Meeting of the CRTC-OLMC discussion group

March 25, 2024

List of participants

Agenda – Meeting of the OLMC-CRTC Discussion Group

25 March 2024, 13:00 – 16:00 (EDT)

1. Welcome: Rachelle Frenette, the CRTC Champion for Official Languages and Frédéric Janelle, acting national coordinator for the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act (5 minutes)
2. Announcement: Announcement regarding new Vice-Chair of Broadcasting (Scott Shortliffe, Executive Director, Broadcasting) (5 minutes)
3. Updates regarding the CRTC-OLMC Discussion Group: CRTC staff’s responses to the requests for further meetings and meetings in the regions and update to the request for discussion regarding the mandate and membership of Discussion Group (Scott Shortliffe and Rachelle Frenette) (20 minutes)
4. Discussion: Round table for members to exchange views on process taken to consultation with OLMCs in application (2023-0310-6) to amend the conditions of service of the French-language community radio station CFED-FM Edmonton, Alberta (Scott Shortliffe and Marc Labelle, Senior Analyst, Broadcasting) (1 hour)
   • Note: As the matter is before the CRTC, please do not comment on the substance of the application and possible outcomes. This discussion is meant to focus on the process followed, as a possible example for future processes.
5. Preliminary Discussion: Preliminary discussion regarding views on OLMCs’ needs for supporting or funding of research on matters relating to OLMCs within the Commission’s mandate and possible approaches to support and funding (Scott Shortliffe and Rachelle Frenette) (1 hour)
6. Presentations by members: Round table for members to present themselves and share any recent news or issues related to the communities they represent (15-20 minutes).

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), introduced himself and asked participants not to speak too quickly so that everyone could speak in their chosen official language. He pointed out that some attendees were on site. He presented the agenda.

Rachelle Frenette, CRTC Champion for Official Languages led introductions of members of her team and presented the agenda.

2. Announcement

Scott Shortliffe, CRTC Executive Director, Broadcasting, announced the appointment of Nathalie Théberge as the new Vice-Chairperson, Broadcasting. He explained that he would be recommending that Nathalie Théberge make it a priority to meet the group’s members. He stated that this could occur at or before the next OLMC meeting. He encouraged members to write to Nathalie Théberge to request meetings.

Serge Quinty, of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA), asked whether the new Vice-Chairperson would participate in the 2023-138 process deliberations. He noted that only former Vice-Chairperson, Broadcasting, Alicia Barin, asked OLMC questions at the hearing.

Scott Shortliffe explained that the new Vice-Chairperson could not participate in the panel’s decision but would participate in consultations with all Commission members.

Rachelle Frenette stated that the Vice-Chairperson had not heard the case and therefore could not be involved in the panel’s decision.

Marie-Christine Morin of the Fédération culturelle canadienne française (FCCF) asked whether there was any follow-up on the implementation of C-11 and C-13.

Manon Henrie-Cadieux of the FCCF was concerned that there was a “failure to hear” the concerns of OLMCs in the context of the 2023-138 hearing, owing to Alicia Barin’s departure.

Rachelle Frenette explained that the Commission would base its decision on the public record, which includes all interventions, transcripts and evidence. The issues would be examined by the entire panel, not just one Commissioner. Even if a Commissioner asked a party a question, that would not mean that the Commissioner would render a decision on the issue at hand.

Scott Shortliffe added that the panel had heard the concerns of OLMCs.

Manon Henrie-Cadieux asked that the minutes record that they were concerned by Alicia Barin’s absence from the panel. and the fact that she remains concerned about the low French-speaking representation at the Commission, on a cultural level.

Marie-Christine Morin stated that the FCCF had suggested amendments to the minutes, specifically that they should identify all attendees, include follow-ups and be made public. She notes that none of the requested changes to the minutes have been made.

Frédéric Janelle explained that it is customary to prepare and then send minutes to discussion group members for comment before issuance and confirmed that the minutes were on the CRTC website.

3. CRTC-OLMC discussion group updates

Rachelle Frenette explained that the CRTC is an administrative tribunal and decisions are up to the Commission. She added that its Executive leadership team makes the organizational decisions. She stated that the official languages issue spans both spheres. She stated that she and Scott Shortliffe and senior leadership had discussed the new obligations under the Official Languages Act (OLA) and some of the operational changes needed to meet those obligations.

