ARCHIVED -  Transcript of Proceeding

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

SUBJECT:

Canadian broadcasting in new media

HELD AT:

Conference Centre
Outaouais Room
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec

February 17, 2009

Transcripts

In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of Contents. However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

---

Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission

Transcript

Canadian broadcasting in new media

BEFORE

Konrad von Finckenstein Chairperson
Michel Arpin Commissioner
Len Katz Commissioner
Rita Cugini Commissioner
Michel Morin Commissioner
Timothy Denton Commissioner
Louise Poirier Commissioner
Stephen Simpson Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT

Sylvie Bouffard Secretary

Chris Seidl Hearing Managers
Steven Harroun

Regan Morris Legal Counsel

HELD AT:

Conference Centre
Outaouais Room
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec

February 17, 2009

---

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PRESENTATION BY

Canadian Conference of the Arts 7 / 35

ACTRA 57 / 318

Directors Guild of Canada 118 / 670

APFTQ 161 / 907

Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada 218 / 1270

Gatineau, Quebec

‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Tuesday, February 17, 2009

at 0901 / L'audience débute le mardi 17

février 2009 à 0901

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Bonjour. Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs, et bienvenue à cette audience publique sur la radiodiffusion dans le contexte des nouveaux médias.

2 Le Comité d'audition se compose de Michel Arpin, vice‑président, Radiodiffusion; Len Katz, vice‑président, Télécommunications; Rita Cugini, conseillère régionale de l'Ontario; Michel Morin, conseiller national; Timothy Denton, conseiller national; Louise Poirier, conseillère nationale; Stephen Simpson, conseiller régional de la Colombie‑Britannique et du Yukon; et moi‑même, Konrad von Finckenstein, président du CRTC. Je présiderai l'audience.

3 L'équipe du Conseil qui nous assiste se compose notamment de: les gérants de l'audience, Chris Seidl et Steven Harroun. Monsieur Seidl est directeur de la Politique sur la convergence et monsieur Harroun est gestionnaire de la Recherche sur les nouveaux médias; Regan Morris, conseiller juridique; et Sylvie Bouffard, la secrétaire de l'audience.

4 Ten years ago, the Commission broke new ground with its decision on broadcasting over the internet. We were one of the first regulators in the world to examine this new type of broadcasting and to exempt it from our regulation.

5 At the time, the Commission gave three reasons for that exemption. It determined a) that licensing New Media would not contribute to its development or benefit the Canadian broadcasting system; b) that exempting the New Media undertakings would not have an undue impact on the ability of licensed undertakings to fulfil their regulatory requirements, and c) that the technology needed to develop in key ways before New Media services could compete more directly with traditional media.

6 In 2007, the Commission exempted mobile television services that are received by way of mobile devices for similar reasons.

7 Today, broadband access has become widespread and is available to over 93 per cent of Canadian households. Technological advancements have been so enormous that Canadians can now access to all types of content, including music, games, films and video.

8 Des données récentes indiquent que les Canadiens figurent parmi ceux qui passent le plus de temps en ligne. En 2008, les utilisateurs d'internet au Canada étaient branchés, en moyenne, 46 heures par mois et 83 pour cent d'entre eux visionnaient du contenu vidéo. Même si la radiodiffusion mobile est encore dans son enfance, elle pourrait jouer avant longtemps un rôle beaucoup plus important auprès des auditoires canadiens.

9 Au début de 2007, le Conseil a amorcé un examen de la radiodiffusion dans le contexte des nouveaux médias. Je répète : la radiodiffusion dans le contexte des nouveaux médias; pas les... tous les nouveaux médias, mais seulement la radiodiffusion.

10 Nous avons effectué des recherches, recueilli différents points de vue et décrit de notre mieux cet environnement qui évolue rapidement, dans un document publié en mai 2008. Eu même moment, le Conseil lançait une consultation publique afin de déterminer la portée de l'instance actuelle. Toutes ces étapes nous ont menés à l'audience publique d'aujourd'hui.

11 The purpose of this hearing is clear, it is to gain a better understanding of the New Media environment. We must respect the principles of openness and individual choice that govern the internet while maintaining access to, and for Canadian stories, opinions and ideas. As I have said before, the panel is looking and broadcasting over the internet and Nouveaux Médias; not more, but just broadcasting.

12 We are asking ourselves the following questions:

13 How do we effectively measure the quantity and consumption of broadcasting content in the New Media Environment?

14 What impact is broadcasting in New Media having on traditional broadcasters?

15 Are stakeholders in this environment contributing in an appropriate manner?

16 What type of broadcasting content requires support?

17 Are measures needed to support the promotion and visibility of Canadian broadcasting content in the New Media?

18 And are the approaches that the Commission adopted in 1999 and 2007 still appropriate?

19 That really is the menu for this hearing.

20 I would now ask the Hearing Secretary, madame Bouffard,, to explain the procedures that we are going to be following.

21 Madame Bouffard.

22 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, monsieur le président et bonjour à tous.

23 Before I begin, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.

24 Please note that Commission Members may ask questions in either English or French. You can obtain an interpretation receiver from the commissionaire at the entrance.

25 Le service d'interprétation simultanée est disponible durant cette audience. L'interprétation anglaise se trouve au canal 7 et l'interprétation française au canal 8.

26 When you are in the hearing room, we would ask that you please turn off, and not only put on vibration mode, your cell phones and blackberries as they cause interference on the internal communication systems used by our translators and interpreters. We would appreciate your cooperation in this regard throughout the hearing.

27 Before we get started, I would like to draw your attention to the hearing schedule. The panel will sit today and tomorrow, after which we will reconvene the week of February 23rd to 27. We will then take a week‑long break before resuming on March 2nd.

28 We will begin each morning at 9:00 and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. We will advise you of any changes as they occur. We invite participants to monitor the progress of the hearing in order to be ready to make their presentation on the day scheduled or, if necessary, the day before or after their scheduled date of appearance depending on the progress of the hearing.

29 Pendant toute la durée de l'audience, vous pourrez consulter les documents qui font partie du dossier public pour cette audience dans la salle d'examen qui se trouve dans la Salle Papineau, située à l'extérieur de la salle d'audience à votre droite. Le numéro de téléphone de la salle d'examen est le 819‑953‑3168.

30 There is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter sitting at the table on my right, which will be posted daily on the Commission's website. If you have any questions on how to obtain all or part of this transcript, please approach the court reporter during a break.

31 Please note that the document on the "Issues to be discussed at the 17 February public hearing on Canadian broadcasting in new media" which was sent to all appearing participants on 23 January 2009, is available on the Commission's website and copies are available in the Public Examination Room.

32 We will now proceed with the presentations in the order of appearance set out in the agenda. Each participant will make their presentation followed by questions by the hearing panel.

33 And now, Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with Item number 1 on the agenda. I invite the Canadian Conference of the Arts ‑‑ la Conférence canadienne des arts ‑‑ to make its presentation.

34 Appearing for the Canadian Conference of the Arts is Alain Pineau. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION

35 M. PINEAU: Merci, madame la Secrétaire. Bonjour, monsieur le président. Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs les conseillers.

36 Mon nom est Alain Pineau. Je suis la directeur général de la Conférence canadienne des arts. La CCA est la plus ancienne et la plus vaste organisation parapluie du Secteur des arts et de la culture au pays. Depuis 60 ans CCA travaille à la promotion de notre culture nationale dans tous les secteurs d'activités.

37 Nous sommes apparus devant le Conseil à plusieurs reprises dans le passé, essentiellement parce que c'est dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion que l'on trouve la formulation la plus complète de politique culturelle jamais adoptée par le Parlement canadien.

38 Nous avons maintes fois, au cours des dernières années, exprimé notre point de vue sur la question des Nouveaux Médias et nous sommes heureux d'avoir l'occasion d'en discuter à nouveau dans le cadre de ces audiences.

39 Mes remarques d'aujourd'hui seront relativement brèves. Elles seront axées essentiellement sur le fait que nous croyons fermement qu'il est temps d'appliquer à cette nouvelle plate‑forme de distribution la réglementation appropriée qui assurera que comme les autres qui l'ont précédée les Nouveaux Médias contribueront pleinement à la poursuite des objectifs sociaux et culturels contenus dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion dont vous êtes les gardiens.

40 The old maxim that says "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it seems very germane today." The New Media issues that the CRTC has studied since its 1995 Information Highway Report are really the same issues that we've heard about the old media for decades.

41 We think we can and should learn from the past. We go back to the three key principles that Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett set out 75 years ago in even more challenging economic times to introduce the country's first Broadcast Act. He said, and I quote:

42 "First of all, this country must be assured of complete control of broadcasting from Canadian sources free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control, broadcasting can never become a great agency for communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals.

43 Secondly, it does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate.

44 And, thirdly, the use of the air or the air itself is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction and which the Crown holds in trust for all the people."

45 You and your predecessors have tackled the challenges of radio, television, tape recorders, cable, VCRs, wireless cable, deathstars and DVDs guided by these principles. And at each step of the way, new technology has raised the same questions: Is this broadcasting? Should it be regulated and how? How does it contribute to the cultural objectives of the Broadcasting Act?

46 Answering these questions was not always evident at first. In the early sixties, for example, it was not clear why cable which was then defined as a "collection of TV receivers joined together to a common receiving antenna", should be defined as broadcasters.

47 But cable became part of our broadcasting system because these systems were receiving and transmitting broadcasting content to their subscribers, because the systems could, to some extent, control the content they transmitted and because their rapid growth was affecting local TV stations.

48 It was determined that systems that distribute broadcast programming should contribute to the Broadcasting Act cultural and social objectives.

49 Keeping an eye on the philosophical foundations of our broadcasting systems, I would like to turn briefly to the second of the assumptions and issues listed in Schedule 2 of your Notice to Appear.

50 We were particularly struck by the Commission's assumption that the New Media broadcasting environment is not characterized by scarcity, but by abundance, and I quote: "Essentially unlimited shelf space".

51 Frankly, we don't quite know what to make of this assumption. We expect the Commission to be dealing with the limitations on New Media shelf space in the upcoming Telecom Traffic Management hearing in June.

52 Actually, we'd ask that the two hearings be combined because we agree that there is an important relationship between shelf space and content and the accessibility to Canadian content in particular.

53 The problem we see is this: If gate‑keepers can restrict online accessibility to New Media broadcasting content in the name of traffic management, the assumption of abundance becomes invalid. But we will address this issue fully in the Traffic Management hearing and focus here on the other issues immediately at hand.

54 La CCA croit fermement qu'il est essentiel de faire appel à la réglementation pour assurer que les objectifs établis par le Parlement canadien sont activement poursuivis parce que le marché n'a pas le bien public comme objectif.

55 Compte tenu de la convergence des technologies et le fait indéniable qu'un nombre croissant de Canadiens utilisent l'internet et la distribution sans fil pour avoir accès à un contenu culturel qui a traditionnellement été défini comme de la radiodiffusion, nous croyons que vous avez non seulement l'autorité nécessaire, mais le devoir d'adopter le genre de réglementation nécessaire pour assurer que la volonté du Parlement soit respectée.

56 À ce chapitre, il est intéressant de noter que si vous avez le pouvoir d'exempter, c'est que vous avez sans doute également celui de réglementer. Il est intéressant de noter que personne ne vous a contesté le pouvoir d'exempter, mais qu'on vous conteste celui de réglementer.

57 Où est l'erreur?

58 Cependant, nous ne croyons pas que le Parlement canadien n'ait jamais envisagé la possibilité que la poursuite des objectifs de la Section 3 de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion soit une responsabilité des millions de Canadiens qui utilisent l'internet ou un téléphone cellulaire.

59 Bien qu'ils contribuent, de toute évidence, à la production de contenus canadiens sur les Nouveaux Médias, il n'est évidemment pas de notre intention de recommander que vous tentiez de réglementer YouTube. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous sommes pour le maintien de l'exemption pour tout contenu qui est produit par les utilisateurs.

60 At the same time, the CRTC should not ignore 30 or 40 large legacy broadcasting groups that are reusing, recycling and re‑purposing their existing radio and television content to give it new life online to attract new revenues and support and complement their traditional broadcasting activities.

61 Nor should you ignore the ISPs that benefit from making broadcasting content available to their subscribers and promote this as part of their marketing tools.

62 These are the kinds of New Media broadcasters that we think the spirit of the Broadcasting Act should make you supervise. Broadcasting is broadcasting, whatever the distribution platform. Our Legislators had the prescience to recognize that when they adopted in 1991 a new Broadcasting Act which is technicologically neutral.

63 We, therefore, urge you to implement the framework for regulating undertakings that receive subscription, advertising and/or public funding from broadcast content, regardless of the transmission conduit that carries that content to audiences.

64 And just as you exempt small radio, television and distribution undertakings from regulation, you should also exempt the small New Media undertakings from regulation if their income or web cast hours falls below a minimum annual threshold because they will not be able to contribute to our broadcasting system in the way that larger companies like CTV, Rogers, Shaw or Bellcan and should contribute.

65 What such thresholds may be, I am unfortunately not in a position to suggest, but I'm sure they can be established in all fairness by you, based on factual and principle considerations.

66 The reason we don't have any specific numeric proposal leads to the second issue I would like to address, namely the importance of measurement.

67 More than a decade after the CRTC Information Highway Report, we still don't have a reporting system that generates annuals valid and reliable programming audience and financial data about internet broadcasting.

68 So, we very much welcome the commitment the Commission made in its 2008 Communications Report to undertake annual monitoring in this area. That commitment matters because without it, neither the Commission nor Canadians will know if and/or when Parliament's goals are being met.

69 Without valid and reliable data, it is easy to hide problems or create crisis. As Mr. Yvan Fitshand said in this room two years ago, if you don't measure it, you can't manage it.

70 The third and last issue I would like to address involves money. In some ways, you could see this New Media proceeding as new money proceeding, but the basic principle is well‑established. If an undertaking is set up to draw benefits from our broadcasting system, over‑the‑air or online, Parliament says that it should contribute to the wellbeing of that system.

71 CCA believes that undertakings established to benefit from the broadcasting system on or off line should contribute to that system. There are many ways to do this, from opening up shelf space to proper promotion all the way to financing.

72 You'll hear some creative proposals during this hearing relative to promotion and shelf space or Canadian content on New Medias and since we will be talking about the shelf space issue primarily in the Traffic Management hearing, I will limit my remarks to data funding.

73 Nous savons tous que la bonne programmation et particulièrement dans le genre dramatique coûte cher. À tous les deux ou trois ans au cours des sept dernières décennies, nous avons vu la publication de rapports parlementaires ou gouvernementaux qui en sont tous arrivés à cette même conclusion.

74 La réponse aux questions que vous soulevez, à savoir s'il est nécessaire de subventionner la production de contenus canadiens pour les Nouveaux Médias et si oui, comment, ne peut être que oui. Nous croyons que le modèle du Fonds canadien de télévision peut être adapté pour les Nouveaux Médias.

75 Nous appuyons donc la suggestion mise de l'avant par Peter Grant. En s'appuyant sur des estimés qui, apparemment, se situent entre 50 et 70 pour cent, contenu véhiculé par les Nouveaux Médias qui répond à la définition de radiodiffusion, nous croyons raisonnable que les fournisseurs de service internet et de diffusion sans fil contribuent jusqu'à trois pour cent de leurs revenus à un fonds pour le financement de la création de contenus canadiens destinés aux Nouveaux Médias.

76 This is the way to establish the level playing field traditional broadcasters are always asking for. Some have suggested that since most of the quality content material available in New Medias comes from traditional broadcast undertakings, the new money should be accessible to them through the Canadian Television Fund.

77 Others favour a totally separate fund for the creation of truly New Media targeted material. Each idea has its merits and maybe the solution is somewhere halfway where a separate fund is created, but is accessible to all.

78 However, given the fact that the production of Canadian content is under funded by Commission's own reckoning, we suggest that administrative costs and procedures should be kept to a minimum and that existing administrative structures be called upon to manage any new fund which may be created further to this hearing.

79 And finally, we don't think that millions of users would suddenly terminate their connections if their ISPs have to allocate a few percentage points of revenue to a New Media content fund.

80 After all, between 1993 and 1995, when the CRTC introduced the CTF, cable company subscriptions grew by more than 290,000 subscribers. This doesn't mean that the CTF made subscriptions go up, but it only means that there wasn't any dramatic drop in subscription either.

81 To conclude, Mr. Chairman, CCA looks to the lessons of history. Eighty years ago, Canadians told the 1929 Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting that they wanted Canadian broadcasting because without it the mind of our youth would be moulded by foreign ideals and opinions.

82 Fifteen years ago, the CRTC created a programming fund supported by BDUs and taxpayers to address the same challenges. As the CRTC said at the time, and I quote: "At this point, the only sure thing about the brave new world of the multi‑channel universe is that few of the choices it offers will reflect Canada, our culture or our values, unless we invest a great deal more money in Canadian programming."

83 These problems remain current and you can provide some of the solutions by acting wisely and applying the correct dose of regulation and incentives to ensure that in keeping with the Broadcasting Act social and cultural objectives, Canadians have access to their own brand of programming, irrespective of the distribution platform they choose.

84 Thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to any questions you may have and if I cannot provide you with the answers ‑‑ I cannot provide you with a proper answer, I am ready to do it in writing.

85 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation. I read your submission very carefully and well, first of all, I want to go through some clarifications. But, let's start with what you've said this morning.

86 You talked about challenging our assumption of abundance and you're showing in the concept of shelf space and suggesting that the New Media hearing that we have in August will deal with this.

87 Frankly, I am confused about this. To me, to my mind, these are two totally different issues. The Traffic Management is about the pipe and how much goes through it and how you regulate it to make sure that there is no contention. That has absolutely nothing to do with shelf space. I don't understand how you talk shelf space. As far as I know this, how much is out there, how much can be put out there, how much can people could use and put, let's say, with the internet file agency so that right now, surely there is an unlimited amount you can post on the internet, there is not a defined shelf space. That's why we have suggested we should use as one underlying assumptions, the idea of abundance. Where are we disconnecting here?

88 MR. PINEAU: Well, unless my misunderstanding of the system is the cause of this, it seems to me that if ISPs have the power to limit my access, either through traffic management or increasing charges for people who would provide them with videos that charge their systems, this is not unlimited access. There are limitations to the way that the system operates.

89 I guess it's only this fundamental point that we are trying to make and if we're confused, we'll see that in the summer.

90 THE CHAIRPERSON: You're throwing access. I was talking with shelf space with the hour issues that broadcasting and New Media represents an evolution of the broadcasting system into a global on demand and increasingly convert road. According to broadcasting and New Media is one of not ‑‑ not one of scarcity, but of abundance and essentially unlimited status.

91 You may have to pay more for access if that's what you do there, ISPs is aside and we sanction or something, but the fact is out there, you can post as much as you want to produce as you can, but there is no limit on the amount that is there. If there is any limitation as you suggest, it would be purely in terms of price of access, not in capacity of access.

92 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

93 THE CHAIRPERSON: We agree on that.

94 MR. PINEAU: Well, yes, we agree on that, certainly.

95 THE CHAIRPERSON: Secondly, in your written submission you sort of take issue with our suggested definition of broadcasting where we say "broadcasting is really video" and when you predominantly offer numeric, we don't consider that broadcasting. No, that's not quite how far we would go. Surely you can have numeric content, for instance, newspaper content has a real purpose on the VEP and that should be considered broadcasting.

96 Frankly, explain that to me, how a newspaper content on VEP to my mind is not ‑‑

97 MR. PINEAU: You know, I think maybe we were not clear in what we were pointing at is the fact that when you turn to newspaper pages on the internet, more and more, in particular because of the consolidation of ownership, you will find ‑‑ you will find video clips as well and at one point or another, you know, it's like a newspaper which is made only of photographs is a potential.

98 We are just pointing out that fact, that alpha numeric, what is considered currently alpha numeric pages we should keep an eye on because there is more and more audiovisual content that's being added to it. That's the only point that we are making.

99 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So, extrapolating from that, if you have somebody transmitting both alpha numeric text and video, you are saying only account the video because that's part of broadcasting, even if there is only ‑‑

100 MR. PINEAU: Yes. That's what we would be saying and we are not suggesting at this point or at any point that you regulate that content. We are just saying, let's keep an eye on it, let's keep an open mind about the fact that this is evolving.

101 THE CHAIRPERSON: On page 6 of your written submission, paragraph 16, you state the following: In CCA's views, there is also profit from their use of Canadian resources such as the broadcast spectrum or taxpayers subsidization of broad band must also bear some responsibility for financing Canadian programming.

102 Could you elaborate what you mean by taxpayer subsidization of broad band? I don't quite see where the connection is between that and the financing of Canadian programming?

103 MR. PINEAU: We point to the fact that there have been in the past various ways where companies, ISPs, service providers have benefited from either tax breaks or special programs to expand their ‑‑ I cannot identify those programs today, but if you want, I will endeavour to do so.

104 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. I am talking about the concept here. Surely as the Government subsidizes something like broad band, it does that for the benefit, for the public benefit, not for the benefit of the ISPs. It considers that access by Canadians to broad band is something desirable. It leads to better information and better access, better fractioning of our government, better sources of education, whatever. And, therefore, it spends taxpayers money for that purpose.

105 MR. PINEAU: Uh‑huh!

106 THE CHAIRPERSON: You turn that around and say because they do that ISPs have to contribute to the financing of Canadian programming. I don't quite see the connection here.

107 MR. PINEAU: Okay. Well, quite frankly, personally, I see how it flows. If the government intervenes in this business and supports its infrastructure for the greater benefit of Canadians, there is the notion of greater benefit of Canadians that is in there that goes beyond the mere commercial objectives of the company, which would probably not go to this location or that location because it's not financially viable.

108 Once you've introduced the concept which is different I suppose, and I am not ‑‑ I am not a lawyer, I am not a legal expert on those questions, whether the objectives of the Broadcasting Acts are to be limited to over‑the‑air; no. We've already established that they apply to cable.

109 So, we are just carrying this notion forward.

110 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I am not talking lawyer, I am talking concept and there seems to be subsidies are meant for the benefit of all, so, therefore, to suggest somebody who benefits from that subsidy, one single entity or industry in this case, has a responsibility to contribute and I just don't quite see how that works.

111 But let's move on. On page 11 of your ‑‑ you say, you're talking about the whole idea of issue, if we do regulate or if we do impose some sort of regime on ISPs and you are saying that's it's because of the contact, the audiovisual contact, and you suggest we should make a difference between professionally produced and amateur or individual content and what you have said also is fracture, we were not interested in use a generated content.

112 But you then evolve this further and you've said: In brief, just as the Canadian revenue agency has often distinguished between endeavours pursued as hobbies and those undertaking for business purposes. CCA believes the CRTC should distinguish between audiovisual content produced for largely personal reasons and that produced or disseminated for largely business purposes.

113 And then, on page 12, you go on and in paragraph 13 you give me sort of about ten criteria on which to determine whether somebody is in effect the purpose of doing a business or doing it for hobby purposes.

114 I understand the concept and I know that how we run our tax system. I have real trouble translating that idea into our world. What exactly are we supposed to do as CRTC? We are supposed to go and examine each ISTs business and come to the conclusion ‑‑ apply these various tests, audit them expo facto in order to determine whether they are there for as producers or leap sites or whatever, for the purpose of whether they are in the business of audiovisual production and dissemination or whether they are doing it for hobby? I just ‑‑ operationalize that concept for me.

