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 96
Jerry Dias
View Jerry Dias Profile
Jerry Dias
2021-05-20 12:51
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’m pleased to be here today to provide input on the budget implementation bill. My name is Jerry Dias, and I'm the national president of Unifor.
Just as an aside, it's always my pleasure to appear before many MPs I have had some stimulating debates and conversations with over the years. Once I give my presentation I'm going to have to get off the call. I'll be speaking to the Prime Minister very shortly on a variety of things, but also I have my national executive board meeting going on as we speak and I'm going to get to that once I'm finished with the Prime Minister.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Unifor has advocated for governments at all levels to put policies in motion to build a fair, inclusive and resilient economic recovery. We call it our “build back better” plan. This year’s budget and the first budget implementation bill show the government is at least on the right track. There are a number of items in the bill that are a good start but need some improvement.
These are the items I will bring to your attention today. First, I want to address the minimum wage. Reinstating the federal minimum wage and increasing it to $15 an hour is a long overdue move. It will significantly impact more than 67,000 people working in the federally regulated sector, but $15 an hour is no longer adequate. The truth is that we’ve been calling for a $15 minimum wage for many years now. It may have been enough five years ago, but it's certainly not enough today.
Frankly, the government was talking about implementing this in 2019, and even then it would have been somewhat short. The minimum wage should be set at 60% of the median wage for full-time workers. This was the recommendation of the government’s own expert panel on modern federal labour standards. Following this policy would set the minimum wage at $16.73. Government should be adjusting the minimum wage annually by inflation or by the average annual wage increase, whichever is higher, and establishing a federal low-wage commission to monitor the impact of low wages on workers and the labour market.
Second, I want to address the employment insurance and recovery benefit extensions.
Extending the wage subsidy program is an important step in keeping workers employed during this tumultuous time. The ramp-down rates make sense in many circumstances, but for the hardest-hit sectors, such as air transportation, this change can make the difference between a worker keeping their job or not. We recommend increasing the top-up rate for companies with significant, persistent revenue decline, as they may not be eligible for the Canada recovery hiring program because they are not yet ready to hire new workers.
The executive compensation rule for publicly traded companies should be applied for all wage subsidy support received in 2021, and not just what is received after June 5.
The extension of the Canada recovery benefit and the temporary changes to employment insurance are important. Together, EI and the CRB have illustrated the incredibly important role income support plays in stabilizing workers' lives and the need to fix our currently broken EI system with permanent reforms. We recommend some additional items to strengthen the positive effects these programs can have, including reducing the qualifying hours from the current 420 to 360, and maintaining the minimum benefit rate at $500, while increasing the income replacement rate.
Third, the budget takes an important step in stabilizing employment at airports by reducing some of the negative effects of contract flipping. We support the change and encourage consultation on the regulations in order to ensure all workers are protected by it. In order to further reduce the negative effects of contract flipping, government should extend successor rights.
Fourth, implementing the digital tax on digital giants and extending HST to streaming services are important steps to creating a level playing field and ensuring that large, digital corporations are paying their fair share. We're very concerned that the laws put in place will result in the digital giants not paying their fair share. That outcome would be unacceptable.
Fifth, the modest changes to OAS acknowledge that the current retirement security system does not provide adequate income for retirees, but it is not enough. Government should be exploring innovation in providing defined benefit plans for workers instead of looking to modest changes for the worst off and annuities that mimic retirement security provided by a DB plan, but deliver less.
Finally, the nod to the importance of Canada-made, zero-emission vehicles through tax incentives is incredibly important and a worthwhile endeavour. I will take a moment to remind folks that we do not yet build ZEVs in Canada. We have to keep this in mind as we consider ways to encourage consumer adoption, but we don't need millions in public dollars subsidizing imports. If we want to build this industry in Canada, and I think we do, all policies, including the development of charging stations, must move in lockstep with our industrial development plans.
Thank you. Kaylie will look forward to taking your questions.
Once again, thank you all very much for your time today.