She stated that senior leadership had noted and accepted the fact that certain things needed to change. As far as the Commission’s decisions were concerned, she explained that the Commission had to meet its obligations under the OLA and the Broadcasting Act (BA). She stated that some things had been able to move forward:

• Three discussion group meetings a year
• One meeting outside the nation’s capital
• Next regional meeting: the group should decide where to hold the meeting. Although the next meeting date would be affected, the best time to meet would be around late summer, if possible.

Scott Shortliffe explained that a summer meeting would be preferable to discuss files that could interest OLMCs. As for the location, he suggested that group members decide whether they preferred a vote or a CRTC staff recommendation. He stated that this should be a group decision.

Carol Ann Pilon of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada (APFC) explained that although a summer meeting would be difficult, people would still be available in June.

Rachelle Frenette replied that they could aim for late June or early September based on the suggestions.

Kirwan Cox of the Quebec English-language Production Council (QEPC) agreed that it would be better to meet sooner rather than later, and asked when the 2023-138 decision was likely to be published, as that could affect the dates.

Serge Quinty said it was great that they were increasing the number of meetings and including a regional one. He added that he understood that the upcoming schedule would be busy. He reminded participants that the AGM season is in June and that it would be preferable to have the next meeting in the second half of June or early September.

Rachelle Frenette provided details on upcoming work affecting OLMCs and to expect a notice of consultation with regards to how to consult OLMCs. She explained that C-11 would be implemented in phases.

Scott Shortliffe provided details on the Commission’s strategy for implementing C-11. He said the objective was to publish decisions when they were ready, rather than waiting several months, or even years, for a full decision. He also explained that some decisions could be revised at the very end of the process to factor in new realities. He acknowledged the need for a feedback loop with OLMCs on some issues.

Kenneth Hirsch explained that their community was on the verge of becoming unviable and stressed that the OLA required the CRTC to ensure the viability of OLMCs. He asked if the implementation would address OLMC concerns in Phase II rather than Phase I. He said OLMC concerns should be included in Phase I of C-11 implementation.

Rachelle Frenette replied that, indeed, Phase I of C-11 implementation had already been completed. She explained that Phase II of C-11 implementation should begin shortly. She added that Commission decisions must be based on a public record, That OLMC concerns were taken into account in all phases, including Phase I, and that the CRTC did not compartmentalize.

Carol Ann Pilon wished to clarify a few points, specifically that in Phase I of the 2023-138 hearing, OLMCs participated and presented proposals concerning OLMCs. For example, some proposals were to create a new fund or possibly send most funds to the CMF, and to have commitments or percentage increases. She asked if the suggestion was that these considerations would not be part of the 2023-138 decision.

Rachelle Frenette explained that the issues addressed in 2023-138, including those raised by OLMCs, would be considered in the Commission’s decision-making.

Marie-Christine Morin asked what would be included in Phase II. While she acknowledged that OLMC issues were a separate consideration, she wanted to know whether OLMC issues would be considered horizontally, since this legal obligation was already in force.

Rachelle Frenette replied that the details were being finalized for Phase II.

Carol-Ann Pilon said that Notice of Consultation 2023-138 already gave a good indication of what Phase II would look like, and then asked if it was safe to assume that the regulatory plan would not change that much. She also asked whether section 5.2, which was not addressed in Phase I, would be addressed in Phase II.

Scott Shortliffe replied that whereas the overall answer was yes, he would be able to provide more details in the spring. He explained that while Phase I covered basic contributions, other issues, such as the definitions of Indigenous and Canadian content, would be part of Phase II of the regulatory plan. He added that Phase III of the 2023-138 consultation would consist of implementing specific conditions of service for the various players in the system, and that OLMC considerations were included in all phases of the 2023-138 consultation. He concluded by saying OLMC concerns were not compartmentalized and the Commission was establishing a process to ensure that OLMC needs would be respected in the future.

Marie-Christine Morin said she wondered about the group’s vision, in light of the CRTC’s implementation plan.

Rachelle Frenette said that was a staff-level debate. She stated that the group was not the right place to communicate OLMC concerns in public proceedings, and that Commission decisions must be taken by Commission members, given that the CRTC is an administrative tribunal. She added that there will be a proceeding to thoroughly examine the matter relative to the consultation with OLMCs and she asked to be patient. She said her personal position was that until they found a collaborative way of integrating OLMCs into public processes, she would like to see the group retain its current form.

