44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/15/24 2:37:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's French language commissioner released a report that may shock the immigration minister, but does not surprise anyone in Quebec.
Temporary immigration is setting French back in Quebec. According to the commissioner, it would cost between $10.5 billion and $13 billion to teach French to all newcomers. Needless to say, that is unsustainable.
One of the commissioner's recommendations targets the federal government directly. Will the minister finally ensure that every province welcomes asylum seekers instead of contributing to the decline of French?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:38:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that we are already transferring $5.2 billion to the Quebec government, partly for French-language instruction.
I hope the member opposite is not saying that he wants to deport people who do not speak French in Canada. That would be an illegal, immoral and inhumane thing to do.
We are well aware that more work needs to be done to share the burden that is falling on Quebec. We will continue to do so with the province of Quebec.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:38:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, these answers are no longer credible, but that is okay. I will continue.
Quebec's French language commissioner goes further. He proposes that the federal government ensure that asylum seekers are spread out among the provinces, taking language into account. Ottawa could encourage people who have knowledge of French to stay in Quebec or, as the Bloc Québécois proposes, go to franco-Canadian communities. As far as anglophones are concerned, Ottawa could encourage them to go to an anglophone province. That would make it easier for them to access the labour market and it would reduce the cost of linguistic integration.
Does the minister not think this is an excellent idea?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:40:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, perhaps French is in decline at the federal level because never before have the Liberals appointed so few francophones to decision-making positions.
Francophones were appointed to only 21% of the key departmental positions that are supposed to be bilingual. That is the worst record since 2015. When Liberal ministers make political appointments, they appoint only unilingual anglophones. No wonder French is disappearing at the federal level.
Will the Liberal ministers stop setting the example that it is okay to undermine French?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:40:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, defending and promoting French is a priority for all Liberal members from both inside and outside Quebec. When making appointments, we did a lot to ensure greater representation of women, under-represented communities and indigenous people, and we did even more to ensure French representation. We will do more to appoint francophones because that is important to us.
While the Bloc Québécois is pouting, complaining and picking fights, we are doing what we need to do, and that is appointing more francophones.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑354, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois.
The Bloc Québécois's bill seems pretty straightforward. It states:
The Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about the French-speaking markets in those provinces before furthering the objects and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) in respect of the aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that concern those matters.
This seems like a fairly simple request for consultation, and it would require the CRTC to consult Quebec and the provinces.
Of course, I support the principle that the Government of Quebec should have the opportunity to express itself, especially when it comes to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec are not shy about making their position known, especially when it comes to protecting the French language and Quebec culture.
As Conservatives, we on this side of the House recognize that French is the only official language that is in decline in Canada. As such, we have an essential role to play in protecting it.
To continue the debate, I would like to come back to Bill C-11, which amended the Broadcasting Act. The Government of Quebec had called for specific amendments to this bill so that Quebec's concerns would be heard.
In February 2023, Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, wrote to the then minister of Canadian heritage. I will read some excerpts from that letter to provide some context for the Bloc Québécois bill. At the time, the Bloc refused, for months, to convey this request from Quebec's elected officials to the House of Commons.
I will now quote Minister Mathieu Lacombe:
It is essential, both in Bill C‑11 and in its implementation by the CRTC, that Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the unique reality of the French-language market be adequately considered. I would like to reiterate our demand that a formal, mandatory mechanism for consultation with the Government of Quebec be set out in the act to that effect....[Quebec] must always have its say before any instructions are given to the CRTC to direct its actions under this act when its actions are likely to affect companies providing services in Quebec or likely to have an impact on the Quebec market....
This letter that came from the Government of Quebec was sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, it seems that no one in the Liberal government saw fit to respond to this request. There was complete radio silence after that letter.
However, on this side of the House, the Conservatives heard this plea. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles rose in the House several times to urge the government to receive the Quebec minister in committee in order to hear what Quebec was asking for and determine how Bill C‑11 could contribute to ensuring that the act takes Quebec's cultural distinctiveness into account. That is something tangible. We had a tangible request from Quebec to be heard on a bill that would have considerable repercussions on Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and on Quebec's language. We felt it was important to grant this request and allow the Quebec minister to come testify in committee.