115 MR. PINEAU: Well, the suggestion is certainly not to go into that sort of regulation.

116 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't think so.

117 MR. PINEAU: I think the intent here was to show that if it were required, it would be possible to apply those criteria. I think common sense and just, you know ‑‑ There is no problem identifying what I will post on YouTube, as opposed to what my business may try and push on the internet. And there again, I think, you know, we do distinguish between small companies and the major players.

118 I think we are trying to be practical here, not to suggest things that nobody wants, including ourselves, regulation that is so convoluted that it imposes a burden both on the Commission and on the regulated.

119 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am glad you've said that you are not suggesting that we evolve a system as complicated as the Tax Act.

120 MR. PINEAU: No, no.

121 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, that's where the ideas come from.

122 Then on page 16, you are saying: "We need more data and really we believe that CRTC should introduce regulatory requirements for the New Media broadcast regulates and in so doing, requires these undertakings to provide the Commission with annual data about their New Media activities."

123 What do you have in mind? What kind of data, assuming we follow your advice, what type of data do you feel new media broadcasting activities should provide?

124 MR. PINEAU: Well, I think they should provide what is ‑‑ what it is that they make available, what they have done in order to promote the material, maybe data on how ‑‑ I mean, we are talking about an increasing use, but as far as I know ‑‑

125 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, let's ‑‑ what they make available, you mean what they show?

126 MR. PINEAU: What ‑‑ yes, what they promote. What they promote because everything is there.

127 THE CHAIRPERSON: What they promote.

128 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

129 THE CHAIRPERSON: Everything is there. So, you are interested in what do they do to promote and a distinction on the basis of content or original content or what?

130 MR. PINEAU: Well, that, quite frankly, I haven't worked that out, but that's basically the kind of information that we think we need in order to assess properly what's happening there. I mean, otherwise, anybody can say anything.

131 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's my question. Don't turn it back to me as a question. I am saying: what do you need? You say regulate exact information. So I say, fine, assuming I do that, what information do you want?

132 MR. PINEAU: Can I provide you with a written answer to that?

133 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

134 MR. PINEAU: Okay.

135 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now then, on that same page 16, you talk about defining Canadian New Media broadcasting content. And I am not quite sure whether you advocate that we use the same criteria for defining Canadian content as we do exist presently in form in television or whether you are suggesting a modified form?

136 MR. PINEAU: No. I think the ‑‑ if memory serves me right in both our submissions we talked about the fact that there may be a slight modifications to be made to the existing definitions, but that broadly speaking, they would ‑‑ they would fit the bill for the time being.

137 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the 10‑point card you transfer that to New Media production is basically what you are saying?

138 MR. PINEAU: That would be ‑‑ particularly when you are dealing with people who are already in the broadcasting business, that's obviously ‑‑ that obviously applies.

139 THE CHAIRPERSON: And then, both this morning and in your written submission you seem to have a sort of ambivalent feeling towards the Canadian Television Fund.

140 On the one hand you say you support it and you say you want to save administration costs and on the other hand you are saying, well, maybe we need a New Media Fund or a separate fund, et cetera.

141 Let me put it, why not, if we go that route which you suggest, why not just put that money in the CTF and CTF can spend it either on traditional broadcasting, on New Media broadcasting because most of traditional broadcasting gets re‑purposed of New Media anyway as you've said. Well, if somebody wants to start on a New Media and then re‑purpose to traditional, let's them decide whichever way to do it.

142 But yet, you seem to have some reservation or some concerns about it, so maybe you can explain that to us?

143 MR. PINEAU: Yes. They are not personal concerns quite frankly because I am not familiar enough with the mechanisms and how it operates at the level of Telefilm. I have to remind the Commission, you know, that humbly I am an umbrella organization that has got a very vast mandate, so I can't know the details. But I know that some people are concerned.

144 I mean, there were rumours about the New Media Fund, and you probably remember that there was a long controversy as to whether the New Media Fund in Heritage had been abolished or not.

145 We just found out in the latest budget that it has been reconducted at the same level and we're happy of it, but I remember that before we knew that, there were also some rumours circulating about where the fund would go, if it survived and everything.

146 And some people in the New Media business expressed concern to me about the fact that it would go to the television fund because it's television, because the players there dominate, so that's why I am just being prudent. I say personally it seems to me that the television fund would be a nice place to put it or telefilm, I am not familiar enough with the industry to say that.

147 I am sure that lots of people who will appear after me will have opinions on this and from both sides of the fence also.

148 So, we are just saying that let's not create another fund. There are already plenty. Let's not burden whatever money because we don't have enough money for the production of Canadian content with a new super structure or whatever and let's see how we can guarantee the interest of everybody, not only the traditional broadcasters because I have a lot of sympathy for the view that, indeed, you know, important content, content that matters, which is quality content, will come most likely, continue to come from the large broadcast undertakings.

149 And therefore, the more money we can throw at them to produce that quality material, whatever the platform is, I think is an objective that we should pursue. Whether we have to give guarantees within that system under CTF, the way the fund is created or something, that's why I am trying to find a middle of the road solution, which would be a different part of money administered by the same people according to rules where both traditional broadcasters could go and apply alongside others, but I don't know.

150 THE CHAIRPERSON: But don't we have that? You have a CTF, CPF has the traditional media fund which is a bulk and they have little small funds which are called "New Media Fund"? I mean, and they are administered by the same people and they have a bulk which has interest from both industries or maybe a larger bulk. But it seems to me what you are advocating is already there.

151 MR PINEAU: I'm sorry, I am not ‑‑

152 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, this present CTF ‑‑

153 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

154 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ represents people from ‑‑ various people on the board represent broadcasters, represent producers who are active in both new and traditional media. The fund itself has two divisions or three really, public ‑‑ I don't know what the administration would observe, but there is one part which is traditional media and there is a small sub‑fund for New Media. So, the structure is basically there. That is sort of something what you advocate.

155 MR. PINEAU: Absolutely.

156 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, as you recall, when we made in 1999 the decision to exempt, as I have mentioned at the outset, there were three things which we've said. Number 1, licensing New Media would not contribute to its development or benefit the Canadian broadcasting system.

157 In your view, does that sort of apply to that?

158 MR. PINEAU: But New Media would not ‑‑

159 THE CHAIRPERSON: That licensing New Media would not contribute to its development or benefit the Canadian broadcasting system.

160 MR. PINEAU: Now, why ‑‑ I mean, I think we are here to say that there should be some form of regulation in order to ensure that they fully contribute. I think there is enough evidence to show that they have the power to do so.

161 THE CHAIRPERSON: And the second finding was that exempting New Media undertakings would not have an undue impact on the ability of license undertakings to fulfil the regulatory requirements. I mean, ten years later now, is that still a correct reflection of the reality?

162 MR. PINEAU: That exempting would not hurt.

163 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would not have an undue impact on the ability of licence undertaking to fulfil the regulatory requirements?

164 MR. PINEAU: I don't think that necessarily has changed, but I think the matter if it means more ‑‑ how the New Media will contribute their own weight to achieving the objectives of the Act, whether it impacts on the business of others is something that, from this selfish perspective of the common good is not relevant.

165 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And lastly, the technology needed to develop in key ways before New Media services could compete more directly with traditional media. I think the term of your submission this morning is that indeed it does compete really now?

166 MR. PINEAU: Oh! yes, it does. It does. It's just another platform, it's becoming more and more popular and quite frankly, I am beginning to use it more and more myself, so if somebody like me uses it, I mean a lot of people are there already.

167 THE CHAIRPERSON: I won't comment on that.

168 MR. PINEAU: I appreciate.

169 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, we are sort of and we pointed it prior to the hearing we sent in a memo saying we are really going to focus here on six subject matters.

170 The first one was measurement and clearly as you will say, and you've quoted somebody saying that you can't measure it, you can't deal with it. How should we measure this? Is it ‑‑ what you say, I mean, we all, I think, are amazed by the fact of that New Media has done, how creative it is, how innovative and what it created, et cetera and we want to find means, if we do anything at all, because not to disturb that phenomenon sort of innovation or of expansion or empowerment, et cetera.

171 So, what kind of measurement would be ‑‑ would make sense so that you maintain that innovative spirit as much as possible?

172 MR. PINEAU: Well, I think we want to know how much new original material and how much derived from other programming is this thing. I mean, we want to measure the provision of Canadian content, of quality Canadian content and the variety of it. We want to see how much of it is promoted, how it is promoted. We want to see how much of it is consumed.

173 I think the main message that we are trying to put to the Commission here is to increase the volume of quality traditionally defined as broadcasting material.

174 I mean, at the end of the day, you know, the YouTube wonders and everything, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom, I have nothing against that, far from it, and then from there, we will probably rise very productive and very profitable businesses as we have seen in the past. They will come, they will go, it's the nature of the medium. But we want to ensure that there is a substantial level of material available. That's ‑‑

175 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any indication there isn't?

176 MR. PINEAU: Sorry?

177 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any indication there isn't? I mean, your question is sort of ‑‑

178 MR. PINEAU: There I am going to return the question to you: have you got any indications that there is? I mean, everybody says there is, if it suits them. I don't know. I don't know. I have no idea what ‑‑ how much is available there.

179 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, you want a measurement in order to ascertain whether there is scarcity or not?

180 MR. PINEAU: Of programming?

181 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

182 MR. PINEAU: Yes. Of what I would ‑‑ I mean ‑‑

183 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean the Canadian content programming. Let's deal with that.

184 MR. PINEAU: The concern here is with what we have tried to describe, you know, as quality, high quality, more production, because it's going to come ‑‑ it's already available from abroad also. So, we want to make sure that there is a Canadian presence on that ‑‑ on that platform.

185 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's not talk quality. Let's talk non‑use of generated content. I mean, the quality ‑‑

186 MR. PINEAU: Yes, yes.

187 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ is a subject of that.

188 MR. PINEAU: No. You're absolutely right.

189 THE CHAIRPERSON: But what you really wanted to ‑‑ you want a measurement to ensure that there is sufficient presence or that there is sufficient ‑‑

190 MR. PINEAU: Sufficient presence, sufficient promotion and sufficient ‑‑ and also measurements as to how it fares. I mean, you know, we want to know how many people are exposed to it, are consuming it.

191 If we are advocating for investment of public money or money through regulation, we want to know how effective it is.

192 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you want to have that data for the purpose of determining that a promotion is needed or not, I assume.

193 MR. PINEAU: Well, that would help measure.

194 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, that must be your end result.

195 You want to find out ‑‑ let's assume there is a large proportion of Canadian content. You want to know what happens to it; to what extent it is consumed by Canadians. If not, then to say would promotion help or something.

196 MR. PINEAU: Yes. Or to go back to the outset of our discussion, is it accessible? What are the rules that apply to it? Is it affected by what I was suggesting, for example, traffic management, or is it not?

197 I can express concerns but unless ‑‑ well, we go back to the quote: unless we measure...

198 THE CHAIRPERSON: The impact, I think you have more or less answered that question.

199 Contribution. I gather the tenor of your submission basically is that new media at this point in time does not contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system.

200 MR. PINEAU: I wouldn't say that. It does contribute in the sense that it does give exposure to a lot of material that is already available. I think it's time that it contributed its whole weight.

201 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you elaborate on that? I mean, new media is a phenomenal powerful tool for promotion and it is being used very much even by traditional broadcasters right now to promote their product to make it known to people and to attract people, et cetera.

202 I think as you could look at the business activity of traditional broadcasters, it's clear they all see that opportunity and exploit it in various ways.

203 So that's not enough, in your view. Their full load, as you put it, would consist of doing what?

204 MR. PINEAU: Well, it's the way you access the material. Others may have more specific suggestions and once again, if you want more specific suggestions, I can come up with that.

205 You are right in the sense that this is a completely different medium.

206 Publicity for a program or publicity for a clip on utube is done through means that were not accessible to promotion before. So we have to take into account ‑‑ when we suggest that ISPs have a responsibility for promotion, I have to take into account the reality of the medium obviously and what that means specifically has to be established reasonably.

207 So I can't be more precise on that.

208 THE CHAIRPERSON: So how do you answer the suggestions from ISPs, which you will hear later, saying look, we are a common carrier. We are a pipe; we just make the pipe available. Anybody can shoot through it. We have absolutely nothing to do with content. So don't stick me with a charge. Don't stick me with the duty of promotion, et cetera. That's not my business. I'm in the business of transporting bits and that's what I do, whatever the bits consist of.

209 MR. PINEAU: Well, I don't know what the legal answer to that is because it's like ‑‑ that's why I said in my presentation that whatever the technical arguments or the legalistic arguments that can be forwarded to say no, not me, you have to step back and look at the system in the spirit of the Act.

210 This is a distribution system like another and they find it profitable to sell their wares by saying yes, you can download your music, you can look at your video clips, you can look at your movie. There is no end to what they will convince me of.

211 And they don't have to contribute to the system? I'm at a loss here.

212 That's why I turn to the spirit of the Act. It's supposed to be technologically neutral.

213 Both the Commission and the CCA have said publicly and I think if I remember correctly I heard you in front of the parliamentary committee say that we need to have a new legislation for telecoms and broadcasting. It has to take into account where we are at.

214 My preoccupation will be in this process to make sure that the cultural objectives of the Act are maintained, whatever the technology, whether they are a pipe or a this or a that.

215 If they benefit from selling material that includes cultural content and they make a point of it, then I think they should contribute to the system.

216 We are no longer talking only about over the air; we are talking about the new world.

217 THE CHAIRPERSON: If I may summarize ‑‑ and I don't want to put words in your mouth ‑‑ you are basically saying that traditionally we have had distribution systems which go over the air, over cable or satellite. We have a new distribution system now that goes over the Internet or the wireless and it is still part of the broadcasting system, just a different form of distribution. Therefore, it should be caught within the regulatory structure that we have for broadcasting.

218 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

219 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to show you here ‑‑ Madam Secretary, do you have a copy of the definition here?

220 Somebody drafted it and sent it to me and said if you want to do that, you should talk about, for instance, new media broadcast distribution undertakings, saying it's an undertaking that provides the means for its customers to access broadcasting content available through the Internet but does not include a broadcasting entity that offers its customers only a selection of programs.

221 Madam Secretary, do you have a copy of this?

222 THE SECRETARY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

223 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you please give it to our witness and put it on the record.

224 It also has a definition for mobile broadcasting distribution: an undertaking that provides the means for its customers to access a selection of broadcasting content that is received by way of mobile devices such as cellular telephones and personal digital assistance.

225 As I understand it, this is the nutshell of the idea. You may not like this particular wording, but that's really what you are trying to address, saying these people are distributing broadcasting content and therefore they should be incorporating definitions such as this or something along those lines.

226 I don't want to overstate what you are saying, but on the other hand I have to put it in some sort of framework.

227 MR. PINEAU: I must say that at first blush I feel quite comfortable with those definitions. I think I may misunderstand or I'm not sure about the end of the first one.

228 But generally speaking, yes.

229 If you want second sober thought ‑‑

230 THE CHAIRPERSON: I expect you and others will reflect on it and presumably in the written follow‑up will comment on it.

231 Lastly on support. As you know, traditionally we support the creation of Canadian content both through monetary and regulatory incentives, for the simple reason that the market is too small and the cost of production is the same if they produce 30 million or 300 million.

232 In order to see the Canadian broadcasting reflect Canadian content, there has to be some assistance.

233 In your view, does the same thinking, the same approach apply to new media content or is there a difference?

234 MR. PINEAU: I think the same applies, particularly since there is this broad overlap between traditional broadcasting and material that would be made available in either just straight out or with additional material prepared especially for Internet distribution.

235 I think that applies.

236 THE CHAIRPERSON: Some of the other submissions suggest that new media is really a whole new ballgame. It's a different business case. The costs of production are immensely cheaper. You can have virtual cooperation and production, et cetera.

237 So really the support that was required for traditional content is not required for new media content.

238 I gather you don't agree with that.

239 MR. PINEAU: No. And quite frankly, I may have a simplistic view of the world, but to the extent that we are talking about the creation of content on the one hand, whether it is high quality, middle quality, whatever you want to call it, and the distribution on the other hand, I think that applies.

240 We currently don't have enough money to produce for traditional broadcasting. If all of that goes to a pot where there, as I suggested, access for traditional forms of program production to be adapted and modified and distributed on the Internet, so be it.

241 I'm not in favour of breaking up little pots for this and little pots for that. Let's try and bring the money together and see what best we can do with it.

242 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right.

243 I think the question on visibility and promotion you answered because you suggested you want to have measurement to see whether promotion is required, et cetera. And we talked about exceptions.

244 So those are my questions.

245 Michel...?

246 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Maybe only one of clarification, a very small one.

247 In your oral presentation, in paragraph 8, you said you and your predecessor have tackled the challenges of radio, television, tape recorders, cable, VCRs, wireless that started DVDs.

248 Did you mean DVDs or VoDs?

249 MR. PINEAU: Yes, sorry, a typo.

250 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Okay.

251 THE CHAIRPERSON: Len...?

252 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you.

253 Good morning, Mr. Pineau. I've just got a couple of quick questions as well.

254 Can I take you to your submission of December 5th, to paragraph 39 on page 14.

255 There is a sentence at the end that I would like you to expand upon. It reads as follows:

"The experience of the past decade demonstrates that when the CRTC reduces regulatory requirements for Canadian programming, private investors reduce their commitments to Canadian programming."

256 Can you give us examples of that correlation and where that has happened?

257 MR. PINEAU: Well, I think we were referring to the 1999 change of regulation where the relationship between revenue and expenditure in Canadian programming was broken up, and we have seen the impact of that.

258 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Are there any other situations like that?

259 MR. PINEAU: Not that come to mind now. But if you want some more examples, I'm sure I can fish them out.

260 This is certainly the one that we had in mind.

261 COMMISSIONER KATZ: All right.

262 Also, on page 6 of that same submission you talked ‑‑ and I think the Chairman took you through some of the suggestions here about taxpayers subsidizing infrastructure.

263 But you also have a table on here with regard to fees that were paid by the telecommunications industry and the broadcasting industry.

264 The one thing that is not on here are all these option fees that are being paid for by the telecommunications carriers as they purchase spectrum.

265 What that not considered as part of this table?

266 MR. PINEAU: I don't think it was. And you may have a point.

267 Can I get back to you on that?

268 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Yes, you can.

269 Lastly in your submission this morning, in paragraph 18 you say ‑‑ and I will read it out:

"... nor should you ignore the ISPs that benefit from making broadcasting content available to their subscribers and promote this as part of their marketing tools."

270 Can you expand on all the benefits that you see that accrue to ISPs, just so that we have them all on the record?

271 MR. PINEAU: Well, in some cases they sell me the device. They sell me so many bits per month in order to access that material. They are trying to push something that will increase my consumption of bit rates.

272 When I get my bill every month from Rogers, they keep reminding me that I can do this, this and that, which apparently I'm not doing with it.

273 So, you know, it's in their interest.

274 And to the extent that they push, as I said, as part of their promotional material the notion that I can access all of that broadcasting material in my mind, I think they stand to benefit overall. Otherwise, they wouldn't try and convince me that I should watch movies on my iPhone or that I should download these songs and everything.

275 I mean, at the end of the day, their benefit is financial.

276 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you. Those are my questions.

277 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel Morin?

278 CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. Bonjour.

279 Si j'ai bien lu votre présentation orale aujourd'hui, jamais vous n'évoquez le mot * consommateur. +

280 M. PINEAU : Non, parce que le rôle... moi, mon rôle ici, c'est de parler plus du citoyen, Monsieur Morin, et c'est dans cet esprit‑là que je viens ici. Le consommateur, c'est la préoccupation... puis, je ne pense pas que ça devrait être la principale préoccupation du Conseil, soit‑dit en passant, si c'est la suggestion que je vois dans votre question, parce que je ne pense pas que le Conseil a dans son mandat donné par la loi de se préoccuper du consommateur. C'est une préoccupation d'autres tribunaux et c'est une préoccupation également des entreprises d'affaires elles‑mêmes.

281 Mais ici, ce dont on devrait pardessus tout se préoccuper, évidemment, en tenant compte de la santé des entreprises là... je ne vous suggère pas d'étrangler ces entreprises‑là, on en a besoin. Mais ceci étant dit, ce n'est pas ma préoccupation.

282 CONSEILLER MORIN : Mais vous savez aussi que par les règlements du CRTC dans le passé, le consommateur, qu'on le veuille ou pas, est déjà mis à contribution. Je vous donne l'exemple, par exemple, des entreprises... des EDRs, des entreprises de distribution. Déjà, il y a 5 pour cent qu'ils doivent contribuer, soit à la télévision communautaire, soit au Fonds canadien de télévision, soit à des fonds spécialisés, même dans les nouveaux médias, et récemment, on a ajouté 1 pour cent pour la programmation locale.

283 M. PINEAU : Et je vous en félicite.

284 CONSEILLER MORIN : Merci. Est‑ce que vous pensez qu'on peut... est‑ce qu'il y a une limite, selon vous, jusqu'à quel point on peut aller dans cette voie là? Parce que si vous reprenez l'argument de monsieur Grant ce matin, 3 pour cent des revenus qui iraient...

285 M. PINEAU : M'hmm.

286 CONSEILLER MORIN : Donc, pour vous, le consommateur, ce n'est pas important, mais est‑ce que, dans votre esprit, il y a une limite à ce qu'on peut faire?

287 M. PINEAU : Je n'ai pas dit que le consommateur, ce n'était pas important. J'ai dit que ce n'était pas notre affaire aujourd'hui, à mon avis, mais ce n'est que mon avis. Je suis un consommateur et je m'en préoccupe quand je vois mes comptes rentrer. Mais je pense que ce n'est pas... non, ce n'est pas... comme disent les Anglais là, it's not the straw that will break the camel's back. La contribution, c'est fait.

288 On parle de... parce que si on veut parler de... les BDUs viennent ici vous dire, ça nous prend le level playing field, il faut que les règles soient les mêmes pour tout le monde, on est désavantagé, puis tout ça. D'abord, il y en a une grande partie d'eux autres qui sont propriétaires des mêmes systèmes qui distribuent l'Internet là.

289 Ça fait que je suis bien content, d'ailleurs, de voir, je vous avoue... j'en profite pour féliciter la Commission d'avoir décidé qu'elle allait regarder les licences maintenant par groupes de propriétaires, plutôt que tout segmenté en petits morceaux, parce que quand on segmente tout en petits morceaux, chaque station de télévision doit supporter le poids d'elle‑même. Bien, je regrette là, mais je ne pense pas que c'est comme ça que le système devrait fonctionner. C'est toutes des poches qui sont dans le même manteau, puis je pense qu'un moment donné, il faut le reconnaître.

290 Alors, dans ce sens‑là, je pense qu'il faut que les systèmes d'ISP ‑‑ qui sont, comme je vous le dis, la propriété souvent du même monde ‑‑ contribuent au système, et puis je ne pense pas qu'il va y avoir du sang dans les rues parce qu'on va ajouter une augmentation de 3 pour cent là‑dessus.

291 Je viens de recevoir mes comptes de Rogers il n'y a pas longtemps, puis ils m'ont augmenté, pour des raisons que je ne comprends pas, d'à peu près une piastre et demi, si la mémoire est bonne, puis je n'ai pas désabonné et puis je ne vous ai pas écrit, puis je ne pense pas qu'il va y avoir de mouvement de foule non plus.

