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 72
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I do thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First off, Netflix is excluded from paying the much-vaunted new tax. Will the government disclose the secret agreement that took place in negotiations with Netflix behind the scene?
Secondly, concerning the Trans Mountain pipeline, how much does the government expect to pour into that pipeline? Given that the PBO has indicated that it will cost $14 billion for construction and another $4.5 billion for acquisition, at what point will this government step in to say enough is enough: we're not going to keep pouring money into this pipeline?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Julian, you and I sometimes disagree on policy outcomes, but rarely do we disagree on facts. Here, however, when it comes to Internet taxes, I must say that I disagree with your framing of what our government is doing. Let me just take a moment to outline what we're doing. First of all, there is no exclusion for Netflix or any Internet company.
Second of all, our government in this budget and in the fall economic statement is moving more clearly and more forcefully to introduce a level playing field for international and Canadian companies when it comes to the Internet space, and to impose taxes on digital service companies. We're doing that more forcefully than any Canadian government has ever done. We are doing that in three parts.
I now see the chair looking like he wants me to stop talking, so I will have to talk about those three different levels of tax that we are introducing in another answer, but I want to be clear that our government believes it is important to have a level playing field for Canadian companies in the Internet space, and it's important to be taxing the companies that are active in this space.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's a doubleheader.
First, the minister is saying that Netflix is not excluded from the proposed digital services tax. Evidence has shown the contrary. Could the finance ministry provide the information that shows Netflix is not excluded from the proposed tax?
Second, in terms of tax havens, given that CRA officials have said before this committee that they did not have the tools to take action against massive tax evasions that we're seeing, when will the finance ministry be tabling legislation that would actually provide CRA officials with the tools required to take action?
Andrew Marsland
View Andrew Marsland Profile
Andrew Marsland
2021-05-11 17:37
With respect to the first question, I think it's important to understand what the proposed digital services tax is about and what it's not about. It's not about taxing consumption in Canada. As you know, Bill C-30 includes measures to require the collection of GST by non-residents who are providing certain services.
What the proposed digital services tax is about in a corporate taxation context is making sure that where value is created in Canada, it's subject to tax. The value that's created—which is novel in the digital environment—is essentially the monetization of user data, meaning the data we all provide when we participate in social media, search engines, and so on. That data is often monetized and that value is created in Canada, and it's appropriate that it be taxed.
That's what it's about. There is no exclusion for any particular enterprise. There is a scope proposed for the tax, and that scope would not normally include the sale per se of goods or services. It may include situations where there is data harvested through that activity. That may be within the scope of the proposed tax.
Andrew Marsland
View Andrew Marsland Profile
Andrew Marsland
2021-05-11 17:39
I'm not in a position to discuss particular enterprises. What I was trying to explain was the scope of that tax. Any particular enterprise would be included to the extent that it was involved in the monetization of data and the other requirements of the proposed tax were met.
Stéphane Cardin
View Stéphane Cardin Profile
Stéphane Cardin
2021-02-26 14:14
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
Last September marked Netflix's 10th anniversary in Canada. We're grateful that over the last decade around seven million Canadians have welcomed us into their homes.
We filmed our first series in Canada in 2012, and our activity has grown ever since. In 2017, we signed an agreement with the government to establish Netflix Canada under the Investment Canada Act, which enabled us to hire Canadians directly. In return, Netflix made substantial commitments, including to invest a minimum of $500 million over five years in production activity across the country. Canada is one of our top production countries globally, and since 2017 we have in fact invested more than $2.5 billion here.
This includes our original series and films, as well as collaborations with independent producers and broadcasters in English and French. We also continue to acquire series and films, most recently Le guide de la famille parfaite.
Netflix also contributes to the vitality and competitiveness of Canada's audiovisual industry through long-term leases for stages, collaborations with leading animation and VFX studios, and the hundreds of vendors we work with across the country.
Earlier this month, we shared great news about our plan to open an office and hire a dedicated content executive in Canada. Netflix is excited to expand our connections with the Canadian creative community and to continue strengthening our local work and partnerships.
Our track record over the past decade is clear. Netflix is committed to Canada, and our message to you is equally clear. We will continue to bring Canadian stories to the world.
We understand that policy-makers must consider the nature of contributions from all players in Canada's entertainment ecosystem. To the extent that Bill C-10 aims to create a flexible framework that will enable the CRTC to tailor conditions of service applied to online undertakings and to recognize the different ways that online services contribute, we think such an approach makes sense.
However, simply imposing the regulatory obligations of licensed Canadian broadcasters onto online entertainment services would not be an appropriate approach to ensuring contributions from this otherwise vibrant sector. Services like Netflix do not perform the same roles as traditional broadcasters, nor do we have the same content strategies.
We look forward to discussing these issues at public hearings before the CRTC at the appropriate time. For now, we note our concern with an approach that would impose a uniform 30% Canadian programming expenditure requirement to the Canadian revenues of online video entertainment services.
Such an approach would not create a level playing field, nor would it be fair and equitable. Netflix seeks no regulatory benefits. Nor do we offer news or live sports programming—the categories that enable Canadian broadcast groups to meet the majority of their spending obligations.
Canadian consumers have more entertainment options than ever. An overly burdensome regulatory framework could result in reduced choice for Canadians. As new global services are launched, some may decide not to enter the Canadian market at all, while others may avoid regulation by providing their content through a Canadian intermediary instead of setting up here.
The government has stated its ambition to create a world-class communications sector for Canada and highlighted the importance of enabling and promoting Canadian culture, contributing to economic growth, and safeguarding the interests of Canadian consumers.
In order to achieve that ambition and build a well-balanced, forward-looking and resilient model, let's acknowledge the contributions of each participant in the system and enable them to play to their strengths for the benefit of Canadian stories, workers and consumers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take your questions.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-02-26 14:40
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for being here today, because they always enrich us with their contribution.
I would like to start with you, Mr. Cardin. Netflix has invested the equivalent of $2.5 billion in Canada since its agreement with the government, which is very good. That's about three-quarters of a billion dollars a year. Can you tell me how much of that goes to acquisitions versus what goes to production?
Stéphane Cardin
View Stéphane Cardin Profile
Stéphane Cardin
2021-02-26 14:40
I don't have the exact figures for the ratio between acquisitions and original Netflix productions. They're both significant. In terms of our productions in Quebec, we have produced comedy specials and the feature film Jusqu'au déclin, which is an original creation, but we have also acquired several feature films, including 1991, Bon cop, bad cop, Bon cop, bad cop 2, Les affamés, and others that were once in our catalogue but are no longer there because the rights have expired.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-02-26 14:41
In terms of your investments, can you tell me the ratio of French-language to English-language productions? I'm talking about within Canada, of course.
Stéphane Cardin
View Stéphane Cardin Profile
Stéphane Cardin
2021-02-26 14:41
No. Certainly, as far as the francophone proportion is concerned, we have to make additional efforts. I'll give you that. We are not hiding the fact. It is part of the reason why we decided to open an office in Canada. Our goal is to broaden our relationships with Quebec creators. I hope the proportion will be higher. Quebec, by the way, is a very important centre for us when it comes to visual effects and animation. We are very involved here and we want to increase that presence.
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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 72 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data