Meeting of the CRTC-OLMC Discussion Group

October 4, 2023

List of participants

1. Welcome

Frédéric Janelle, Acting National Coordinator for section 41 of the Official Languages Act (OLA) at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), welcomed all participants. He reminded participants that this is a bilingual meeting and invited them to express themselves in the official language of their choice. 

Rachelle Frenette, Official Languages Champion at the CRTC, introduced herself and described her background. She explained that the issue of official languages is important to her because of her Acadian heritage. She welcomed all of the participants.

2. Round Table of the organizations representing OLMCs and discussion on how the CRTC should engage with OLMCs in the future through its various proceedings, particularly in the broadcasting sector

Marie-Christine Morin from the Fédération culturelle canadienne française (FCCF) presented the three documents that she had sent to the CRTC and other group members. She explained that these documents expressed the needs and wishes of group members. She added that the group members had tried to express their ideas in a useful manner. She explained that the amendments to the OLA and the Broadcasting Act (BA) require that OLMC consultation method be revised, and that the group members had considered the new mandate they wanted to give themselves as a group. Ms. Morin then read the joint statement prepared on behalf of the group and submitted the appendices sent by email.

Serge Quinty from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) explained that they had been wanting to redesign this group for several years. He added that, in recent years, a need had arisen for a clear mandate and work plan for the group, and he said that this need had become a reality with the amendments to the BA. He explained that they had worked very hard to ensure that the needs of OLMCs had been included in the BA, particularly section 5.2 on consultation. He said that this section is examined very closely by other federal institutions with a consultation mandate under the OLA. He mentioned the FCFA’s support of what was submitted by the FCCF. He said that he had wanted the meeting scheduled for August to be postponed to allow the group members to coordinate among themselves and present a thorough consideration of the CRTC’s mandate and obligations at the first meeting. 

Amy Vachon-Chabot from the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta (ACFA) explained that her association fully supports the joint statement and Mr. Quinty’s comments. She believes the role of consultations is important.

Jean-Michel Beaudry from the Société de la francophonie manitobaine supports the FCCF’s statement and Ms. Morin’s work.

Caroline Savoie from the Assemblé de la francophonie de l'Ontario (AFO) introduced her organization and explained that they have a media advisory committee.  She supported the points raised by the FCCF.

Barry Rooke from the National Campus and Community Radio Association (NCRA) explained that their association had been involved in all stages of Bills C-11 and C-18. He said that they had been taken by surprise concerning the CRTC moratorium on new radio licence applications and amendments.

Stephen Thompson from the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) said that they would like to know how the CRTC will handle the consultation obligation under the OLA, which resulted from a 2022 Federal Court of Appeal decision.

Arnie Gelbart from the Quebec English-language Production Council (QEPC) explained that many issues were being examined by the CRTC and that they hoped to intervene in these proceedings. He said that new arrangements are needed to support the English language in Quebec and to develop English-speaking talent in Quebec. He hopes that Bills C-11 and C-13 will allow for the adoption of favourable policies for OLMCs.

Simon Forgues from the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada (ARC) presented the ARC’s mandate. He said that he was concerned about the fact that the CRTC would not be working on radio files for the next two years. He stressed that consultation is important, but that the public must also be informed once the law is implemented. He noted that there is much confusion about C-11 and that the public should be informed.

Carol Ann Pilon from the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada (APFC) thanked the CRTC for having organized this meeting. She also thanked her colleagues for their discussion on what to cover at today’s meeting. She introduced her organization and its mandate. She explained that they were very active on the C-11 file, particularly in terms of maintaining section 5.2. She agreed with her colleagues in emphasizing the need to redefine the group’s role and mandate. However, she pointed out that aside from redefining the mandate, the practical question remained of how to apply section 5.2 to CRTC consultation processes. She added that in broadcasting, for example, there had been 90 public processes last year. Concerning the establishment of a practical and effective mechanism, she considered it necessary to focus on ensuring that OLMCs be consulted when the CRTC makes a decision that could affect them.

Clotilde Heibing from the Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale (ANIM) thanked the CRTC for organizing the meeting, and she thanked the FCCF and FCFA for their work. She explained that ANIM had contributed to the adoption of the new law. She and her colleagues would like to know the status of the CRTC’s thinking. She felt that it was important that the implementation be very practical. She had high expectations for the day and was glad to have the opportunity to be heard by the CRTC.

Scott Shortliffe, Executive Director of Broadcasting at the CRTC, introduced himself and explained that he is in charge of Bills C-11 and C-18. He thanked Ms. Morin for having prepared and shared the documents. He explained that he had only been able to read them over quickly. He understood the concept of needing a practical plan and said that the CRTC could support certain things in the documents.