292 CONSEILLER MORIN : Merci, Monsieur Pineau.

293 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good morning, Mr. Pineau.

294 MR. PINEAU: Good morning.

295 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Would you agree with me, without getting excessively specific about it, that full motion video broadcast over wires or the airwaves constitutes broadcasting?

296 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

297 COMMISSIONER DENTON: All right.

298 And would you agree with me that since the early 1990s when the Act was passed that the cost of generating full motion video and distributing it across Internet has of course dropped dramatically?

299 MR. PINEAU: I have no specific knowledge, but I would tend to agree with you.

300 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Well, people have a lot of video cameras and they load stuff up. Right?

301 MR. PINEAU: Yes.

302 COMMISSIONER DENTON: So really then, without any change of the language of the Broadcasting Act, in the past 15‑20 years there has been a dramatic change of the amount of video being transmitted across wires or waves.

303 MR. PINEAU: Yes. And the systems have improved and they keep packing up more and more and there are all sorts of technical terms to do that magic. That means that more and more is pushed through small pipes. Yes.

304 COMMISSIONER DENTON: So when the Broadcasting Act was written in the late 1980s and passed in Parliament in the 1990s, do you think that the people who wrote it and passed it had any accurate conception of the degree to which the technological revolution would have changed the situation between then and now?

305 MR. PINEAU: I don't think so and I think that they knew that. That's why they made a point of making the Act neutral technologically, because they didn't want to be called back every six months or every 18 months to change or tweak something because the technology has been moving so fast.

306 I think our legislators in this particular instance were well inspired.

307 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Well, if they were well inspired, do you think they actually contemplated the fact that people who use full motion video might potentially be subject to a broadcasting licence?

308 MR. PINEAU: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand.

309 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Well, if you use the Broadcasting Act, you have to be licensed. If the conditions of production of video have dramatically changed in the past 15‑20 years, is it your contention that Parliament or the people who wrote the Act actually contemplated that millions upon millions of people would be able to upload video to the Internet?

310 MR. PINEAU: No.

311 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.

312 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Pineau. Those are our questions.

313 I think we will take a 10‑minute break before we hear the next group. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1005 / Suspension à 1005

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1018 / Reprise à 1018

314 THE SECRETARY: Order, please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

315 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Madam Secretary, do you want to introduce the next presenter, please.

316 THE SECRETARY: Yes, but before we proceed I would like to make a small correction. In my opening remarks I stated that the hearing would resume on March 2nd when in fact the hearing will resume on the week of March 9th.

317 I now invite the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists to make its presentation. Appearing for ACTRA is Richard Hardacre. Please introduce your colleagues. You then have 15 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

318 MR. HARDACRE: Merci, Madame.

319 Good morning. Nice to see you all. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and the staff of the CRTC. As always we're delighted to be with you today.

320 My name is Richard Hardacre, as you heard. I'm a Canadian actor. I'm the elected President of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.

321 Also speaking for ACTRA today are three highly acclaimed Canadian performers:

322 ‑ going from my right, Mr. Colin Mochrie, an actor, a writer, a producer, one of Canada's biggest stars;

323 ‑ Charlotte Arnold, one of the leading cast of the internationally acclaimed series "Degrassi: The Next Generation" and also the series "Naturally Sadie"; and

324 ‑ Mr. Bruce Dinsmore, an experienced performer with numerous television, film and video game credits, and currently the English‑language star of "TAC.tv," which is the English version of the very popular French Internet program "Têtes à claques."

325 Also supporting us are our National Executive Director Mr. Stephen Waddell, Ms Joanne Deer, our Director of Public Policy and Communications, and Garry Neil, ACTRA's Special Advisor.

326 And supporting us in the crowd here, supporting our intervention today is Mr. Andrew Karis of the AF of M, who represents 17,000 professional musicians in Canada.

327 As you know, ACTRA brings to this hearing the concerns of our 21,000 members, members who live and work in every corner of Canada. ACTRA members are English‑speaking artists whose performances in all content delivery platforms, films, television, sound recordings, radio and, of course, new media, well, these performances entertain, educate and inform Canadians and global audiences.

328 First I'd like to recognize something, Mr. Chair. I'd like to recognize to you that we are very pleased with the announcement that was made by the Commission last week in regards to conventional broadcasting. In it we found a lot of reason to be optimistic for Canadian content, particularly drama, on private, conventional networks that make use of the airwaves that belong to Canadians and we honestly look forward to this same judicious and forward‑thinking approach that the Commission will bring to broadcasting that exploits the Internet and other new media.

329 Today, as we look at Canadian broadcasting in new media, I want to express also our appreciation that the Chair and this Commission have structured our appearances at these hearings such that performers and other creators are being heard at the top. This opportunity to introduce the case for putting Canadians in new media broadcasting first is not at all lost upon us and the opportunity will not be wasted. Our proposals are forward‑thinking but they are also modest and they're practical.

330 As we all know, in 1999, the Commission looked into new media, asked whether this was "broadcasting" and whether it should regulate it. ACTRA appeared before the Commission and answered with a resounding yes, and yes, today we do so again.

331 Specifically, ACTRA asserts that the Canadian Broadcasting Act covers the delivery of all programming content through the Internet and to mobile receiving devices. We believe it's time for the CRTC to fulfill its obligation to implement these objectives of the Broadcasting Act by rescinding the exemption orders and replacing them with licensing requirements and appropriate rules.

332 The CRTC, we believe, needs to introduce the following core regulations:

333 ‑ require that those who are streaming programs from Canada be licensed and subject to rules, such as Canadian content obligations, equivalent to other programming undertakings which broadcast on a fixed schedule;

334 ‑ secondly, require that those who are making programs available from Canada for viewing at a time and a place chosen by the viewer be licensed, required to provide a program selection that is predominantly Canadian and, very importantly, to promote that Canadian content;

335 ‑ and finally, we wish to establish new sources of funding for new media production by imposing a levy on Internet and wireless service providers.

336 Now before we go into further detail, one of our first tasks is to set out what we mean by a "program" or a "broadcaster."

337 The Broadcasting Act defines a program as any combination of "sounds and visual images that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain." It also says that when one of these programs is transmitted "for reception by the public by means of broadcast receiving apparatus," there is a "broadcast." It doesn't say anything about whether it's professionally produced or whether or not the end user can influence the content.

338 So whether you 're watching an episode of "Corner Gas" on your television set or watching it at ctv.ca, you are enjoying a "broadcast."

339 Thus, ACTRA believes that the Commission should take an expansive view of the definition of "program." It should confirm that all broadcasting over the Internet falls under the Act and its regulatory authority regardless of who created the program.

340 Now, Colin, Charlotte and Bruce will speak about their first‑hand experiences and expand on ACTRA's ideas.

341 MR. MOCHRIE: You might be a little puzzled to see me here. I'm generally seen as a TV guy or an improv comic. However, I can tell you I have a huge stake in the future of new media broadcasting because roughly 70 percent of what people are doing on the Internet is watching audiovisual works and that number grows with each and every day.

342 If you look up Colin Mochrie or "Whose Line is it Anyway?" or "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" on YouTube you'll find entire episodes and numerous clips of me and my colleagues. Over at ctv.ca, full seasons of "Corner Gas" can be viewed. Increasingly, you can even find footage of my live improv performances with fans posting online what they've recorded with their cameras or their cell phones.

343 And this is now the norm. People are watching original programs online or on their iPods. You see, just like television, new media is just another platform for viewing and distributing programming content.

344 Unlike television, when you are broadcasting through new media, the possibilities of content are endless. You have more than 24 one‑hour slots in a day. You aren't bound by time limits and commercial breaks.

345 The space for content is practically endless. However, being endless, content can easily get lost. So how do we make sure Canadians can find their own content? How do we make sure Canadian content is featured, easy to find and given shelf space? How do we make sure that when I go to Global.ca or iTunes that I can find "Corner Gas" or "Passchendaele?"

346 When I star in a movie or a TV show, I do it because I want to work, I want people to see the show, to experience it. They can't do that if they aren't given the choice.

347 How do we make sure there is funding to produce this content? That's one of the reasons why we're here and that's why we are asking that you as the broadcast regulator start regulating this broadcasting. If you don't, our content, our stories, will get lost and our culture will be drowned out in a sea of non‑Canadian content.

348 In 1965, Robert M. Fowler, who headed two important commissions which looked at Canadian broadcasting, famously observed:

"What matters is program content; all the rest is housekeeping."

349 It was true then. It's still true today. New technology is delivering broadcasting content and people are increasingly turning to these new means of distribution but at the end of the day we're talking about content, Canadian content.

350 Richard mentioned that we think you should take an expansive view of programming and content. We also think the Commission was wrong in 1999 when you concluded that interactive content falls outside the definitions.

351 After 10 years, we've witnessed the emergence of interactivity even in traditional films and television and this trend to user engagement will continue. As evidence in this proceeding, the Canadian Interactive Alliance has said to you:

"Interactive content and new media broadcast content have no clear distinction."

352 Online video games should also be included in this definition of program. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada defines an online game as being driven by computer software that:

"contains story telling elements, plot, characters, themes, displays these elements in the form of images, text and sounds in response to commands provided by the end user."

353 That sounds like what we actors do in television and movies. We tell stories, we develop a plot, we create characters, we use sound and imagery.

354 We've come a long way from Pong and Pac Man. As we see more and more, the dividing line between video games and traditional movies and television programs is blurring rapidly, particularly as live‑action segments become integrated into the gaming experience and leading games spawn Hollywood movies and vice versa. Professional performers are now regularly performing in video games doing voice work or increasingly, like Bruce here, having their performances digitally captured as the foundation for animation.

355 ACTRA also urges the Commission to ensure in its decision that it defines as a "program" user‑generated content which contains "sounds and visual images that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain."

356 As Google observed in its submission:

"user‑generated content should be addressed in measuring the level of Canadian content on the Internet because user‑generated content reflects Canadians to Canadians."

357 This doesn't mean that we want the CRTC to regulate or in any way control people posting amateur video of kids or singing dogs on YouTube. We support your assumption about user‑generated content but would oppose any conclusion that would preclude such content from being considered a "program" under the Act.

358 New media broadcasting is the future. We need to set out what the rules are going to be now so that everybody knows what the terrain looks like and appropriate business models can develop.

359 Charlotte will now talk a bit about how the CRTC might regulate broadcasting in new media.

360 MS ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm one of the stars of "Degrassi: The Next Generation." You can watch entire episodes of "Degrassi" on conventional TV but also on ctv.ca and other broadcasters' website around the world, on DVD, YouTube and on iTunes.

361 In addition to the work I do for the regular series, we have started doing podcasts and original "webisodes" which are 2‑3 minute shorts that are written, shot and produced specifically for distribution on broadband networks.

362 More and more new media content is being produced to promote the original program. And this content isn't just a trailer, it's original material and behind the scenes stuff, creating programs based on our programs.

363 My work is a clear example of what Colin just set out. It's about content. There are many new ways to distribute programs but in the end it's content that matters. My work is being broadcast in the new media along with other content distribution platforms.

364 I'm lucky. I'm on a Canadian TV series and there aren't many of those these days. I'm also lucky because my show, being targeted to young people, has always had a great presence on the Internet. So it's one of too few Canadian TV drama series on conventional TV and one of even fewer that Canadians can find in its entirety online.

365 Canada's private broadcasters spent $775 million last year licensing American shows for their conventional networks and now they're doing the same for their websites. The problem is, as flexible as Canadian content rules are for conventional broadcasting, they are non‑existent for broadcasting on the Internet.

366 Because of the new media exemption orders, we have a situation where broadcasters are competing with their own unregulated selves. This isn't a huge problem today because they're doing it in a way that is supporting their conventional version in order to maximize advertising revenues but this will soon change as the Internet becomes a more mature vehicle for advertisers.

367 The broadcasters have already signalled to you in their interventions that as their audiences move to the Internet, they will seek relief from their existing regulations. This is absolutely the wrong approach. We say, regulate broadcasting on the Internet because it's just another platform.

368 That being said, it's possible to have different rules for different types of broadcasting.

369 In the case of streaming, where a program is being broadcast live through the Internet or to mobile receiving devices like virtually all radio stations, the broadcaster should be licensed and subject to rules equivalent to other conventional programming undertakings which broadcast on a fixed or live schedule.

370 Then there are those who are making programs available from Canada through the Internet or to mobile receiving devices for viewing at a time and place chosen by the viewer, like ctv.ca or showcase.ca. These broadcasters should be required to ensure shelf space for Canadian programming. Their program selection should be predominantly Canadian and they should promote and feature that content.

371 And for others, the CRTC should use its authority to regulate different players differently. In some cases, for example, user‑generated content, it could choose to impose no regulations at all.

372 What the CRTC can't do is throw up its hands and say it's too complicated or let's wait a little longer to see how things go. It must act on its authority today. Otherwise, it will be too late.

373 I now turn to Bruce.

374 MR. DINSMORE: Good morning. Bonjour. My name is Bruce Dinsmore. I'm a proud Canadian action with over 20 years of experience in this business.

375 I'm currently the star of "TAC.tv." I see you all have laptops. The exact Web address is www.tac.tv.com if you would like to watch a clip while I finish speaking.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

376 MR. DINSMORE: Now, TAC.tv is unique in that it's the first English‑language Canadian program conceived, written, performed and produced specifically for the Internet. It is much more common to take programs produced for conventional broadcast and rebroadcast them in the new media. The other broadcasting that you usually find in new media is low‑budget amateur content like the aforementioned singing dogs.

377 While there's no question that amateur videos can entertain and inform us, they alone cannot be relied upon to share the important stories that Canadians want to tell. For that we need high‑quality, professionally produced content, including scripted drama. "Têtes à claques" and "TAC.tv" show that there is indeed an appetite for this sort of professional content. On average, 1 million clips are viewed each day on the English and French sites.

378 Now, if the Commission agrees with us that there must be regulations in place to create shelf space for Canadian stories to be broadcast in new media, then clearly we need more original, high‑quality, professional Canadian content. If we want a wide array of content produced, we need to find new sources of funding.

379 ACTRA proposes that Internet and Wireless Service Providers (ISPs and WSPs) pay a levy on their gross revenues to an arms‑length new media production fund. Well over 50 percent of the traffic on the Internet is, in fact, broadcasting. When this material is being moved by ISPs and WSPs, they are acting just like Broadcast Distributing Undertakings (BDUs). Conventional BDUs now contribute 6 percent of their gross revenues into program production funds.

380 Considering this 6 percent and considering the fact that 50 percent of the traffic on the Internet is, in fact, broadcasting, an ISP levy of 3 percent is appropriate. A levy of 3 percent of the 2007 ISP residential broadband revenues of $3.3 billion would generate $99 million annually. We believe that this amount is reasonable, equitable, sustainable and essential to ensure that there is an adequate supply of Canadian programming content.

381 Now, we also believe that the Canadian public is in favour of such a levy. In a Harris‑Decima Poll that we commissioned last year, we found that 69 percent of Canadians believe that ISPs should be required to help fund the production of Canadian digital media content and 73 percent agree that WSPs should be required to contribute.

382 Now in the next few weeks, you will probably be told that the Commission has no authority to impose such a levy and that it would be illegal.

383 We say that the Commission does have the authority to introduce such a levy since ISPs and WSPs are enabling the transmission of programs to the public and are not acting solely as telecommunications common carriers. They are distributing programs; they are broadcasting.

384 We have given you a copy of a legal opinion from one of Canada's top communications law firms which provides the detailed reasoning behind this assertion.

385 Like conventional broadcasting distribution undertakings, ISPs and WSPs are making profits, very substantial profits, from broadcasting programs. In exchange, they are obligated to give back to the system that serves them so profitably.

386 MR. HARDACRE: Thank you, Bruce. I will sum up here.

387 We have lots of other recommendations in our brief. I hope we have time to review some of them with you today. But in these few short minutes we wanted to simply highlight to you four recurring themes:

388 ‑ the first being new media is just another distribution platform for all kinds of program content;

389 ‑ secondly, that shelf space for Canadian content in new media is critical;

390 ‑ thirdly, that funding for Canadian new media content must be put in place;

391 ‑ and fourthly, that doing anything about it tomorrow will be too late.

392 The development of new media can be compared to the emergence of television from radio broadcasting. All that happened then was that visuals were added to the sounds that were already broadcast. What's happening now is merely that we have found a new way to make program content more widely available and we've also added some new wrinkles like permitting our audiences to engage with the stories in new and very exciting and involving ways.

393 I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing at the outset of your appointment that regulating broadcast in new media was a priority for the Commission and in acknowledging the critical importance that this proceeding has on the future of Canadian broadcasting and upon our culture.

394 There should be no doubt in this room that these issues will determine the future. What we simply want is a place for Canadian storytellers and our stories. We want to share our talents with Canadians and with global audiences and we all know that we are trying to get it right now. Tomorrow is going to be too late.

395 We thank you for your attention and we are prepared to take your questions. Thank you.

396 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submission.

397 I must say I'm somewhat stunned by your overall approach because I mean, as we said in our letter to you, we go from the assumption of abundance, you know, because the Internet and wireless technologies, it's really a whole new world and our traditional broadcasting systems are all based on the idea of scarcity, of limited access and trying to make sure there's enough room in this limited space for Canadian content, et cetera.

398 Yet, here on page 23, you say:

"Shelf space for Canadian content in new media is critical." (As read)

399 Either I don't understand your terms or we're talking at cross‑purposes. I thought shelf space was the one thing that is available, is unlimited. The question is whether you can find things or not. But is there any question that you can put as much content available on new media as you want?

400 MR. WADDELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. The basic point we're putting ‑‑ well, we're putting forward a number of basic points, as Richard outlined.

401 But some of the critical issues are that the CRTC should retain jurisdiction over Internet and new media ‑‑ broadcasting in new media and that there has to be shelf space for Canadian material. We're not saying ‑‑

402 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Waddell, I'm asking you the question.

403 MR. WADDELL: Yes, I'm getting ‑‑

404 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any problem with shelf space for Canadian content? I mean I'm starting at the very beginning, at the basic assumption ‑‑

405 MR. WADDELL: Sure.

406 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ which we say there's no scarcity and you seem to suggest there is scarcity.

407 MR. WADDELL: I'm not suggesting that there is scarcity but there is ‑‑ not in terms of space, what there is scarcity of and it's getting ‑‑ it's not getting better, it's getting worse, is Canadian content in new media space.

408 And so for that we say there should be some incentives put in place to encourage the production of Canadian programming in new media. That's our basic point and we come to you, as others will, with a proposal for an ISP levy.

409 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that. Your funding point is eminently clear. Your shelf space is not really what you're talking about here. You're talking about financing for Canadian ‑‑

410 MR. WADDELL: Yes. We're not saying that there's any limit on the availability or space in the system. What we are saying is that there's too little Canadian product available in the space.

411 THE CHAIRPERSON: And secondly, one of you mentioned user‑generated content and you basically want to count that as part of programming. Presumably all of this is driven by your point that there needs to be funding, then the funding is measured on the amount of programming going by ISPs, and if you don't count user‑generated content, the denominator becomes too small.

412 MR. WADDELL: What we're saying is that with respect to user‑generated content that the CRTC should not just say that it's the Wild West but should retain some jurisdiction there. We're not saying you should apply any regulations whatsoever.

413 But we've seen on YouTube and other sites where material which was created as user‑generated content becomes then ‑‑ eventually becomes broadcast material ‑‑

414 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I mean let's be honest, you want to count it so that if there is a levy of any kind, this goes into the ‑‑

415 MR. WADDELL: The more money the better, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely!

416 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I just want to make sure we understand what you're talking about.

417 MR. WADDELL: Yes, sure.

418 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Steve, I believe you have some questions.

419 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I do. Good morning. Thank you very much.

420 I too recognize the significance of asking talent to get up early in the morning.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

421 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: An early call, I know we're all used to. And, Mr. Dinsmore, CPAC wants your address so they know where to send the bill for the promo.

422 Actually, to a serious point, I'll be asking later for your input regarding the symbiotic relationship between broadcast and Internet because that was a classic example of using broadcasting to promote Internet and I want to explore your views more later on regarding how the two work together because it seems that that's where we're going.

423 Before I ask about your perspective on the ISP levy, I'd like to take a step back to, let's say, the world pre‑Internet and look at the existing production funding that's been available to Canadian producers and Canadian talent, specifically the Canadian Television Fund and the New Media Fund.

424 In your view, how has the subsidy or funding regime for Canadian content in conventional broadcasting been working given that just this most recent report shows that Canadian broadcasters are continuing to buy more American programming or international programming? Was that funding model working?

425 Before we get into looking at new funding models, I'm trying to understand were there inherent deficiencies or room for improvement to the existing funding models?

426 MR. HARDACRE: Thank you. There are two of us that are going to respond to this right away.

427 My first comment is that the funding model for the Canadian Television Fund has, in our opinion, worked very well as seed money for Canadian production, for independent Canadian production. It has not been the habit of broadcasters to place very much on their shelf space during primetime, especially dramatic programming, and that is what has happened over the last 10 years, as the Commission is well aware.

428 That's my first thought on this. Stephen, I wonder if you have something to add.

429 MR. WADDELL: Sure. The Canadian Television Fund has worked quite well. It went through some bumps and scrapes and the Commission had some involvement in straightening out the CTF, and from our perspective, it's working well now.

430 And it's absolutely critical ‑‑ the Canadian Television Fund is absolutely critical in terms of providing financing to producers to produce Canadian product.

431 One of the leading reasons that it's absolutely critical is that Canadian broadcasters are not putting enough money into licensing Canadian television shows, unfortunately. They are paying the lowest ‑‑ and I made this point before ‑‑ lowest licence fees of any English‑language broadcasters in the world.

432 So the CTF is critical to production of Canadian content broadcasting material and certainly would be an option, and I think a useful option to consider in creation of a new media fund and have the CTV administer it. Why recreate the wheel?

433 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Would it be your view or have you contemplated if the CTF was to become part of a transitional device to production of new media that at some point if a new media fund were to be greatly enhanced going forward that there be a proportionate decrease in conventional television funding?

434 MR. WADDELL: Absolutely not. There should be no decreases anywhere in the system. We need as much money as we can to produce. It's a critical problem, you know, where the producers are being innovative these days ‑‑ you will hear from the CFTP and the APFTQ on this ‑‑ in terms of trying to find means by which they can produce by co‑financing with U.S. networks and so on, which is a positive development clearly when we see The Flashpoint and The Listener being produced, for example.

435 But you know producers unfortunately spend most of their time trying to put financing together. It just takes a long time. It's a big effort and whatever the Commission can do to assist Canadian producers and creators in providing funding and financing for Canadian product regardless of the delivery platform it would be appreciated.

436 MR. HARDACRE: I would like to elaborate on that as well, if I may. The Canadian Television Fund, the amount of public money that is going into that which we have ‑‑ I think we have amply stated that is essential to production ‑‑ the amount of public money going into that has been stagnant for a number of years.

437 ACTRA, we take it upon ourselves along with our coalition partners every year to lobby the federal government, not yourselves, but to lobby the federal government in its budget‑setting process to stabilize and to increase that money into CTF, but it has not increased. And of course, over the last six years everything has increased, production costs for anything, production costs for not just actors but for renting taxicabs has increased.

438 And this particular fund has been stagnant. So we certainly would not look forward to it being decreased. It would be a disaster.

