goes against these objectives.

It is clear that Bill C‑354 poses several problems. It does not target the right legislative vehicle, it creates ambiguities and imposes a disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the CRTC, to name just a few. Imposing a consultation requirement on the CRTC, as proposed, is inappropriate for the various reasons I mentioned.

In conclusion, I believe that, although this bill is motivated by good intentions, it presents major risks for the effective functioning of the CRTC and for the legitimacy of our processes for regulating our broadcasting system.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to consider the consequences of this proposal carefully before making any decisions. Our government will be ready and willing to answer members' questions and will continue to ensure that the CRTC has the means to fulfill its critical role without imposing unnecessary burdens on it.

The reality is that if we consider the motivations behind the proposal in this bill, there are many things that the hon. member, as I mentioned before, seeks to achieve. We need to understand that the mandate of the CRTC, what the CRTC already does and seeks to do, particularly with regard to consultation, already exists. It is important for us to remember that provinces like Quebec already get involved, make their submissions and appeal to the CRTC, as and when required. For us to add an additional layer of reporting requirement on the CRTC causes a significant concern with respect to interference from levels of government.

It is important for us, particularly in this challenging time, to ensure that the independence of the CRTC is maintained, that we do not cause the perception of undue influence on it and we do not create an environment where the CRTC feels it is under an obligation of specific levels of government, whether federal or otherwise. I would encourage all members to consider seriously, while taking into account the laudable and certainly well-intentioned thinking behind the proposal, that the CRTC is already responsible for this. There is an arm's-length relationship with government that must always be maintained and we cannot do anything to create the perception that the government, at any level, is telling the CRTC what to do.

With that, I again ask hon. members in the House to consider seriously the ramifications and implications of opening up the CRTC to direction from any level of government.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for being so concise.

On this February 15, before I begin my speech, I would like to salute a few illustrious people, namely François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier, Charles Hindelang, Pierre-Rémi Narbonne, Amable Daunais and François-Stanislas Nicolas. We think of these persons today, as we have done every year on February 15 since 1839.

The bill we are discussing today is a very simple bill. What we are really asking is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act be amended to ensure that Quebec is systematically consulted when the CRTC puts in place any regulations that would have an impact on Quebec culture.

It is a short bill involving one very simple amendment. Earlier I listened to my Conservative colleague recount the events that followed the passage of Bill C-11. When Bill C-11 was almost ready to be passed, the Conservative Party released a letter that was sent to the government, the Liberal Party, to the heritage minister at the time. That letter set out Quebec's specific demands with respect to Bill C-11, which reformed the Broadcasting Act.

I would like to provide a bit of context. With a little good faith, I think that my Conservative colleague will lend credence to what I am going to tell the House. The Conservatives unduly delayed and blocked the bill in committee for a very long time. Quebec had demands and it was not consulted during the study of the bill, at least not formally.

By the time Quebec's demands finally arrived, the bill was about to be passed. Does that mean that the demands therein were illegitimate? No, not at all. Realistically, however, it was too late to reopen the file in committee and go back to the drawing board, so to speak.

If my Conservative colleague had the slightest understanding of how the Government of Quebec operates in this kind of situation, he would not have talked about having Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, appear before the committee. If he had the slightest understanding of how the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa works, he would know that Quebec government ministers do not testify in committee. They have a nation-to-nation relationship with Ottawa. They speak minister to minister. Ministers from Quebec do not appear before committees. He should know this, but he does not. It was much more dramatic to take the letter and say that the Bloc and the Liberals do not listen to Quebec. He said the Bloc did not listen to Quebec, did not listen to cultural groups and did not listen to groups in Quebec's broadcasting sector during the study of bills on broadcasting, online news and anything to do with Quebec culture. What a joke. It is funny, actually, so that is how we will take it.

That being said, we have here Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. This bill addresses one of the most important demands set out in that letter from Minister Lacombe and the Government of Quebec. This is a natural demand and Minister Lacombe was not the first to make it. Quebec's need, its desire, its demand to have its say in the decisions that are made in Ottawa and that have an impact on francophone culture and the French language dates back to 1929 and has been kept alive by successive Quebec governments.

The premier at the time, Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, saw this weird new technology called radio and thought that it needed to be regulated immediately. That is when a regulatory body was created to provide oversight.

To no one's surprise, instead of agreeing with what Quebec was doing and choosing to play a part in this regulatory body, Ottawa decided to do something else. It created the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, or CRBC, the current CRTC's ancestor. Both organizations were developed in parallel, as is so often the case, with a tiny intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. It seems that this was even more commonplace back then and that people did not complain as much. There was no Bloc Québécois to fight for Quebec in Ottawa.

Long story short, wanting to have a say in French-language communications and culture in Quebec is not just a Quebec separatist or nationalist thing. Liberal governments also asked for it, and so did Union Nationale governments. Even former minister Lawrence Cannon, who was a Liberal minister in Quebec before becoming a Conservative minister in Ottawa, asked for it.

This is not a demand being made by spoiled sovereignist brats who want to repatriate all powers to Quebec. This is a reasonable request to ensure that Quebec is consulted on decisions made by the next-door nation that affect the Quebec nation's culture.

We will be voting on Bill C‑354 in a few days. We are not asking for the moon. At the moment, we are not even asking for the right to immediately create a Quebec CRTC, which is also among Quebec's requests and the Bloc Québécois's plans, and quite reasonably so. For now, this is not what we are asking. For now, we are simply responding to a straightforward request from Quebec.

As my Conservative colleague said earlier, the Conservatives tried to promote this request themselves, but it was already too late in the Bill C‑11 process. I presume that the entire House of Commons will support this very reasonable request when we vote on this amendment to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.

Bill C‑354 was introduced in response to a request from Quebec, the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and I think everyone in the House should agree that Quebec and the provinces that are concerned about preserving French in some of their communities should be consulted when regulations are put in place that will have an impact on the French language and culture in those places.