He explained that he wants to hear what the members of the group have to say. He noted that the BA clearly requires special attention for OLMCs and that Bill C-18 also has an OLMC component. He said that he would especially like to know how the CRTC could practically consult OLMCs, and, more specifically, communities. He expressed his concern that some communities would be excluded from the consultation process, which could, for example, delay granting a licence.

He said that the CRTC was open to discussing next steps. Concerning the proposals put forward in the documents prepared by the FCCF, he explained that it was difficult to respond to every point on the spot. However, he said that the CRTC had agreed to: 1) hold a minimum of three meetings per year; 2) work with this group to revise the discussion group’s mandate; and 3) update the OLMC page on the CRTC website. 

He explained that the CRTC would like to respect the spirit of the BA, share more information with OLMCs and provide OLMCs with the opportunity to comment on decisions that could have a negative impact on them, while avoiding an overly onerous process that would prolong the decision-making process. He asked the group members if they had any ideas or expectations to this effect.

Serge Quinty said that his organization represents all Francophone communities in Canada and works with several federal institutions on various steering committees. He explained that models exist in other federal institutions and that he could share pertinent information and documentation with the CRTC. He reassured the CRTC that it was not a question of inventing something new, and that this type of mechanism already exists in other federal institutions.  

Scott Shortliffe said that he would like to receive documentation on what other federal institutions were doing in terms of consultation with OLMCs.

Kirwan Cox from the QEPC thanked the CRTC for organizing this meeting, especially as he knew this was a busy time for the CRTC. He said that the discussion group should be run jointly by the CRTC and the group members so that the CRTC could not make decisions on behalf of the group and the group planning would be done jointly by the CRTC and the group members. He noted that the group’s mandate had changed due to Bill C-11. In his opinion, current group members should approve any new discussion group members. He would also like to discuss the issue of funding for group members. He asked Mr. Shortliffe to specify whether the group’s three meetings would be held across Canada. He also asked for clarification on whether this was a preliminary meeting.

Scott Shortliffe explained that the CRTC was committed to organizing three meetings per year, but that these meetings would not necessarily take place outside of the national capital.

Rachelle Frenette stated that this meeting was an introductory meeting and that it was an official meeting, not a preliminary meeting.

Stephen Thompson explained that we are in a new era of consultation with federal institutions, and that this is not unique to the CRTC. He said that some federal institutions provide funding to encourage OLMC participation. He added that the participation of group members is costly in terms of time and resources.

Carol Ann Pilon expressed her view that we must reflect specifically on section 5.2 and address each element of this section to find a way to ensure that OLMCs participate in decision-making processes. She noted that there are defined consultation periods for CRTC proceedings and that, based on her understanding of the section, the intention is to ensure that the interests and priorities of OLMCs be considered in CRTC decisions. She explained that, without minimizing the importance of this group’s mandate, a mechanism for implementing section 5.2 must be put on the table, and new processes must be established. She added that the Lens 41 could serve as a starting point.

Clotilde Heibing suggested that there could be an internal resource person (a CRTC champion). She proposed that the CRTC have specific conversations prior to decisions and find out who to contact for a specific subject. She added that the CRTC should go out into the field to meet community members, which would help anticipate their expectations. She explained that informing the CRTC and participating in proceedings requires enormous resources, whereas the CRTC should already be informed. She said that group members must have the necessary resources, and she suggested that the documentation provided should take into consideration their level of specialization.

Rachelle Frenette offered some preliminary observations. She said that she knew that group members needed a financial base to participate, which makes it difficult for them to voice their opinion. She mentioned that there is a public process on contributions currently in place and hopes to obtain the perspectives of the members of the group in the context of that proceeding. She added that she understood that this did not completely respond to their concerns, but that it was nonetheless a first step. As for the nature of the consultation, she said she was worried that they would realize after the fact that someone had been overlooked, and as a result, that staff wants to have a broad reach.

Scott Shortliffe said that he didn’t want to bombard the group members, given the numerous decisions made by the CRTC. He said that he also didn’t want to assume that a particular decision did not have an adverse impact on an OLMC, and then realize after the fact that it does. He explained that he was trying to figure out how to avoid bombarding the group members, without missing anything. 

Marie-Christine Morin proposed a process whereby the CRTC would present its upcoming decisions to the group members, so that they can better prepare their interventions and position themselves more efficiently. She suggested that this is one way that the CRTC can do some initial work in advance to help them undertake their analysis and planning. For example, the CRTC could identify upcoming licence renewals for the next year or elements of a public notice that impact OMLCs.

She noted that this group is large and includes organizations from the Francophonie, but that some of its members are organizations specialized in key areas. She suggested that the CRTC could develop bilateral relations with these organizations and consult with them concerning more specific issues. She also proposed that the CRTC travel to communities during hearings to be in touch with the realities on the ground.

She noted that resources and means are necessary for group members to be able to participate and said that this should be taken into account by the CRTC and the Ministry in their reflections on implementation measures to ensure an optimal and authentic consultation process.

