Meeting of the CRTC-OLMC discussion group to discuss Broadcast Information Bulletin 2026-26

February 18, 2026

List of participants

Agenda – Meeting of the OLMC-CRTC Discussion Group

Virtual meeting with interpretation service provided by JR Languages

February 18, 2026, 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time)

1. Welcome: Kay Saicheua, Director, Strategic Planning and International Affairs (5 minutes)
2. Presentation: Guidelines for consultation and engagement with official language minority communities and the French-speaking majority in Quebec in broadcasting proceedings (Dalia Boulos, Manager and Peggy Nebout, Senior Analyst) (30 minutes)
3. Open question period: (50 minutes)

1. Welcome

• A word of welcome reminding us that the guidelines are a floor and not a ceiling for defining the CRTC’s actions in its interactions with OLMCs.
• The guidelines reflect a clear commitment, while leaving room for adaptation and innovation in the way we work together. It is an interactive process that will evolve over time.
• It is also a process offered only to OLMCs, to reflect their unique contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system.
• Introduction of CRTC members attending the meeting.

2. Presentation on the guidelines

Presentation by Dalia Boulos and Peggy Nebout, CRTC

• What is a dedicated consultation for OLMCs
• Which processes are involved
• Support and commitment to OLMCs
• Other process changes
• Future of the CRTC-OLMC Discussion Group

3. Open Question Period

Contributions from ARCC, FCCF, ANIM, FCFA, ACFA, QEPC, TFO

Comments:

• ARCC: Question on how OLMCs can intervene to alert the CRTC to the existence of prejudicial cases. Staff confirmed that, as a general rule, the dedicated consultation will be published as soon as a case begins to be processed. But they added that, in some cases, the dedicated consultation will be decided upon as part of the processing procedure: a) following interventions made during the initial intervention period highlighting the harm to OLMCs; b) following a procedural request.
• FCCF: Question on the use of the term AND instead of OR in the guidelines concerning the development and vitality of OLMCs in the definition of “adversely affect.” Staff clarified that, in the context of the guidelines, the use of the term “and” may be intended to offer some flexibility of application.
• FCCF: Request to amend paragraphs 59 and 69 of Information Bulletin CRTC 2026-26, which read MAY instead of MUST, recalling that the CRTC has legal obligations to fulfill, not options available to it, and that dilution of the obligation may create a precedent that may be detrimental to OLMCs. Staff will pay close attention to this remark and adjust as necessary.
• ANIM: Request for a review of the FCCF’s fall 2023 proposal to the Discussion Group concerning a Steering Committee. The FCFA summarized that a statement had been presented to the Discussion Group requesting that it be transformed into a Steering Committee. There was also some discussion about the possibility of having meetings at two levels: provincial/territorial generalists and specialists, since there are provincial/territorial generalist organizations and specialist organizations taking part, with different interests, with the result that generalists often feel excluded from the conversations. Staff agreed to explore this avenue of sub-groups. Bilateral meetings have been stepped up to enable more in-depth discussions on specific issues with certain Discussion Group members.
• ANIM: Request for clearer identification of issues or themes raised in staff communications to OLMCs. Staff will adjust their communications in response to this proposal.
• FCFA: Question on how guidelines can be amended. Staff explained that the guidelines will be amended over time, based in part on feedback received by OLMCs.
• AFCA: Question as to whether the CRTC is making decisions using evidence not available to the public, and if not, how did it come to the conclusion that there could be no consultation with OLMCs on decisions not yet finalized, since the stakeholders did not object to this in the interventions? Staff responded that the only situation in which the Commission can use non-public evidence is when certain information is confidential; otherwise everything is included in the public record. The Commission’s thinking, as explained in the information bulletin, is based on the need to preserve the integrity of the Commission’s decision-making process as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal.
• AFCA: Observation that the industry, unlike OLMCs, has access to sub-groups (e.g. Emergency Services Working Group [ESWG], which is part of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee [CISC]). This creates procedural unfairness, while the CRTC’s rationale for not transforming the Discussion Group into a Steering Committee is based on a need for procedural fairness. The ESWG 911 call process did not work for OLMCs. Staff reiterated that the refusal to adopt a Steering Committee is based on the CRTC’s role as a quasi-judicial tribunal and its need to retain decision-making autonomy. It also noted that the CISC has an operational and more specific telecoms mandate, while the ESWG is a working group that offers only technical solutions and does not make political decisions. Staff took note of this issue and undertook to follow up as necessary. 
• QEPC: Mention of the fact that questions had been sent in by this organization in advance of the meeting, and a future meeting to answer them was requested. Staff would be organizing this meeting in the coming days.
• FCCF: Question as to what other similar situations exist where the CRTC has adopted measures through the publication of an “information bulletin” rather than through a “decision” and the use of guidelines. Staff reported that the use of information bulletins is very common, such as in the case of accessibility guidelines. Staff reiterated that the applicable obligations are statutory in nature—notably those set out in section 5.2 of the Broadcasting Act—and that the guidelines are intended to complement these obligations by informing and guiding the parties. It also pointed out that the Commission remains subject to the obligations set out in the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act.
• TFO: Note that for several years now, Numeris has been entering OLMC data incorrectly, resulting in missing evidence. Although the Commission has no control over Numeris’ method of data entry, staff will make inquiries and investigate the situation.

Date modified:

2026-03-27