Allow me to quote an article from La Presse from February 14, 2023. That was a year ago almost to the day. The headline of the article read, “Broadcasting Act reform: Conservative Party supports Quebec's request for a say”. That about sums it up.
I think La Presse hit the nail pretty much on the head. I will read some of the article:
The Conservative Party is urging the [Prime Minister's] government to refer Bill C‑11, which seeks to modernize the Broadcasting Act, to a parliamentary committee in order to examine Quebec's request for the bill to include a mandatory mechanism requiring the province to be consulted to ensure that the CRTC protects Quebec's cultural distinctiveness.
That article was written by Joël‑Denis Bellavance, someone who reliably reports the facts.
A little further on in the article, it talks about what happened here in the House of Commons when we discussed this issue. It states, and I quote:
In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles] and his colleague [from Louis-Saint-Laurent] both questioned [the heritage minister] on this subject and urged him to consider Quebec's “legitimate request”.
The article goes on to quote the question that was asked that day:
“[The] Quebec government is urging the Liberal government to include a mechanism for mandatory consultation in Bill C-11 to ensure the protection of Quebec culture....Do the Prime Minister and the Bloc agree with Minister Lacombe when it comes to Quebec culture and the fact that the government needs to send the bill to committee?” asked the member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles].
That is a very legitimate question that was asked in response to the letter published the day before by journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance.
The answer given by the then minister of heritage was rather cold. It was more of a diversionary tactic. The minister completely avoided my colleague's question. Instead, he chose to go on the attack and to completely avoid answering the simple question about the fact that the Quebec minister of culture and communications was asking to appear before the parliamentary committee.
During the same question period, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent raised the issue again. I would like to quote from the article and the question at the same time:
“[H]ow can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec? I understand that the purpose of Bill C-11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the ‘centralist bloc’”, fumed [my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent].
Members will understand the reason for his anger, not only toward the governing party, the Liberal Party, but also toward the Bloc Québécois. The Liberal minister came out with a sledgehammer argument. Instead of answering the question and granting the Quebec minister of culture and communications' legitimate request to appear in committee, the then minister of heritage accused the Conservative Party of trying to stall the bill's passage again. It was as though asking to hear from the minister of a duly elected government was not a good enough reason to slightly delay a bill's passage in order to find out what Quebec had to say. That is unacceptable.
In his letter, Minister Lacombe argued that, as the “heartland of the French language and francophone culture in America”, Quebec considered it “vital to have a say in these instructions”. It seems to me that the committee should have listened to what Minister Lacombe had to say.
My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent moved a motion in committee. Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party voted against that motion, which was intended to allow a discussion of the amendments proposed by the Senate and Quebec's request. Again unsurprisingly, the NDP sided with the Liberals. How did the Bloc Québécois member vote in committee? Did he seize the opportunity to be the voice of reason, speaking on behalf of Quebec and Quebeckers? After a formal letter from the Government of Quebec and a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, which side did the Bloc Québécois take?
The answer will shock everyone, even our our viewers: The Bloc Québécois voted against the common-sense motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, which would have allowed the voice of a Quebec minister to be heard in committee. At the time, not only did we agree in principle, but we took concrete action to ensure that the Government of Quebec would be heard.
Now let us see how negotiations unfold in committee, so we can find out whether everyone really meant what they said.
1437 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 6:21:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP recognizes that Quebec is a distinct nation within Canada. We also recognize that it is the only predominantly French culture in North America. We know that if we want to protect this culture, we must also protect and promote the French language in Canada.
Radio and television broadcasting are a key part of promoting the French language and francophone culture in the 21st century. That is why it is so important that the French language be well represented in the decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.
To ensure that francophones have a voice at the CRTC, there used to be a tradition of alternating between an anglophone and a francophone chairperson. The current government, however, has decided to put an end to that tradition.
We think this proposal requiring the CRTC to consult the Quebec government makes sense. We also want the CRTC to be required to consult with francophone communities and organizations across Canada, not just in Quebec.
Naturally, the Government of Quebec should play a special role in the CRTC's decisions in order to stand up for the interests of Quebec. It is a good idea to stop putting all our faith in the long-standing practice of alternating between francophone and anglophone chairpersons and to require the CRTC to consult the Government of Quebec, as well as other francophone organizations across Canada.
For those reasons, we support this bill at second reading stage.
247 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
