Canadian Heritage Committee on June 18th, 2024

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Can you think of any instances in which Quebec or other provinces were not given the opportunity to give feedback when they wanted to give you feedback?

[Scott Shortliffe]

There's none that I can think of. Certainly, we exist on the basis of public processes. We try to make them as well known as possible. We are open sometimes to procedural interventions. If someone says they haven't been given a fair chance to speak in front of us, we have a long record of expanding our time. We would welcome interventions from Quebec, and indeed from all provinces.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Given everything you've just said, I would turn to any of you who might want to respond and ask, what would this bill do, then, in terms of...? It seems to me that what the bill is asking for is already moot, because you already do it. You're already doing extensive consultation. You're already listening. You're already hearing from all the provinces, particularly Quebec, on a very regular basis. I'm just curious, without being disrespectful, as to what the value-add of this would be. Also, frankly, could you tell us what the risks of this might be?

[Scott Shortliffe]

I want to be very clear here. Our chair sometimes uses the phrase that “we're takers of legislation”. If in the wisdom of Parliament it passes this bill, of course we will implement it fully and enthusiastically.

I want to be clear that we're not here to testify in any way, shape or form against this legislation.

I will say, as my colleague, Mr. Hutton, outlined, that we do have a concern that if there's a growing tendency to say you must consult with this group, you must consult with that group, and it adds up over time, that can slow us down in a period of time when we're trying to move very fast. That is a concern we have if the Broadcasting Act is continually added to in that way. I also want to make it clear that we're not here to say, therefore, we object to this bill.

We do have a concern about our workload and about the expectations about consultations. Our view is that we consult openly. Anyone can come to us. If there is a bill, it can be read into in different ways. Will people have an expectation of pre-consultations? That is not in the bill, and I want to be clear that the bill was very carefully drafted. We are worried about expanding the scope of who we have to consult with before we make a decision.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I just want to be very clear that in the context of this, which speaks to the Government of Quebec, the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and the francophone market, you've said pretty clearly that extensive consultations already occur. There are no instances in which the Province of Quebec or any other province has not had the opportunity to be heard at whatever length they saw fit, and you go to great pains to make sure that those voices are heard and that their opinions are considered.

If I were to put it this way, is there more that you could do, or do you feel that everything is being done that could possibly be done? It seems to me that it is. I don't want to lead you to a certain answer, but it seems to me that if everybody's saying, we have the chance to talk to the CRTC at length, at whatever time and place works for us, on the issues that are of concern, particularly to the francophone community and to Quebec, and nobody's saying, listen, the CRTC is shutting the door on us, I'm just curious if there is even anything more you could possibly do?

[Scott Shortliffe]

I'm going to ask my friend, Mr. Hutton, to answer, because in a legal sense, I don't think there's more to do. I think we can always do better in reaching out to people and encouraging participation.

Scott, would you like to address that a bit?

[Scott Hutton]

The new evolution of the Broadcasting Act certainly is asking us to do more consultation with everyone to make sure we do reflect the full diversity of Canada and we do reflect the objectives for Canada's broadcasting system that are reflected in there.

Certainly, with the act wisely passed by Parliament, we are stepping up what I would call more our “engagement approaches”, which, as I mentioned before, we're doing with the OLMC groups. We're doing more issues that way. We've established a group, an indigenous relations team, which is going out throughout the country and visiting with various indigenous communities to try to get the pulse of those communities and ensure that they actually participate in our proceedings.

There is always more we can do, and we are working on that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux for six minutes, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Noormohamed by talking about the notion of burden.

So far, I have heard all kinds of arguments against Bill C-354. None of them so far have made me blink, and none have led me to believe that, in the end, it may not be a good idea. None have led me to believe that we should discuss any aspect in particular, other than an amendment that may be discussed later on concerning consultations with the governments of the other provinces.

Mr. Shortliffe and Mr. Hutton, you said that passing the bill would add a workload to what you already have. It is a matter of informing the Government of Quebec of a study or a hearing that you are conducting on a particular topic. Explain to me how such a process could be considered an additional burden on an already full schedule, as I would like to know how you view that approach.

[Scott Hutton]

Yes, we publish public notices. We are constantly improving our efforts to involve everyone, including interested parties, such as the Government of Quebec or—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Hutton—

[Scott Hutton]

We're already doing that.

We don't want to argue against the bill. We'll implement it if we have to. What makes us think, however, is that the consultation proposed here seems to go beyond simply warning interested parties that proceedings are coming and asking them to intervene. It seems to be something more.

As you know, we're already doing all these good things. The bill adds something more, and people will expect something more. However, it is not defined. That's what we're trying to say.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

What the bill says is simply to inform, to consult. In my opinion, this is not something that is very restrictive in terms of time.

That was a request from Quebec's minister of culture and communications, at the very end of the process surrounding the study of Bill C-11, which was nearly passed. Obviously, we all agreed that the Government of Quebec's approach came a little late.

