Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 105 of 175
Geneviève Côté
View Geneviève Côté Profile
Geneviève Côté
2021-02-26 13:16
That's Canada.
When we compared distributions made to Canadian music rights holders with what was distributed to foreign writers in regard to uses in media, we came to a devastating conclusion. In digital media, royalties paid to Canadian creators were three times lower. The average percentage for traditional was 33.9% over the past six years, while in the digital realm, that average did not reach 10%. Even more alarming, when we focused on audiovisual media only, the average percentage of royalties paid to Canadian writers for uses remained over 30% but slid to a meagre 6.8% on digital platforms. That is almost five times less.
In light of these figures, we can only encourage the Canadian government and Parliament to pursue their desire to include the web giants in the scope of the Broadcasting Act so they have obligations towards discoverability and promotion of Canadian music and so they participate, as do their traditional equivalents, in the financial support programs and funds that help foster Canadian music.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-02-26 13:34
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today and giving us their time.
I'd like to start with Mr. Lavallée and Mrs. Côté, from SOCAN.
Mr. Lavallée and Mrs. Côté, your recommendations for amendments to Bill C-10 highlight the transparency of data from web giants, which could provide access to certain consumer information. Could you shed some light on that and provide some clarification?
Geneviève Côté
View Geneviève Côté Profile
Geneviève Côté
2021-02-26 13:34
I’m not sure I understand what part of the recommendations you’re referring to, Mr. Champoux. I’m sorry. What's important about the bill is that social media and digital platforms are covered by the regulatory framework. As our colleagues have already said, this is important and long overdue. We're pleased to see it happening.
Could you enlighten me and tell me which part of the recommendations you're referring to?
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
That's perfect.
I have one last question for you.
The Yale report raised a lot of expectations for Bill C-10. The government has decided to go ahead and not act on it. So it ignores the major social networks like Facebook and Google, which have access to many sources of revenue.
Can you explain your situation regarding your subscription revenues? How does it compare to other competitors or companies with different financial frameworks?
Stéphane Cardin
View Stéphane Cardin Profile
Stéphane Cardin
2021-02-26 14:31
Our business model is very simple. We have a single source of revenue: the subscriptions of 7 million Canadian households that use our service in their homes. We don't sell advertising. So our revenue model is simple and clear.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
There is one thing that I asked in the last panel and I will ask with all of the panellists today, as well. Going forward, knowing that we have an awful lot of diverse opinions coming at this committee, if you could identify only one amendment that you would like to make sure makes it into this bill—into our recommendations for this bill—what would that one be?
Susan Wheeler
View Susan Wheeler Profile
Susan Wheeler
2021-02-26 14:51
It would be the issues of asymmetrical application of the rules and regulations on Canadian companies, which would amount to more onerous obligations than those that are imposed on the U.S. tech giants. That is the core of our concern in this bill.
Damon D'Oliveira
View Damon D'Oliveira Profile
Damon D'Oliveira
2021-02-22 11:10
That future will, in no small part, be determined by the fate of Bill C-10, and the tools it would confer on the CRTC to regulate foreign web giants.
The Internet has fundamentally transformed the way in which content reaches Canadian audiences, and streaming services have revolutionized the way in which film and TV content is shared. However, in the process, the control and benefits associated with that content, the content produced by our members, has shifted. Global streaming platforms are not just aggregating unprecedented catalogues of content, they're amassing enormous control, leverage, economic power and cultural influence.
The fuel that drives the growth and success of the media production sector is intellectual property, or IP for short. Intellectual properties are the ideas, the characters, the voices and ultimately the stories that anchor film and television content. IP is also the leverage that producers have, when negotiating with those who can connect the producers' content to audiences.
For a producer, it takes significant vision, financial investment and a time commitment, usually measured in years, to develop a concept into a viable piece of IP. This is a risk that producers willingly take on. It is our job.
Reynolds Mastin
View Reynolds Mastin Profile
Reynolds Mastin
2021-02-22 11:11
However, as the Internet altered how audiences access content, streaming services have become some of the most influential corporations on the planet.
As buyers of our members' content, this has given them an outsized advantage in negotiations. A “successful streaming deal” for producers today means they get a payment up front, they surrender global IP rights and, if they're lucky, they become an employee on their own show, while forgoing future revenues that would arise if the show becomes a hit, or if it is replicated in other markets.
The result is a vacuuming sound that is getting louder by the day. The sound of Canadian IP and the revenues it generates being sucked out of Canada by foreign web giants.
What is the solution? It's codes of practice. Essentially, codes of practice, or as they are commonly referred to “terms of trade”, are template structures for negotiations. You can think of codes of practice as agreed-upon rules of the road, a set of baseline conditions under which future individual negotiations can take place in good faith.
