Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 773
Karna Gupta
View Karna Gupta Profile
Karna Gupta
2015-06-16 11:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and honourable members. Thank you very much for having ITAC at this session.
Just to introduce ourselves, ITAC represents the technology sector of the country. With over 300 companies, we produce about $160 billion in revenue and one million jobs. Most importantly, we spend about $5 billion on R and D, so the disruptive technology discussion is very apropos.
There are several disruptive technologies that are unfolding at the same time. They range from robotics to the cloud to genomics to 3-D printing to renewable energy. However, we need to address them not only as discrete technologies but also look at how these innovations collide and create a new world, because they are and they will be always connected and intelligent.
A McKinsey report recently talked about several disruptive technologies. Today, I will speak about one that falls in the top three, and it is often referred to as the Internet of things, or IoT. The Internet of things, or IoT, is the online interaction between different technologies. All of the disruptive technologies you have heard about and you will be hearing about over the next little while through this committee will essentially dovetail into IoT as they all become interconnected and in some part reside online.
As ITAC, we look at technology through the filter of public policy. We understand the benefits of innovation but also its implications. For our members this is a major issue in the technology sector: how to deal with the policy and the new business models that will emerge. Today I will comment on what it means, why it is important, and what the impacts are.
ITAC wants this committee and the government to recognize IoT and develop a national discourse, ignite a must-have dialogue amongst academia and private sector and public sector experts, and start a discussion to begin developing a policy framework to proactively deal with it.
IoT creates the ultimate connected world where intelligence is shared between machines, applications, and services, and therefore creates data models that will significantly improve the way we make decisions. In fact, sometimes the decision may not even require human intervention. Simply put, technologies will connect, work together, and communicate online. It provides us with capability rather than technology. The solution comprises technology and telecom hardware, software, services, sensors, applications, security, radio frequency, etc. Most of it will be cloud-based and mobile-enabled.
Just to give you two examples, recently a company in Alberta, called GrowSafe, used RFID tags for their livestock. What that means is that it allows them to measure many factors related to wellness of the farm animals. This gives farmers the visibility on health and development to proactively deal with the animals, and this makes our food supply safer. This is an example of the Internet of things, a capability that resulted from multiple things communicating one with the other through technology and the Internet without human intervention.
I'll give you a second example. Dr. Carolyn McGregor, Canada research chair in health informatics at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, leads a project that significantly improves the survival of premature babies. The combination of cloud computing, wireless technology, and data analytics has provided their team with the ability to detect infections in preemies earlier than before, and this has saved a lot of lives. Again, it's an example of the Internet of things, whereby a multitude of hardware, software, services, and centres that come together without human interaction will truly usher in a new world we have not seen before.
Unfortunately, not all great things are devoid of consequences. There are several things we need to address. Privacy is one of the greatest concerns. Canada has been at the forefront of global leadership on safeguarding privacy and with the evolution of our digital age this could be compromised. Safety and security is a problem. While these new technologies have benefits, IoT will dramatically increase the attack surface available to bad actors. With the capacity issues, bandwidth and network capacities in rural areas, regardless of infrastructure investments made, will become a scarce resource and their governance even more complex.
Economic and commercial and public policy issues are very far-reaching. There are intellectual property and trade issues. Who owns the data that's being generated? Standards and legal frameworks issues: what regulations can be put in place for competing technologies to work together and what kind of governance is required to be ethical? There are workforce implications. A recent study done in the U.S. demonstrates that robotics may replace up to 40% of their workforce. The policy implications are very serious and we need to address them.
As the Information Technology Association of Canada, we strongly recommend that the standing committee continue this discussion into new sessions and beyond. IoT will be a truly disruptive force, moving faster than you can see it happening.
For our part, ITAC is starting to create a white paper with several top leaders and as soon as it's ready, we'll have it translated and sent to all of you. We have established an IoT round table of leading industry experts who have pledged to contribute and provide perspective, insight, and knowledge on this important factor.
We ask the standing committee and the government that a national discourse be created with a proper secretariat and facilities so we can do a deep dive, have further investigation done, and have the policy framework that prepares for the IoT that is coming. Much like the information highway in the 1990s, it needs that level of attention from the government of the day.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2015-06-11 9:27
Thanks. I completely missed that one. When you have recommendations, it's good that those of us who are here on committee understand what they are.
Ms. Barocas, I thought it was interesting that you led into some recommendations as well about the role of the federal government. You talked about facilitating more private sector engagement, a little bit like what Mr. Puddister said, but then you talked about the role of regulating. Can you expand on that? I wasn't quite sure what you meant by that.