In this case, the bill is trying to meet certain demands of the Government of Quebec, including this one, which seems very simple to me. The bill asks that Quebec be systematically informed and consulted when measures are being adopted or hearings are being held on a subject that concerns the province. I will give you two examples to show how the CRTC may sometimes need the Government of Quebec's help.

In 2005, the CKAC radio station closed. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion asking the CRTC not to allow the closure of CKAC, which was literally part of Quebec's radio heritage. Despite this, the CRTC decided to stand by its decision and allow the station to close.

There was also the issue of 911. At one point, there were no regulations requiring that 911 services be in French in Quebec. The Government of Quebec asked the CRTC to regulate the matter and to correct the situation, as it made no sense. However, the CRTC has not changed its regulations. It simply informed the telecommunications companies and asked them to adjust.

So there are some elements that justify a somewhat more sensitive consultation. I don't think that's too much to ask. We are not asking for all powers to be transferred to Quebec. We're not saying that the CRTC isn't doing its job properly. That's not the case at all, and I hope that's not the impression you're getting from me.

The purpose of the bill is as follows: When the CRTC is about to do something, we ask it to inform Quebec so that the province can prepare. The CRTC could ask Quebec to comment, to submit questions or to submit a brief so that it can study the issue. That does not mean that the CRTC will apply everything that Quebec has submitted to the commission. It means that the CRTC will inform Quebec of what it is about to do. Since Quebec will certainly have something to say about it, the CRTC will be there to listen. It's not really any more complicated than that.

That is why I am wondering about you saying that it represents an additional workload. As you said, in many cases, Quebec is already speaking out during hearings on issues concerning broadcasting, telecommunications and the CRTC, among others.

[Scott Hutton]

Whether we have public proceedings or not, we pay attention to motions passed unanimously by the legislative assemblies of Quebec or any other province, or by the House of Commons. That's what we're doing right now.

You talk about informing Quebec, and we are already doing that. There is no doubt that we can continually improve. That's not the issue. The consultation requirement in the bill is what gives us pause. That word alone makes things less clear for us because elsewhere in our act and our processes, it means something more comprehensive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Scott Hutton]

We are an organization that operates at arm's length from the government. I must confess that there is some discomfort with the idea of being asked to consult governments in another or different way.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to ask you something about the specific case of Quebec. In light of the status of French in North America, do you agree that Quebec is justified in feeling that it should be consulted on these issues specifically?

[Scott Hutton]

We pay considerable attention to the Quebec government's submissions in relation to our proceedings. The Government of Quebec is a major funding partner for Canadian programming and French-language Quebec programming. For decades, we have played a complementary role in the effort to ensure that Quebec's francophone community and culture thrive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now, for the New Democrats, we have Niki Ashton.

Niki, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

My first question is for Mr. Hutton.

Mr. Hutton, Statistics Canada released data showing that, for the first time in our history, French is in decline, not just across the country, but also in Quebec. I'd like to know whether, in carrying out its activities, the CRTC took concrete measures in recent years as a result.

When those data came out, they influenced the work of parliamentarians and the government. Did they influence the work you do at the CRTC?

[Scott Hutton]

I'll start, but I may ask Ms. Frenette to round out my answer if need be.

Yes, the CRTC is a designated organization under part VII of the Official Languages Act. One of our responsibilities is to implement positive measures that contribute to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities, OLMCs, across the country. That responsibility is very important to us. We consult with OLMCs, not only to let them know about upcoming proceedings, but also to notify them of decisions we've made. We seek out their comments and feedback, and we do take some of the suggestions we receive from OLMC groups. Our involvement includes submitting reports to the official languages commissioner.

We also work in partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Every year, we report on our progress in providing support to OLMCs. As Mr. Shortliffe mentioned, not even a month ago, we put measures in place to support French-language programming across the country by charging fees to support audio and audiovisual programming. The goal is to support and promote Canada's full diversity, especially OLMCs.

Do you have anything to add, Ms. Frenette, or does that cover it?

[Rachelle Frenette, Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

I think you pretty well covered it, Mr. Hutton.

The CRTC is indeed subject to the Official Languages Act, and accordingly, we are required to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of OLMCs. We also have enhanced obligations under the Broadcasting Act with respect to the objectives of the broadcasting policy and OLMCs. The CRTC is very aware of the circumstances facing OLMCs, and performs its regulatory duty to ensure their survival.

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

Very good.

My fellow members have asked about consultation in Quebec, but I'd like to know whether the decline of French is clear enough here, in western Canada. How do you consult francophone communities out west, meaning those outside Quebec and Acadia?

[Rachelle Frenette]

We are familiar with the organizations that represent those communities, and we invite them to participate in our public proceedings. We were recently seized with an issue affecting Alberta's francophone community, so we actively sought the community's input to help us make decisions tailored to the local reality. That's one of many examples.

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

Very good.

I want to quickly switch to English.

I was interested in hearing a bit more about your consultation with indigenous communities.

Obviously, this connects somehow to official languages. It is, I think, something that all of us, as parliamentarians, would like to hear more about, given Canada's responsibilities around reconciliation.

Could you share some feedback on the kind of work you're doing in terms of consulting with indigenous communities?