Codes of practice would enable Canada's independent producers to negotiate deals where they are able to hold on to at least some of the IP rights in a project they have developed, and in doing so, have the potential for a reliable source of revenue that can be used to invest in future projects, develop a slate of new Canadian shows and ultimately build strong Canadian companies.
To further underscore the importance of Canadian IP, we are also requesting that ownership of Canadian programs by Canadians be included as a policy objective of the Broadcasting Act.
In closing, we applaud the government for the introduction of Bill C-10, and we believe it is a key milestone for Canada's digital economy.
I look forward to answering your questions, along with my colleagues, two prominent independent producers who can provide real-world perspectives on these very important issues.
Francis Fortin
View Francis Fortin Profile
Francis Fortin
2021-02-19 15:37
Good afternoon.
Madam Clerk and members of the committee, I am very glad to be here this afternoon.
My name is Francis Fortin, and I am an assistant professor at the Université de Montréal's school of criminology, as well as a researcher at the International Centre for Comparative Criminology. The focus of my research is cybercrime and the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. Before getting into research, I spent 12 years working in cyber investigation and criminal intelligence at the Sûreté du Québec. I've authored a number of scholarly articles and three books, as well as a dozen or so chapters on cyberpedophiles.
Having a limited amount of time, I chose to divide my presentation into three parts. First, I will discuss options to encourage corporate compliance. Second, I will talk about ways to support and guide victims. Third and finally, I will address prevention and research.
Before I get into that, though, I want to say a few words about the current context. If you ask law enforcement agencies to break down the cases they deal with, two main categories emerge. The first category involves minors, and in those cases, a fast lane of sorts exists. Canada has a series of legal measures that make it easier to remove some child pornography content.
The second category involves adults, and the law is more vague in relation to those cases. For example, an adult who files a police complaint can be told that their case is a civil litigation matter. One of the witnesses gave such an example earlier. Basically, it's considered a civil matter, and the burden of taking the necessary steps falls on the complainant. As I see it, that's problematic.
Keep in mind that the revenge porn trend emerged a few years ago and shows no signs of slowing. As far as I know, Canada still has no active measures that allow authorities to take action in those cases.
Now I will turn to solutions, or ways to encourage corporate compliance. The key is to hold adult content providers accountable. One of this morning's witnesses mentioned the use of digital signatures. A number of worthwhile initiatives exist and are deployed mainly by law enforcement. Police keep child pornography databases and rely on digital signatures. Someone alluded to electronic fingerprinting earlier. These images have to be able to be shared on all platforms, including Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, the GAFA platforms. I know that Google and Facebook use lists they obtain in the United States. These platforms should be required to block content that has previously been deemed illegal.
The requirement to report content is another option, although it remains a thorny issue. A tremendous effort is needed to educate web giants on the importance of reporting. The current approach tends to involve removing the content and claiming that nothing can be done. Things are even worse on the platforms of the web giants. They refuse to even remove the content. That is a far cry from relying on the platforms for co-operation and encouraging them to report issues to the authorities. Reporting is essential to investigate suspects who repeatedly engage in this behaviour.
Another option is to prevent content from being shared anonymously. It's easy to see how knowing and validating the identity of individuals who spread this content would significantly decrease the risks associated with illegal content. That would result in platforms having trustworthy content providers, since new users would ultimately have to undergo verification to gain platforms' trust.
Litigation is another avenue, as one of the witnesses mentioned. One of the benefits of involving the police is that they assess the complaint to determine whether it is founded.
I think that's an important step. I don't think platforms, content providers or anyone else should be doing an assessment of the complaint, especially in cases where there is a consensus. I'll come back to that point later.
The prompt removal of the content in question is an important consideration.
In all the cases you've heard about, there's one thing to remember: it's a race against time. In order for the parties to satisfy their legal obligations, it may be appropriate for companies to immediately suspend access to the content once it has been confirmed that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. That would happen even before guilt had been established. In this scenario, reasonable grounds would lead to the prompt suspension of content access.
I think it's important to consider issuing an operating licence as a way to support all of these measures. Companies would have to satisfy those compliance requirements in order to operate. It could be done through the adoption of an ISO standard or the issuing of a licence to operate in Canada.
The second thing I'd like to talk about is support and guidance for victims.
It's clear from their stories that they found themselves fighting the situation on their own. They were up against something that they didn't understand, something that had never happened to them. Obviously, that's extremely difficult.
Basically, there has to be a shift towards victim support. That means creating a new position, a victim liaison of sorts, who would help and guide victims. As soon as problematic content on a platform was flagged, that liaison would get involved.