Clotilde Heibing questioned the need to consult everyone. She explained that staying informed on everything the CRTC does could be challenging for all of the organizations. She said that organizations are meant to represent their members in specific areas and disciplines and that she trusts her colleagues with more specific decisions. She noted that the French-speaking world is closely connected. She proposed that the CRTC set up two types of meetings: 1) a more general meeting to take the pulse of the whole group; and 2) a more specialized meeting with only some members of the group.

Serge Quinty explained that professional associations have extensive knowledge about programming and that provincial and territorial organizations have a view from the field. In his opinion, to successfully engage these groups, it is important that the CRTC knows to whom they’re speaking, as well as where and how to speak them. He explained that the group members have enough of a network with OLMCs to avoid an adverse impact. He added that, as group members are geographically distributed and work with networks, the CRTC can be reassured that when group members speak on behalf of OLMCs, they will provide a good overview of the impact of a CRTC decision. 

Rachelle Frenette said that it’s necessary to ensure that consultations are sufficiently inclusive. She asked group members to explain how, when consulting with their group, the CRTC can ensure that it consults with the right OLMCs. 

Kirwan Cox explained that the QEPC is taking measures to ensure greater diversity and representation among racialized groups.

Stephen Thompson explained that the QCGN prefers to work with sector leaders, and that the QEPC acts as a sector leader in this context. He noted, however, that the QEPC has both a commercial and a community interest. He explained that there are two possible consultation models: 1) hold larger meetings to which everyone is invited; or 2) hold meetings with a more specific group. He noted that being more inclusive could be inefficient and more complex. He added that, in his experience, it’s preferable to have a more specific group that is in charge of representing the interests of its community.

Carol Ann Pilon suggested that the CRTC’s consultation process could include checking their list of stakeholders to determine with whom to consult for a specific file. She believed that there is a way to come to an agreement with the group members to establish a mechanism that doesn’t encumber the processes. She added that the group members are in contact with the communities they represent and that the CRTC can rely on them. She also proposed that communication between the CRTC and group members should be more transparent, as her organization sometimes missed out on certain processes.

Rachelle Frenette said that she took note of the group members’ comments and that the CRTC staff would give them serious consideration.

Marie-Christine Morin proposed that a subcommittee could be created.

Scott Shortliffe said that the CRTC staff would consider various consultation models of other federal institutions as well as the issue of the group’s mandate. He said that the staff would contact group members with a plan and proposed agenda for the next meeting. 

Marie-Christine Morin proposed that the next meeting of the group should be longer and later in the day to better accommodate her western colleagues. She asked that all documentation be sent in advance.

Serge Quinty noted that the documents sent by Ms. Morin allowed for enough time to ensure that group members subsequently had enough time to give the CRTC what it was looking for. He said that it was also important for the next agenda to be developed jointly. He said that another aspect addressed in the documents sent by Marie-Christine was the manner in which we should move forward in the process and that this would take some time. In his opinion, Ms. Morin’s suggestion of creating a subcommittee could be addressed in the meantime. He promised he would soon send the CRTC the documents concerning the steering committees of other federal institutions.

Carol Ann Pilon noted that the new BA was already in effect and that the CRTC was already making decisions that could have an adverse effect on OLMCs. She asked what the CRTC’s plan was for dealing with these requests in the interim. 

Rachelle Frenette replied that she could not share these details but that the staff were considering the issue. 

Marie-Christine Morin said that group members could move quickly enough to address concerns and that there was an opportunity to establish a new mechanism at this time.

Scott Shortliffe apologized for having initially scheduled this meeting for August. He explained that his intention had been to move the file forward quickly and that he had not realized that this would not have given committee members much preparation time. He later realized that a fall meeting would be the best option for everyone.

3. Information on audiovisual production by OLMC companies in the Canadian broadcasting system

Louis-Philippe Guay, Financial Analysis Manager at the CRTC, introduced himself and described his role at the CRTC. He presented the Annual Broadcasting Survey. He introduced his colleague Tristan Supino.

Tristan Supino, Analyst for Consumer, Research and Communications at the CRTC, showed participants how to find OLMC production data on the CRTC website.

Carol Ann Pilon noted that one of the tables had not been available in French when she had consulted the Commission’s website this past summer.

Tristan Supino replied that the French version of the table was now on the website. 

Kirwan Cox requested details on how to access the table. He also noted that it is not clear whether the figures are in thousands of dollars.

Tristan Supino responded to Mr. Cox’s questions and specified that the figures are in thousands of dollars.

Carol Ann Pilon asked if the analysts could further discuss the survey.

Louis-Philippe Guay replied that this is the annual survey that broadcasters complete.

Fred Janelle said that, following the meeting, he would send the discussion group the links that Mr. Supino used.

Rachelle Frenette and Fred Janelle concluded the meeting. They thanked the participants for their contributions to the meeting.

Date modified:

2024-06-19