Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 175
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
My last question has to do with tax fairness.
During the pandemic, since businesses were closed, people turned to Web giants like Amazon. Should the federal government expedite the requirement that these giants collect sales tax and pay the equivalent of a tax on their sales?
Jacques Létourneau
View Jacques Létourneau Profile
Jacques Létourneau
2021-04-15 17:46
This was in my presentation, but unfortunately I skipped this topic. You did read the brief that we filed not too long ago. We do believe that the government needs to implement a tax on the GAFAs of this world, i.e. Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and others, while waiting for the OECD's proposed tax measures to be implemented.
I think the Liberal Party of Canada made a commitment to implement such a tax in the last election. What is called the temporary GAFA tax should definitely be implemented in the 2021 budget. I think it is urgent. It must be done to respect Quebec and Canadian companies, which pay taxes in Canada and Quebec.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will continue with Mr. Winseck and Mr. Klass, from the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.
Tax evasion heavily favours major U.S. digital media such as Netflix, Disney, Facebook and other web giants, to the detriment of the prosperity of Quebec and Canadian media. This is a serious problem for the present and the future of Quebec's and Canada's media ecosystems. To address this, Australia adopted a code of conduct.
What measures do you think the federal government and the Government of Quebec should consider to ensure that Quebec's and Canada's media companies would decreasingly suffer from the negative effects of unfair competition from American big tech companies?
Dwayne Winseck
View Dwayne Winseck Profile
Dwayne Winseck
2021-04-15 12:58
There seem to be a couple of questions there.
Regarding the idea of the tax question, I think that's pretty low-hanging fruit, and we can standardize the HST and GST across the like services. I think we're waiting on a developments agreement at the OECD on a digital services tax that would harmonize that across the OECD countries. I think that's fine.
I think once we get into the other questions about how we regulate Netflix, for example, or Facebook and Google, is the Australian model a good one, for example? I think there is much of interest in that model: the recognition of these companies' dominant market power; the idea that Google controls vertically integrated...with its own online ad exchange and all the data around which that ad exchange works, and that we need to open up the kimono to allow regulators and others to access that data to see how the algorithm works. I think these are good things.
The idea, though, that somehow this just ends up with transferring buckets of cash from the so-called web giants to domestic players, I think, is a real Achilles heel here that we need to avoid. We need to deal with the market power, black box technologies, and it cannot just go to delivering buckets of cash from foreign players to domestic ones.
Vass Bednar
View Vass Bednar Profile
Vass Bednar
2021-04-15 13:00
My big observation for the competition environment with telecommunications is just recognizing that we allow providers to compete on both the infrastructure and the services, and this kind of structural function contributes to a lot of the challenges that have been documented. I hope that's helpful.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
I want to thank all four from the CRTC who are with us here today.
I just want to ask you a question, if you don't mind, Mr. Scott, being the chair.
We've heard some say that actually today you have the power to regulate the streamers like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon.
Do you have that authority here today, in 2021, to regulate it?
Jérôme Payette
View Jérôme Payette Profile
Jérôme Payette
2021-03-26 14:17
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this bill, which will be crucial to the future of our culture.
The Professional Music Publishers' Association, or PMPA, represents music publishers in Quebec and French-speaking Canada. Our members control 830 publishing houses with approximately 400,000 musical works.
As partners of songwriters and composers, music publishers support the creation of musical works, and promote and administer them. Publishers are involved in everything from paper scores to online music services to concerts, video games and audiovisual products.
I'd like to mention that our association is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, and supports its proposed amendments to Bill C-10.
I'm testifying at the end of the process, and many of the topics that are important to us have already been discussed with you. So I will keep that in mind as I speak.
The bill needs to be amended to meet cultural objectives, and it must be passed quickly.
Canada's broadcasting legislation has been pursuing much the same objective for nearly 100 years, namely, that citizens have access to our content to preserve our identity and culture.
To avoid global cultural standardization, we must think globally and act locally. Canada must protect the diversity of its cultural expressions, especially francophone diversity. To take our place in the world, we have to have our own identity and a flourishing culture.
