Normally, I do not sit on this committee, but on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for heritage matters, specifically for arts and culture.
The cultural community in Quebec is extremely concerned about opening telecommunications to foreign ownership. It is very clear to us in Quebec that telecommunications and broadcasting are increasingly the same thing. This is already the case with some telecommunications equipment, but, overall, it is increasingly the case and will be the case even more. He who controls the medium controls the message; that is very clear to us in Quebec. You know McLuhan better than I do, but that is what he said. It is still true, in my view, and it will become even more true in the future.
I am sure that you have a third-generation smart phone. I am sure that you also have free applications, including some cultural ones. Your wireless company, which essentially comes under the Telecommunications Act, has made some cultural choices for you: CBC television, for example, or CBC radio, or Maclean's magazine or even Disney videos—because Disney has free applications too. Bell provides applications of that kind when it provides its wireless equipment. In other words, telecommunications companies are making cultural choices for you in Canada. They are making different ones in Quebec, and they are not subject to the Broadcasting Act.
Even in France, wireless telephones will carry television programs. I would remind you that, even in the United States, you cannot acquire a telecommunications company any way you please. Their legislation says that you have to establish your credentials, for national security reasons among others.
So telecommunications and broadcasting are moving closer and closer together and getting harder and harder to tell apart. Mr. Hejazi, earlier, you said that the telecommunications sector is critical. Mr. Wilson, the author of the report that has prompted our present study, also says that it is very difficult to separate telecommunications from broadcasting. The CRTC president sat in the chair where you are now, Mr. Morck, and told us that, because telecommunications and broadcasting are so intertwined, we have to combine three acts: the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Radiocommunication Act.
But we must also protect and promote the cultures of both Canada and Quebec. This is so true that Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions precisely in order to protect those cultures. We also know that the foundations of Canadian culture are shakier than Quebec culture on a number of levels.
Are we afraid of being bought up by foreign companies? Yes. The world of culture is afraid of being bought up by foreign companies, because we know what happens when it is. We also know what happens when there is no regulation. There is no regulation over cinema screens, for example, meaning that 98% of the screens in Canada are showing foreign films, in particular, American ones.
In Quebec, the situation is a lot less noticeable given the strength of our nation's culture, as you know. We have even managed to take on so-called American blockbusters. Last summer, for example, the Quebec film De père en flic took in more at the box office than all the American movies showing at the time, including Harry Potter, as an example.
You might say that lack of regulation is, in general, not an economic principle, but a political one. When there is no regulation, companies do nothing. They sit here, they beg us not to regulate, and they say that they will do it themselves. Of course, they do nothing and I could give you a number of examples.
So, there you go. Those are my comments. I just want to add one more thing, Mr. Morck. You said earlier that singers do not produce more songs when they have had one big hit and have made a lot of money. That is not true. That would mean that guys like Luc Plamondon, or singers like Céline Dion would not record songs anymore. Those are examples that you are familiar with, but I could also give you examples like Fred Pellerin, Karkwa or the Colocs.
What you are saying is not true. Singers and the world of economics are not motivated by the same principles. Those artists do not sing just to make money necessarily; they sing to express their emotions and their souls, if I may put it like that. They are in a different ballpark entirely.
I would like to hear your comments on that.