Whenever a new case came to the attention of police or other front-line workers, they would contact the person designated to guide and support the victim. That person's role would be to quickly assess the complaint, and respond accordingly and swiftly. Establishing such a role would help victims because the liaison worker would be familiar with the process, know what steps to take and know who to contact at the main providers. That would prevent the cat-and mouse-game the victim gets caught up in, figuring out on her own what to do and who is responsible under the law. There would be a single person dealing with the different platforms.
A list could be drawn up outlining the steps to take when an incident of this nature occurs, similar to the process in the case of an accident. On one hand, police handle the investigation and deal with the criminal aspect, and on the other, the liaison steps in to manage the accident, so to speak. Furthermore, that person could—should, in fact—have the necessary powers to be effective.
The liaison could work with police and organizations involved in preventing sexual exploitation. In fact, I could readily see victims groups, even the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, taking on that role in the future.
A novel approach would be to establish a special victims task force, which would bring together police and liaison workers, and have all of the necessary legal tools to track down content. The task force would, of course, uncover information about suspects, but would not be responsible for the follow-up. The information would be turned over to the appropriate investigative authorities, and the task force would focus on tracking down content and ensuring platforms comply with the new measures. If Canada were to introduce an operating licence system, as I mentioned earlier, it would make the task force's job easier, as would having the contact information of those in charge.
That brings me to my third point. I want to underscore the importance of focusing on prevention in schools.
A continued focus on awareness is needed to make sure young people understand the significance of pictures and videos. Victims readily put their trust in people or technology. Many cases involve young people who trusted apps and sites like Snapchat because they felt secure knowing that the content would be removed. They ended up realizing, however, that their pictures and videos were shared without their consent.
Lastly, I want to stress how relevant research is.
In Canada and the U.S., we have no evidence focused on the phenomenon. The sexual exploitation of children on the Internet is hard to measure. I recommend that the government adopt measures to make it easier to access data, so that researchers like myself can build a body of evidence to effectively inform public policy.
I have been working on this problem for nearly 20 years now. I don't think we can rely on the industry to regulate itself. That's quite clear from the stories you've heard.
Joel Fortune
View Joel Fortune Profile
Joel Fortune
2021-02-19 13:21
Under the existing Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has the authority to oversee all aspects of the broadcasting industry, and the CRTC's powers are technologically neutral. Bill C-10 will change this. The CRTC's authority to oversee companies that use the Internet to distribute programming services will be stripped away.
What does this mean in practical terms? First, Canada's cable satellite and IPTV distributors are all moving to Internet-based distribution. Once these established distributors move to the Internet, the foundation for the existing CRTC rules will be gone. This includes the foundation for rules that ensure Canadians have access to Canadian services and the rules that protect consumers, such as those that require advance notice of service changes.
Second, new global web giants are entering the Canadian market with their own distribution platforms. This includes making apps and services available through services like Amazon's Fire TV Stick and Apple TV, and also on set-top boxes like Roku and other Android devices.
Canadian programming services are already in a battle for visibility and fair access on all these platforms and others. No one knows what the future holds, but the Internet is not immune to consolidation and market abuses. Some elements of the emerging Internet of 20 years ago are now dominated by a few web giants. Governments around the world are awake to the potential harms this can cause, but Bill C-10 is not.
The CRTC needs the basic authority to oversee how Canadian services are treated and to make sure we have fair access to our own market, including on Internet platforms.
IBG has proposed simple changes to Bill C-10 to preserve the CRTC's authority over Internet distribution: first, to ensure that Canadian services are visible to consumers; second, if necessary, to require designated Canadian services to be offered on Internet platforms; third, to make regulations regarding the distribution of programming services, regardless of the technology used; and fourth, to resolve disputes between different types of broadcasting undertakings.
The act must also include related policy objectives for Internet distribution, which we propose.
Lastly, Bill C-10 removes the objective of Canadians' having any ownership interest in our own broadcasting system. We have proposed updated language that safeguards this objective while recognizing the importance of diverse and independent media ownership.
We have tabled our proposed amendments with the committee.
Incidentally, if the committee is concerned regarding how consumers are treated by Internet distributors, you may also wish to look at new paragraph 9.1(1)(f), introduced in clause 7 of Bill C-10, to make sure that it does not exclude the Internet, which it currently does.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. We greatly appreciate the committee's invitation to appear before you today.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
The concern about the $835 million that they claim will be the windfall from these streaming companies is with where it will go. We can't find out other than hearing that they have brought it forward now, but that's not shared when you talk to Netflix, Amazon, Apple and so on. They do not share the robust $835 million that they may be in charge of in bringing extra money to Canada.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-02-05 13:40
Let me just run with a couple of things. One, it's great that the information was provided to the committee months ago. It would be even greater if the Canadian public had access to that information. The fact that so much of this data has not been provided about the implementation, about even some of the analysis, to the broader public, I think, has been problematic, with all due respect.