Tovah Barocas
View Tovah Barocas Profile
Tovah Barocas
2015-06-11 9:27
What I meant was just that the government's role is as a regulator and that corporations or the private sector would be more encouraged to partner with ENGOs, as the previous speaker said, if there were more communication and more promotion of the importance of those partnerships by the regulating bodies. They would see the benefits of partnering more.
Noah Zon
View Noah Zon Profile
Noah Zon
2015-06-09 11:53
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Noah Zon. I'm a public policy researcher at the Mowat Centre, which is an independent public policy think tank based at the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance. One of the issues we work on at the Mowat Centre is looking at how technology creates new public policy challenges as it transforms our economy and our society.
You've heard over the course of this study from some very knowledgeable experts about the development of technology in Canada and about some of the programs we have that support research and development and the growth of technology businesses. My remarks today will focus instead on the role of the broader public policy environment and how we can craft a policy framework that responds to disruptive innovation in a way that makes Canada competitive, allows Canadians to benefit from these innovations, and protects our core public policy priorities.
In doing so, I'd like to focus briefly on three main areas today: how to craft more flexible public policy frameworks; modernizing the social safety net to adapt to technology-driven disruption; and the particular role that the federal government and Industry Canada can play.
Beginning with the need for more flexible and responsive approaches to policy and regulation in response to disruptive innovation, I would just note from a public policy perspective that when we're talking about disruption, it's not the technology per se we're thinking about that brings about a significant change. We're thinking about the way that technology is adopted and applied.
The nature of these disruptive innovations often makes traditional command-and-control approaches to regulation either obsolete or, in some cases, entirely unworkable. We're seeing that this is evident in the way that Uber and other transportation network companies are reshaping the ride-for-hire business. In this case, consumers are voting with their feet and their wallets to choose a system of consumer protection that relies both on technology and on their peers.
Other disruptive innovations also push traditionally regulated activity to a much wider scale that makes command-and-control approaches difficult. Additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, could make any home a factory of sorts, and changes the way that we look at product safety inspections or even what a workplace looks like. The use of drones for widespread commercial use for delivery or other purposes, both in agriculture and in urban areas, will mean that we will need a different approach to our airspace.
If these new technologies are a bad fit with existing command-and-control approaches to regulation, then how do we think about moving forward? To begin with, our legislatures and our policy-makers can establish a clear set of principles for what we want to achieve, principles that might mention a level playing field for competition, promoting innovation, and managing risks to public safety, for example.
Based on these principles, governments can also look to institute risk-based enforcement and regulations based on performance rather than “one size fits all”. Governments also can design policies to be more flexible, recognizing that it is very difficult to anticipate how technology might change our worlds. One way to do this is to look at instituting either sunset reviews or regular updates for our policy frameworks to make sure that we're not locked into the status quo and falling too far behind the pace of technological change.
Looking at the broader social safety net, if we want to look at the policy implications of disruptive technology, we need to look at the economy more generally, especially the changing nature of work. Most of the core components of our social safety net were designed in the 1960s and in many cases have not evolved to keep pace with our changing worlds. We have fewer people with full-time jobs accompanied by comprehensive benefits, and our policies and programs have left important gaps.
Some of the disruptive innovations that the committee has heard about over the course of this study have the potential to accelerate those trends and bring about other radical changes in our labour market. Though it's too early to measure those effects, the on-demand nature of the sharing economy, for example, counts on people moving from full-time employment to what you might call “flexible entrepreneurship” or “precarious work”. If this is the case, we might need to find other responses to our retirement income security, health and dental insurance, and employment insurance types of needs. Other innovations, such as robotics, autonomous vehicles, or energy innovations, might bring similar or wider-scale changes to our economy.
For us to really prosper as these disruptive innovations take hold, we just need to make sure that we have both a short-term view of the transition assistance that might be needed in industries that have significant dislocation, and a broader look at our social architecture to make sure it's serving people's needs in today's economy.
With this in mind, what are some of the more constructive roles that could be played by Industry Canada and by the federal government more broadly?
One important role is as a convenor and a disseminator of information. While many policy responses to disruptive innovation will need to take place at the provincial and the local level as well, even in those areas the federal government can lead by putting forward principles and helping to convene a pan-Canadian strategy. You would do well to look at the work done by the U.K. government on responses to the sharing economy in this regard.
Industry Canada could put forward a strategic operating framework that sets out what we're hoping to achieve with our policies and that provides a strong understanding for policy-makers across the country of the risks and opportunities. The Competition Bureau in particular can set a proactive tone that welcomes innovation so long as it benefits consumers and is consistent with our broader public policy objectives.