She proposed that they look at how their rather informal group could be incorporated into a more formal process that would enable OLMCs to communicate with the Commission, which makes the decisions. She concluded by saying that the status quo should be maintained until a model could be developed to meet the obligations under both laws, in an appropriate forum.

Simon Forgues of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada (ARC) said he had never seen the group as anything other than informal, given that the CRTC is an administrative tribunal. He said he understood that this was not the forum for discussing sensitive issues. He added that while it is important to have such a forum for OLMCs, the group was not really the place to push OLMC grievances.

Serge Quinty said he was worried about ambitious deadlines. He asked that the CRTC give them 60 days to make their interventions within processes, because 30 days did not suffice. He added that, with regard to the discussion group’s vision, he was curious to hear the CRTC’s views on the model proposed at the last meeting. He added that he had sent example “terms of reference” and wanted to know the CRTC’s thoughts on them.

Rachelle Frenette replied that the staff had read them carefully and taken note of them. She did, however, point out some specifics that raised concerns about how decisions would be made. She reminded participants that the group could not constitute a decision-making proceeding, and that they had to respect its limitations. She said that while she remained open to accepting and fine-tuning some elements of the proposal, the focus was rather on establishing a formal process for implementing section 5.2 of the BA and the OLA.

Marie-Christine Morin said she was concerned that the committee was not being used to implement section 5.2. She found that this ignored the committee’s mandate. She stated that the FCCF thought it was going in that direction, but it did not seem like it. She asked that this be recorded in the minutes.

Carol Ann Pilon questioned the need for a public consultation on section 5.2. She said public processes were open to all, which meant that the CRTC would consider all views, even though the consultation clause is specific to OLMCs. She added that the clause in the BA is very clear and detailed, and said she did not understand why some of the elements of 5.2 call into question the CRTC’s current processes as an administrative tribunal.

She added that given the ambitiousness of Phase II and the nearing deadlines of the Governor in Council Direction, she was concerned that once everything was on public record, other parties who did not represent OLMCs could oppose the obligation to consult, or propose that the same obligations apply to all groups, which would lead to a deliberation. In light of that, she asked whether it was reasonable to expect the law to be respected at all times. She said she was trying to understand why a public consultation would help the CRTC make a better decision than would a consultation with the already existing group which, in her opinion, adequately represents OLMC interests.

Rachelle Frenette replied that she had heard her and had taken note of her comments. She added that the details of Phase II were still being worked out.

Manon Henrie-Cadieux said the FCCF had filed an important statement that held the members’ consensus, but she had not received adequate feedback on the filed documentation to enhance the group’s effectiveness. She said it was not enough to keep the group under the status quo. She explained that the members worked hard and had over 10 years’ experience in the group.

She added that the OLA is in force since its royal assent and is not pending further regulations to be implemented. She said the discussion needed to be had with the group, not just within the CRTC, and they were circling around the subject instead of tackling it. She asked for written comments from the CRTC in response to the filed unanimous statement. She also stated that no agenda amendments proposed by the FCCF had been carried for the day’s meeting. She believed that the status quo did a disservice to the work that the group needs to do together.

Rachelle Frenette said she understood the frustration and added that the group had to operate within certain parameters. She said the group was staff and could only discuss and talk about authorized subjects. She stated that the entire team was working hard to move that issue forward with management and the Commission.

She said the Commission was implementing an enormous project of implementing new broadcasting legislation and OLMCs were an integral part of that implementation. She committed to working with the team to provide a response to the statement and apologized. She also committed to come back with further details for the next meeting.

Kenneth Hirsh said he shared his colleagues’ concerns. He explained that his community was disappearing. He explained that C-11 had been adopted and required changes in the way OLMCs were treated. He noted that OLMC concerns did not appear to be urgent to the Commission. He asked, if the group was not the appropriate forum for these changes, what would be?

Scott Shortliffe replied that the CRTC was moving forward as quickly as possible and that OLMCs were a priority. He foresaw some communities questioning why the CRTC was prioritizing OLMCs and not them. He explained that the CRTC was responsible for implementing complex legislation, and he rejected the idea that the CRTC had sidelined OLMCs. He explained that although the group was vitally important, the CRTC was a government entity and needed to open its proceedings to the public.