439 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Well on page 2 of your executive summary you seem to indicate that:

"In the near future, the Internet and mobile receiving devices will become the primary vehicles through which films, television, music and other entertainment and information programming are delivered to Canadians and global audiences and the broadcasters would no longer transmit over‑the‑air..." (As read)

440 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So you know it's a dooming statement. And I'm just curious, if you believe that to be true what would that fund get used for if broadcasters are in effect not broadcasting over conventional means?

441 MR. WADDELL: For the production of programming, irrespective of the delivery platform which is a key point here, that irrespective of delivery platform. It's all about the content, right?

442 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

443 Going into the existing ‑‑ still trying to understand the present before we try and contemplate the future ‑‑ could you give me a better understanding of what the existing relationships contractually, financially are in the broadcasting realm? I'm thinking more from the production community.

444 I'm curious as to ‑‑ there doesn't seem to be a financial model for the internet that's providing the production community or the acting and performing community with any certainty in terms of revenues and I'm curious what you are experiencing right now with respect to rights negotiations and use agreements with respect to content that is being a dual purpose, you know, that's finding its way onto the internet after a conventional broadcast.

445 MR. WADDELL: Right. Well, we are not directly involved in the negotiations that are taking place between the CFTPA and the broadcasters. We are not directly involved although we are there to support the CFTPA and the producers in their objectives to try and establish a standard terms of trade agreement because right now there isn't one.

446 And as a consequence, the broadcasters are taking advantage of the situation and claiming all rights in perpetuity, blah blah blah throughout the universe. And there is an inequitable power relationship between the broadcasters and the independent producers, which is why certainly we support the CFTPA and the producers in their efforts to negotiate the standard terms of trade deal.

447 The revenue you know comes from basically advertiser support and/or subscriptions in some cases and clearly it's necessary, in our view, that the standard terms of trade deal be concluded. And we hope the CRTC at some point will be able to assist in that process.

448 MR. NEIL: If your question is around what business models will prevail ultimately, I don't think we are in a position where we can tell you that.

449 However, I was with the ACTRA delegation in 1998 when we were here talking about this thing called new media and much of the discussion at that time was around the problems in the sound recording industry. And of course, we had seen over the past decade the development of quite an appropriate business model for the distribution of sound ‑‑ of music via the internet.

450 And I think in the same way, advertising is becoming more mature on the internet and we will clearly develop appropriate business models. It will likely be a combination of advertising‑supported subscription, downloading and that kind of thing.

451 MR. WADDELL: If I may can I just go one step further than my colleague with respect to revenue from that form of distribution?

452 In my mind the way in which that can be accomplished is through amendments to the Copyright Act, similar to that which has been provided over the past 10 years in sound recordings and where we have been able to establish a tariff at the Copyright Board which sees millions of dollars being generated as a consequence and flowing to both makers and performers.

453 And similarly, we would argue for a change to the Copyright Act to provide for rights, performance rights for makers and performers in audiovisual.

454 Thank you.

455 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

456 Now, moving onto your suggestion that the Commission consider a levy to the ISPs, you had drawn a figure out of 3 percent as an ISP levy and, I believe, a 0.06 or 0.6 levy for WSPs.

457 That figure, I'm curious as to how you arrived at it and how it squares against current broadcast usage. You know, I'm referring to your Nordicity study.

458 And a supplementary question is did that Nordicity study show trending of broadcasting on ISPs and WSPs as to whether it's going up or down?

459 MR. NEIL: I think the two studies that you have before you ‑‑ one is the Peter Grant paper from the CFTPA conference in which Peter estimated that roughly 50 percent of what was on the internet is programming.

460 The Nordicity study is not appended to our submission. That's appended to the submission of others. But that study estimates that probably 70 percent of the content on the internet is programming content as defined in the Act.

461 There is no question that all commentators would agree that the amount of audiovisual material that's being transmitted via the internet is increasing rapidly, and that will no doubt continue when we see the next step which we are virtually there, which is the delivery of the major Hollywood movies via the internet. So in future I think probably an even greater percentage of internet use will be allocated to that kind of activity.

462 So we then said ‑‑ Peter Grant had talked about 50 percent, Nordicity talks about 70 and so we thought, being reasonable, if we take 50 percent as an appropriate level, that if you apply that to the broadcaster distribution undertakings' 6 percent requirement to contribute to programming that it would turn the ISPs into a 3 percent levy.

463 There is a similar calculation for the wireless service providers. It was also done in the Nordicity study, and that's where the 0.6 percent is ‑‑ we arrive at the 0.6 percent.

464 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: How would you suggest we measure the success of such a proposal?

465 MR. WADDELL: In the amount of Canadian content that's available.

466 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And how would you do that?

467 MR. WADDELL: Well, look it, we are not looking for any heavy duty regulations here just to be clear. We are looking for some incentives to be put in place to create Canadian programming. Go with the Chairman's regulation, a light approach on this one. And in that regard we look to potentially an ISP levy.

468 We also like our proposal with respect to the government changing the regs section 19.1 to mirror the regulations that are currently in place with respect to conventional broadcasters.

469 And so if you are advertising ‑‑ if you want to put your ad on a foreign site, go ahead, but you can't deduct that as a business cost unless they meet certain criteria. We give you some ideas on what that might be.

470 But you know, look at the example of google.ca. That's the kind of thing we are looking at, where you go to google.ca, right, and you want to search from Canada and the first five, six choices are Canadian. You know, it's already there.

471 That's the kind of approach we think that the Commission could take and we hope the government will take in amending the Income Tax Act as we propose.

472 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

473 THE CHAIRPERSON: Steve, can I just interject?

474 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes.

475 THE CHAIRPERSON: You say you don't want a heavy regulation yet on your page 5 you say:

"...licensed subject to rules of Canadian content equivalent to other programming; require those who make programs for viewing at a time and place chosen by the viewer to be licensed; program selection predominantly Canadian; promote Canadian content, new sources of funding..." (As read)

476 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, what is light about this? And this is just ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter

477 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ taking the existing model and transferring it to the internet ‑‑

478 MR. WADDELL: Sure.

479 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ and to wireless.

480 MR. WADDELL: That's right. Yeah, that's what we did exactly. And we try sometimes, and you know this, Mr. Chairman, to take strong positions but maybe there is a middle ground. So we are taking a strong position in this regard.

481 THE CHAIRPERSON: Labour and union you ask for 100 percent and only get 50?

482 MR. WADDELL: Well, now, I am a negotiator. I know how to negotiate and I know where to start.

483 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, for your benefit and those of others, we do appreciate submissions who do not ‑‑ they are not negotiating positions.

484 MR. WADDELL: All right.

485 THE CHAIRPERSON: But maybe it's something that we could adopt and say, "That makes sense if we do it", but this is not a negotiating forum. This is an exchange of ideas. I want to hear ideas that are implementable and practical.

486 MR. WADDELL: Well, we have given you an idea, Mr. Chairman.

487 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, but you said ‑‑ just now you said you overstated it in order to get ‑‑ have 50 percent.

488 And I don't mean to pick on you. I just mean generally speaking. I think our dialogue is much more useful if you come forward with ideas that are doable, implementable and appreciate the balance that has to be struck by us as decision makers between your interests and those of others.

489 MR. WADDELL: I appreciate that.

490 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Simpson, back to you.

491 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

492 One more question with respect to measurement and successes, the criteria that has been used in the past for Canadian broadcasting has recognized that it is a finite closed system of sorts and the internet for all intents and purposes is not.

493 Do you have in your mind any type of number that you think is realistic to expect with respect to Canadian content in the global internet world, because that's really what we are talking about here?

494 MR. NEIL: Let me take the first crack at this if I could. First of all, don't ignore streaming because a very common way of distributing programming material at the moment is to stream it, and if you are streaming it then the traditional concept of shelf space enters into that equation. So I don't think we can ignore that streaming.

495 The second side of it then is where you are making that content available and so you are simply saying to people that, "I have a variety of programming choices here that you might have an interest in".

496 On that side of the equation we think that where you do have that supply of material and if you are a Canadian supplier that you ought to have predominantly Canadian material. We cannot force people to choose anything. And if you go to that site and you say, "I want the latest Hollywood movie" you should get it.

497 But in your inventory, and that's finite ‑‑ even in this internet universe that's finite ‑‑ you should have predominantly Canadian choices. You should then also promote them properly. You should put them properly ‑‑ give them proper placement, pride of placement on your site.

498 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So just to clarify, your perspective on streaming, because I do have that question, are you suggesting that it be a bilateral arrangement, that streaming coming into Canada as well as streaming going out of Canada to the world, be looked at subject to some form of levy?

499 MR. NEIL: As Stephen alluded to we do have a proposal that would suggest a way perhaps of tackling foreign content which is coming into Canada on non‑Canadian websites which would simply provide an incentive that if they wanted to sell advertising revenues in Canada they would have to meet certain basic criteria. But in the end that's the only method that we could see of trying to exercise any influence on what they provide.

500 So it's not on a reciprocal basis. You know we are looking to regulate the Canadian suppliers. We are then looking to try to influence non‑Canadian suppliers in the form of this incentive.

501 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you. That's very helpful.

502 Let's move over to content for a moment, please, and your suggestion in your submission that the Commission look to perhaps proportionately or with a greater sense of importance to the production of Canadian drama. I was wondering if you could elaborate on why we should be focusing on that particular genre.

503 MR. WADDELL: Well, that is where the problem lies, is in scripted drama unfortunately. And we see that in broadcasting right now on the basis ‑‑ because of the costs. The costs involved in producing scripted drama are much greater than other forms of programming like information and news and, specifically, reality shows which are very, very cheap to produce.

504 So we believe, given those economic challenges that it's necessary to give some emphasis to financing for scripted drama specifically.

505 MR. HARDACRE: If I may too, as well, in addition to which not only is it the most costly kind of production to create, it also employs the greatest number of Canadians.

506 We see this ‑‑ no one is ignoring the fact that the world and certainly North America is in a time of financial crisis. We have appeared before the current government's finance committee to argue that the very strong job impetus that is created by our film industry, television, film and new media industry is in the area of ‑‑ has been up to $5 billion of economic activity a year.

507 The significant portion of that has to be spent when drama is created, not only employing you know a few actors but actors are way outnumbered by pre‑production, by crew, by our colleagues in the writers and directors guilds all together. It is a very strong financial driver, the creation of drama.

508 That's all on top of the point that we are talking about our culture and our culture being the culture of not only English Canada but French Canada surviving next to the great elephant south of the border and the culture that streams across our border. So we are talking about the economic driving of our dramatic programming as well.

509 Thanks for that chance.

510 MR. WADDELL: Having said that, I don't want to take away from our colleagues in news which are ‑‑ you know, who are facing a crisis right now and clearly news programming, especially local news programming needs support as well.

511 Thank you.

512 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Just one clarification, going back to the streaming question, your submission had suggested that ‑‑ I will just read it out. You suggested:

"A new type of undertaking, those who are making programs available from Canada through the internet or mobile devices for viewing at a time and place chosen by the viewer..." (As read)

513 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And you are suggesting that a condition of licence would require that a selection is predominantly Canadian.

514 Now, under that definition would this apply to any website that contains broadcasting content that is hosted or offered in Canada whether it's professional or user‑generated, and would that include traditional broadcaster websites?

515 MR. NEIL: It would definitely include the traditional broadcaster websites. In elaborating the regulations then clearly some distinction has to be made because we had said we do not favour at this point the regulation of user‑generated content. So now we begin to define where does user‑generated content finish and something else begin?

516 It may be useful to look at for commercial purposes as being an element in that consideration, because if the material is being made available for commercial purposes that that could create a dividing line. But we haven't in our brief, obviously, gone into that degree of detail.

517 So there would be some elements that would need to be considered in the middle of there perhaps if a site happened to have both professionally produced and user‑generated content on the same site and it was making it available.

518 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: With respect to the dynamic nature of the economic model between conventional broadcasting, video‑on‑demand and now the internet, your submission had indicated that you foresee that a reasonable amount of time is going to be required to move through this space from where we are now to where you would like to be with respect to resolving these complex business issues.

519 Have you any concept at all of what that timeframe exists or is this something that you would like to perhaps take up as an undertaking for a later submission?

520 MR. HARDACRE: It's true that the business models have not yet matured on the internet but I think a very important element to keep in mind in considering a timeframe for making these decisions is what's going to happen south of the border. And we know that Hollywood movies will, in very short order, be available on the internet. That will change the dynamics enormously. You know, we are fully integrated into that market. Our consumers will have as much access as American consumers.

521 And so time is limited in that sense because if we don't get the model right now then it may be that we are going to be absolutely swamped and will have no future ability to really define the things in the way that we need to define them.

522 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

523 I would like to turn to our Canadian talent, please, and see if I can get a better understanding of the other point I wanted to ask you about, and that's concerning the existing relationship between broadcast and internet.

524 My perception is that as far back as eight or 10 years ago we would see a promotional model of being in the movie theatre, running a trailer for a movie and then the call to action is go to the internet to learn more.

525 So here we ‑‑ in that time we seem to be seeing the internet promoting conventional content distribution. And I sense that you might have some suggestions as to where this is going. Is it in the future that if the internet becomes the distribution platform for content that broadcasting becomes the promotional tool?

526 I know that all of you as talent have been using the internet to some form or other for self‑promotion, portfolio promotion and so on. I would like to know from your standpoint how you see the inter‑relationship of these two mediums working. You know, we are obviously in transition right now and you seem to be individuals that are caught between these two dimensions and I would like to know what your perspectives are.

527 MR. DINSMORE: Speaking from personal experience I know that many people are actually going the other way, as counterintuitive as that kind of seems.

528 A lot of people do to low production costs ‑‑ are producing for the web hoping to make the jump to conventional broadcasting platforms. So I know of several projects that, you know, have been shot in a weekend, basically an eight‑minute episode or a 16‑minute episode that instead of taking years to finance and $2 million to shoot, you know, the time it took to write and a weekend and willing talent and everyone willing to defer payment to the possibility of it actually getting picked up.

529 So I know it's being used as a side door in that way at the present time.

530 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I want to keep going in this. The ACTRA submission is basically painting a picture that ‑‑ and I may be incorrect in this assumption in which case please correct me, but I'm seeing a very clear notion in your mind both as performers and as your representative organization, that the future shows the broadcaster as an aggregator and that the platform for the future of content, be it Canadian or otherwise, is going to be the internet and that conventional broadcasting is ‑‑ the writing is on the wall.

531 So you are telling me that that is not necessarily the case or is that not the case today?

532 MR. DINSMORE: I think it's very clearly the case. All of our ongoing negotiations and all of our present negotiations have all converged at the door at the steps of new media.

533 That was ‑‑ I was simply stating that anecdotally as a way of ‑‑ of jumpstarting production. I think the trend is definitely exactly as you described it.

534 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: We are not here to look at user‑generated content but I'm curious as artists who own your own material, if you choose as a promotion model or as an economic model to use the internet to promote your work and that is a decision of yours because, you know, your work is in your domain, do you consider that user‑generated content or professional content?

535 MR. MOCHRIE: Don't know.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

536 MR. MOCHRIE: I think it's professional content. I mean I have ‑‑ I have things out on the internet that involve me that I was not a part of. There is a trilogy of computer animation with me against a plastic Jesus Christ fighting for world domination.

537 In one way it's nice that whoever put it out there put it out there because it gives me some publicity, but it's also disconcerting in a way to see yourself used in a way that you weren't really ready for and having your son come up and say, "Hey, look at this. All my friends are talking about you because" ‑‑ so yeah.

538 I forget what the question is because ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

539 MR. MOCHRIE: I actually was just thinking of me fighting ‑‑ yes, professional. It is professional.

540 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you. Back ‑‑ a culture question. There is no doubt that a great deal ‑‑ this may be a massive understatement.

541 A great deal of concern in this room is with respect to where the entertainment industry in Canada is going from an economic standpoint, but from a cultural standpoint one of the mandates of this Commission is to ensure that Canadian culture is alive and well and shared by as many of our population as possible and now the internet brings about a whole new opportunity for promotion.

542 And again I'm interested from anyone's perspective at your table how we might look at using the internet not from a barrier to entry perspective which perhaps is the way we looked at things before and a closed system, but how we might use the internet to vault Canadian talent in a way never done before. Because it seems to me that Canadian talent has no shortage of success on the world stage when given an opportunity and the internet is definitely that opportunity.

543 Would you comment on that, please?

544 MS ARNOLD: Well, I can only speak from my personal experience. The show that I'm working on right now, Degrassi, it seems like our episodes take not second place but they go hand in hand with ‑‑ for every episode we do there is at least a podcast, a webisode, a behind the scenes, and the majority of that is being created for the end which shows Degrassi in the States. So I think a lot of that demand is coming from the States and for our show at least the best way that we can reach the fans and give them what they want and what they expect is through the internet.

545 So I think for Degrassi it's been a huge boost.

546 MR. NEIL: Have a look at the website myfilms.com, which is a website organized by the U.K. Film Council, because that's a really interesting model. They have material about all movies available in the U.K. at the moment, including both Hollywood releases and domestic releases. But obviously they are promoting the domestic releases.

547 That, in my view, is a real creative way that you can take advantage of the medium.

548 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: If at some point down the road a production subsidy model, perhaps driven by an ISP levy, were to exist, would your position be positive or negative if there was also a promotion component to the use of that fund?

549 MR. NEIL: Well, absolutely it would be a positive that there be an element involved with promotion; absolutely no question about that. Promotion is critical.

550 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much. I'm done.

551 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel, I believe you have a question?

552 CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. En ce qui concerne les * Têtes à claques +, est‑ce que ça été subventionné par un fonds?

553 M. DINSMORE : Je ne suis pas un expert, mais d'après moi, non. Ça été Michel tout seul dans son sous‑sol qui a créé ce phénomène. Ensuite, concernant ma participation là‑dedans, il a parlé longtemps avec ACTRA, puis on a créé une entente avec lui. Mais lui, au départ, d'après moi, non.

554 CONSEILLER MORIN : Et même aujourd'hui, il n'y a jamais... parce que c'est un des grands succès des nouveaux médias...

555 M. DINSMORE : Oui.

556 CONSEILLER MORIN : ...que * Têtes à claques +.

557 M. DINSMORE : Oui.

558 CONSEILLER MORIN : Il n'a jamais eu de subvention, même aujourd'hui?

559 M. DINSMORE : Non. Non. C'est... it's advertiser‑driven. Tous ses fonds, il fait affaire avec tous les... the telecommunications providers.

560 COMMISSIONER MORIN: My second question.

561 You are here to ask for more funds for the production of more Canadian content, but there are two faces to the coin here.

562 You know that even for new media you are somewhat protected by the Canadian broadcasting system. Let me give you two examples.

563 If I want to watch Comedy Central online, I can't. I get redirected to the Canadian provider, thecomedynetwork.ca.

564 So it's a Canadian provider. As you know, The Comedy Network is a Canadian specialized channel and therefore must already follow Canadian content rules.

565 The story is different if there isn't a Canadian partner.

566 I visited, for example, Hulu.com, which streams American programs. And when I tried to watch, I got the message "sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States".

567 So if you are already protected and in some cases like "Têtes à claques," you don't need any subvention to get success, why do you need more funding?

568 MR. WADDELL: Because there's not enough money in the system, Monsieur Morin, right now for Canadian production. Whether that's conventional television or feature films or new media production, there is a crying need for more financing.

569 And the reason why you can't watch those American programs on Hulu is because they are geofenced because the rights of the broadcaster, the U.S. broadcaster, are purposely limited to exhibition in the United States in order to preserve the market outside the United States.

570 COMMISSIONER MORIN: You have already two Canadian new media funds, like Telefilm Canada. It's worth $14.5 million each year. Bell Broadcasting New Media Fund is worth $10 million annually. I'm not talking about the Quebecor fund.

571 So you have already $20 million and you need $100 million more. It's a lot of money for the consumer and for the whole system.

572 Do you have any other examples where the players are giving such a lot of funds to the product?

573 MR. WADDELL: It may seem like a lot of money but it's not enough. There is simply not enough money in the system, and throughout the world there are local domestic incentives put in place to encourage production.

574 One of the countries that doesn't have such incentives in place by and large, except it's now becoming prevalent throughout the States, is the United States. Where previously there weren't these kinds of incentive programs in place in the U.S. ‑‑ they didn't have to ‑‑ they are now in every state practically. There are incentives in place, tax credit systems that mirror ours, to provide incentives to producers to produce in the United States. Previously that was not the case.

575 It's a global problem trying to find enough financing for production, Monsieur Morin.

576 COMMISSIONER MORIN: Thank you.

577 THE CHAIRPERSON: Rita...?

578 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of follow‑up questions and Commissioner Morin did touch upon it. I will just use the Degrassi example.

579 That is a major success story in the absence of any regulation, in the absence of any funding, just because it made good business sense for CTV and the producer of Degrassi.

580 Why is ACTRA not confident that Canadian broadcasters and producers will continue to elaborate in such a way that makes good business sense?

581 MR. NEIL: So on November 11th, 2008 we visited various websites, Canadian broadcasters' websites, to see what they had up there.

582 Global's website had episodes of nine television series available for viewing and only two of those were Canadian. The other seven were American programs, a not particularly good ratio.

583 CTV was much better. They had 24 programs available and they had 12 which were Canadian and the other 12 were non‑Canadian programs.

584 Yes, there are isolated examples, the exceptions that prove the rule; the rule being that in our experience, you need to have appropriate regulations in place to ensure that the necessary space is given for Canadian content, the necessary funding is available for it and the necessary promotion is given to it.

585 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do those two things go hand in hand, regulation and funding?

586 In other words, would you foresee that if in some way in our magical toolkit we were able to provide more funding for new media projects, that regulation wouldn't be necessary?

587 Or do you think that, like I say, the two go hand in hand?

588 MR. NEIL: The two are absolutely essentially intertwined and both are required to achieve success.

589 We can see, for example, in our own feature film industry, that where you only have the one, which is financing, we don't achieve the success that we need to achieve because we haven't found an appropriate way to introduce the regulatory framework to ensure that those movies are given proper showings in theatres.

590 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: The $99 million that would be accumulated as a result of this levy, if imposed, is about half, more or less, of what the private sector currently contributes to both the CTF, as well as to some of the independent funds.

591 I mean for 2007, we have a total of $193.7 million.

592 Are you saying that it costs half as much to produce online content that is comparable in quality to what is currently being produced using the private sector funding?

593 MR. WADDELL: No, that is not what we are saying.

594 We are just using an equation that is ‑‑ actually, it's more than half of the traffic on the Internet is audio‑visual material. So we are saying okay, since half of the traffic ‑‑ it's actually 70 per cent ‑‑ is actually that material, then the funding should be appropriate.

595 And we would like to see more.

596 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So you did not relate the dollars that would be generated from this levy to actual costs associated with producing online programming.

597 MR. WADDELL: No, we did not.

598 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Just one final question and it goes to the point raised of who should be licensed and, as you say, who are streaming programs from Canada.

599 Mr. Mochrie, I did just go on your website and I saw that you are a big fan of cooking and Spicy Sausage Farfalle really caught my attention. But the clip ‑‑ and there is a link on your website to the CBC site that shows that segment.

600 If that was on your website, if that segment was on your website, or if you launched your own online cooking show, should you be subject to regulation therefore, based on what you said, on what ACTRA said on page 5 of the oral presentation this morning?

601 MR. MOCHRIE: Yes, I am producing a show.

602 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Regardless of how many hours are on your site of that cooking show?