In terms of the money, a lot of it is not even new money. These companies are already investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada. We know that because we've seen increased spending in film and TV production in Canada in recent years. Much of that is coming from foreign-based services.
What we know will happen is that in the short term many of them may cut back because of the uncertainty as to whether or not it will count for the purposes of these new requirements. Once they then figure that out, it's just going to be shifting dollars from one pot to another. The idea that this brings in all of this new revenue simply isn't right. In fact, we run the risk as well that certain services that might otherwise come into the market and invest will say that the Canadian market isn't worth the hassle. That's less money for creators and of course higher costs and less choice for consumers.
Daniel Bernhard
View Daniel Bernhard Profile
Daniel Bernhard
2021-02-05 14:13
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a citizen’s movement dedicated to defending our cultural identity on the airwaves and online. Since our work is funded exclusively by citizens, our only interest in this process is that of the public.
Canada is an idea, and without sovereign media, that idea won't last. In 1932, the Conservative government recognized the power of radio to reinforce Canada's political, economic and cultural independence. They also foretold how an unregulated broadcasting system would turn this power against us, imposing American ideas and American ideals onto Canadian culture and politics.
We have taken care to protect our cultural institutions, but the omnipresence of the GAFAM group continues to threaten them. Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the distribution of illegal content on many of these platforms and has allowed foreign digital broadcasters to enrich themselves on our territory without contributing to the production of local content and without paying their taxes. Thanks to these companies and the inaction of Canadian governments, our democracy is now weakened and our society is becoming increasingly divided.
Minister Guilbeault pitched Bill C-10 as a solution to at least some of these problems, and if we judged it by his comments alone, Bill C-10 would be a wild success, but upon reading the text itself, it's clear that Bill C-10 is not exactly as advertised. In fact, the bill, which should regulate digital broadcasting, could leave Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Youtube and Spotify entirely unregulated, just as they are today.
The good news is that Bill C-10 can be fixed, and we have formulated 19 precise amendments that would cause the text of the bill to more closely resemble the minister's account of it.
First, let’s address the issue of Canadian content. We subscribe to the philosophy that, by default, digital broadcasting should not require permission. However, giving the CRTC the option to regulate platforms such as Netflix is totally insufficient. The CRTC should be obliged to regulate digital broadcasters of a certain size.
Minister Guilbeault promises to address this by order in council, but that’s a temporary approach that future governments could undo without parliamentary scrutiny. You can't accept this bill on the promise of an order that you haven't seen and that may not materialize. It's important to strengthen the bill itself.
Second, on social media and algorithmic decision-making more generally, we agree that people who create and upload content to the Internet should not require a licence to do so, but we can achieve that without exempting companies like Facebook, YouTube and Pornhub from responsibility for the content they broadcast. These companies routinely broadcast illegal content that would land any other broadcaster in court. The exemption for user-generated content should apply to the users themselves, not to the platforms who make billions curating and promoting this content. The Broadcasting Act alone cannot hold the likes of Facebook fully accountable for its transgressions, but it would still help to remove Bill C-10’s blanket exemption for social media sites and revise the new concept of programming control to specifically include decisions made by algorithm.
Third, Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership requirements, paving the way for Fox and other American interests to swallow ailing Canadian broadcasters, decimating local programming, especially local news. We need not invite the further decimation of local news in Canada.
Finally, Bill C-10 is completely silent on the CBC, which could soon be the only national media of consequence left standing. You could use this opportunity to revise CBC’s mandate to be fundamentally non-commercial and to finally end political appointments for the president and the board.
In closing, I urge you not to waste this precious opportunity. We may not get another chance like this for years, and most Canadian media won't survive that long. Just this week, Bell Media announced hundreds of layoffs, adding to the more than 3,000 media layoffs in Canada since COVID. Let’s make things right—right now—while we still can.
Thank you very much.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-02-01 11:39
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us.
Mrs. Morin, Mr. Théberge, it's always a pleasure to see you.
Let me start with you, Ms. Messier. Earlier, we talked about the tech giants, who will also have to contribute to the production of content one of these days.
Could we talk about how you would proceed and about the model you would advocate for distributing the additional money to be collected from the tech giants for production?
Do you have a model in mind? Do you have an idea of the way in which that money could be fairly redistributed?
Results: 91 - 105 of 175 | Page: 7 of 12

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data