He stressed, however, that opening the proceedings to the public did not mean that the group was not useful. He believed that the group was necessary to provide a direct link with OLMCs and expected its role to grow. He added that, ultimately, it is up to the Commission to render the decisions.

Kenneth Hirsh thanked Scott Shortliffe for his reply and stated that while all group members were working hard on the file, it was unclear whether that was being conveyed to the Commission.

Scott Shortliffe replied that he could not disclose the deliberations of Commission members. He said he believed the Commission was familiar with OLMC issues and understood the urgency to act.

Rachelle Frenette said she understood that what had been said during the day’s meeting may not have provided a complete answer, but it was a work in progress. She explained that the staff was working hard on the issue and that positive outcomes would follow. She asked the group to be patient and understand that the CRTC had an obligation to act as a transparent, impartial and fair tribunal. She added that this required a little time.

Scott Shortliffe explained that he wanted to hear group members’ views and that was why he would like to hear them on Item 4. He added that the group had a perspective to offer on the new things the CRTC was trying and that this was proof of the group’s importance.

4. Discussion

Rachelle Frenette presented Item 4 and explained the procedures followed in the CFED-FM Edmonton, Alberta file (CRTC Application 2023-0310-6). She asked for group members’ feedback on the procedure that had been followed.

Simon Forgues thanked Rachelle Frenette for that example and said it was the type of thing the group would have to keep doing. He said although it did not go far enough, it was valuable.

Marie-Christine Morin said it was a good starting point and acknowledged how quick the process had been and how promptly they received an e-mail. She said they were heading in the right direction. She added that there were issues of national interest that were not raised, such as online news. She also reiterated the importance of establishing a monitoring process. She added that in broadcasting, the 30-day consultation period is too short; by comparison, in telecom, it is 60 to 90 days. She said there needed to be a separate consultation for OLMCs, especially regarding online news, and their special lens was needed for issues that affect communities.

Amy Vachon-Chabot of Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta (ACFA) said she had participated in the CFED consultation process and had appreciated receiving a letter notifying the ACFA of the proceeding; that had enabled the ACFA to participate since she does not always check what has been published. She noted the extra time granted and said that it had been appreciated, as otherwise she would have been unable to make a submission on time.

Simon Forgues would like to make a recommendation and ask whether community radio and TV could be used to promote CRTC proceedings. He said the CRTC could place public notices on community TV and radio stations. He used the example of a process similar to the alerts that broadcasters are required to announce.

Rachelle Frenette said she had taken note of the recommendation. In response to Marie‑Christine Morin, she explained that when public proceedings affect a specific region, it is easier to identify the impact on OLMCs from that specific region. She explained, however, that it is more complex when developing  national policies that impact the wider public and OLMCs as well.

Serge Quinty acknowledged the “heads up” that was given for CFED and said that builds trust. He added that whereas the Online News Act proceeding was vital for OLMCs, the deadlines were too short considering that they included two holidays. He said public holidays should not be included in the calculation of deadlines. He added that 60 days would be preferable, especially for the Online News Act and for proceedings that raise issues important to OLMCs.

Scott Shortliffe said this was well noted and pointed out that the Commission publishes regulatory plans partly to inform members of the public of upcoming work. He said, with regard to the Online News Act, that he agreed that deadlines were tight, but the Google agreement had put a lot of pressure on the CRTC. He said the CRTC’s intention is to provide more realistic deadlines, where it is in its power to do so. He said the group’s feedback on that point was helpful.

He said that during Phase III of 2023-138, he also wanted to avoid bombarding OLMCs with multiple consultation requests on all conditions of service, all at once. He explained that he was looking for the best way to notify affected OLMCs and learn about less obvious impacts on OLMCs. He added that he needed feedback from group members and admitted that the CRTC’s initial attempts might not be completely successful.   

Carol Ann Pilon said her understanding was that public notices were on the Commission’s news page. She added that, if she understood correctly, when a licensee triggers the public process, there is no public notice.

Rachelle Frenette explained that when they receive a request from a licensee, staff conduct a preliminary review of the requests to determine if there are any OLMC issues, and they then inform management. She said that next, as in the CFED Edmonton file, staff would ask the Commission to modify its usual process to include an OLMC-specific consultation process. She concluded by saying that the request would subsequently be published.