603 MR. MOCHRIE: I think so.

604 I mean, these are questions for people much more learned than I am to figure out the ins and outs of it.

605 It's a good recipe, though. I stand behind it.

606 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I'm going to try it.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

607 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you.

608 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel, I believe you have a question.

609 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Only one short one, Mr. Chairman.

610 In responding to previous colleagues regarding how you did arrive to establish your expectations regarding to a fee, on the other side of the equation, did you make a split between what shall be going to sound recordings versus what shall be going to video productions, documentaries and dramas?

611 How do you see the split?

612 MR. WADDELL: The allocation.

613 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Yes, the allocation.

614 MR. WADDELL: We haven't turned our minds to that, Mr. Vice‑Chair.

615 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: At this stage you want to collect the money.

616 MR. WADDELL: Yes, and then we will work it out. We will get into a bun fight over who should get what.

617 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Right.

618 MR. WADDELL: But, you know, look at the existing allocations and use that as a template, I would suggest.

619 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you.

620 THE CHAIRPERSON: Louise...?

621 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes, I have one question.

622 You support the fact that we should create a fund. I wonder what would be the rules.

623 Who could have access to that fund? Could you review the criteria to us?

624 And I wonder if the games would have access to that fund too.

625 MR. WADDELL: Well, we suggested that the Canadian Television Fund could administer this rather than creating a new wheel, and then the allocations could be determined on the basis of current allocations, and corrected of course by my colleague that currently the CRTC doesn't look at the audio side of things in terms of the CTF. So that would have to be taken into account.

626 I'm sure we could work it out amongst ourselves as to how the funds are allocated. Just give us the money.

627 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: And the interactive games would have access to that fund too.

628 MR. WADDELL: Sure.

629 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Thank you.

630 THE CHAIRPERSON: In your presentation and in your response to answers, you have always attacked throughout the whole issue of rights, which is really the key one.

631 As my colleague Michel Morin said, you can't access Hulu because it's restricted to you. And obviously right now the rights are being sold on a national basis, and that is one of the main barriers but also one of the protections for producers.

632 Yet your colleague ‑‑ I'm sorry, I don't know your name ‑‑ said twice it's just around the corner that we are going to have access to Hollywood films on an unlimited worldwide basis.

633 That's the first time I have ever heard that.

634 I understood right now that in effect the rights are the great barrier to streaming to things being shown internationally everywhere, et cetera, and actually the industry is very much fighting to retain the rights because this mainly allows them multiple sources of revenues.

635 Do you have any information or any reason for telling us that the streaming of Hollywood movies online is just around the corner?

636 MR. NEIL: Deals are already in place. As soon as the final security issues are worked out, they will be available online.

637 Canada is considered part of the domestic market in the release of Hollywood movies, so there would be no differentiation between Canada and the United States and Mexico in any kind of Internet release of Hollywood movies.

638 The Hollywood distributors may want to try to carve out geographic markets elsewhere in the world, but they will likely work out a system to do that because typically of course the Hollywood distributors will acquire worldwide release rights.

639 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But then they segment them out on a national basis.

640 MR. NEIL: Yes, indeed.

641 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why would it be any different here?

642 MR. NEIL: As I said, they may or may not work out those kinds of system outside of Canada. But I assure you that Canada, as part of the domestic market, would be absolutely incorporated in whatever ‑‑ it would be a North American distribution with respect to the Internet release of Hollywood movies.

643 They won't carve out Canada. We are part of the domestic market.

644 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why? If you can get two different fees, why would you lump it together? We don't do it in any other rights.

645 I mean, for film distribution, for instance, they are always segregated because it's more lucrative for them. Why would they do something against their commercial interest?

646 What leads you to make that assumption?

647 MR. WADDELL: I mean, the geofencing that has been going on is of course changing. And it's changing as a result of the U.S. broadcaster negotiating with the Canadian broadcaster to permit use of material on Canadian websites.

648 So Desperate Housewives is now being seen on the Internet in Canada through, I think it is, ctv.ca as a result of negotiation that took place presumably between the broadcasters for those rights.

649 So, you know, it's just a question of negotiation to expand those rights.

650 THE CHAIRPERSON: I assume people make deals in their commercial interests, and your colleague seems to suggest that it would be commercially in their interest to lump them together rather than segregate.

651 I just do not understand the rationale for that assumption.

652 It may be perfectly valid. I just don't understand.

653 MR. NEIL: It's the same in the theatrical release of feature films. They work out a North American release pattern. Toronto is one of the first three markets in which feature films, Hollywood feature films are released.

654 It's part of a North American distribution promotional pattern. They see it as an integrated market.

655 Clearly that same promotional pattern will continue. They see that as the most effective way of maximizing their revenues because they then have absolutely control over how it is distributed, both in Canada and in Mexico.

656 So they see it as in their corporate interest to do that and not to segregate out the Canadian market and have it distributed on a different basis here.

657 THE CHAIRPERSON: But they will charge the Canadian market differently than the U.S. market surely.

658 MR. NEIL: They are going to charge ‑‑ yes, they will charge additionally, absolutely.

659 We are talking feature film. After theatrical release, the product goes to Pay and DVDs; right?

660 Well, DVDs are becoming obsolete. It's an obsolete medium now or soon will be because everything is going to ‑‑ my colleague is right. Everything is going to go to the Internet as the next platform for release. Why? Because it's cheaper. There's no packaging involved and there are no distribution costs.

661 So the U.S. studios, the U.S. networks, are going to go to the Internet as the next platform for distribution after the theatrical release. That's just where everything is going to be evolving.

662 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure we are going to hear from other parties on this. I must say I'm not quite sure I share your assumption.

663 But if in your further submission you want to elaborate on this point, it would be appreciated.

664 Thank you. That's all we have for you today.

665 Madam Secretary, I think a five‑minute break before we hear from the next group.

666 MR. DINSMORE: Thank you for your time.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1134 / Suspension à 1134

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1143 / Reprise à 1143

667 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la Secrétaire, s'il vous plaît?

668 THE SECRETARY: I would now invite the Directors Guild of Canada to make its presentation.

669 Appearing for the Directors Guild is Brian Anthony. Please introduce your colleagues and proceed with your 15‑minute presentation.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

670 MR. ANTHONY: Thank you very much.

671 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commission staff.

672 My name is Brian Anthony and I am the National Executive Director and CEO of the Directors Guild of Canada.

673 The DGC is a national labour organization that represents key personnel in the film and television production industries with over 3,800 individual members.

674 With me today, on my left, is Sturla Gunnarsson, President of the Directors Guild of Canada. Sturla is one of Canada's best known and most accomplished filmmakers. His films have been recognized with a multitude of awards around the world, including Emmy, Genie and Gemini awards, a pre‑Italia, many best of festival awards and an Oscar nomination.

675 On my right is Grant Buchanan of McCarthy Tétrault LLP. I would note that, notwithstanding Mr. Buchanan's presence on the panel today, we intend to simply supply our rebuttal comments relating to the Commission's legal ability to impose a levy on ISPs and WSPs during the reply phase following the oral hearing.

676 We are very pleased to appear before you to provide our comments in this important public hearing.

677 I will first comment on the assumptions outlined by the Commission in its Notice to Appear, then Sturla will offer some thoughts from the perspective of the director, then I will conclude by outlining the DGC's views with respect to the issues framed by the Commission.

678 We agree with the Commission's assumptions with two clarifications. We agree that there is broadcasting and new media. We agree that the creation and presentation of most professional Canadian content has required some form of production subsidy. We agree with the notion of focusing on professional programming rather than user‑generated content, and we agree that access to broadcasting content by Canadians in new media is via an internet or wireless service provider operating in Canada.

679 However, and as we will discuss later, while access may be via the internet or a WSP an additional inquiry needs to be made, the Commission needs to know whether the service requires a proprietary device like a mobile phone or a set‑top box which allows a service provider other than the ISP or WSP to select the programming being offered over it.

680 As we will clarify later, the DGC feels that the regulatory system changes when the provider is a walled garden or a gated entity which alone selects its programming inventory and sells it to customers and has the direct relationship with the customers. Those entities should be required to reserve shelf space for Canadian programming.

681 As well, while we agree with the Commission's assumption that the new media environment is one of abundance and unlimited shelf space, there is the same shortage of high quality Canadian entertainment programming as is evident in traditional media. This type of programming should be the recipient of funding from a new levy to be placed on ISPs and WSPs.

682 I would now like to ask Sturla to provide his perspective.

683 Sturla.

684 MR. GUNNARSSON: Thank you, Brian.

685 Good morning.

686 I would like to share with you three examples of new media production which I and people like myself are involved in. These examples are just three of an infinite variety of productions to be considered when discussing so‑called new media. What they have in common is that they are driven and controlled by their creators; that is, the writer, director and producer of the work.

687 The first concerns Beowulf & Grendel, a feature film I made a couple of years ago. Throughout the development and production of the film we created an interactive website whose objective was to tap into and build on the communities of interest to which the film would appeal.

688 Among the most effective elements on the website was a documentary film I commissioned on the process of the making of Beowulf & Grendel. This was not the usual making of a promotional infomercial but a true documentary whose director had editorial independence.

689 Throughout the making of the documentary the filmmaker posted segments on the website which became the focus of intense discussion and drove the numbers on the website through the roof. When it was completed it was posted in its entirety as were segments from the movie.

690 Members of the Beowulf community were encouraged to produce their own versions and mashups which proliferated and further increased traffic on the site.

691 It was this internet community which in large part resulted in Beowulf being among the top grossing English‑Canadian feature films in the year it was released. It had such a wide reach that busloads of fans from the U.S. came to see it on Canadian screens which caused U.S. distributors to pay attention and led to the film's U.S. release as well.

692 Though the documentary was initially made available online, it subsequently went on to have a successful film festival career of its own, TV sales in several countries and brisk online DVD sales.

693 This experiment, like the others I will tell you about, was entirely self‑financed. In my case, as in so many cases where the actual filmmaker is involved, it was financed through a mortgage on my home. We will be in a sorry state if the Canadian new media industry becomes reliant on my ability to persuade my wife to do that again.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

694 MR. GUNNARSSON: A second example concerns the program Sanctuary, a Vancouver‑based sci‑fi series developed specifically for the internet by filmmakers Damian Kindler and Martin Wood.

695 Using their home base as directors/producers of the TV series Stargate, Damian and Martin created a sci‑fi series with a totally different distribution model whereby episodes were sold directly to viewers on the official website. The web episodes were about 15 to 20 minutes in duration and were released bi‑weekly.

696 Sanctuary developed a serious fan base which got involved in many ways, from the usual blogs and forums to creating and sharing their screen captures and artwork and creating mashups of the videos.

697 The official fan site let users communicate, discuss episodes and share their creations. There are unedited scenes provided with each episode where actors perform in front of green screen. This allows the viewers to create their own environment to place the actors in, after which the viewers are encouraged to share their creation via other sites.

698 An online media player designed for streaming the video provides the ability to capture and download or email screen captures of the video.

699 The punch line of the story is that the success of those websites propelled the U.S. sci‑fi channel to commission Sanctuary as a television series, which has just received an order for a second season.

700 As with Beowulf & Grendel, this new media production took on a life of its own and created its own fan base which blew back into the conventional media business model.

701 Apart from its intrinsic cultural value it is an example of a cost‑effective way to create the equivalent of a television pilot, an exercise often beyond the means of Canadian broadcasters.

702 The third example is a company called Strata Films in Toronto. The principal, Brad Fox, is an internet veteran who has his own server and creates original content. He uses this model to produce feature films destined for high resolution release on his server, thus bypassing the traditional theatrical release distribution model.

703 These films are also entered into film festivals and seek out DVD and television distribution through traditional media models, but by making films destined initially for the internet release he is freed from the constraints and disappointments often associated with Canadian theatrical film distribution. Rather, he has a vehicle for getting his work out into the global marketplace without an intermediary.

704 What these ventures have in common is that they are driven by the creators of the work, the writers, directors and producers, and they result in a proliferation of Canadian voices. It's noteworthy that they are not driven by the old gatekeepers in either commercial television or feature film distribution models.

705 The digital economy is a new frontier and each of these ventures represents a small step towards staking out a meaningful Canadian presence in the virtual world. But each of these projects, while functioning in embryonic stages at the present time, could benefit from some sort of new media fund.

706 Drama and documentary programming is chronically underfunded in Canada and the new media subset of these genres is in even worse position. These few successes I have highlighted could mushroom into many more if there were access to more funding.

707 Brian will speak to the need for an ISP levy momentarily, but I see a fund as critical if we are going to ensure a presence in the new media universe for Canadian documentaries, feature films and other dramatic productions going forward.

708 Finally, if the Commission agrees to the idea of a fund like this we think you should ensure that it is not just a backdoor route for supporting television production. It should be for new media production only. While it's desirable that these productions have the ability to migrate back to some subsequent exhibition on traditional media, that should not be the primary objective of these productions.

709 Brian.

710 MR. ANTHONY: Thank you, Sturla.

711 Returning to the issues that the Commission said it hoped to hear from us on, we wish to comment on three of them in particular; namely, contribution, support and the need to amend the 1999 and 2007 exemption orders.

712 The Commission's New Media Exemption Order and, more recently, the mobile television broadcasting undertaking exemption order have allowed new broadcast delivery systems to develop in Canada on an unregulated basis. As Sturla has mentioned, we think the time has come in the development of the new media to require them to make a contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system.

713 Back in the late 1990s the internet was, as the Commission noted, essentially the conduit for non‑broadcast content consisting primarily of alphanumeric text. The intervening decade has changed that significantly, as illustrated in the Nordicity study which we attached to our written submission.

714 We have suggested that the ISPs and WSPs should be required to make a financial contribution measured as a percentage of revenues. That percentage should use the 6 percent levy that the Commission has established for BDUs and discounted to reflect the fact that not all of what an ISP or a WSP delivers is broadcasting.

715 This levy is not about harm or even about viewers or revenues siphoned from conventional media. When the Commission set the BDU level at 5 percent in 1997 or at 6 percent in 2008 it did not inquire as to whether the viewership to the community channel was taking viewers or revenues away from traditional media. Rather, an ISP/WSP levy would represent a simple recognition that these providers are making broadcasting available to Canadians, that they are making healthy returns in doing so and that accordingly that they should make an appropriate contribution to the achievement of the Broadcasting Act's objectives.

716 Any such financial contributions should be directed to high quality Canadian audiovisual content such as dramas and documentaries which the Commission has recognized from its inception in 1968 are the most difficult to finance. As we noted in our submission, the internet provides neither unlimited choice nor an absence of scarcity with respect to the high cost of audiovisual content such as these.

717 The internet and other new media platforms simplify distribution but we still have to produce something to be distributed.

718 In addition, we invited the Commission to consider three types of entities; namely, open entry platforms, closed undertakings and affiliated new media programming services.

719 We also proposed a registration system that would allow programming services and aggregators alike to be certified. Such a certification would provide access to the funding from the ISP/WSP levy as most tax incentives. To qualify one would have to make substantial use of Canadian content. This registration system would be optional for any undertaking providing its service on an open platform.

720 However, closed undertakings locked into a hardware device like a mobile phone or a set‑top box configured by the service provider would have to seek certification as Canadian new media broadcasting undertakings. This certification would ensure that the set‑top box or mobile provider make shelf space for Canadian services just as on demand service providers must do today.

721 In summary, the Directors Guild of Canada is advocating a percentage of revenue contribution to be levied on WSPs and ISPs with access limited to entities that choose to register and closed undertakings which choose the content that will be delivered over their gated systems should be required to reserve an appropriate amount of shelf space for Canadian content.

722 These changes will require amendments to the Commission's two exemption orders, but the Guild does not suggest their revocation but rather adding terms which must be adhered to in order for undertakings that would shelter under them to continue to be exempt. Those terms would ensure contributions would be made to the achievement of the goals of the Broadcasting Act.

723 Finally, we advocate Commission involvement in finalizing terms of trade with respect to new media by taking three steps first and would require your broadcast licensees to negotiate them.

724 Second, you would review them for fairness.

725 Third, you would institute a use it or lose it rule that would require reversionary rights from broadcasters who acquire new media rights but do not exploit them within one year.

726 That concludes our oral remarks, Mr. Chairman, and we would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

727 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation.

728 On page 3 at the bottom you say:

"The same shortage of high quality Canadian entertainment programming is evident in traditional media." (As read)

729 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any basis for making that statement? I mean one of the problems of new media is measurement, as you know. We highlighted that nobody really knows what is out there, how to measure it, et cetera.

730 So you are making this categoric statement. I presume you have some evidence to back it up.

731 MR. ANTHONY: We don't feel that there is anything more on the new media than there is in traditional media. There is only so much content being created.

732 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that may be so but the point is nobody ‑‑ I haven't seen any study. I haven't seen any measurement or anybody telling me there is a dearth or there isn't a dearth. I mean you are making the assumption since there is a dearth in traditional media there has to be a dearth in new media as well?

733 MR. ANTHONY: Well, we may be ‑‑ this may be more impressionistic than data‑based and we recognize that there is a strong need for more research into what is going on in the new media.

734 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

735 And secondly, your colleague when he was talking about the new media fund said that such fund should be restricted to new media protection and shouldn't be a backdoor way of putting funding in traditional media. I'm somewhat surprised by that. I thought that we are really talking about a continuum now and, you know, whether it's new media or traditional media or whether your purpose is for this or that or both it's really very hard to draw a distinction between that.

736 And so even if what you suggest happens and the new money is putting out for new but actually goes to traditional media wouldn't it, number one, benefit your guild and second ‑‑ yes, your guild ‑‑ secondly, even if it goes into traditional media it will find its way to new media. It will be distributed.

737 Everything nowadays is multipurpose and they are being used in ‑‑ so why the insistence on having separate funds and trying to ensure that they are sort of ‑‑ there is no flow of funds from one fund to the other?

738 MR. ANTHONY: I will ask Sturla to speak to that in greater detail, Mr. Chairman, but we have given much thought to this and we feel that it is desirable of course for new media production to migrate to other platforms including what one might call traditional or conventional or heritage or legacy platforms.

739 But we felt that there is an opportunity here to do something really bold and forward‑looking by putting money into new media production and placing perhaps a lag or a time limit on its reversion or migration to other platforms, so that it wouldn't be used simply as a way of topping up the resources available for conventional broadcast programming purposes.

740 We will look forward to appearing before you to deal with over‑the‑air licence renewals and how we can get more money into the conventional broadcast environment. And we were mightily encouraged, I must say, by your observations about possible one‑to‑one expenditure ratios and we look forward to coming to talk to you about that.

741 But we see this as a matchless opportunity to put money into new media production primarily with secondary uses coming later so that Sturla does not have to persuade his wife to renegotiate the mortgage on the house.

742 There is a lot going on out there and a lot of it is self‑funded. A lot of it is sweat equity and we feel that the extent and nature of the production activity that is going on expressly for the new media requires the kind of support that we are proposing through an ISP levy.

743 Sturla.

744 MR. GUNNARSSON: Well, Brian has spoken to it very eloquently.

745 What we are thinking about here is that this is a tremendous opportunity for a renaissance, for really an unleashing of diversity and multitude of Canadian voices, stepping away from the conventional model, creating ‑‑ what we have now is we have producers, directors, writers and actors all of whom are seeing the new media as something other than just a promotional tool for conventional media. They are seeing it as a bold new frontier and what we are saying is let's plant our flag out there. Let's get out there and stake some turf for Canada.

746 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

747 Len, I believe you had some questions.

748 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

749 And good morning, gentlemen.

750 I want to pickup on the notion of the continuum that the Chairman just mentioned earlier. I think we all are getting a sense for where we want to end up in all this. What I want to understand is where are we today.

751 I've heard from both parties this morning the fact that new media is being used primarily as a tool for repurposing traditional broadcasting as being used for promotion, promotion to drive people back to the linear broadcasting system as well. And so at the same time I hear other people saying there already is a migration and there already is a loss of advertising revenue or eyeballs from linear broadcasting that has migrated already.

752 In your view, where are we on this continuum? And I guess if you look into a crystal ball 50 years from now everybody may in fact be watching streamed video as their only source of broadcasting if I can call it that. So where are we now and how far have we gone in this transformation from a complementary service to a substitute?

753 MR. ANTHONY: Well, we are at a sort of very interesting phase in the evolution of all of these media. I hate to use the expression "the paradigm is shifting" because it's on overly used expression and I get motion sickness when people use it, but you know what I mean. There is something that's going on out there, some seismic shift and it's hard to measure because much of it ‑‑ as the Chairman said, much of it is sort of beyond our current capacity to measure.

754 We are not ‑‑ we have just come back from a meeting with our Directors Guild of America colleagues who have done a lot of research into the new media. They take ‑‑ they are not concerned that the sky is falling, that all of the old models are going to fall apart tomorrow and be replaced by new models that we perhaps don't have a full appreciation of. They see this more as unfolding slowly over the next 10 or 15 years.

755 We just want to make sure that as the new models evolve that, as Sturla says, we planted our flag in the emerging new platforms so that Canadian content ‑‑ there will be a robust amount of Canadian content there, and we feel that this is a good place to start.

756 I don't know if I have answered your question adequately but Sturla can.

757 MR. GUNNARSSON: And also we see it as an opportunity to address some of the problems that really beleaguer Canadian creators which is, you know, all of the problems that we are aware of that we have discussed ad infinitum; you know, the difficulty of theatrical distribution, the lack of Canadian content on conventional broadcasters.

758 What we are seeing here is the potential for us, for the Canadian creators to express themselves and in the process help to create the new model.

759 COMMISSIONER KATZ: But you have not seen a substitution effect yet of where new media is driving people away from the linear broadcasting system?

760 MR. ANTHONY: Well, I can give you an example given to us by our American colleagues when we were in Los Angeles last week. One commissioner, Commissioner Moran I think, mentioned Hulu, not available in Canada because it's geo‑gated.

761 Hulu, which is of course promoting its own services, boasted that in the month of December, I believe, they attracted 700 million viewer minutes. Well, that sounds like a lot of viewer minutes and it sounds like the kind of thing that can attract a lot of advertising interest. But the truth of the matter is that in the United States one episode of 24 attracts, guess what, 700 million viewer minutes and there is more opportunity for advertising in that one episode of 24 than there is in any individual broadcast over Hulu which has limited ‑‑ I think only five minutes of broadcasting per hour.

762 So, as I say, we don't feel that the shift is as radical as some people fear, that the traditional or conventional media are all going to fall apart because of the emergence of the new media. We believe that there is a transition here that ‑‑ and there are some people who believe, quite frankly, that it's not a matter of substitution from one ‑‑ at the moment, at any rate, from one set of eyeballs moving from one platform to another, that they are still at the level of looking at both. My children look at multi‑platforms all at the same time, for example.

763 COMMISSIONER KATZ: It brings me to the issue of the business case. I mean you are in the business as well of supporting your guilds and your members as well and they all want to make money. Is there a new business model on the horizon whereby the production of content over new media is a lot less expensive? And I go back to your statement that you made in your submission of December 5th, and I will try and quote you saying:

"The expense of costs associated with high quality scripted audiovisual is constant. At the same time..." (As read)

764 COMMISSIONER KATZ: And I know someone quoted this morning:

"...what matters is programming content, not the rest. The rest is housekeeping." (As read)

765 COMMISSIONER KATZ: But the reality is that housekeeping consumes an awful lot of cost as well.

766 And I think you said in your submission and again I'm going to not quote it but you basically have indicated that digital technology has made it cheaper to shoot, edit and process audiovisual content. Distribution is a lot cheaper as well.