If I could leave the committee with one parting idea, it would be that if we want Canada to be a more competitive and innovative place, then we do need to think as well about our broader public policy environment as an essential component of Canada's competitiveness. In particular, bringing in flexible, transparent regulatory approaches and building a strong and modern social architecture are two important components of the operating environment for innovators in Canada that we can't afford to overlook.
Thank you very much.
John Knubley
View John Knubley Profile
John Knubley
2015-05-28 11:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just by way of introduction, I thought I would take a little time to go through our mandate, our three strategic outcomes, and a few words on the Industry portfolio and the main issues at hand.
Overall, Industry Canada helps create a strong business environment that promotes competition and instills investor and consumer confidence.
We do this by working with Canadians in all areas of the economy and in all parts of the country to create a fair and efficient marketplace, to encourage innovation, and to provide support to business.
The department basically has three business lines.
First is marketplace frameworks or the regulatory frame, if you like. The industry department is responsible for about 25 acts of Parliament that set these rules, including the Telecommunications Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Copyright Act, the Trade-marks Act, the Competition Act, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Key objectives of these marketplace rules include providing businesses certainty through predictability and stability of the rules, achieving fairness of outcomes, incentivizing innovation, providing confidence in the marketplace, and aligning with international approaches and practices while recognizing unique Canadian interests. We try to promote well-functioning marketplace frameworks that generate positive outcomes for Canadians overall to create an innovative, entrepreneurial, and dynamic economy.
The second line of business is science, technology, and innovation. In the area of science and innovation we've seen a shift in governments focus and support. The Jenkins panel of 2011, and its review, took a hard look at overall levels of R and D spending, at the breakdown in federal innovation funding between direct and indirect investments, and at how to get more bang for our buck in terms of the effectiveness and impact of our federal support.
We've moved forward to implement the recommendations of the Jenkins panel. Whether it's transforming the NRC into a more business-oriented research organization, or changing the balance in SR and ED expenditures from indirect to direct support, we have truly been in implementation mode, and we'd be happy to talk about that.
Industry Canada also recently launched two important initiatives that will help shape support in the knowledge-based economy.
The updated science, technology, and innovation strategy announced in December 2014 focuses on three key areas. The first is people, attracting and retaining highly qualified and skilled individuals. The second is knowledge, strengthening support for excellence across discovery-driven and applied activities. The third is innovation, helping to bring new ideas and knowledge from the laboratories to the marketplace.
The second initiative of note is the Canada first research excellence fund. This $1.5-billion investment will enable Canadian post-secondary institutions to excel globally in research areas that create long-term economic advantages for Canada.
The third line of business is support for business overall. This last business line focuses on the importance of boosting the global competitiveness of key Canadian sectors. Typically we focus on the manufacturing sector, and historically Industry Canada's direct support is mostly geared towards the aerospace and automotive sectors.
Following the 2012 aerospace review by David Emerson, Industry Canada has implemented the report and its many measures to support the aerospace sector including, for example, the technology demonstration program; stable funding of close to $1 billion for the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, otherwise known as SADI; and the launch of the Consortium for Aerospace Research and Innovation in Canada, otherwise known as CARIC.
In any case, support for the automotive sector, on the other hand, is largely sourced from the automotive innovation fund, a program that supports significant, new, strategic, large-scale research and development projects to build innovative, greener, and more fuel-efficient vehicles in Canada. Budget 2015 recognized the important role of supply chains in the auto sector in terms of the future sustainability and competitiveness of the sector with the announcement of the automotive supplier innovation program.
Industry Canada aIso provides intelligence, analysis, and advice on key sectors, as I said earlier, primarily in the manufacturing area but including pharmaceuticals; information, communication, and technology; and some resource-based areas like food processing, which in the manufacturing area creates so many jobs.
Tourism is also a major source of employment in Canada and we will continue to examine ways to increase the attractiveness of domestic tourism to Canadians.
Lastly, Industry Canada has an entire team dedicated to small business. Whether it's supporting business through the Canada small business financing program, providing information to entrepreneurs through the Canada Business Network, or supporting the implementation of the venture capital action plan, we as a department are helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete and grow.
Before concluding, while I don't have any of the heads of agencies with me here today that are part of the industry portfolio, this is a diverse group of 12 organizations and indeed other affiliated bodies such as Statistics Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, the Business Development Bank of Canada, the granting councils such as NSERC and SSHRC, and the Canadian Tourism Commission, to name a few of the elements from my portfolio and the department's portfolio.
