Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Glick, thank you for your testimony. It's really challenging to a person who just isn't quite as in step with the pace of the renaissance of technology as you are. You'll have to allow me some space, if you will, and not Google space, but some chronological space, I guess.
I come from an musical background. I used to have a band. We used to rely on the recording industry and associated structures to protect us. Parliament is struggling with how we protect our artists and our musicians, those who have a story to tell, which in the past has been the mirror that has been the Canadian identity. We are what we see and what we hear. We've been pretty proud of what we've accomplished. Also, we've done it from a cultural perspective. Our bilingualism, our bicultural qualities, and our multiculturalism have been the expression of all of that.
I appreciate that Google wants to sort of make everybody happy-ish. I love that word “happy-ish”. It reminds me of labour negotiations, where you hope that everybody can walk away not happy but pretty happy-ish.
What can we do? I mean, we've had Canadian content regulatory frameworks in the past. We've had copyright issues. We've had the CRTC to act as sort of the ombudsman. Out of all your testimony on this renaissance, which I truly believe is a renaissance.... I think Mr. Del Mastro said it went from what you described as stovepipes to smokestacks. In fact, it's like that quantum leap in capacity.
What can we do to project Canadian culture, whatever that means? I don't mean to be prescriptive, but what can we do? What is your advice? You said that all these new voices and viewpoints are going to happen but that the choice is not to be too invasive or intrusive. What is your advice to this committee? Do we continue the CRTC but with a different sort of invisible hand framework or relationship that emerges as the need to establish some general guidelines or that kind of thing? What do we need to do?