767 So at what point in time does the business of economics kick in and now production is made ‑‑ and I will use your paradigm context ‑‑ a new paradigm shift whereby it's a lot cheaper and more economical to produce first run programming broadcast on the internet first and the linear broadcasting follows after that because it's cheaper to do it that way.

768 MR. GUNNARSSON: We don't see the production of scripted dramatic filmmaking or documentary filmmaking for the internet as being dramatically less expensive. You still need actors. You still need cameramen. You still need editors.

769 The new digital technology hasn't reduced the need for that. There will be some savings. We don't see dramatic savings and we don't ‑‑ to be honest with you, nobody knows what the business model is. We haven't figured out ‑‑ nobody has figured out how to monetize what's going on out there. What we believe strongly, though, is that we can't afford not to be there.

770 COMMISSIONER KATZ: But presumably, until there is a business case it's not going to thrive. I mean we hear about Hulu and all the other folks out there looking for a business case, but the reality is there is not going to be a quantum shift away from what viewers are watching today until there is a business case to make it viable.

771 MR. GUNNARSSON: Well, everybody is there. When I talk to the producers of the shows that I direct I ask them about what they are doing on the internet, what is their business model, what kind of money are they making and they just keep coming back to, "We don't know but we can't afford not to be there. This is the global market. This is the new world."

772 COMMISSIONER KATZ: One of the comments you have submitted in your December 5th filing talked about using it or losing it; the rights for new media as well.

773 It sounds like an intriguing concept. Have you taken it anywhere in terms of negotiations with the broadcasters or the folks that are involved?

774 MR. ANTHONY: I am sure, Commissioner Katz, that the CFTPA would be happy to speak to that when they appear before you next Tuesday. We are not involved in negotiating with the broadcasters over the issue of when rights would revert back if ever under the current set of circumstances.

775 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

776 Can I take you to your submission again, and there are some references that I want you to turn to. If you look at paragraph 43 of your December 5th submission there is a suggestion that:

"A Canadian new media programming service is one that will make substantial use of Canadian content." (As read)

777 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Can you put some specifics on the word "substantial"?

778 MR. BUCHANAN: A lot of thought had not gone into the definition yet, Vice‑Chair Katz. I mean substantial would need to be something ‑‑ if you were at all interested in the concept you would create a ‑‑ you would have to create a number for it.

779 COMMISSIONER KATZ: But from your perspective it's not the majority or preponderance or anything in terms ‑‑

780 MR. BUCHANAN: Those could work although remember in video‑on‑demand and some of the others we used 1:12, 1:10; 1:20 as a ratio that has been acceptable to the Commission in the past. So I think you would look at what it was you were trying to do and figure out a number that made sense.

781 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. Taking you to page 21 in paragraphs 88 to 90 you sort of flesh out the notion of undue preference provisions and the dispute resolution. And you indicate that perhaps any complaint or disputes can be handled under both Acts. In fact, you say:

"A party to the dispute can file its complaint under both Acts." (As read)

782 COMMISSIONER KATZ: What would happen if under each Act you end up with a different conclusion, if an application comes to the CRTC and within the Broadcasting Act we say this is the lay of the landscape but under the Telecom Act there is a different lay of the landscape?

783 MR. BUCHANAN: I haven't thought of that. The ones ‑‑ you have done this already and it hasn't proven to be a problem.

784 The ones that are cited there were brought under both. I'm trying to wrap my head around what happened, if you had a different result. But I can't fathom a circumstance given that the language is equivalent in both, that you would arrive at a different conclusion under both but I would have to think about that.

785 COMMISSIONER KATZ: I seem to recall back about 15 years ago when there was an issue with ‑‑ I think it was Astral and an acquisition. Under the Competition Act they came up with one finding and under the CRTC Act there was a different interpretation as well.

786 So I just think back as to whether two Acts can actually result in two different findings depending on the situation at hand.

787 MR. BUCHANAN: Fair enough. That of course wasn't an undue preference case but I suspect there is people who know more about that in the room than me. But I'm talking about the Competition Act, a difference from the Commission's determination.

788 But I don't ‑‑ if we needed to we would puzzle through this question.

789 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Buchanan, you have to speak up. We can hardly hear you.

790 MR. BUCHANAN: If we needed to we would puzzle through that. I think that the Competition Act that was a different set of issues.

791 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

792 I have got a series of questions on the Nordicity study. Are any of you able to respond to some of the information in there or is there another panel that is coming up later on, because you did attach it to your filing.

793 MR. BUCHANAN: We can do our best.

794 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. There is an awful lot of discussion in there about the fact that the ISPs are inelastic and that is you can raise price at liberty without necessarily having any loss of customers.

795 I'm just wondering how one comes to that conclusion and if you do buy into that why haven't rates gone up faster than they already have?

796 MR. ANTHONY: Let me ask Grant to speak to that but let me make an observation as a consumer.

797 I can't imagine living without the internet and it seems to me that every time I get a bill the rates have gone up and that doesn't deter ‑‑ and there is no real competition. That doesn't deter me from paying the bill or I'm not going to no longer subscribe.

798 So I don't think they are particularly ‑‑ I have the impression that they are going up faster than they should, to a greater extent than they should. But that doesn't deter me from continuing to subscribe.

799 COMMISSIONER KATZ: They may have gone up, but if I take a look at the last four or five years, I don't think they have gone up to the extent that cable services have actually gone up, to be honest with you. But I haven't looked at it that carefully.

800 Based on what I read and in the Nordicity study seems to say that there is unlimited room there to just raise price and people will all subscribe.

801 I hear you saying that it's become more of a need service, no question about it. But I still haven't found any evidence to support the fact that there is room to increase prices without having consumers, particularly in this economic situation, start to question what they are buying.

802 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, aside from all of our own anecdotal evidence about it going from $39.99 to $44.99 to $49.99, to whatever it's at now, over the last few years, my recollection of the IIC conference a couple of months back was they had ample evidence of the lack of elasticity, or sorry, the willingness rather of subscribers to continue to pay even in the presence of ongoing price increases.

803 In fact, the panel that Kaan Yigit chaired, the evidence was that the last thing that consumers would ditch in a recession was their Internet connection nowadays. They would get rid of almost anything they had before they would cut their Internet.

804 So it has become a lifeline for people, in addition to being an information source.

805 We would have to dig that out if it was important for your deliberations. We didn't make it as part of our own submission.

806 COMMISSIONER KATZ: That isn't but the next question is.

807 With all due respect to Cisco and Diffusion, they were used prominently in the Nordicity analysis to rationalize, I guess, and to explain that 68 per cent of all traffic is video and 58 per cent of it is professional.

808 Can those studies be filed, first of all, with the Commission?

809 I would assume that there's a host of assumptions that are in there as well that drive that, and it seems as though those two numbers and those two studies seem to be the preeminent analysis that is being used to drive the multiplier of 3 per cent that is being quoted by a number of you.

810 MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly, they can be. They are widely available on the web. But we would make certain that you had them.

811 The Cisco ones are particularly interesting, of course, because the Cisco folks are the ones who are in charge of supplying backbone infrastructure for the growth and they are very interested in how much is going to be HD, how much is going to be video, all these things that chew up capacity on the backbone as opposed to alphanumeric.

812 So they have done a lot of studies and forecast for their customers how much supply there should be going out a few years. That is constantly updated and available on the Cisco website and we can certainly make that available.

813 And similarly, the Diffusion study.

814 COMMISSIONER KATZ: I would like to have it on the public record, so if you could file those two, I would appreciate it.

815 MR. BUCHANAN: And perhaps as a pick‑up on your comment as those being the driver of the 3 per cent, I'm not sure if you wanted to get into that at this point, but I'm not sure you need those in any event as a driver for 3 per cent. I don't remember studies of that sort being required to determine 5 per cent or 6 per cent was the right number for BDUs.

816 I think you are free to say these folks are broadcasting and we think an appropriate contribution would be X, Y or Z, without reference to those, even if you wanted to go that route.

817 So we will certainly do as you say and file them.

818 But I don't know that I would be overly stressed about a 58 or a 39, or whatever number happens. I think everybody agrees it's growing. Everybody agrees there is broadcasting. Everybody agrees it is significant and you are free to do what you want.

819 COMMISSIONER KATZ: I don't dispute the data. It's a matter of the assumptions on what the use of it is for.

820 I mean to the extent that Cisco is using it for a specific purpose for its clients, I understand. But at the same time there may in fact be video being streamed or downloaded as well for the purpose of purchasing as opposed to for the purpose of viewing. So you start looking at some of the assumptions in there as to what drives it.

821 You are correct in saying that the Commission isn't married to having to have a specific study to rely on. But at the same time it seems that a number of parties have picked up on this Nordicity study and use it as their rationale.

822 So it would be nice to sort of see some of those assumptions just to get a better understanding from our perspective and others who might want to read it and comment on it as well during the proceeding.

823 MR. BUCHANAN: We will do that. In fact, there may be even a more recent one than the one that was cited in Nordicity because they are constantly updated as they go along.

824 We will make arrangements with you to get you what you need.

825 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

826 The other thing that you identified is the fact that the ISP revenues are growing as well, and again whatever per cent we used applying it across the board. You sort of showed a trend that has an increasing contribution or support coming across as well.

827 If we were to take a Cisco model or a Diffusion model as well, do you see it being a static number or it would change as the viewerships and as the assumptions that are inherent in these things change year over year as well?

828 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, the simplistic answer is as a percentage of revenue itself adjusts. But that's what the broadcasters argued back in 2004 when they were on the step‑stair and you saw fit to raise them to different levels of percentages of those revenues.

829 I'm not quite sure how you would want to handle that. I think you would start by setting the first one and then look at it in a few years and see if it was still valid.

830 MR. ANTHONY: I think, if I may add, we see an opportunity here in this evolving environment for the Commission to revisit some of these assumptions on a regular basis to watch as the trends unfold and adjust accordingly.

831 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

832 To what extent do you believe the Commission should be looking at the performance of the investments that are being made in the new media if in fact we do go this way, no different than to what extent should we be looking at the performance of traditional broadcasting and the investments that are being made in there?

833 MR. ANTHONY: Perhaps you could help me by expanding what you mean by performance. Do you mean ‑‑

834 COMMISSIONER KATZ: You can put it on. You can make it available on Internet, you can make it available on TV. But if people don't watch it, they don't watch it.

835 The question is: How much the investment really generates the return and how do you measure that, or should we be measuring it at all?

836 MR. ANTHONY: If I may, the model or the analogy that we have been using in proposing the ISP levy and the creation of a fund is probably video on demand. That's the closest parallel that we can think of.

837 If you are going to provide video on demand, then a certain portion of that should be Canadian content, and the same applies to the model that we are proposing for the new media.

838 Whether or not Canadians watch it is another matter. But it should be there and available in sufficient quantity on the shelf for Canadians to watch.

839 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

840 Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chairman.

841 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

842 Tim, I believe you have a question.

843 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Yes. I just want to start off by saying to Mr. Gunnarsson that I saw your Beowulf & Grendel a few years ago. It was grim, gloomy, bloody and very Icelandic and I really loved it. It was great.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

844 COMMISSIONER DENTON: So thank you.

845 MR. GUNNARSSON: Thanks.

846 COMMISSIONER DENTON: A question for you, a more serious and pertinent question, is that you state at page 12 that you expect that many new media programming services are expected to be undertaken by non‑licensees.

847 It's at the top of your page.

848 The major point I'm trying to ask you is: Who do you expect those non‑licensees to be and why would they continue to be unlicensed in your scheme of things?

849 MR. GUNNARSSON: Sorry, we are struggling to find the reference.

850 At the top of page 12?

851 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Page 12 of the written submission, not your speaking notes.

852 MR. GUNNARSSON: Okay.

853 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Sorry about that.

‑‑‑ Pause

854 MR. GUNNARSSON: I don't think this falls into the Icelandic genre, so I'll leave it to my colleagues.

855 COMMISSIONER DENTON: It won't be settled with swords.

856 MR. BUCHANAN: I think this is simply referencing the fact that these people would be under your existing exemption orders. They wouldn't be licensees, so you have to call them something other than licensees. So you call them licensees or people exempted from licence.

857 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Of whom do you think these people should consist because there are going to be many people putting up blogs with video and other sorts of communication increasingly that will potentially fall subject to our exemption orders or not.

858 MR. ANTHONY: I think our focus ‑‑ and I will let Grant speak to this in greater detail. But our focus is on the professionally produced content.

859 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Do you have a view of what professionally produced content would be when amateurs are starting to be able to have the power of professionals?

860 MR. BUCHANAN: I don't think we have a magic bullet for that any better than anybody else who has appeared before you. I know we are all struggling with it and the Commission itself has said their interest in this is professionally produced content.

861 We are going to have to find a way to define that. I don't have an answer for you.

862 COMMISSIONER DENTON: Okay, thank you.

863 MR. GUNNARSSON: I think as a general principle, though, we would be talking about people who are producing stuff, seeking an audience as opposed to people who are simply creating a diary or a blog or an audio‑visual blog.

864 THE CHAIRPERSON: Steve, I believe you had a question?

865 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes, I do.

866 This question is for Mr. Gunnarsson.

867 When you started in your career and someone asked you what you did, would you typically answer that you were a film maker?

868 MR. GUNNARSSON: Well, once I mustered the courage to say that, yes. I think I had made one or two films before I had the courage to say that.

869 That's still how I describe myself.

870 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That's where I'm going with this, because I would imagine that you would not call yourself a broadcaster or a content producer.

871 MR. GUNNARSSON: No.

872 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yet it seems to me that the Internet has this ability, unintended or otherwise, to flatten the hierarchy of content production.

873 If there was a pecking order that I have seen from my past, it would be that directors and film makers were at the top of the genre. The films and theatrical productions they produced, including documentaries might find their way to broadcasting, but that was never the ultimate destination for their work and yet 30, 40 years ago they found themselves having to deal with that consequence.

874 And here as film makers you are now looking at the possibility of your content winding up in this flat world of the Internet.

875 So my question is this: ACTRA, who were here a few minutes ago, had indicated that the broadcasting world in the future will be a world where conventional over the air broadcasting will cease to exist and the Internet will become the distribution model.

876 Do you share that notion as a film maker?

877 And further, do you see the Internet itself becoming such a robust distribution platform that it actually becomes the delivery mechanism back into large exhibit venues like theatres?

878 MR. GUNNARSSON: Well, to begin with, I see it as an opportunity, not a threat.

879 Our view and the studies that we have done indicate that we don't see the conventional business model disappearing any time soon. We see an integration of the two.

880 Nobody has really figured out how to monetize what's on the Internet and it's going to take time to do that.

881 But what I see as a film maker is I see an opportunity to get past a lot of impediments that we face specifically in this country. I see an opportunity to ‑‑ because ultimately, while I may call myself a film maker, it doesn't matter to me whether I'm making it digitally or with celluloid.

882 Once I get past the little pain of letting go the sort of sitting in the theatre with my audience, ultimately I need to express myself. I need to make films. That's what I do.

883 If there is an opportunity for me to do that via the Internet and to stream it in high resolution, in better quality than what you are seeing on television today anyway, I'm going to seize it.

884 I'm telling you, the artists in this country will seize it.

885 So what I'm seeing here is an opportunity, not a business model.

886 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: One more question, please, Mr. Chair.

887 Thank you for that. That's very refreshing.

888 If I hear you correctly, the opportunity that presents itself is to be embraced.

889 My question now is: As we look at the Internet and we have lumped all types of creative effort into a category called "content production", are you saying then that we should be mindful that in the near to distant future, we have to be conscious of the fact that the different ‑‑ that film making will be film making, professionally produced, broadcasting will be broadcasting and then there will be the user generated content?

890 So the question is this: Should funding models keep that in mind and not be just a generic content creation funding model? Should there be sub‑sections?

891 MR. GUNNARSSON: Yes, absolutely. There is not a film maker or a screen writer or an artist in the country who would describe themselves as content generators. We create narratives. We create art sometimes when we get lucky.

892 So what we would be looking for here is to use any new initiative. And we see the potential for a huge bold initiative here.

893 We would be looking for the Commission to keep in mind sort of the terms of reference of the Broadcasting Act. We would see it as a way of getting Canadian content and the diffusion of Canadian thought and ideals out there into the world market.

894 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much.

895 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentations. I very much appreciate the thought you have given to answering our questions.

896 We will break now for lunch and we will resume at 2:15. Thank you.

897 MR. ANTHONY: Thank you very much.

‑‑‑ Pause

898 THE CHAIRPERSON: So a quarter to 2:00. I was thinking an hour and 15 minutes for lunch; so a quarter to 2:00.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1231 / Suspension à 1231

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1348 / Reprise à 1348

899 LE PRÉSIDENT : OK, Madame la Secrétaire, nous sommes prêts.

900 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

901 During the course of this hearing, parties may undertake to file additional information in response to questions from commissioners.

902 Parties are requested to file all such information by Tuesday, March 17.

903 Final written reply comments will continue to be due on Friday, March 27.

904 J'invite maintenant l'Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec, l'APFTQ, à faire sa présentation.

905 Madame Samson comparaît pour l'APFTQ.

906 Veuillez nous présenter votre collègue, et vous pouvez commencer votre présentation.

PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION

907 MME SAMSON : Merci.

908 Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice‑Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, bonjour.

909 Je suis Claire Samson, présidente‑directrice générale de l'Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec.

910 Je suis accompagnée de Brigitte Doucet, qui est directrice générale adjointe de l'APFTQ.

911 Les producteurs membres de l'APFTQ considèrent que ces audiences sont d'une extrême importance pour l'avenir de la production indépendante et de la promotion des émissions canadiennes sur l'ensemble des plateformes de diffusion, dont les nouveaux médias.

912 Internet et les technologies de distribution mobile jouent en effet un rôle crucial pour ce qui est de façonner l'évolution des industries canadiennes de la création. Ces dernières, qui comprennent la production cinématographique et télévisuelle, la musique et les produits multimédias interactifs numériques, jouent un rôle stratégique essentiel dans les économies de pointe.

913 L'industrie canadienne de la radiodiffusion s'adapte présentement à l'avènement du numérique et aux transformations technologiques qui l'accompagnent.

914 Dans ce cadre, la mise en place d'incitatifs et de mesures stratégiques peut contribuer à maximiser l'apport culturel et économique des industries culturelles canadiennes.

915 Du fait de la mondialisation du marché des nouveaux médias et de l'extrême concurrence qui y règne, il est essentiel, pour réussir, d'innover constamment et d'investir dans des activités de recherche et développement.

916 L'APFTQ recommande fermement la mise en place de nouveaux mécanismes d'investissement afin de financer la production et la promotion de contenu pour les nouveaux médias.

917 Pour renforcer le système canadien de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias, il est également essentiel de mettre à la disposition des producteurs indépendants qui désirent que leur contenu soit disponible sur les plateformes de nouveaux médias des ententes commerciales et des procédures équitables et transparentes avec les diffuseurs.

918 Cela étant dit, nous allons maintenant tenter de répondre à certains points soulevés par le Conseil pour ces audiences.

919 Quant à la mesure, le Conseil se questionne avec raison sur les outils de mesure que l'on doit utiliser pour cerner le contenu canadien dans l'environnement des nouveaux médias.

920 Dans ce nouvel environnement de radiodiffusion, les Canadiens ont accès à une abondance de contenu sur demande, n'importe où et en tout temps.

921 Cependant, il est très possible de suivre l'accès des internautes à des sites canadiens et des produits canadiens diffusés sur Internet.

922 Selon nous, il serait pertinent que le CRTC crée un observatoire des nouveaux médias qui rende accessible au public le résultat de ses recherches et analyses.

923 Cet observatoire aurait pour objectif de surveiller les contenus et les tendances afin de permettre au gouvernement canadien d'agir de façon proactive en toute connaissance des changements dans l'utilisation de ces nouveaux médias.

924 Cet observatoire devrait surveiller en permanence le contenu diffusé sur les nouveaux médias, les genres de contenu, le public auquel il s'adresse, et cetera.

925 Ainsi, nous pourrions être en mesure de mieux mesurer l'incidence des nouveaux médias sur la création de contenus canadiens qui y sont diffusés.

926 MME DOUCET : Le point deux, l'incidence.

927 Comme l'a noté le Conseil, la radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias crée à la fois des défis et des possibilités de commercialisation additionnelles pour les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels.

928 Selon nous, elle devrait aussi créer de nouveaux défis et des options nouvelles pour les créateurs de contenus.

929 Le fait de se prévaloir des opportunités qui se présentent suite à l'adoption du numérique requiert que les acteurs existants adaptent leurs produits, leurs modèles commerciaux et les canaux de distribution afin de travailler avec la nouvelle réalité numérique plutôt que contre elle.

930 Depuis la publication des ordonnances d'exemption, on constate que la radiodiffusion néo‑médiatique est devenue un complément de la radiodiffusion linéaire.

931 Les diffuseurs utilisent largement Internet pour complémenter les émissions qu'ils diffusent à leur antenne et promouvoir leur grille.

932 À l'inverse des services de VSD * non linéaires +, que les consommateurs regardent lorsqu'ils le souhaitent, les services * linéaires + de télévision en direct, payante et spécialisée diffusent selon une grille horaire et des heures données.

933 Selon nous, explorer la possibilité de diffuser du contenu dans ces nouveaux médias veut dire beaucoup plus que chercher à distribuer des émissions complètes.

934 Les radiodiffuseurs doivent fournir du contenu supplémentaire dans les sites auxquels ils s'associent, offrir des fichiers balados téléchargeables avec atouts supplémentaires comme les commentaires du réalisateur de l'émission, créer des blogues sur diverses émissions et profiter d'autres occasions en ligne pour attirer les spectateurs.

935 Divers outils virtuels peuvent servir à nourrir l'intérêt du spectateur pour ses émissions favorites : les réseaux sociaux, forum de discussion, album photos, sondages, musique, vote en ligne, messagerie instantanée, télécommerce mobile pour vendre des sonneries, des vidéos, etc.

936 Il se créé du contenu pour toutes sortes de plateformes, comme les * mobisodes +, qui sont les épisodes pour téléphone mobile, et les émissions spécialisées pour canaux à large bande.

937 Les projets deviennent de plus en plus multiplateformes et incluent fréquemment des composantes Web ou mobiles, et les stratégies pour le Web y sont intégrées dès l'étape de la conception.

938 Les réactions de plus en plus mesurables des consommateurs sur ces multiples plateformes non réglementées influencent en retour le contenu des émissions de la télévision réglementée.

939 Actuellement, les dérivés multimédia liés à des émissions de télé sont relativement peu chers et largement inférieurs au coût de l'émission de télévision.

940 Si on faisait des émissions linéaires comme on fait pour la télé conventionnelle, le coût serait sans doute identique à celui de la télé et les mêmes conventions collectives s'appliqueraient.

941 Cependant, lorsqu'on parle de contenu original dédié à ces nouvelles plateformes, on parle de productions interactives qui peuvent coûter aussi peu que 100 000 dollars ou aussi cher que plusieurs millions de dollars.

942 Depuis l'avènement des nouveaux médias, les rôles se transforment et les industries de la production et de la radiodiffusion sont en mutation.

