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 55
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you.
I'd like a little feedback on what happened in September 2017. The Minister of Canadian Heritage made an agreement with Netflix to create Netflix Canada. Netflix Canada announced that it was going to put $500 million over five years in Canadian content—into production here to support Canadian creators, producers and Canadian expression on a global platform. They're investing $500 million because of this opportunity, but then they immediately raised the cost of that service to every Canadian who had it, to the point where this $500 million became our expense, truly, rather than theirs. Given the context, I find that quite frustrating. The appearance is that they are doing something to work together with the government on producing Canadian content, but then what I said happens.
Is that a danger, quite honestly, in this kind of scenario where Canadians end up paying for it regardless?
Daniel Bernhard
View Daniel Bernhard Profile
Daniel Bernhard
2019-05-30 17:13
No one's seen that deal because it's a cabinet secret under the Investment Canada Act, so I can only speak to the press announcements that you talk about. Canadian broadcasters that are licensed by the CRTC have something called a Canadian programming expenditure requirement. It's typically set at about 30%. Netflix makes about a billion dollars in Canada. Their Canadian programming expenditure requirement is zero, so the government tried to say that they were bringing them into the regime. In fact, what we've learned is that this is $500 million over five years. It's not $500 million new dollars.
They invest in Canada already, so we may have actually done this deal for zero new dollars. This is money that should go back into the production ecosystem. Potentially, there are opportunities to do things like telling Netflix that they have to spend money here to produce shows and that those have to run for the first two weeks on the CBC.
There are ways for us to finance public broadcasting creatively and to work with these platforms without costing the government money.
View François Choquette Profile
NDP (QC)
I am happy to learn that it concerned you and that are still worried.
I know that the FCFA and the QCGN sent you a joint letter on the matter. It was after that letter that you sent a letter to all your colleagues pointing out the importance of continuing to comply with the same rules of Part VII and reminding them that they still apply.
The Commissioner of Official Languages also changes his way of seeing things. I do not know whether we can still talk about the Netflix agreement—it happened when you were Minister of Canadian Heritage—but it also involves official languages and Part VII of the act. I am one of those complaining about that confidential agreement between the government and Netflix, and I received an answer. Seeing that answer, and in the light of the new interpretation of Part VII, it can be said that “positive measures” no longer means anything.
What would be a good definition of “positive measures” for you?
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
First of all, I had the opportunity to speak to the Commissioner of Official Languages last week and to encourage him to give his mandate a broad and liberal interpretation. With a proactive commissioner, while we respect his independence—which is fundamental—we can be assured of having language rights not only protected but also promoted.
As for the Netflix agreement, I must tell you that we are very proud that we were able to secure needed investments and resources in both our official languages.
As for the way in which we interpret the federal government's overall role in official languages—you ask quite a broad question—it goes without saying that it is a priority for our government. We recognize that the Official Languages Act is a quasi-constitutional act. We recognize that our Constitution protects language rights. By reviving the court challenges program, we can support minority communities that wish to defend their language rights.
Paul Novotny
View Paul Novotny Profile
Paul Novotny
2018-10-22 15:49
My story is that I recently wrote music for a film called Mishka, made by Canadian filmmaker Cleo Tellier. It has achieved 22.5 million YouTube views since April 22, 2018. The film is generating approximately $3,000 a month in YouTube advertising revenue. There is no connection, though, in the 21st century, of that advertising revenue to a public performance or a reproduction copyright.
At this point, Ari and I are both sitting here wondering what has happened to our public performance and reproduction royalties. The simple truth is that they've become insignificant, because the money has moved to subscription. We think that copyright policy must be augmented in order to gather adequate money from subscriptions to sustain our sector in the 21st century.
What has happened is a value gap has been created. We want the members of the committee and all Canadian citizens to understand exactly what this value gap looks like. I'm going to tell you right now.
In 2018, Netflix reported $290 million in net income for the first quarter, more profit in three months than the streaming giant had for the entire year of 2016. If the company meets its second quarter forecast of $358 million in profit, it will earn more in the first half of 2018 than in all of 2017 when it reported an annual profit of $585.9 million.
During the same time period, Ari Posner has experienced a 95% decline in public performance and reproduction copyright remuneration from the fourth most self-served, binge-watched Netflix TV series in 191 countries.
Ari, it seems like you and your family are subsidizing Netflix. What's going on in your household?
