SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:22:56 a.m.
Watch

I am still looking into what was said a while ago, but I do want to remind members to be very careful with some of the wording they are using because it is not quite proper to be using that type of language in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

56 words

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:54:09 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the additional input. I will certainly look further into this and get back to the House, if need be. Earlier today the hon. member used some adjectives that were not becoming of the language that should be used when it comes to specific senators, so I would ask him and all members to please refrain from doing so.

60 words

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 2:39:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously all of our initiatives to send asylum seekers to other provinces need to be done humanely and consensually. The language criterion is one of many, but should not be the main criterion. We all need to make an extra effort. The federal government has a role to play; Ontario, Quebec and all the provinces do as well.

60 words

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 6:32:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354

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.

1147 words