943 Dans ce contexte, le radiodiffuseur devient souvent un agrégateur de contenu.

944 Par exemple, il peut agir autant comme diffuseur de contenu sur son propre site Web, comme intermédiaire entre le producteur de contenu et le fournisseur de services de téléphonie mobile, ou distributeur de contenu en offrant de la VSD par le biais de l'Internet.

945 Nous croyons que ces nouveaux rôles du radiodiffuseur devront être pris en considération par le Conseil.

946 MME SAMSON : Le Conseil se demande également comment les intervenants de l'industrie devraient contribuer à la radiodiffusion dans l'environnement des nouveaux médias.

947 Tout d'abord, nous croyons que les fournisseurs d'accès Internet et de téléphonie sans fil doivent contribuer à financer la production de contenu original dédié aux nouveaux médias puisqu'ils en tirent profit.

948 Et quoi qu'ils en pensent, nous sommes convaincus que c'est le rôle du Conseil d'intervenir à cet effet.

949 Il nous apparaît indispensable que le consommateur puisse avoir accès à du contenu original créé spécifiquement pour l'Internet et le téléphone mobile.

950 Il faut commencer à soutenir financièrement et dès maintenant ce genre de production.

951 C'est pourquoi nous avons proposé dans notre mémoire que les entreprises canadiennes qui ont un contrôle de fait sur l'accès Internet et les entreprises canadiennes de téléphonie contribuent au financement de la production originale pour diffusion sur Internet et par téléphonie mobile.

952 On sait tous que la création de contenu original de qualité ne peut se faire sans un apport financier approprié de la part de ceux qui en bénéficient financièrement.

953 Tout comme la production télévisuelle, la production destinée à la diffusion par Internet ou par téléphonie mobile se doit d'être supportée par des contributions financières adéquates si on veut s'assurer de la qualité et de la pertinence de son contenu.

954 L'APFTQ a toujours préconisé la création d'un programme de financement spécifique pour ce genre de contenu et maintient toujours cette approche plutôt que celle visant à partager les fonds limités destinés au financement de la production télévisuelle.

955 Rappelons que le Fonds canadien de télévision vise à financer des émissions canadiennes prioritaires qui nécessitent des fonds importants pour leur réalisation.

956 Comme l'exprimait le gouvernement ontarien dans son mémoire au CRTC :

* Un certain interventionnisme public est nécessaire pour innover et faire en sorte que le Canada joue un rôle de leader en matière de conception et de production de contenu de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias, ainsi que pour fidéliser les professionnels particulièrement talentueux. + (Tel que lu)

957 MME SAMSON : L'une des raisons pour lesquelles l'offre de contenu canadien de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias produit de manière professionnelle est si faible est le manque d'incitatifs et de mécanismes de financement public.

958 Bien que plusieurs fonds de développement des nouveaux médias soient disponibles à l'heure actuelle au Canada, le montant total des financements ne suffit pas pour mener des activités d'innovation et de commercialisation au sein de ce secteur d'activité.

959 L'avenir incertain à long terme de certains mécanismes fédéraux de financement, tels que le Fonds des nouveaux médias du Canada, aggrave encore davantage la situation.

960 Par ailleurs, selon les mémoires déposés par les détenteurs de licences télévisuelles, il semble que ceux‑ci ne soient pas en mesure d'orienter une partie des sommes qu'ils doivent consacrer aux dépenses d'émissions canadiennes vers des projets de contenu auxiliaire pour les nouveaux médias.

961 L'APFTQ appuie fermement toute mesure visant à accroître la compétitivité du Canada par rapport à ses concurrents et à innover dans le secteur de la création et de la production indépendante.

962 Nous recommandons au Conseil d'établir de nouvelles règles afin de veiller à ce que le contenu canadien professionnel destiné aux nouveaux médias dispose d'un niveau suffisant de financement, sans que cela ne se fasse aux dépens du financement existant pour la production cinématographique et télévisuelle.

963 Quant aux genres de contenu à soutenir, ils restent à être déterminés à la lumière de la veille que pourrait faire un observatoire des nouveaux médias.

964 Disons d'emblée qu'on devra parler de production interactive à fort contenu canadien.

965 Le coût important du développement et de la production du contenu de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias produit par des professionnels rend essentielles les mesures visant à en renforcer la promotion et à en accroître la visibilité.

966 L'APFTQ encourage le Conseil à envisager toutes les mesures possibles pour renforcer la promotion et accroître la visibilité du contenu canadien pour les nouveaux médias.

967 Nous remarquons que le paragraphe 3(1)e) de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion impose à chaque composante du système canadien de radiodiffusion de jouer un rôle en matière de promotion de programmes canadiens.

968 L'APFTQ soutient toute mesure qui inciterait les producteurs, les programmeurs et les distributeurs de contenu de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias à promouvoir la visibilité de la programmation canadienne.

969 L'aspect le plus important est la nécessité de mettre en place des incitatifs financiers pour ce faire.

970 MME DOUCET : Le point six, les ordonnances d'exemption.

971 Le Conseil se questionne sur la pertinence de maintenir les ordonnances d'exemption adoptées en 1999 et en 2007.

972 En lisant les mémoires des différents intervenants dans la présente audience publique, on comprend qu'il n'y a aucun consensus entre les parties.

973 Les créateurs, producteurs et détenteurs de droits d'auteurs croient qu'il est nécessaire de revoir ces ordonnances d'exemption et demandent au Conseil de règlementer la radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias.

974 Les radiodiffuseurs, les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion, de même que les fournisseurs de services Internet et de téléphonie mobile, quant à eux, souhaitent évidemment un maintien des ordonnances d'exemption.

975 Pour notre part, nous considérons que les ordonnances d'exemption relatives aux entreprises de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias et aux entreprises de télédiffusion mobile ont permis à ces entreprises d'exploiter ces nouveaux services en offrant divers produits aux utilisateurs.

976 Depuis ce temps, on peut constater que ces services diffusent des contenus audio et audiovisuels qui font concurrence à des services réglementés tels la VSD, la radio et certains services de diffusion.

977 L'APFTQ est d'avis que ces services de VSD, de Web radio et de Web télévision devraient être réglementés en tenant compte de leurs spécificités.

978 Les nouvelles technologies qui permettent de voir et d'entendre des émissions au moment où le consommateur le désire, empêchent d'établir des quotas journaliers de contenu canadien.

979 Cependant, le Conseil ne devrait pas perdre de vue que la radiodiffusion néo‑médiatique doit contribuer à l'atteinte des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et inclure des obligations de contenu canadien tout comme en ont les services identiques offerts par ondes hertziennes, câble ou satellite.

980 Avec l'évolution constante des technologies, on assistera certainement à une demande croissante de services sur demande.

981 Cependant, nous sommes convaincus que les modes traditionnels de radiodiffusion offrant du contenu inscrit à une grille horaire continueront d'avoir un rôle à jouer dans l'avenir.

982 Par contre, nous pensons que le Conseil doit réviser l'ordonnance d'exemption pour toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes ou étrangères qui agissent sur Internet et les services mobiles en ciblant le public canadien et dont les activités ou le contenu relèvent des définitions de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

983 Des licences ont été attribuées aux services de VSD sous condition de contribuer aux émissions canadiennes.

984 Ces services se sont vus imposer des quotas pour la diffusion des longs métrages, le ratio minimum étant d'un long métrage canadien pour 20 longs métrages étrangers.

985 Le Conseil a de plus exigé, par condition de licence, que chaque titulaire VSD contribue pour au moins cinq pour cent des recettes annuelles brutes réalisées par son entreprise à un fonds de production d'émissions canadiennes en place et indépendant.

986 Aujourd'hui nous voyons apparaître sur Internet des services de vidéo sur demande qui permettent d'acheter des films ou de les louer alors qu'on n'y retrouve aucun titre canadien.

987 Actuellement, chaque diffuseur peut développer un service de vidéo sur demande disponible sur Internet sans aucune restriction ou règlementation.

988 Pourquoi ces services devraient‑ils échapper aux conditions de licence des VSD alors qu'ils ciblent les mêmes consommateurs canadiens ?

989 Nous pensons donc que les services de VSD sur Internet, comme celui de Bell par exemple, devraient être réglementés au même titre et aux mêmes conditions que les services de VSD réglementés (comme Illico, Indigo, et cetera).

990 Cette réglementation ne vise pas à ralentir leur développement ou leur essor, mais plutôt à offrir un système équitable pour toutes les entreprises et à favoriser la disponibilité du contenu canadien sur Internet en conformité avec les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

991 Évidemment, l'APFTQ s'opposerait fermement à une réglementation assouplie pour l'ensemble de la radiodiffusion, comme le souhaitent certains radiodiffuseurs, sous prétexte qu'on ne peut réglementer de la même façon les nouveaux médias et les médias traditionnels.

992 Nous remercions le Conseil pour son attention et nous sommes maintenant prêts à répondre à vos questions.

993 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci pour votre présentation.

994 Comme l'ACTRA avant vous, vous dites que c'est nécessaire qu'on ait un programme de financement spécifique pour les nouveaux médias, et si je comprends bien, vous voulez que ça soit séparé du programme de financement que nous avons maintenant pour la télévision traditionnelle.

995 Expliquez‑moi pourquoi vous croyez que c'est si nécessaire de l'avoir séparé, parce que, selon moi, la frontière entre ces deux est en train de disparaître. Beaucoup de productions sont faites pour la télévision traditionnelle, et on les voit sur les nouveaux médias et vice versa, et caetera.

996 Il me semble que c'est un peu des pensées d'hier, que, vraiment, dans le futur, les deux vont être un continuum et on va produire où c'est le plus attrayant, et on va utiliser le contenu pour toute la chaîne, soit nouveaux médias, soit sans fil, soit télévision, soit film, et caetera.

997 Pourquoi croyez‑vous que c'est nécessaire de faire cette séparation‑là?

998 MME SAMSON : Probablement parce que, avec le temps, on verra des contenus dérivés des émissions de télévision, mais qui vont nécessiter une production distincte. Alors, soit qu'il proposera des scénarios différents ou des contenus un peu différents ou complémentaires, et que de faire assumer par la production télévisuelle tous les coûts reliés à des produits complémentaires va créer nécessairement un engorgement et un manque de financement pour les émissions de télévision comme on les voit.

999 Oui, à l'heure actuelle, ce qu'on voit, c'est ce qui existe sur l'Internet découle principalement des émissions que les gens regardent à la télévision, et donc, d'appauvrir ce qu'ils voient à la télévision ne réussira jamais à bonifier ou à enrichir le contenu qu'on voit sur... auquel on peut avoir accès sur l'Internet.

1000 Et c'est dans ce sens‑là qu'on pense. On voit les ressources qui sont actuellement disponibles pour la production télévisuelle, et le Fonds canadien de télévision maintenant réussit quand même à faire en sorte qu'il y a un volume intéressant de productions qui se fasse, mais tous les projets ne se font pas, et que d'aller puiser à même ces ressources‑là pour créer un nouveau contenu professionnel et de qualité, on s'entend...

1001 LE PRÉSIDENT : M'hmm.

1002 MME SAMSON : ...le coût de ça ne peut se faire au détriment des ressources qui sont dédiées à la télévision. Essentiellement, c'est la raison pour laquelle on demande que les fournisseurs d'Internet contribuent également à un fonds qui permettra d'assumer les coûts de productions dérivées ou originales pour l'Internet.

1003 Rien ne dit que sur Internet ou sur téléphonie mobile la mode ou la tendance ne sera pas aux épisodes de quatre minutes au lieu des épisodes de 30 minutes, comme on les connaît, et donc, ça devrait être financé à même un fonds dédié.

1004 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais si on mélange les deux... Disons qu'on n'accepte pas votre proposition, on a une contribution par les fournisseurs des nouveaux médias et on mélange ça avec ce qui est maintenant payé par les câbles et les satellites, qui va souffrir, la télévision traditionnelle ou la radiodiffusion par nouveaux médias?

1005 Si je n'accepte pas votre proposition, on mélange tous les fonds, voilà un fonds pour la création des radiodiffusions canadiennes, soit par télévision, soit par des nouveaux médias, vous décidez et on mélange tout ça, est‑ce que ça va être au détriment de la télévision traditionnelle ou de la radiodiffusion par nouveaux médias?

1006 MME SAMSON : Monsieur le Président, votre question m'amène à une question. Si on mélange les fonds, c'est donc qu'il y aura la création d'un fonds dédié. Donc, ils pourraient être gérés tous à la même place, j'en conviens.

1007 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui.

1008 MME SAMSON : Ça, ce n'est vraiment pas un problème. Mais que le financement en soit distinct, je pense que c'est essentiel.

1009 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K. Le financement est essentiel, mais vous prévoyez une possibilité...

1010 MME SAMSON : Tout à fait!

1011 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...d'avoir une administration tout ensemble...

1012 MME SAMSON : Un seul gestionnaire de fonds, oui.

1013 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...et des conditions d'accès similaires.

1014 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1015 MME DOUCET : En fait, si vous me permettez, Monsieur le Président, moi, j'ajouterais que peut‑être au début, ça pourrait être une bonne idée que ce soit quand même des programmes distincts parce que les besoins sont distincts et sont différents. Et là, vous posez la question : Qui sera pénalisé?

1016 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui.

1017 MME DOUCET : C'est très difficile à prévoir, et peut‑être qu'il n'y en aura pas, puis peut‑être qu'il y en aura, l'ancienne télé traditionnelle ou la nouvelle télé des nouveaux médias, mais comme les besoins sont différents, peut‑être que, au moins au départ, ça pourrait être des programmes séparés, peut‑être gérés par les mêmes, mais des programmes séparés qui permettront d'observer et de comprendre, de voir où ça va.

1018 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K.

1019 MME DOUCET : Mais ça pourrait être tout au même endroit.

1020 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci.

1021 Michel, tu as des questions?

1022 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je vais continuer dans la même orientation parce que vous n'en avez pas fait état, mais d'autres intervenants qu'on a entendus ce matin ont, eux, proposé même un pourcentage des revenus qu'ils jugeraient pertinent ou adéquat pour les fournisseurs de services Internet et pour les fournisseurs de services sans fil.

1023 Est‑ce que l'APFTQ a une opinion sur cette question‑là?

1024 MME SAMSON : Bien que l'on partage certainement l'idée que ce fonds et ce financement doit se faire, la contribution, le chiffre magique de la contribution, l'APFTQ préférerait que le Conseil, dans sa grande sagesse, la détermine. C'est beaucoup trop de...

1025 CONSEILLER ARPIN : C'est trop vous demander?

1026 MME SAMSON : C'est trop d'argent pour nous demander.

1027 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Écoutez, je vais revenir à votre mémoire et à votre présentation orale où vous nous parlez du projet que vous appelez * l'Observatoire des nouveaux médias +, et je le sais que le ministère de la Communication et de la Culture et de la Condition féminine du Québec aussi préconise la création d'un observatoire.

1028 Vous nous avez dit aussi quel serait son rôle, mais qui l'administrerait? Comment serait‑il financé? Quels outils devrait‑il posséder pour être capable d'atteindre les objectifs que vous lui avez fixés?

1029 MME SAMSON : Dans les faits, le MCCQ a, effectivement, mis sur pied un Observatoire de la culture au Québec...

1030 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui.

1031 MME SAMSON : ...qui fait beaucoup de statistiques et de l'observation, que je sache, pas beaucoup sur les nouveaux médias.

1032 Mais l'Observatoire dont on parle serait une créature du CRTC, et nous croyons que comme les nouvelles technologies vont continuer d'évoluer ‑‑ ce n'est pas la fin de l'évolution des technologies ‑‑ pour le CRTC de détenir une telle équipe d'Observatoire lui permettrait très certainement de garantir que ses prochaines avancées ou ses prochains pas dans la réglementation ou la non‑réglementation et l'élaboration du système... on pense que le CRTC ne serait que mieux outillé parce qu'il posséderait cet outil de connaissances.

1033 Et par Observatoire, nous ne nous inquiétons pas beaucoup de la statistique, mais plutôt de voir venir l'évolution de ces technologies‑là et du contenu qu'on y retrouvera.

1034 CONSEILLER ARPIN : En fait, c'est de faire de la veille technologique quasiment?

1035 MME SAMSON : C'est de faire de la veille technologique, mais surtout d'être un éclaireur pour les décideurs dans l'avenir quant aux orientations que devront prendre la réglementation ou le financement, à la lumière de ce qu'on voit de la fréquentation et des habitudes de consommation des Canadiens.

1036 Encore, ce serait intéressant dans quatre ans de se demander si les Canadiens fréquentent ou ne fréquentent pas les sites canadiens ou le contenu canadien et dans quelle mesure le font‑ils versus d'autres contenus.

1037 MME DOUCET : Puis moi, je pense que ça part aussi du devoir de surveillance. Si, en ce moment, il y a une exemption de réglementation, il en demeure pas moins qu'il y a une juridiction, il y a un devoir de surveillance. Ça permet de surveiller... la veille permet de voir ce qui se passe.

1038 Puis nous, à notre connaissance, on avait compris qu'il y avait déjà une certaine veille qui était effectuée pour le CRTC.

1039 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Bien, c'est ce que je m'en allais vous dire...

1040 MME DOUCET : O.K.

1041 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...parce que, à chaque année, on publie quand même notre rapport annuel sur la communication qui contient déjà un certain nombre de données...

1042 MME SAMSON : De données.

1043 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...et aussi certaines analyses quand même par rapport à l'évolution néomédiatique, notamment, mais médiatique traditionnelle également.

1044 Parce que ce que je lisais dans votre mémoire, si c'est le CRTC qui créait, ça pourrait être un monstre, et puis, je regarde notre secrétaire‑général qui se demande où il va trouver le financement pour...

1045 MME SAMSON : Ah! J'ai une idée là‑dessus.

1046 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

1047 MME SAMSON : Quant au financement, puisqu'il y aura un fonds nouveau et une contribution au financement de la télévision, peut‑être que pendant que ces fonds‑là vont se promener, le CRTC pourrait certainement s'en accaparer un morceau pour assurer la veille de l'Observatoire, et je pense que toute l'industrie dans l'avenir ne pourrait que bénéficier de l'existence d'un tel Observatoire puisque toutes ses recherches, le fruit des ses observations seraient disponibles.

1048 Alors, autrement dit, Monsieur le Vice‑Président, je pense qu'au moment où ces fonds seraient générés, le CRTC pourrait peut‑être prendre sa cote en passant et s'assurer que l'industrie bénéficie d'un tel organisme.

1049 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Écoutez, je ne suis pas sûr que c'est le rôle du CRTC de se prendre une cote en passant.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

1050 MME SAMSON : On l'appellera autrement, Monsieur le Vice‑Président.

1051 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Ça m'amène quand même sur la discussion, donc, de la mesure et puis des moyens de mesure.

1052 Mais est‑ce qu'il n'y a pas des moyens plus mécaniques de faire la mesure? La radiodiffusion traditionnelle s'en est trouvée avec BBM, notamment, mais je vois que, par exemple, notamment, votre homologue canadien‑anglais gère un programme ISAN de marquage des oeuvres.

1053 Est‑ce que ISAN pourrait pas être un outil qui permettrait de...

1054 MME SAMSON : De tracer?

1055 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...de tracer et de voir la consommation qui peut se faire des...

1056 MME SAMSON : Honnêtement, Monsieur le Vice‑Président, Brigitte est plus habilitée que moi. Moi, je suis tellement techno‑twit, vous n'avez pas idée. Mais je le sais que le dossier de ISAN, elle est plus familière que moi.

1057 MME DOUCET : Bien, en fait, dans ce contexte‑là, je pense que la réponse est claire, c'est oui. Je pense que de marquer avec un numéro qui permet d'identifier une oeuvre, ça faciliterait l'observation.

1058 Toujours faut‑il que ça soit systématique parce que ce qu'on veut observer, c'est oui, notre contenu, qui le voit, où, quand, comment, mais aussi les proportions. Si on veut avoir une idée du pourcentage de contenu canadien, il faut être capable de voir aussi le reste du contenu.

1059 Et puis là, bien, c'est ça, si tout le monde n'est pas marqué, mais à tout le moins, ceux qui seraient marqués seraient plus faciles à suivre, oui.

1060 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Mais est‑ce que... puis ça m'amène comme question. Je veux dire, comme c'est un service qui est offert aux producteurs, est‑ce que vos membres font du marquage aujourd'hui, à votre connaissance, ou si c'est embryonnaire ou c'est...

1061 MME DOUCET : C'est encore embryonnaire.

1062 MME SAMSON : C'est encore embryonnaire.

1063 MME DOUCET : Pour le moment, c'est laissé libre à chacun. Donc, il y en a qui le font, il y en a qui ne le font pas.

1064 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Et vous n'avez pas de données...

1065 MME DOUCET : Non.

1066 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...expérimentales que vous pouvez partager avec nous?

1067 Est‑ce que ça soulève de l'intérêt chez vos membres, le marquage?

1068 MME SAMSON : Oui, les gens suivent le dossier régulièrement quand on a de l'information nouvelle qui leur arrive, oui.

1069 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Parce qu'on l'a vu dans l'enregistrement sonore aujourd'hui. Tous les enregistrements sonores sont marqués, et ça sert à de multiples évaluations. Ça sert à des contrôles. Ça sert aussi à identifier les oeuvres. Je sais que tous ceux qui font de la gestion de droit d'auteur apprécient le marquage.

1070 MME DOUCET : Oui.

1071 MME SAMSON : Oui, je vous dirais qu'on suit le dossier, mais c'est encore terriblement embryonnaire, et ce n'est certainement pas très répandu.

1072 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Très répandu chez les...

1073 MME SAMSON : Chez nos producteurs.

1074 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Chez vos producteurs et non dans l'ensemble peut‑être du milieu.

1075 Et c'est sûr qu'on verra avec le CFPTA quelle est leur expérience. Étant les parrains du projet au Canada, ils ont probablement plus...

1076 MME SAMSON : Plus de données, oui.

1077 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...de données et plus d'informations que vous pouvez en avoir.

1078 Mais parce que c'est évident, et vous l'avez soulevé vous‑même que toute la question de la mesure, c'est ça qui va nous permettre de déterminer s'il y en a ou s'il n'y en a pas, parce que ça m'amène à toute une série de questions qui découle de votre présentation orale sur, effectivement, l'état actuel chez les producteurs francophones de la fabrication et de la mise en disponibilité d'oeuvres néomédiatiques.

1079 Qu'est‑ce que l'APFTQ peut contribuer à notre connaissance de ce côté‑là?

1080 MME SAMSON : Je vous dirais qu'à l'heure actuelle, les productions qui se font, c'est essentiellement des émissions qui ont été produites pour la télévision qu'on retrouve sur les sites Internet des diffuseurs en catch‑up TV ou en VSD.

1081 Il y a, bien sûr, des sites Internet dédiés à des émissions qui sont hébergés chez les radiodiffuseurs, essentiellement, et dont le contenu n'est pas nécessairement produit par le membre de l'APFTQ, mais bien par une entreprise, une tierce partie qui va nourrir, mettre à jour ces sites‑là. C'est, essentiellement, pour le moment, l'exploitation des oeuvres que l'on voit.

1082 Il y a quelques expériences qui ont débuté sur Internet et qui ont donné lieu, par la suite, à des productions télévisuelles ou cinématographiques, mais c'est encore excessivement marginal.

1083 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Particulièrement dans le marché francophone, parce que ce matin...