Robert Malcolmson
View Robert Malcolmson Profile
Robert Malcolmson
2018-09-26 16:21
There are many ways to do that. They could, for example, be required to contribute a percentage of their Canadian revenue to Canadian production. If you think about Netflix, I think they have close to seven million subscribers in Canada. They don't pay sales tax in Canada. They don't have employees in Canada, but they're taking a lot of revenue out of Canada.
Ari Posner
View Ari Posner Profile
Ari Posner
2018-09-25 11:16
As I've said, Anne with an E is a very good example of what people in my business are facing right now, because it's not working. That model is not working as it should. Copyright is broken in that way. I can give you very specific numbers about that. Netflix reported Anne with an E to be the fourth most binge-watched show on their network in 2017. That's a pretty large statistic. That means millions and millions of people from all over the world are watching and enjoying the show, and they're watching it fast. They're binge-watching it. That means they're downloading, downloading, downloading and watching it.
Yes, it's playing on CBC, and I do see some broadcast royalties from CBC, but that's the only place that it's playing terrestrially. Everywhere else in the world, it's on Netflix.
I can tell you that I've seen a staggering drop in the remuneration for that property; I would say it's close to 95%. If it were playing terrestrially in all those places, it would be a massive, massive difference. SOCAN, which is the advocate for someone like me, really has no way to get behind those closed doors of Netflix. Netflix will not give them the data they need in order for them to properly tabulate the views and turn them into a proper remuneration model.
Paul also has some experience with YouTube that he's going to talk about.
View Maxime Bernier Profile
PPC (QC)
So there is a direct effect owing to the competition from Netflix and similar companies. What impact has the arrival of these big players had on your industry?
Jean-François Cormier
View Jean-François Cormier Profile
Jean-François Cormier
2018-06-12 16:39
I have to admit that it is quite recent.
We are facing unfair competition in a sense from Netflix, iTunes, Google Play and all those companies. Technically, the films we can rent on Netflix are for personal use. There are, however, many situations in which these films are shown publicly, such as at bars, schools or restaurants. Someone who has a Netflix account can use it to show a film publicly for commercial purposes. Some bars and restaurants do that to attract customers. So that is direct infringement in respect of various parties in the industry, including cable companies, documentary producers, and us, among others.
There are no rules that apply to the Netflixes of the world in terms of public rights. A disclaimer appears in fine print on page eight of the site, but no one reads it. Overall, there is a lot of abuse.
In a number of cities, films have been shown publicly as a recreational activity by using the personal Netflix account of a municipal employee. This is unacceptable. In many cases, however, the people do not know that they do not have the right to do that. Netflix does not necessarily inform them of the rules, or does so in a roundabout way and very briefly.
View Terry Sheehan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Just for copyright—good.
Thank you very much. That leads me to my next question. I'm trying to figure out how Netflix, versus, say, a traditional movie process, compensates the artist. Is it similar? Is it different? I noted that Netflix is up to about $8 billion in projected spending in future years. It was around $6 billion last year, or the year before, so obviously it's expanding. Could you explain if there is a difference in how the compensation would work?
Tim Southam
View Tim Southam Profile
Tim Southam
2018-06-07 16:31
Netflix engages in three kinds of business, or two, really. One is as a rebroadcaster of existing works. It will do deals with whoever the rights holders are for existing movies and series.
In terms of original work, which is, as you say, the $8 billion a year that it's planning to spend worldwide, that's almost the same.... I would say that's exactly the same contracting process as any form of contracting that happens now in the linear universe, which is to say that they either hire a producer who then engages people like me and everyone else—writers, etc.—to provide their services, or they act as a studio and remain a full owner of the show and produce it themselves.
Of course, there's a raging debate internally in all of those organizations as to whether they want to be studios or merely broadcasters, which is an interesting term to use for an SVOD service. They are acting exactly as broadcasters in terms of contracting and getting the work produced.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
NDP (QC)
I prefer not to comment on that.
My question is very brief. I’d like the minister to comment on whether he thinks a monthly subscription to Netflix is a product or a service.
View Bill Morneau Profile
Lib. (ON)
As we know, there are always changes in the economy. Companies like Netflix are changing the way they deliver services. This is also the case for other digital giants. That’s why we look at the sector as a whole.
View Bill Morneau Profile
Lib. (ON)
Of course, we have to look at each company. This project aims to ensure that our system works over the long term. We have to determine how it will be managed in the future. That’s why we are working with our international counterparts in the OECD.
I’m hopeful that we will find a method that works to collect taxes from major digital companies.
Results: 1 - 15 of 55 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data