Angella MacEwen
View Angella MacEwen Profile
Angella MacEwen
2021-05-20 13:24
I think it's critically important, and it's really important to look at the whole system, as we say, instead of having small token pieces. The token tax on aircraft singles out a tiny sliver of what we're talking about in terms of wealth, as one of the presenters here today said, and there are huge amounts of wealth in Canada that are going untaxed right now.
We could increase taxes, as I said, by $50 billion a year, and only be taxing the top 1% of wealth owners and top 10% of income earners more, and we could afford pharmacare and we could afford to eliminate student loan payments. We could implement dental care and we could train workers for the coming change in the economy. It's recently been said that we're going to be creating too many green jobs for the number of trained workers that we have, so all of these issues are of the utmost importance. We need to have the resources available to act on them.
I just want to say I agree with Mr. Balsillie that we also need those economic frameworks in place in order to act on them. We can't just be handing out money. This is not about helicoptering money to make the economy work better. We need to be very strategic and thoughtful about how we're spending this money in order to get the most benefit out of it.
Toby Sanger
View Toby Sanger Profile
Toby Sanger
2021-05-18 11:07
Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning members.
There are a lot of positive measures in Bill C-30, and I'd like to commend the government for introducing them. These include the $15-an-hour minimum wage, extension of COVID and EI benefits, funding for child care, funding for infrastructure, funding for health care and much more. We're glad the federal government will finally apply the GST, starting July 1, to imports of digital services, short-term rentals through digital platforms and goods supplied through fulfillment warehouses like Amazon. This is long overdue but still appreciated, and it is one step towards levelling the digital playing field.
For far too long, Canada has given foreign digital giants—some of the largest companies in the world—generous tax preferences at the expense of Canadian companies and producers. This has contributed to hundreds of business closures, thousands of jobs lost and billions in revenue foregone. Since the pandemic began, it has only gotten worse, as sales by companies like Amazon have exploded while main street businesses across Canada have suffered enormously. The government should eliminate the tax deduction for advertising on foreign Internet platforms. This has contributed to billions in advertising flowing to Google and Facebook, and loss to Canadian media outlets.
We're glad to see the government commit to introducing a digital services tax on the revenues of foreign e-commerce giants starting next year, but the proposed tax will only apply to a small number of companies in specific sectors. Because a digital economy can't be ring-fenced, the Canadian government must also support fundamental international corporate tax reforms at the OECD negotiations now taking place, including support for a global minimum corporate tax at 21% or higher, as U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed; treating multinational enterprises as unitary enterprises for tax purposes; and allocating the profit of multinational enterprises among countries using real economic factors, just as we do among provinces in Canada.
We're glad the government has also finally taken some action on restricting a number of corporate tax loopholes and the stock-option deduction loophole. However, we believe the stock-option deduction loophole should be completely closed instead of just partially closed.
This government should also take inspiration from U.S. President Joe Biden, who is planning to eliminate lower tax rates on capital gains for the wealthiest. It's unconscionable that the wealthiest in society pay a lower tax rate on their investment income than ordinary working people pay on their employment income. This is something that wealthy investors, such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gross and Bill Gates agree with eliminating.
Speaking of the wealthy, inequalities of wealth have only gotten worse during the pandemic, with Canada's billionaires increasing their fortunes by about $80 billion over the past year. A mildly progressive wealth tax on fortunes of over $10 million could raise about $20 billion a year. I'm glad that this government has committed to identifying ways to tax extreme wealth in its throne speech, but disappointed that there was nothing about it in the budget. A large majority of Canadians, including Conservative supporters, support having a wealth tax. Even the IMF and OECD both recently called for countries to introduce and expand inheritance and wealth taxes. I hope to see them in a number of different election platforms soon.
Just as Canada's billionaires have become much wealthier during the pandemic, many large corporations have made record profits. The study we released yesterday revealed that 50 of Canada's large corporations made record profits last year, with a number of them also collecting the CEWS wage subsidy and paying low rates of tax. When the CEWS program was first introduced more than a year ago, I was the first to call for much stronger conditions. This would have prevented the type of misuse and wastage of public funds that we've seen with this program. We should now do what we did during the world wars and what the IMF recently suggested and introduce an excess profits tax and pandemic surtaxes on those who have profited excessively during the pandemic, to recover some of those public funds.