Carol Ann Pilon explained that some Part 1 applications are not brought to the attention of OLMCs. She cited the example of TFO’s renewal, which she came across by chance, and said that at that time, she had had only 15 days left to submit representations. She said that just because a renewal application does not affect an OLMC region, that does not mean there is no impact. She added that all Part 1 applications should be publicized. She said it should be as transparent and public as possible.

Rachelle Frenette replied that there may be work to do on how the CRTC publishes Part 1 applications on the CRTC website. For example, she suggested including a description of Part 1. Concerning the CFED case, she asked whether the letter sent had been suitable. She said they did not want to overwhelm the group either. She stated that there was some sorting out to do. She concluded by saying that by collaborating with the group, staff would be able to determine what type of proceeding would interest them.

Kirwan Cox believed that the procedure followed in the CFED case had only responded to paragraph 5.2(1)(a) of the BA and wondered how the CRTC would address the other provisions. He explained that section 5.2 was in force and applied to the 2023-138 proceeding. He would like to know when section 5.2 would be fully implemented. He pointed out that Lens 41 is an internal tool used by the CRTC to determine which decisions affect OLMCs. He believed that Lens 41 should be provided to group members.

Rachelle Frenette explained that, in view of the amendments to Part VII of the OLA, the CRTC was considering how it should conduct its proceedings to take these obligations into account.  She explained that it was not possible to share that information as it was covered by the privilege of deliberative secrecy. She said full details would be shared with the group when available, including how the Commission would determine the existence of an adverse affect.

She explained that the CFED file had been a test case and she hoped that it was something that could be developed using OLMC feedback. She stressed that, according to the comments received, the process followed in the CFED case seemed to address at least some of the concerns.

Kirwan Cox reiterated that the process followed in the CFED case did nothing to respond to section 5.2 and did not deviate from the status quo.

Marie-Christine Morin commented on the matter of filters used to determine which decisions affect OLMCs. She said the filter to use is whether the decision could have an adverse affect, as set out in the wording of section 5.2. She stated that it should be the filter for all decisions. She said that entails an additional process for the CRTC and increased capacity for organizations. She said the work must be made easier for them, for example, through updates on the website. She added that financial support was needed to ensure that group members could afford to participate.

Rachelle Frenette replied that work had been done to update the website.

Yael Wexler, CRTC Legal Counsel, explained that the website had been updated to address the concerns raised at the last meeting and to post minutes. She explained that the work is constantly evolving. She invited group members to consult the OLMC web page and provide their comments.  

Clotilde Heibing of ANIM explained that while the same measures had been referred to several times, there was a need for knowledge sharing. She said they were repeating the same things and that was not optimal. She stated that ideas were on the table and there was a need for action rather than reflection. She said that instead of opening up the wider conversation, she felt it necessary to focus resources on a few officers specialized in specific matters that the group would define. She gave the example of what was already being done between the FCCF and the FCFA since it is impossible to handle all the files on its own. She explained that in large groups, some have more specific skills.

5. Preliminary discussion

Rachelle Frenette presented Item 5 and explained that there were various possible funding mechanisms for participation in public processes, but also outside formal processes. She said the group must operate within the parameters of the CRTC’s statutory mandate. She explained that while the CRTC was not closed to the idea of funding studies pursuant to section 41 of the OLA, the nature of that funding would have to be determined.

Serge Quinty thought that the problem everyone had raised in 2023-138 is that compared to large companies which have legal expertise and data and reports when they appear before the CRTC, community organizations operate with few resources and little access to data. Audience ratings, for example, are measured in majority settings but not in minority settings because there is no commercial interest in doing so. It is therefore a case of market failure, which must be compensated for by considering the French-speaking markets in minority environments in another way, which allows the collection of data.

Carol Ann Pilon suggested that the CRTC produce more easily accessible reports, specifically the data reports that businesses must provide to the CRTC. She found it complicated to retrieve data obtained by the CRTC. She said if there were a way, the CRTC, in consultation with group members, should make it easier to access that data annually, this will be appreciated.

She said that the group members needed more details in reports to monitor compliance with conditions of service and with OLMC expectations. She acknowledged that although that would require internal CRTC resources, it would be a positive step that the CRTC could take to do its job properly.

Rachelle Frenette replied that these ideas were interesting. She said it might be possible to consolidate all the data in a document better designed to provide a comprehensive overview. She said it was noted.

