Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 91 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

While public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy no longer require mask wearing indoors on the precinct, masks and respirators are still excellent tools to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases and their use is strongly encouraged.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback can occur and this can be extremely harmful to the interpreters. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone and we therefore ask all participants to exercise a great degree of caution when handling their earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on, in order to prevent incidents that can cause a very loud sounds in the ears of the interpreters.

Now we're going to resume debate on the motion of Martin Champoux.

Go ahead, Rachael.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I actually would like to move a motion and I believe according to the Standing Orders business can be used as we wish and there is actually no standing order that requires us to return to the debate of old, so at this time I would actually like to move a motion to be discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

At the moment we have a motion on the floor that's being discussed. That's Martin's motion, and I have a speaking list from last week that still has to go forward, so if you want to put your motion forward, then we will move back to Martin's. We'll just take yours for advisement, and then move on to Martin's.

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The motion that I wish to move and discuss.... I certainly recognize that we want to discuss Mr. Champoux's motion, and I'm not looking to block that in any way. I very much support his motion. I believe it's a common-sense one, and it's one that needs all our support, so my hope is that it can be passed very quickly today.

With that said, the motion that I would like to move today is:

That the committee immediately undertake 4 hearings on the government’s decision to force social media services and podcasts to register with the government’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), and that the committee hears from: the Minister of Canadian Heritage for 2 hours, the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the CRTC, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage and impacted stakeholders, including podcast hosts and other witnesses deemed relevant by the committee, and that the committee report to the House.

Madam Chair, the reason why this is so important is that, on Friday, there was this sneaky announcement made by the CRTC, the regulatory arm of the government, that podcasts would now be captured by Bill C-11. They would be required to register with the government, and then being registered with the government, they would, of course, have their content censored. It would be assessed based on a list of criteria determined by the government. If it meets that criteria, it will be allowed to stand. If it doesn't, of course, we expect the government to probably take it down.

This is a form of censorship. What's interesting to me is that in May, the CRTC said that it was not going to go after podcasts. It said that was a myth. Here we are only five months later, and we find out that actually, yes, the CRTC has every intention to regulate podcasts. That's a huge problem. It's a problem for Canadians who enjoy listening to podcasts and those who want choice in that realm.

The motion I'm moving today would be that we listen to those individuals, who are either creators who have podcasts or those Canadians who are consumers who enjoy listening to those podcasts, and that we take the time to hear those important voices.

The reason why this is so important is that, at the end of the day, Canadians deserve freedom to access the information that they wish to access and to be able to put out the information that they desire to put out. The Internet is the new public square. It's where the exchange of ideas takes place, so we want to make sure that sphere remains open and free, and encouraging of dialogue and even robust debate.

In order to make sure that is in fact the case, I think we need to hear from a wide swath of witnesses. I would ask that this committee undertake a study that is four meetings long and that we hear from those witnesses across Canada.

I recognize that one of the arguments I suppose one of my colleagues from across the way will likely bring up is that, no, they're not regulating individual podcasters; they're regulating the platforms. That might be true, although the wording the CRTC is using is quite convoluted. However, if you regulate the platforms, it's a distinction without a difference, because it's users and podcasters who ultimately put their material on those platforms, so if the platform is regulated, the platform is going to be forced to regulate the podcaster because they're going to have to abide by those regulations.

Again, I would say that the CRTC went back on its word. Therefore, the government went back on its word and is actually going after podcasters—those individuals who are bringing forward creative content for the sake of Canadians to be entertained, informed or other.

I think if the CRTC is going to go in this direction, the least we can do as a committee is to take the time to hear from individuals on how this is going to impact them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Rachael.

Just to be clear to everyone, we have a motion on the floor that's being debated from the last meeting. There's still a list of people to speak to that. When we finish with that motion and then we will go to Rachael's. I have a list of two people already who wish to speak to that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

If you confer with the clerk, I believe she will confirm that we can only discuss one motion at a time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We already have one on the table. I allowed you leeway to put yours forward as notice coming in today.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, my motion was actually already tabled. What I just did was move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I know you did, but we already have a motion on the floor that's not finished.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would ask for you to confer with the clerk as to what the Standing Orders are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I did, and we have a motion on the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, but what you're doing is against the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay. I think that, for me, this is how meetings work.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If we have a motion the floor that's not finished, we cannot move it off the floor.

Go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Just on a point of order, Madam Chair, I think your interpretation is absolutely correct. We had already started debate on the previous motion.

Mrs. Thomas is very experienced. She actually knows that what she's doing counters the rules that govern committees, but of course if she disagrees with your decision, she can challenge the chair and let the committee decide. I will certainly be voting to sustain the chair's ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I have Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I would ask to hear from the clerk directly. My understanding of the Standing Orders—and I refreshed my memory of them last night—is that only one motion can be discussed at a time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's already being discussed.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

No, Madam Chair, it's not, because the motion has to be moved at the business meeting and it has not. It was moved at the last business meeting.

In this one, you gave me the floor first, and I have moved a new motion to be discussed today. Once that motion is fully discussed, we can return to that other member, should he wish to bring it back for discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you're challenging me, let's go ahead and call that vote.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm asking to hear directly from the clerk in terms of the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The clerk and I conferred on this. It is up to me to make this decision and I'm making it. We have a motion on the floor and we're going to continue debate on that motion. I allowed you the courtesy of speaking to your motion so that we can deal with it later on.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would be very careful with the precedents you set. Whatever you set today will be going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You're challenging the chair. Let's call a vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

We will continue with Mr. Champoux's motion.

My list of people starts with Peter Julian.

For those of you who do not recall, you have the motion in front of you.

Your name is down there, Marilyn, yes.

Go ahead, Peter.