We're glad the government is making carbon incentive payments more visible. We've advocated for this for many years. However, the federal carbon pricing framework also needs to be significantly strengthened by ensuring that large emitters pay the full carbon price and by applying carbon tariffs and rebates on imports from and exports to countries without carbon pricing so that Canadian industry and jobs aren't adversely affected. We also need to finally eliminate the federal fossil fuel subsidies. It's long overdue that we end this climate hypocrisy.
Finally, I'd like to commend the finance Minister for committing to introduce a public registry of the real owners of companies. This will help reduce money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal activities.
The federal government should also increase transparency and accountability in other ways, including strengthening whistle-blower protections, and requiring that large multinational corporations publish country-by-country reports of their sales, profits and taxes paid.
Thanks very much, and I look forward to a further discussion and questions.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 14:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for the invitation to be here today. My panel colleague Pierre Trudel and I are very pleased to provide our perspective on Bill C-10.
We endorse the federal government's efforts to update the legislative framework governing the broadcasting system to include both media streaming services and sharing platforms. This approach is consistent with our report, which recognized the realities of a borderless online world in which Canadians will seek to access media content based on personal interest, irrespective of platform or technology.
Bill C-10 would ensure that these new online streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube, are required to make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural content. These online services derive significant revenues from Canadian audiences from both advertising and subscription revenues, yet face no obligation to contribute. To imagine that in 2021 we would permit these platforms to make money from Canadian audiences, Canadian consumers and Canadian creativity without any corresponding contribution defies logic, particularly when our system imposes obligations on traditional broadcasters that are now much smaller, less powerful and less prosperous.
In our report, we recommended, as a matter of competitive fairness, that online undertakings be included in updated broadcasting legislation. Our report also made it clear that these regulatory obligations should be restricted to the platforms—that is, if we use the language of the law, to undertakings. Individual creators should remain untouched by regulation, and that is exactly what Bill C-10 proposes.
Let me say it again: Bill C-10 imposes regulatory burdens and the obligation to contribute to Canada's creators only on the undertakings such as the big streaming and sharing platforms, not on individual creators.
I will put it another way. Programs consist of audio and audiovisual content. TV shows, songs, podcasts, postings and that programming—all those programs—exist beyond regulation and will remain beyond regulation. Individuals who create content, whether amateur or professional, and audiences large and small are not affected by Bill C-10 when they upload their programming, share it or even sell it to a streaming service. No one is going to police that content, tell them what they can say or compel them to pay dues.
What Bill C-10 does require—and, from my perspective, thank goodness we are finally taking this step—is that the undertakings—the YouTubes, Disney-pluses and Netflixes of the world that share that content and make money from distributing content—must operate by a set of rules and contribute some amount of the revenues they are harvesting from Canadians to the production of Canadian content.
Finally, to those who argue that Bill C-10 fails to protect user-generated content, we say that is just wrong. Proposed section 2.1 specifically provides that exemption already. New amendments that have been tabled make this exclusion even clearer. Therefore, to persist in creating this illusory scare against freedom of expression is either to misunderstand the legislation, in my view, or to intentionally seek to mislead people for some other purpose.
I will finish by saying this: Legislation, of course, is complex, and broadcasting policy and its regulation can be very technical. Devils do lurk in details, and that is why the scrutiny of this committee is so important. However, what's at stake here isn't hard to understand: We need to make provision for the reality of these immense and hugely powerful online platforms. We need to ensure that they give to, not just take from, Canadian creators and Canadian audiences. We need to update a broadcasting framework that was last amended before the world was even online. We need what is set out in Bill C-10, with all its provisions and all its protections. We urge the government to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 14:44
Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, good afternoon.
I'm a law professor, and I've been teaching the Broadcasting Act since 1979. I was the research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau committee, which produced the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As my colleague Janet Yale pointed out, I was involved in the work of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.
As noted in the notice from the Department of Justice, which was tabled a few days ago, Bill C-10, amends the Broadcasting Act, which does not authorize measures to be taken against individuals with respect to the content they create and decide to put online. Above all, the act already clearly provides that all measures put in place to regulate broadcasting activities must respect freedom of expression.