Simon Forgues asked if it was possible to use the Open Data Portal  to identify anything about OLMCs in the data.

Kirwan Cox reminded participants that Part VII of the OLA touches on these issues too. He mentioned that subsections 41(8) and 41(9) cover research, analysis and consultation. He stressed that the OLA applies to the CRTC. He explained that he had had to sift through a great deal of data before discovering that the CBC does not name producers in its reports. He added that certified independent production funds do not provide public data. He asked how much money would be available for OLMC research in the current fiscal year, and how these amounts could be accessed.

Scott Shortliffe replied that the CRTC had not finalized its 2024-25 budget. He explained that, at the time, the question centred on what type of research should be funded. He said he could not provide an answer as to the amount.

Rachelle Frenette explained that all funded research must support the Commission’s decision-making on OLMC issues. She said certain gaps had been identified and staff were currently studying what types of research could be conducted, how to work with group members and what form such funding could take. She admitted that the CRTC had work to do to improve its data and, subsequently, to identify knowledge gaps. She committed to discovering missing data and exploring ways of making data more accessible.

Carol Ann Pilon said the data was already available but difficult to access.

Kirwan Cox said he would like to discuss the research funding issue beyond discussion group meetings. He would like weekly meetings with CRTC staff. He said it was not just a matter of the CRTC providing more data, but of BA and OLA obligations that the CRTC is required to meet.

Rachelle Frenette replied that they could continue that discussion offline and that she would see what could be done.

6. Group member introductions

Serge Quinty reverted to the follow-ups on refocusing the group’s mandate, and asked if a smaller group could be formed to hold discussions on a more regular basis.

Scott Shortliffe said he was open to it. He explained, however, that it was up to group members to decide if they wanted to do that and to choose the subgroup members.

Marie-Christine Morin said the smaller group could make recommendations to the larger group. She said FCCF was volunteering for the downsized group.

Serge Quinty said the FCFA was volunteering for it as well, and they would be able to put together a smaller group. He stated that this would work best with an ongoing dialogue.

Rachelle Frenette replied that she was open to the idea, but explained that she was hesitant in light of the wider process.

Carolyn Savoie asked about research funding and how it could be accessed by organizations so that, for example, a report on Franco-Ontarian media could be updated. She asked what tools were available to obtain more accurate data on needs.

Rachelle Frenette said yes, but with one caveat, stating that it was the first time the CRTC was considering such a measure. She said the CRTC does not have a budget available in the same way as a department, but added that the new BA and OLA might make it conceivable to have a budget for it. The mechanism remains to be determined. She committed to looking more closely at the parameters of such funding before the next meeting.

Kenneth Hirsh said he expected QEPC to be represented in the downsized group.

Carol Ann Pilon said there used to be a data subgroup with a very specific mandate. She stated that the subcommittee should not become too large or unwieldy, which would create more challenges. She explained that the subcommittee would need to have a limited mandate and term, and report to the larger group on an ongoing basis.

Marie-Christine Morin volunteered to draft the subgroup’s mandate, which would align with the statement and proposal filed in October. She said it remained to be seen how the CRTC would want to proceed.

Rachelle Frenette said a subcommittee could be set up that very day to deal with the statement and proposal filed in October, if the committee so wished. In essence, she committed to serving on the subcommittee.

Marie-Christine Morin said she would send the document directly to Rachelle, who could then handle its distribution.

Carol Ann Pilon spoke about the distribution list used in the Commission letter regarding the process to following the CFED application and said many people had left. She suggested the list be updated.

Frédéric Janelle said he corrects the list when errors are brought to his attention, but groups should also let them know when people leave and who replaces them. Members could also identify errors in the current list.

Serge Quinty said that for FCFA members, he would work with Frédéric Janelle to update the list.

Manon Henrie-Cadieux said there should be a summary of where the discussions stood. She said there was a need to make all relevant data available for consultation. She also suggested possible research topics, such as research into international best practices for protecting minorities, and the issue of Canadian and Francophone content discoverability. She wished to express the need to participate in defining the research mandate that concerns their communities.

Rachelle Frenette thanked meeting participants for their participation. She said she hoped to keep growing as a Champion and looked forward to continuing the discussion. She adjourned the meeting.

Date modified:

2024-07-17