The entire portfolio, including Industry Canada, has a budget of $6.1 billion and about 16,100 FTEs.
We work in partnership with members of the industry portfolio as a department to leverage resources and to use synergies in a number of areas to further the government's goal of building a knowledge-based economy.
Let me just conclude with a few short words on the main estimates themselves. Industry Canada will receive $1.2 billion in the 2015-16 main estimates, which represents an increase of about $93 million from last year, the majority of which are in the grants and contributions area. The lion's share of this increase is from new funding from budget 2014, and specifically the largest item is $80 million for the connecting Canadians program.
Regarding the main estimates for the industry portfolio, the organizations will receive a total of $3.7 billion in the 2015-16 main estimates, representing an increase of $170 million over last year. The single largest increase in this total is $146 million for Statistics Canada to deliver on the 2016 census of population and agriculture programs. There are aIso significant increases to support SSHRC, NSERC, as well as space programs at the Canadian Space Agency.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We look forward to questions.
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
Speaking as somebody who was a great fan of the movie Flashdance, what brings young people into it? Can you give me two or three things?
This is for Ms. Reddin or Ms. Fraser.
Peggy Reddin
View Peggy Reddin Profile
Peggy Reddin
2015-05-13 17:08
I think we are born with a desire to move, and for some people, as they get older, they have the opportunity to follow that path. Parents will come to me when their children are three, four, or five years old and say, “She's always moving around the house”, or “He's really enjoying everything that he's seeing on TV”. I think it's very innate.
You hope that you find a good school where they don't beat that out of them, to be perfectly honest, because dance schools are completely unregulated. One thing I would like to see the public become more educated about is what to look for in choosing a dance school. That's not really your purview, but certainly as a dance organization within the Canadian Dance Assembly, I think it's something we need to raise more public awareness about.
View Peter Goldring Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you very much. Thank you for appearing here today. I'm not going to be able to get all the questions in I'd really like to ask.
I'm going to touch on one area. The Financial Post put out a report card on charities, identifying that there are some 86,000 charities out there in Canada. That's absolutely astounding. Some $10 billion has been raised, but not all of them are good charities.
We know the good work you do. As the charities are competing for the same dollar, you might say, what type of organization other than the Financial Post...? Is there some type of regulating committee that sets some standards? There were even 54 charities that didn't spend any of the money at all that they raised.
Is there some type of standard that is understood by everybody by which charities can be rated, such as an ISO rating for charities, so that people expect their charities to qualify to a certain standard? What should it cost charities to raise contributions versus what they're actually giving out?
Who would like to respond?
Tim Southam
View Tim Southam Profile
Tim Southam
2015-05-11 15:31
Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my name is Tim Southam. I'm a working director, a filmmaker, and the president of the Directors Guild of Canada. With me is DGC's director of policy, David Forget.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in the course of your current review of the Canadian feature film industry. We are experiencing significant change in the audiovisual sector and commend the committee on its timely decision to review the state of Canadian feature film in particular.
Just as feature dramas and documentary have a special place in the hearts of audiences everywhere, for filmmakers feature film is a foundational art form. Even as other screen genres like Internet and series television become highly compelling media for directors, feature film remains the bedrock form many of us dream most of making.
There are several reasons for this. Some are purely mythological, the desire, for instance, to follow in the footsteps of Truffaut, Spielberg, Campion, Scorcese, Bigelow, Jutra or Cronenberg, but the key reason is that independent feature film is the form that utilizes most completely everything a filmmaker has to offer to the viewing public, as a visual artist, a dramatic artist, and as a storyteller. It's a form that uses the director’s skill set fully, from either writing or working with a writer, through directing actors and composing shots, to sound design and exhibition. It is therefore a form most likely to develop a singular voice and most susceptible of offering a unique viewing experience for audiences everywhere.
Feature film has often been Canada’s best foot forward on the national and international stage.
Unfortunately, despite feature film and documentary's pride of place in the media and in audiences' collective imagination, English Canadian films are becoming orphans in their own land.
Taxpayers who fund these films are denied the ability to access them. Diminished access translates directly into diminished choice for Canadian audiences. Something needs to be done.
Our focus today is on how we can strengthen existing regulatory mechanisms in support of the financing and exhibition of Canadian feature film, particularly as they apply to the dominant trend towards home and mobile viewing.
Much has changed since the last time the standing committee engaged in a study of the Canadian feature film industry in 2006. Most significantly, digital platforms offer more and more ways to access content. Audiences are more in control of the viewing experience and have more choice than ever before. As a result, there is greater pressure on the historical “orderly” marketplace, and as exciting as these new platforms and windowing strategies may be, they do not yet come accompanied by strong business and financing models.