Moreover, the Broadcasting Act has never authorized the CRTC to censor specific content. The CRTC's entire practice over the past 50 years is a testament to that. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act requires that the CRTC refrain from regulating broadcasting in a manner that violates freedom of expression. It's hard to imagine a broader exclusion than that. It is an exclusion that requires a prohibition on interpreting the act in a way that empowers the CRTC to take action and create regulations or orders that violate freedom of expression.
In addition, as you know, the act provides that the CRTC shall refrain from regulating any activity that does not have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In fact, the Broadcasting Act is enabling legislation. There are no specifics in the act. It is enabling legislation that empowers the CRTC to put in place rules adapted to the circumstances of each company so that they organize their activities in a way that contributes to the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives, as set out in section 3 of the act.
Therefore, Bill C-10 does not need to expand exclusions for any type of content. Rather, it is a recognition that Bill C-10 already excludes measures that could be suspected of infringing on freedom of expression and ensures that the Broadcasting Act applies to all companies that transmit programming, including on the Internet, which is the primary purpose of Bill C-10.
With regard to these online companies that determine content and that, it's important to remember, already regulate content that is offered to individuals through processes based on algorithms or artificial intelligence technologies, Bill C-10 strengthens the guarantees of fundamental rights for all Canadians. It empowers the CRTC to compel companies to provide information on the logic behind these algorithmic devices, which does not currently exist. It enables the CRTC to put measures in place to ensure that Canadians are offered programming that reflects the principles, values and objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.
Nothing in the Broadcasting Act as it is proposed to be amended would allow the CRTC to impose on anyone programs that they do not want to hear or see, let alone allow the CRTC to censor content on platforms.
Rather, the act provides individuals with a real opportunity for choice. There is currently no guarantee that online companies are offering Canadians a real and meaningful choice that reflects Canadian values as codified in the Broadcasting Act.
There has been a constant since the early years of radio, and that is a tension between those who believe that broadcasting undertakings should be left to market forces alone and those who—rightly, in my view—believe that intervention is required to ensure the effective availability of programming that is the product of Canadians' creative activity.
Bill C-10 is part of this continuum, which has allowed Canadians to have media that offers the best the world has to offer, while also giving prominence to the works of Canadian creators, including creators from minority and indigenous or first nations communities.
Thank you.
Andrew Cash
View Andrew Cash Profile
Andrew Cash
2021-05-17 14:51
Let's start by getting one thing off the table. Digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are incredible. They represent phenomenal opportunities for Canadian arts and culture creators.
It's been said that being in the music business is a great way to get rich and a lousy way to make a living. The pandemic has put this maxim in stark focus. Many artists and musicians lived below the poverty line before the pandemic, but the pandemic has made things much, much worse. Travel and gathering restrictions have meant no touring, no live shows and no income at all.
The pandemic has also underlined the systemic inequities in the market that have led to diminished compensation for creators. This imbalance has put the promise of a stable middle-class sector of artists and arts and culture workers further and further out of reach for this country. The sector is in crisis.
CIMA commissioned Nordicity to do a report on the impact of COVID. It found that the independent music sector saw a drop in revenue of $233 million, live music saw a drop in income of 79%, independent sound recording and publishing companies saw a 41% decline in revenue, and thousands of jobs were lost. That was just in the first nine months of the pandemic.
We don't expect to return to pre-COVID levels of revenue until 2023 or 2024 at best, but as we move towards recovery, we must address the elephant in the room: Digital giants doing business in Canada make lots of money off Canadians but pay fractions of a cent to content creators, and they operate here without any accountability or regulatory obligations, including to fairly contribute to the arts and culture ecosystem.
Really? Are we okay with this?
Given the numbers that I've laid out before you today, if there ever were a time when we needed you to stand up for the little guy, it's right now. Do you really want to go back to your ridings and say to your constituents, “Yes, I voted to protect big tech. I voted to allow them to continue raking in the profits, taking profits out of the country and not contributing a dime in return.”? Unless things have dramatically changed since I was an elected politician, I don't think you want to be doing that. In fact, many of you, from all parties, have pointed out that this inequitable playing field is wrong and that we have to do something about it.
