Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 175
David Sparrow
View David Sparrow Profile
David Sparrow
2021-03-22 12:17
As a union of professional performers, we have a great relationship with the Netflixes and Disneys and other big streaming services that are up here doing foreign service work; that is, they're producing their own productions written largely by Americans. Right now, during COVID especially, because Canada has a better reputation for our ability to handle the virus on our sets, there is a lot of work going on, but we shouldn't be fooled by the fact that once COVID is under control and once America starts to open up in places like Atlanta—which is really the number two production centre in North America—and is able to host these productions, many of them will choose to leave and go back to the United States in order to support their own homegrown business.
That said, they're here because we have terrific crews, we have terrific actors and we have terrific post-production, so they are investing in Canada because it makes sense financially. Where the downfall comes in is that they are not producing Canadian content, so Canadian writers are not working on those shows unless those writers have moved to Los Angeles and are pursuing careers in a different country. We are also not getting those unique Canadian stories told, so we're not building up the culture, if you will, of Canada and helping to tell our stories to the world.
When we are doing that—let's just point it out—we're killing it in terms of the shows we are doing, with shows such as Murdoch Mysteries and others that are shown around the world, and shows such as Corner Gas and Kim's Convenience. It's interesting to see how popular those shows are when we make the proper investment in them, and then Netflix steps in and makes deals to put them on Netflix in order to attract even more eyeballs.
The point is that if we weaken what is CanCon, if we weaken the use of Canadian writers who are actually telling Canadian stories, then we are going to feel that pain well into the future. We have to make the rules and regulations now that will best support that industry going forward.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-22 12:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for the BCE representatives.
Mr. Péladeau, the president and CEO of Quebecor, recently appeared before the committee. Afterwards, he told reporters that the committee was trying to regulate an area that was “unregulatable”, referring, of course, to the activities of the tech giants.
Do you agree?
Also, do you think it's possible to regulate the activities of the tech giants, while protecting Canada's online and traditional broadcasters and ensuring they can compete?
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-22 12:24
I have a question for the BCE representatives.
A few days ago, the president and CEO of Quebecor, Mr. Péladeau, appeared before the committee. Afterwards, he told reporters that the bill was an attempt to regulate the “unregulatable”.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Daniels?
Do you think it's possible to pass legislation that regulates the digital giants while protecting Canadian traditional and online broadcasters in such a way that they can be competitive?
Jonathan Daniels
View Jonathan Daniels Profile
Jonathan Daniels
2021-03-22 12:25
Thank you. I appreciate getting the.... Now I understand the question. I apologize for my lack of French.
What I'd say is no, we don't agree. The short of it is that levelling the playing field by having foreign providers contribute into funds like the CMF, which can then decide how to pay that money out, will ensure that you achieve CanCon. Sorry, I'm using an acronym. I mean Canadian content production. We think that's a more effective way to bring that in. You can bring them into the system in order to have a level playing field.
Where I do agree is that there are a bunch of rules that can be streamlined as we bring them in, and have greater flexibility to allow everyone to specialize and compete in different areas, rather than dictating everything we have to do today.
We can achieve that by bringing in the foreign providers and making them contribute to the system. Quite simply, if they have to pay money into a fund like the CMF, they are going to make sure they get [Technical difficulty—Editor] pulling that money out. That's how companies work. If you have to pay into something [Technical difficulty—Editor] benefit by pulling out. That, we believe, is the kind of model you can achieve.
Daniel Bernhard
View Daniel Bernhard Profile
Daniel Bernhard
2021-03-22 12:26
I'll answer in English, just to be quicker.
I agree with Bell that Mr. Péladeau's comments are not accurate. We believe these foreign streaming services can and should be regulated.
We've been having this discussion since 2014, and we're still having this discussion. Meanwhile, technology has advanced. We are not talking about all kinds of other activities that are happening in the media ecosystem, because we're stuck deciding whether or not Netflix should pay. This is the simplest of all the questions, and we should just go forward with it.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We did have the minister join us earlier on as we were examining Bill C-10, and I was concerned, as I know many people were, when he told us that Facebook and YouTube were not exempt from Bill C-10.