We also note that several key things have not changed since 2006. It merits repeating that in its 2006 report the committee noted, in its words, an “absence of a broadcasting policy to support the promotion of Canadian feature films”. The report further recommended “that the Department of Canadian Heritage...develop a new policy for the exhibition of priority programming on Canadian television” and “that the Government of Canada direct the CRTC to develop a policy that supports the promotion as well as viewing of Canadian feature films, long-form documentaries, and dramas”.
The report got it right, and in 2015, television is still where most Canadians watch movies. The burning question is, where are the Canadian movies in this home-viewing universe?
The Directors Guild of Canada has three specific suggestions in order to more fully leverage home-viewing trends. All three would result in delivering significant resources to Canadian feature film and documentary without requiring the addition of any new public moneys to the system.
The first suggestion is on Canadian feature films and documentaries as programs of national interest, PNI. To ensure that resources for programs of national interest are allocated in line with the government's policy intent, the CRTC should require broadcasters to set aside a minimum 1% of their Canadian revenue specifically to support the creation of original Canadian feature films and documentaries. These revenues should be sourced from within the broadcasters' existing Canadian programming expenditures requirements, but over and above the existing 5% PNI requirement. The result would be increased and sustained support from broadcasters, addressing the chronic meagre licences currently being offered.
We also recommend that, as Canada’s national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation play a more significant role in the licensing and promotion of Canadian feature films and documentaries.
The second suggestion is on Canadian feature films and documentaries on video-on-demand and pay-per-view services. Building audiences begins with having access to the content. The CRTC requires pay-per-view and video-on-demand providers to license all new Canadian feature films that comply with relevant codes as “suitable” for each service. However, the commission has declined to provide clarity on how the word “suitable” should be defined. Greater clarity regarding the term “suitable” would result in increased access by Canadians to our cinema on pay-per-view and video-on-demand services.
The third suggestion is in regard to Canadian feature films and documentaries on over-the-top services. In recent years, Canadian broadcasters have had to compete with new over-the-top subscription video-on-demand, SVOD, services. There is no question that exempting over-the-top SVOD services from CRTC regulation has enabled these services to avoid the system-building requirements shared by other content providers, including any participation in the Canada Media Fund. As a result, over-the-top providers operate as free riders with regard to ensuring Canadian content and culture in the broadcasting sphere.
Enshrining this competitive advantage for a subset of providers makes little sense. As an initial step, the CRTC should again require reporting from over-the-top providers regarding: the level of Canadian programming, including the number of titles, hours, and share of total content; the level of expenditures on Canadian programming; Canadian programs for which rights were acquired in exclusivity; and Canadian subscriber levels.
The financing, production and distribution landscapes for feature film and documentary have been revolutionized by the advent of new viewing platforms and digital networks. Yet none of these developments alter the need for a critical mass of capital to generate first-rate content created by Canadians for Canada and the world.
As additional measures, the DGC believes we must strengthen existing tools such as tax credits, the Canada feature film fund, the National Film Board of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and reverse cuts made to these instruments and services.
In addition, it is important to follow the migration of audiences toward the small screen, and to more effectively secure the involvement of home services for the financing and dissemination of Canadian feature films, including the traditional television networks and new Internet services.
Mr. Chair, committee members, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
View Stéphane Dion Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
I am going to look at the briefs I have in front of me. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Southam.
You have a paragraph where you speak about the 2006 report of the committee. You quote different aspects. I would like to understand, are you saying that very little has been done regarding these points since 2006, or are you satisfied with what has been done and now you want to go to a new step?
View Stéphane Dion Profile
Lib. (QC)
Do you think the mandate has been fulfilled or not?
Dave Forget
View Dave Forget Profile
Dave Forget
2015-05-11 16:12
We don't. We don't think they've been successful.
View Stéphane Dion Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, you don't. Now I understand the paragraph; I wasn't sure.
I'm not very sure about the percentage. In the first paragraph, point one says, “a minimum 1% of their Canadian revenues specifically to support the creation....”
Is it 1% of 30%, or within the 1%, you take 30%?
Dave Forget
View Dave Forget Profile
Dave Forget
2015-05-11 16:13
Just to clarify, the obligation generally is 5%, which is a subset of the 30% overall obligation broadcasters have. The 5% is the subset which is directed to these programs. We're saying the 5% has not been effective. Even though feature film is included within the 5%, money is not being spent.
We're suggesting that the obligation be increased by at least 1%, still within the universe of 30%.
Results: 1 - 15 of 773 | Page: 1 of 52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data