CanCon regulations were created 50 years ago and helped establish a domestic industry within a domestic market. We wanted to protect and nurture French-language creators who were surrounded on all sides by English-language cultural content and English-language creators who were competing on all sides with the massive giant next door. Well, today our arts and culture marketplace is no longer a domestic one. Digital platforms have transformed the way content is consumed. Today the marketplace is global. Today we need a modernized system to grow our domestic industry into one that will thrive in the global market.
This bill, flawed though it is, could point us towards new modes of discoverability, towards new investments in our artists and our arts and culture entrepreneurs, and towards information transparency and accountability from big tech companies that simply doesn't exist right now.
CIMA believes that the bill as amended did not infringe on individuals' rights and freedoms. That belief was affirmed by last week's charter statement and further proposed amendments. However, let's be clear: We would oppose any measure that puts those rights at risk. Artists have long been at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and freedom of expression against monolithic power structures. Our work quite literally depends on civil liberty and the protection of freedom of expression.
Bill C-10 couldn't [Technical difficulty—Editor] bad videos. What it could do, though, is begin to make a real difference in the lives of musicians, content creators, entrepreneurs and [Technical difficulty—Editor] across the country. It has the potential to move the creative sector from precarity towards middle-class stability, unlocking innovation and creating a global presence for the sector.
That's why I implore you today to continue your work in amending Bill C-10 as expediently as possible in order to pass it through Parliament before the end of the spring session.
Thank you.
Andrew Cash
View Andrew Cash Profile
Andrew Cash
2021-05-17 15:22
Thank you so much for the question.
You know, roughly 80% of all the players in the music scene, in the music sector writ large in Canada, are solo self-employed or solo operators. They are running, in a sense, small businesses. There are some larger entities, of course, but that's the reality. Their combined efforts and their combined risk....
By the way, there is a lot of risk, not just on one's financial resources but also on one's physical and mental health, in being in this business. There is a real need for people like you to really understand what we're doing and how we do it. People don't really know how the music they're listening to in their earbuds got there. They don't how it was made and who made it. That is one of the reasons that a bill like Bill C-10 is so important.
As I said in my opening remarks, COVID really has laid bare the vulnerabilities in the system. It would be one thing if this were pre-Internet, but the fact of the matter is that these massive companies are interacting with our arts and culture sector. They essentially need the content, and not just Canadian content but the content of all creators around the world. They need it in order to make their platforms roll. Too often it is especially the artists and the small independent Canadian-owned companies that get swept under.
There's one other thing that's important to note here when you're asking about the Canadian independent music scene. We're talking about Canadian-owned companies. We're not talking about multinational entities. We're talking about people who live and work in your communities, people who are developing intellectual property and many times are successfully exporting that to markets beyond our borders and bringing that revenue back to Canada.
We look at Bill C-10 as a way of really improving that and adding to that.
Andrew Cash
View Andrew Cash Profile
Andrew Cash
2021-05-17 15:25
Right now, the way the Internet sector is working for music is that few companies, few artists, have any leverage in negotiating with YouTube. The music's generally up already. The choice is between licensing and getting a lousy return on that licensing or getting no money at all. That is really a stark choice for entrepreneurs, absolutely, but for the artists themselves, it presents a huge problem.
I'm not going to say that it's all terrible news for artists. As I said right off the top, these platforms represent enormous opportunity, but we have to get it right. Part of getting it right is bringing these massive companies, the biggest companies in the history of time, under some kind of regulatory system whereby they can be accountable to the people of Canada.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 15:59
All right.
What I've tried to do is draw that distinction. Maybe I haven't done it clearly. The later amendments make it clear that the only thing that will be regulated with respect to platforms.... Let's keep the streaming services aside, because I think the controversy now seems to be more about the social media platforms than the streaming services.