I'm just going to give my last two and a half minutes, if I could, to Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Could you talk about what you think of the answer of the Minister of Canadian Heritage that Facebook and YouTube are not exempt from Bill C-10?
Daniel Bernhard
View Daniel Bernhard Profile
Daniel Bernhard
2021-03-22 12:57
When I heard that statement, I was prompted to pull my hair out, but as you can see, there's not much left to extract, so I had to express my frustration in other ways.
As I said, this is a very misleading statement. For the minister to say that companies like Facebook and YouTube are not exempt and that they'll only be regulated when they behave as broadcasters is very misleading, because, as I said in my opening remarks, if they were not behaving like broadcasters, then there would be no need for the exemption in the first place. They are broadcasters according to the law.
The question is, how do we regulate this properly? Our view is very simple: Remove this exemption for social media. Remove all that. Instead, just say that if you're too small, you will not be regulated, and if you're bigger, you will be. That leaves it open for new formats to emerge. It means that if you're Grumpy Cat, maybe there are certain standards or applications that will apply to you, but not to Mr. Guilbeault's uncle with his cat videos, which, we presume, are not very well viewed, according to the minister's comments.
For him to say they are not exempt from the law is extremely misleading, because clause 4.1 clearly says that they are exempt from the law. We have to ensure that not just the content but also the infrastructure is governed. Should it be in French? Are there rules about discoverability? What about emergency alerts?
I found the minister's answer unsatisfying, and I hope that the committee will improve the bill in the ways that I just mentioned.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
The second part of my question for you is this: Did you know that we've also committed an additional $600 million to continue to tackle tax evasion in the fall economic statement?
The other thing I wanted to make sure that you were aware of, and it's important for everybody to be aware of as well, is that there are some additional measures that we've promised, like taxing digital giants like Google and Facebook, limiting stock option deductions for high-income individuals, and taxing non-resident foreign owners of Canadian real estate.
Are you aware that all of that has been committed to in our fall economic statement as well?
DT Cochrane
View DT Cochrane Profile
DT Cochrane
2021-03-17 17:28
Yes, I'm aware of those. The digital giants taxation is again something that we gave big kudos for, although a thumbs-down for delaying the implementation for a year, which is costly.
Actually, I would pose a question that we have, if I could. Will that tax apply to Uber and Lyft? We aren't clear if they are considered digital services.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do want to make sure that you know, and that all Canadians know, that we've put a substantial amount of effort into this. It's important to us, and we'll continue to fight tax evasion.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-03-08 11:28
With regard to the digital giants, Netflix being one of them, we have heard from several witnesses, and they made the point that they already contribute in their minds. Many of them have head offices here. They hire Canadians—Canadian producers, Canadian talent, Canadian writers—so when it comes to asking them to contribute more, we could very much be at a crossroads.
Could I get a comment or two about the giants who say they're already giving Canada lots?
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2021-03-08 11:29
I can start.
It is true that by operating in Canada, the web giants have activities in Canada that benefit Canadians as well. The issue here—and the keyword—is a level playing field.
In terms of the framework we have in Canada, in the traditional system, in exchange for a licence, you needed to contribute either to a fund or to an expenditure requirement towards a creation of Canadian content. What this legislation seeks to achieve is to make sure that we direct those investments toward the creation of Canadian content.
Of course, the employment components are very important, but it's to make sure that we have a net benefit that is aligned with what Canadian broadcasters need to do, as well, within that context. That's why it's really about having common measures to ensure we have a level playing field in that space.
There will be a lot of work done within how it's supplied. A lot of the “how” will be determined in the subsequent phase with the CRTC, in the implementation phase of what those measures will be.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
I'd also like to know, for the fiscal year 2019-20, how much your department spent on advertising on web giants like Facebook and Google compared to how much was spent on traditional media. Is it possible to provide some of those statistics to the committee?
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2021-03-08 11:41
Yes. I don't have them now, but we could forward them to the committee, no problem.
In terms of the spending by the department, as I said, there is often.... I've heard it said many times that Canadian Heritage does not centrally manage advertising for the Government of Canada. It's PSPC that does that.
We can provide data that is more specifically under our control as it relates to the department itself.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Piché, would it be possible to provide that data, broken down by year, maybe from 2015?
Results: 61 - 75 of 175 | Page: 5 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