In the past, Canada has taken bold steps, such as the introduction of radio quotas, and these measures have been copied around the world. I invite you to continue this tradition, whose objectives are as important as ever. We need you to work together to ensure that a bill that supports our culture is passed quickly.
We must level the playing field and not deregulate.
The current legislative and regulatory system exists because market forces can't guarantee the survival of Canadian culture, particularly francophone culture. This is largely a demographic problem, in addition to the fact that we're just north of the country that exports the most culture. This reality hasn't changed because new technologies have emerged; on the contrary, it's gotten worse.
Our cultural industries are fragile; they have emerged through a series of measures, including the Broadcasting Act. If the legislative environment is no longer favourable to us, our cultural industries could disappear or no longer reach Canadians.
The current situation is unfair to conventional broadcasters, that's true. However, regulatory relief would not allow them to recover the advertising revenues and listeners they have lost to online broadcasters. The level of regulation imposed on conventional broadcasters has nothing to do with the changing habits of Canadians.
Foreign companies must be encouraged to contribute to our culture and identity, as conventional broadcasters do. We have to level up. Not doing so would be tantamount to deregulating, which would be tragic for our culture.
We need to be visionary and not exclude social media from the act.
I listened carefully to the testimony of the Minister and the officials who appeared before you on March 8, and I'm not at all reassured. To avoid becoming obsolete as soon as it is passed, the act must apply to all companies that broadcast professional cultural content, without exception.
YouTube is the most popular online music service in Canada, and I'm talking about YouTube, not YouTube Music, which should be distinguished. Under the current provisions of Bill C-10, Spotify and QUB musique would be regulated for the broadcast of a song, while YouTube would not be regulated for the broadcast of the same song, which would be totally unfair.
The term “user-generated content” is imprecise, and Bill C-10 attempts to define a risky uploading process. The content is important, not the process of putting it online. The act must be neutral with respect to technological processes.
Under the wording of Bill C-10, a song or video that is posted online by industry professionals or self-produced professional artists would be exempt from the act. Contrary to what Mr. Ripley told you, distinguishing professional cultural content from amateur video is not difficult. YouTube already distinguishes professional music content from its entire repertoire using metadata.
I would like to point out that the means of broadcasting will continue to evolve, as will the business models, and that people will continue to listen to music and watch videos. The fundamental question is, will people still take in our culture? You have to make sure the answer is yes.
In conclusion, we need all of you to work together to amend and pass a new Bill C-10 that, by levelling the playing field, will establish fair obligations for all companies operating in Canada. This will allow us to avoid destroying the cultural sector, particularly the music sector. Our culture needs you.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I am going to interrupt you so that I can ask a second question. Then I would like to turn to Mr. Littler.
You mentioned the public beneficial ownership registry. That is missing in Canada and we had proposed it. Yet the majority of the Standing Committee on Finance rejected our proposal.
Why is it important to know who the beneficiaries of these companies are?
William Ross
View William Ross Profile
William Ross
2021-03-25 16:34
Actually, first of all, it's a question of traceability. Whenever the Canada Revenue Agency, for instance, tries to find out who is being delinquent on their taxes and it runs into a shell company based in the Bahamas or Bermuda, it hits a wall at a certain point as it hunts for information and it's unable to trace the people responsible for those tax crimes.
That's a problem in terms of tax evasion and tax avoidance, but also in terms of money laundering. Organized crime does a lot of that, particularly in real estate investments across Canada as well.
For all these reasons, it's absolutely crucial that we know who the beneficiaries of these companies are.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Littler, I'm going to go to you. If you could tell us a bit about the impact.... We've just spoken about web giants not paying any income tax at all. What is the impact on retail merchants across this country when you have a whole sector that isn't even paying taxes but competing with members of your association? What would you like to see done so that there isn't that unfair competition anymore?
Karl Littler
View Karl Littler Profile
Karl Littler
2021-03-25 16:35
The first thing I would say is that the government, of course, is making some moves with respect to the platform sellers with respect to tax collection there. Certainly one of the challenges that Canadian retail merchants have faced was the situation where a marketplace seller was not collecting provincial taxes and therefore their all-in price was inevitably going to be lower than the price that was tax-inclusive. The federal government can make some moves in that area because of GST, and obviously HST in harmonized provinces, but it doesn't have the capacity currently to move with respect to the provincial taxes. So that's going to be a partial solution to that problem.