Streaming services, as curators, purchase and create the content that they then package and make available to you. If a producer creates a show that is then offered on Netflix, it's generated by a creator, but I don't think we're talking about that in the same way as what we think of on YouTube as user-generated content where people make things—podcasts, songs, dances, whatever—and then post them to a platform. They're user-generated. They're not contracted directly by a streaming service. The platforms are available to people to put things on at their discretion.
That discretion doesn't change. People can post whatever they want on social media platforms. There's no regulation. The more recent amendments that Minister Guilbeault spoke to said that there would only be three things that could be done vis-à-vis those platforms—only three. There's been a real contraction of the regulation-making power of the CRTC vis-à-vis those platforms.
The three things are that, first, they have to provide information about their revenues, whether advertising or subscriptions. Two, those revenues are used to calculate what their levy will be, or their spending requirement, as the case may be. It's just how much you are making in Canada and what the appropriate amount is to make as a contribution. The third piece is what we've been calling discoverability, which is how to make the Canadian creative content visible.
That's it. I have a hard time seeing how that's regulation of the content. It just isn't.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:07
Exactly, and I think the removal of proposed section 4.1 makes it clear that social media platforms are within the scope of Bill C-10, which might have been unclear before that.
As I've said, it is my view that because the user-generated content, which is still covered by clause 2.1, is exempt from regulation, I believe there is no threat to freedom of speech and that users will continue to be as free, once Bill C-10 is passed, to put whatever content they want online or on social media platforms as they are today.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:17
I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we think of social media platforms and the ability of these large tech platforms to intervene in content. If there is content that they consider illegal, they do today monitor content. I think it's a bit of a fiction to suggest that there is no regulation of content online. These undertakings self-regulate, because there are no rules of the game. They are thus quite vigilant—
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:18
Absolutely. It's really a subject for another day as to whether they self-regulate what I call the lawful but awful content today. Each platform has its own rules and regulations. Some take it down for different reasons and don't make it available. That is going on already, for sure.
That was one of the reasons that I made the point that the notion that these algorithms are innocuous is not true. Each platform has its own rules and its own accountability as to what it monitors, what it takes down, what it promotes and what it pushes out at you. I don't buy the argument that somehow freedom of choice on the part of consumers reigns. It's the platforms' commercial interest that dictates to a large extent what you get to see, so I totally agree with you. I think it's better that we make sure some of those choices are Canadian ones.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:26
It's tax. The obvious way that we ensure that these companies contribute into the Canadian economy if they are as successful as we've been seeing is by ensuring that we tax them appropriately and have the revenues coming out of that taxation to use as we see fit. That's obvious.
The reality is that some of these companies are major investors in the country. Former heritage minister Mélanie Joly went out and got a $500-million commitment over five years to ensure that there was investment in production in Canada. It's not as if they produce nothing. Jusqu'au déclin is a good example, and Trailer Park Boys or others for Netflix. We can cite many of these kinds of examples.
I don't think it's correct to say that they don't contribute anything or that they aren't producing in Canada. They quite clearly are, but it is fair to ask whether they're paying their fair share from a tax perspective. There's evidence to suggest that because of the way the system has been structured, they have not been, and we need to fix that. With that tax revenue, we can do all of this without blowing up the Broadcasting Act in this manner and directly implicating the free expression of users.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:34
Absolutely. I think there's a real sense of urgency. As a number of committee members have pointed out, these streaming and sharing platforms are extracting huge value from Canada through delighting audiences and reaping advertising and subscription revenues. On a simplified basis, as you've described, they would be required to make a contribution and to ensure that Canadian choices are made visible for people to choose from. I think that's a great thing and a really important step in the right direction.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:36
I would say that what really struck us was the sense of urgency on the part of the Canadian creative community.
It is true that some of these platforms and streaming services spend money in Canada on service productions, but the real test from a cultural policy perspective is whether or not there are investments in production in which the key creative positions are held by Canadians. That's what going to ensure that there is a vibrant cultural sector in Canada, and from a cultural policy perspective we strongly believe this. What we heard from coast to coast to coast was that we needed to bring these online services into the legislation and ensure that they make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural policy. We heard that loud and clear wherever we went.
Results: 1 - 15 of 96 | Page: 1 of 7

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

For more data options, please see Open Data