There's also a move afoot to make sure that the landed price, which is the price on importation in bulk, is not the basis of taxation, and that the basis of taxation is that which is charged to the end-user, being an individual consumer.
We are in somewhat better shape than we were perhaps worried about being prior to the renegotiation of NAFTA, because there was a significant push from the U.S. to gain access at very high levels of de minimis thresholds for its members.
I think it's probably beyond us to understand the full corporate tax implications and the sort of domicile and declaration of profitability. Our primary push has been to make sure, at least on a sales tax basis and also with respect to things like environmental stewardship fees and those sorts of issues, that they're even-handed and that they apply equally to an online vendor, whether domestic or a Canadian resident, and to somebody operating in a bricks and mortar store.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ross, thank you for your presentation and the work you and the Collectif are doing. Your work is essential to achieving greater fairness in society.
I really enjoyed your testimony about the importance of taxing the tech giants and receiving royalties. Frankly, as you rightly said, the government missed an opportunity when they announced that they were going to do it after the pandemic. It should have been done before the pandemic, to level the playing field between the tech giants and other businesses.
I know that Quebec has already started collecting tax. Can you tell us about that?
Also, in your presentation, you had some criticism of the OECD. What is that criticism? Was it Canada's inaction on tax havens or on the tech giants?
William Ross
View William Ross Profile
William Ross
2021-03-25 16:53
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
With respect to the OECD, the first criticism I had in mind in my presentation is mostly about negotiations going back and forth. It means that the international community never reaches a consensus and all countries, including Canada, lose out independently of one another. If Canada had followed the lead of France and Spain, we could have passed a tax bill on our own, indicating what measures we intended to take. Then, if an international consensus had been reached, Canada would have joined in. Nothing was stopping us from doing so.
The United States retaliated against France and Spain, but if 20 countries had each done the same on their own, the United States would have ended up as unilateral. The international community has already reached a consensus on the need to tax these activities based on where they take place, not where the companies are registered. So that's one thing regarding the OECD.
Second, we know that the OECD grew out of the American Marshall Plan and has always tended to see itself on the progressive side of history when implementing its policies. However, it has consistently turned a blind eye where it really matters over the years. In the fight against tax havens, our objectives of being transparency and sharing data are always half measures.
That's the case for Canada, which participates in country-by-country reporting. It's actually hard for researchers, activists and journalists to gain access to that data. The transparency issue has been raised, but as long as civil society has no access to the data, then transparency is not enough. The government can always keep its own cards close to its chest.
But this isn't a poker game. We want the straight goods, and we want to know what's really happening out there.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for joining us today to help our committee.
My first question is for Mr. Bernhard, from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
When the minister appeared before us, in answer to one of my questions, he implied that social media were included in the bill. However, I listened to your remarks today, and when I look at subclause 4(1) the bill is supposed to add to the act, I see that it would not apply to users generating and receiving programs through an online company that provides a social media service. Companies such as YouTube, Facebook and TikTok are some examples of [Technical difficulty—Editor] that enable users to upload content.
Do you have comments or information you would like to add to explain your opinion on this part of Bill C-10 that would lead to the Broadcasting Act not applying to social media services?
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin my questioning with ACTRA. Due to your guidance, I will say “Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists”, instead of ACTRA. I appreciated that. Acronyms are a fast learning curve here in Ottawa.
I would like to talk about how you're saying that you're welcoming foreign investment but that we do need to tell our stories. In the previous hour, you mentioned the history of protecting our Canadian culture and how important it is to support our writers, our actors and all the workers in those sectors. We all see in the local productions in all of our ridings how much that helps to tell our stories and also how much it helps the Canadian economy.
Can you expand on the work that members of ACTRA are already doing right now in working for the digital giants in some of the shows and on the relationship you have with them now and how you are hoping that will change in the future with this proposed legislation?
Results: 46 - 60 of 175 | Page: 4 of 12

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

For more data options, please see Open Data