1084 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1085 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...on a entendu des représentants de la Directors Guild...

1086 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1087 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...qui quand même avaient des expériences un peu plus significatives. Mais chez les membres francophones, ça se limite à ça pour l'instant?

1088 MME SAMSON : Oui, pour l'instant. Essentiellement, oui.

1089 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Et qu'est‑ce que ça prendrait pour qu'il y en ait davantage?

1090 MME SAMSON : Je vous dirais, Monsieur le Vice‑Président, quand nous aurons réussi à nous entendre avec l'ensemble des diffuseurs sur des terms of trade ‑‑ pour les appeler comme on les appelle dans l'industrie ‑‑ en ce qui concerne la télévision, peut‑être que de là pourra découler des ententes et des façons de faire pour les nouveaux médias, puisque, à l'heure actuelle, la situation dans laquelle on se retrouve, c'est que les diffuseurs veulent tous les droits et souvent ne les exploitent pas eux‑mêmes.

1091 Alors, ils deviennent un peu des distributeurs de produits, parce que ce n'est pas tous les diffuseurs qui ont un service VSD ou qui ont des entreprises de téléphonie et tout ça. Mais ils veulent tous les droits pour, ensuite, les exploiter avec une tierce partie, ce qui fait que les diffuseurs deviennent des distributeurs, ce qui va nécessiter tout un bouleversement dans les façons de faire entre les fournisseurs de contenu que nous sommes et les distributeurs exploiteurs du produit ou radiodiffuseurs.

1092 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Pourtant, dans votre mémoire, au paragraphe 57, je lis :

* On constate une légère augmentation des droits de licence pour les émissions multiplateformes. + (Tel que lu)

1093 Donc, en l'absence de terms of trade...

1094 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1095 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...il y a quand même une reconnaissance de la valeur de ces droits‑là?

1096 MME SAMSON : Il y a une reconnaissance...

1097 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Mais c'est ce que vous avez écrit...

1098 MME SAMSON : Il y a une reconnaissance de ces droits‑là tant et aussi longtemps que le producteur, pour les obtenir, a dû défrayer les droits. Alors, à partir du moment où le diffuseur dit, pour telle émission, je veux aussi une exploitation Internet complémentaire, et caetera, et caetera, des tournages originaux, bien, le producteur, dans son devis de production, va y ajouter les coûts encourus à cause des contrats avec les différents ayants droit ou les acteurs. À partir du moment où il y a des coûts, bien, le diffuseur a dû assumer une partie, bien sûr, de ces coûts‑là, donc, de là une légère augmentation des licences.

1099 MME DOUCET : Mais aussi, je pense que ce qu'on veut... dans cette phrase‑là, ce à quoi on réfère, c'est les droits pas dans le sens des sommes d'argent payables pour ces droits‑là, mais une demande qui augmente en termes de droits. Donc, ce n'est plus juste la licence de diffusion, mais les licences de droits supplémentaires, on le voit, et il y a plus de demandes de droits. Puis, effectivement, au début, ça valait zéro. Là, ça vaut un petit peu plus.

1100 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Puis en avez‑vous des négociations entre les différentes parties intimées?

1101 MME SAMSON : Du côté francophone, la seule avec qui on...

1102 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui, oui. Je m'en tiens à la comparution de l'APFTQ.

1103 MME SAMSON : Oui, oui. Alors, pour le moment, le seul diffuseur avec qui nous avons des discussions, c'est Radio‑Canada français.

1104 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Et vous en êtes toujours au stade des discussions?

1105 MME SAMSON : On en est au stade des discussions pour la radiodiffusion...

1106 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Française?

1107 MME SAMSON : ...française traditionnelle.

1108 MME DOUCET : SRC, oui.

1109 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Traditionnelle. Donc, ce n'est pas...

1110 MME DOUCET : Mais qui va quand même inclure des multiplateformes. Oui, oui.

1111 MME SAMSON : Ça va traiter des multiplateformes, mais c'est notre premier.

1112 MME DOUCET : Oui.

1113 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Puis une question incidente là. Est‑ce qu'il y a quand même des ouvertures de dialogue avec les autres?

1114 MME SAMSON : De notre part, oui, Monsieur le Vice‑Président. De la leur, moins, je vous dirais. Ça n'a pas été un hit, comme on dit, notre affaire.

1115 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Malgré le fait que le Conseil avait demandé à toutes les parties de nous proposer des choses en vue des audiences de renouvellement de licence?

1116 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1117 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Y compris TQS, à qui on avait donné une période...

1118 MME SAMSON : Jusqu'au mois de décembre, oui.

1119 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...jusqu'au mois de décembre pour...

1120 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1121 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...pour régler le cas.

1122 MME SAMSON : Mais je conviendrai, Monsieur Arpin, que nous avons eu une rencontre avec les gens de TQS. On a échangé des documents, mais j'avoue honnêtement qu'ils ont tellement de chats à fouetter ces temps‑ci qu'on a décidé de ne pas se...

1123 MME DOUCET : Pas pousser.

1124 MME SAMSON : On n'a pas poussé plus qu'il fallait. De toute façon, on va commencer avec Radio‑Canada et on verra ce que ça donne avec SRC. Et puis, ensuite, on relancera les invitations. Bien que ce soit notre quatrième invitation qu'on lance aux diffuseurs, on le fera une cinquième fois.

1125 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Vous êtes patients?

1126 MME SAMSON : Très.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

1127 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Évidemment, les terms of trade ne peuvent pas tout régler jusqu'à un certain point...

1128 MME SAMSON : Non.

1129 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...parce que vous devez faire comme tous les autres, constater que l'évolution technologique continue et est toujours en accélération à cet égard.

1130 Est‑ce que vos détenteurs de droits, actuellement, ils se font rémunérer comment?

1131 MME SAMSON : Les producteurs?

1132 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui.

1133 MME SAMSON : Ils ont... l'industrie, il y a des pourcentages de budget qui sont reconnus comme représentant la part production, c'est‑à‑dire le revenu de la maison de production et ses frais d'administration, et c'est un pourcentage des sections B et C des budgets types.

1134 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Parce que quand même, que ce soit sur les chaînes d'Astral, que ce soit sur les sites de Radio‑Canada, que ce soit sur les sites de Canoë et TVA, on en voit des contenus des producteurs...

1135 MME SAMSON : Oui.

1136 CONSEILLER ARPIN : ...indépendants. Donc, ils ont quand même fait des...

1137 MME SAMSON : Ah! Pour les nouvelles iplateformes, vous voulez dire?

1138 CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui, oui.

1139 MME SAMSON : Ah! Je m'excuse. Bien, pour les nouvelles iplateformes, ce sont des négociations qui se sont de gré à gré. Il n'y a pas de standard de conditions d'affaires, et je pense que dans le passé, les expériences, il y a eu des forfaits globaux qui ont été versés. Dans d'autres cas, c'est un partage de revenus.

1140 Et je vous dirais que, à date, je n'ai pas de cas de producteurs qui ont fait beaucoup de revenus avec ça là. Nous avons commencé à introduire ça dans plusieurs de nos conventions collectives l'an passé. Donc, il nous faudra un bon deux ans avant de voir si, effectivement, il y a des revenus qui ont été générés chez les producteurs, puisqu'ils doivent partager une partie de ces revenus‑là avec leurs ayants droit.

1141 Mais ça va nous prendre encore une bonne année avant de pouvoir faire un constat parce qu'on peut bien partager, mais comme quelqu'un me disait la semaine passé, vous savez, 20 pour cent de zéro, ça ne donne pas grand‑chose. Et naturellement, le producteur n'est pas toujours dans une position de force pour négocier avec son diffuseur parce que, ultimement, pour maintenir sa maison de production en vie, son ultime mandat, c'est de produire l'émission pour la télévision. Il n'y a aucun arrangement qui est coulé dans le béton et il n'y a pas de politique d'affaires qui s'applique à l'ensemble.

1142 MME DOUCET : C'est pour ça qu'on met beaucoup d'énergie dans la négociation terms of trade pour essayer de baliser...

1143 MME SAMSON : De baliser un peu.

1144 MME DOUCET : ...d'avoir des rapports pour savoir comment ça fonctionne, pour avoir éventuellement des éléments pour être capables de proposer peut‑être des modèles qui fonctionneraient équitablement pour tout le monde.

1145 Parce que c'est très facile, même en partage de revenus, de définir, par exemple, que le partage de revenus va être seulement sur des revenus publicitaires directs associés à l'émission de télé. Puis finalement, tous les revenus publicitaires sont en panneau ou en bannière. Il n'y en a aucun qui est direct. Donc, c'est comme s'il n'y avait pas de revenus.

1146 Alors, tout le monde est en train de chercher en ce moment des pistes, puis on essaie, nous, d'au moins rentrer dans la tête des radiodiffuseurs que comme ils jouent des nouveaux rôles, ils ont besoin de donner de l'information. C'est quelque chose de différent, et puis, il faut savoir ce qui se passe pour éventuellement pouvoir dégager des modèles.

1147 MME SAMSON: Et pour avoir été du côté des diffuseurs pendant de nombreuses années, je comprends quand ils disent que les revenus publicitaires qui entrent par la plate‑forme Internet, c'est des revenus qui rentraient avant par la plate‑forme traditionnelle radiodiffuseur. Mais à date, il n'y a personne qui m'a permis d'aller vérifier leurs chiffres.

1148 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Et ça, c'est dans un cadre où, actuellement, tout le monde bénéficie d'une exemption...

1149 MME SAMSON: Oui.

1150 CONSEILLER ARPIN: ...le règlement. Si ce n'était pas exempté, est‑ce que ça serait différent?

1151 MME SAMSON: Si ce n'était pas exempté au niveau...

1152 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Si le Conseil régulait tout ce secteur‑là, comme vous le préconisez, jusqu'à un certain...

1153 MME SAMSON: Oui.

1154 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Est‑ce que ça serait différent, la relation commerciale, le développement des affaires?

1155 MME SAMSON: Bien, je pense que si c'était réglementé au chapitre du contenu et si, effectivement, le Conseil continue de supporter l'idée d'élaborer des * terms of trade + qui sont équitables pour tous les joueurs de l'industrie, certainement que ça contribuerait à assurer un équilibre entre les différents joueurs.

1156 Oui, ça ferait une grosse différence. Moi, je pense que les deux vont de paire. En fait, moi, je dirais les trois. Et ce qu'il faut, c'est une certaine réglementation des * terms of trade + puis du financement.

1157 MME SAMSON: Oui.

1158 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Et ce financement‑là, bien, vous...

1159 Maintenant, j'ai posé ce matin la question à un des intervenants, c'est qu'actuellement, tous les fonds qu'on... Quand on parle du Fonds canadien de télévision, c'est un fonds... ça le dit de soi, c'est pour la production d'émissions de télévision.

1160 Mais est‑ce qu'ici...? Il y a de la transmission de signaux audio, on a parlé ce matin de longs métrages, sur l'Internet, la présence de longs métrages sur l'Internet. On a parlé d'émissions spécifiques à l'Internet. On parle de qu'est‑ce qu'on appelle en anglais le * re‑purposing + de contenus...

1161 MME SAMSON: Oui.

1162 CONSEILLER ARPIN: ...qui ont été produits pour d'autres fins.

1163 Le mot français ne me vient pas à l'esprit, je m'excuse pour ceux qui...

1164 MME SAMSON: Bien, c'est du remontage ou...

1165 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Et c'est un le remontage, la reconstruction, mais le partage de ce fonds‑là, il se ferait comment? Est‑ce que vous y avez pensé ou c'est encore...

1166 MME SAMSON: Bien, on peut penser...

1167 CONSEILLER ARPIN: ...ça va être encore notre sagesse?

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

1168 MME SAMSON: Bien, c'est toujours votre sagesse, mais on peut imaginer que s'il y avait un fonds dédié qui pourrait couvrir des volets différents, soit de la production originale, qui ne découle pas nécessairement d'une émission de télévision, il pourrait y avoir un volet qui est du * re‑purposing +, comme vous le dites, ou du remontage. Parce que ce n'est pas de la production qui se fait de la même façon et qui n'en porte pas les mêmes droits nécessairement et/ou la même mécanique de production qu'une émission originale dédiée à l'Internet.

1169 Il pourrait y avoir trois ou quatre volets, comme il y a plusieurs volets au fonds de Téléfilm Canada ou au Fonds canadien de télévision.

1170 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Donc, je vois très bien que le Fonds canadien de télévision... s'occuper d'enregistrements sonores, ça ferait... ça... comme ils disent en latin, * Ça ira bien dans la shop +... Je veux dire...

1171 Ce n'est pas toujours... En fait, il faudra trouver si... Il faudra trouver des moyens... s'il y a du financement, bien sûr. Je ne voudrais pas que parce qu'on vous pose des questions que vous en concluiez que nous avons tiré déjà des conclusions.

1172 Vous dites, encore là, dans un programme de soutien et dans votre présentation orale que les nouveaux produits de manière professionnelle est si faible et qu'ils manquent d'incitatifs et de...

1173 Évidemment, vous le restreignez toujours au marché francophone...

1174 MME SAMSON: Toujours.

1175 CONSEILLER ARPIN: ...parce que les fournisseurs de services Internet disent qu'il y en a de manière significative. Puis les études que le Conseil a faites et qui sont globales, qui sont pancanadiennes, qui ne sont pas par régions ni par langues montrent qu'il y en a quand même, une présence canadienne.

1176 Mais est‑ce que vos membres se plaignent que, compte tenu qu'on n'aura pas de membres individuels devant nous, est‑ce qu'ils vous font des remarques à l'effet qu'ils sont en mesure de mettre davantage de produits?

1177 MME SAMSON: Ils seraient certainement en mesure d'en offrir davantage. Il n'y en a pas beaucoup.

1178 Je pense (en tout cas, au moment où on a fait notre mémoire, il y a un mois de cela, si je ne m'abuse) c'est le site Bell où il y avait peu ou pas de contenu puis de contenu canadien.

1179 Là, on sait qu'ils négocient actuellement pour faire l'acquisition de certains catalogues de production canadienne, mais effectivement, les producteurs ont, dans leurs inventaires et ils produisent beaucoup d'émissions qui pourraient être offertes, et qui ne le sont pas... ou alors, de dérivés de leurs émissions, qui ne sont pas offerts, à l'heure actuelle sur l'Internet.

1180 Mais il n'y a pas de financement pour... Il n'y a personne qui veut en assumer les frais. Et les producteurs membres de l'APFTQ... On s'entend, là, on parle d'un contenu de qualité, on ne parle pas d'un contenu amateur. Des gens qui sont habitués de travailler dans des standards...

1181 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Non, non, mais... et c'est l'objet de l'audience.

1182 MME SAMSON: Et c'est l'objet de l'audience. C'est ça.

1183 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Donc, on est au moins sur la même longueur d'ondes, à ce sujet‑là.

1184 MME SAMSON: C'est ça, mais les contenus de qualité professionnelle, c'est coûteux.

1185 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Bien, ça complète mes questions, Monsieur le Président.

1186 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci.

1187 Louise, tu as des questions?

1188 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Oui.

1189 Merci d'avoir présenté sur les six points d'intérêt de la commission. C'est apprécié.

1190 Dans le point un, celui sur la mesure, vous avez parlé d'un observatoire, mais je me demandais, et ce n'est pas directement relié à ce que vous avez dit, est‑ce que vous connaissez le Numéro international normalisé d'oeuvres audiovisuelles ISAN? Et est‑ce que c'est quelque chose utilisé par les producteurs au niveau du Québec?

1191 MME DOUCET: On en a parlé un petit peu en répondant à une question de monsieur Arpin. Oui, on connaît la norme et c'est un peu utilisé. En ce moment, ce n'est pas un standard qui est utilisé systématiquement, non.

1192 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Est‑ce que ça pourrait être un bon outils de mesure, d'après vous?

1193 MME DOUCET: Moi, je pense que oui. * Mesure + non, mais pour tracer, pour arriver à faire la veille. Ça ne peut pas être une mesure en soi, mais ça va permettre de retracer le contenu, de savoir à qui il appartient, donc, de donner de l'information pour être capable de mesurer.

1194 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Ma deuxième question est relative au soutien; vous en avez parlé aussi avec monsieur Arpin. C'est, vous dites, qu'il y a peu de contenu canadien sur les nouveaux médias. Est‑ce que vous avez des chiffres ou c'est vraiment * au pif + que vous faites cette affirmation‑là (rire)?

1195 MME SAMSON: Bien, on les a regardés; on a fait... pas une veille (ça serait nous vanter), mais on va quand même voir régulièrement, on en entend parler par nos membres. Il y a des sites où il y en a plus que d'autres. Il y a des sites ou il y en a peu ou pas... mais il y aurait certainement moyen de... du moins sinon l'améliorer, au moins de...

1196 C'est l'objectif de l'observatoire. L'observatoire pourrait nous dire, effectivement, sur tel ou tel site, est‑ce qu'il y a un contenu canadien assez important qui est offert ou non, comme c'est le cas pour la VSD du câble ou par satellite où elle doit... elle a des quotas de contenu canadien.

1197 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Oui. Donc, on s'entend pour dire qu'il y a peu de données, vraiment.

1198 MME SAMSON: Il n'y en pas beaucoup.

1199 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Il n'y en a pas, de donnés...

1200 MME SAMSON: Il n'y en a pas beaucoup.

1201 MME DOUCET: Non.

1202 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Il y aurait un avantage, vraiment à faire une collecte de données dans ce sens‑là.

1203 MME SAMSON: Bien sûr.

1204 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et est‑ce qu'au niveau... vous voyez une différence dans le contenu canadien français et anglais sur les nouveaux médias? Est‑ce que c'est quelque chose que vous avez aussi regardé, est‑ce qu'il y a une lacune plus grande du côté du contenu francophone qu'anglophone?

1205 MME SAMSON: Alors, je ne pourrais pas vous dire qu'on a fait une comparaison dans ce sens‑là. On a plutôt tenté d'essayer de voir ce qu'on pouvait trouver. Et ce qu'on trouve, en français, c'est essentiellement sur les sites Internet des diffuseurs.

1206 MME DOUCET: Puis, ce qui est difficile, aussi, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de définition à ce stade‑ci que je connaisse, qui dit qu'est‑ce qu'un contenu canadien sur Internet. Donc...

1207 Et puis, quand on voit un contenu, on ne sait pas nécessairement d'où ça émane, qui l'a produit, qui l'a fait puis qu'est‑ce qui détermine que c'en est un ou pas. Ça, ce n'est pas simple non plus.

1208 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et ça m'amène à ma dernière question.

1209 Justement, puisqu'on n'est pas capable d'identifier ce qui est du contenu canadien, quand, à la page 11, vous souhaitez qu'on en fasse la promotion puis accroître la visibilité, comment on peut le faire si on n'est même pas, à la base, capable d'identifier le contenu canadien?

1210 MME DOUCET: Bien en fait, je ne pense pas qu'on... Là, on n'est pas capable, en ce moment, parce qu'il n'y a pas de... Il n'y a pas quelque chose, il n'y a pas une norme qui a été établie pour dire, sur Internet, est‑ce que ça va être les mêmes règles qu'on a en ce moment sur le marché audiovisuel ou sonore, par exemple, qui parle de producteur, distributeur, parolier ou compositeur, réalisateur, ces choses‑là. Est‑ce que ça va être une grille de pointage?

1211 Et ça, ce n'est pas nécessairement nous qui va l'établir, mais je pense que ça va en prendre un. Et si on a des... par exemple, un marquage comme ISAN qui va donner ces informations, quant à la citoyenneté des principaux ayants droit, bien, ça va permettre de savoir si ça en est.

1212 Mais il faut, en premier, qu'on sache est‑ce que sur Internet on applique les règles * terrestres + (si vous me permettez l'expression) ou est‑ce qu'il y a des nouvelles règles? Ça aussi, ça a besoin d'être déterminé.

1213 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Merci, Monsieur le Président. C'est tout.

1214 LE PRÉSIDENT: Michel?

1215 CONSEILLER MORIN: Oui, bonjour.

1216 Vous dites clairement en page 12 que les créateurs, les producteurs, les détenteurs de droits d'auteurs croient qu'il est nécessaire de revoir les ordonnances d'exemption et, bien sûr, de réglementer la radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias.

1217 À cela, les entreprises de distribution, les EDR, répondent... Et je prends l'exemple du mémoire déposé par Québecor, qui écrit en page 3:

* Ce n'est clairement pas la réglementation qui a ralenti la croissance de la présence de contenu canadien dans les nouveaux médias, ce sont plutôt les difficultés rencontrées lors des négociations avec les détenteurs de droits, afin de pouvoir libérer les droits permettant de mettre en ligne les contenus. + On ne pourra pas, par des mécanisme réglementaires régler ce qui est avant tout un problème de gestion de droits d'auteur, soit la véritable cause d'une présence que certains disent moins forte des contenus canadiens dans les nouveaux médias. +

1218 Et à lire les deux déclarations, quand on les oppose, c'est à se demander si la poule vient avant l'oeuf ou l'oeuf avant la poule. Et je me demande ici, si on s'entendait sur les balises auxquelles vous avez fait allusion et donc, si on s'entendait pour qu'il y ait un accord cadre entre les producteurs indépendants, pour prendre cet exemple‑là, et les diffuseurs, avez‑vous une certaine idée de ce que ça pourrait donner sur les nouvelles plates‑formes?

1219 Autrement dit, est‑ce qu'on doublerait le contenu des nouveaux médias? Et on ne parle pas de subvention, là; on parle uniquement de s'entendre sur les droits. S'il y avait une entente sur les droits, qu'est‑ce que ça pourrait donner comme résultat?

1220 Est‑ce que...? Vous êtes les producteurs indépendants, vous connaissez vos produits. Si on les négociait, vous savez que ça échappe, vous les avez invités quatre fois pour prendre l'exemple, je pense bien, de Québecor. Ça ne fonctionne pas, mais s'il y avait une entente, qu'est‑ce que ça pourrait donner, finalement?

1221 MME SAMSON: Bien, naturellement, s'il y avait une entente, il pourrait y avoir certainement plus de contenu canadien sur les sites qu'il exploite. Le problème c'est que les entreprises (puis, je ne veux pas m'en prendre à Québecor parce que c'est généralisé) ne veulent pas assumer les droits supplémentaires, ne veulent pas assumer de coûts supplémentaires pour l'exploitation des oeuvres sur les autres plates‑formes.

1222 Le débat, il est là. Alors, on est loin de trouver le chiffre magique dans une négociation. Le problème, la base du problème, c'est celle‑là, parce que leur vision c'est qu'avant, je regardais mon émission devant la télévision, maintenant je la regarde devant mon écran d'ordinateur. Mais c'est la même personne que si la personne‑là l'avait regardée à la télévision, donc, un téléspectateur ou un spectateur sur l'ordinateur, ça ne vaut rien pour eux.

1223 Parce que certains prétendent qu'il y a une érosion des téléspectateurs, qu'il y a une érosion des revenus publicitaires, mais la base du problème, c'est celle‑là. C'est que les diffuseurs ne veulent pas assumer de frais supplémentaires pour utiliser le contenu et les oeuvres sur d'autres plates‑formes.

1224 Et malheureusement, ça ne pourra pas marcher s'ils n'acceptent pas de convenir qu'effectivement, c'est pour eux une source de revenus additionnels. Je comprends qu'il y a une partie de ces sources de revenus‑là qui ne fait que minimiser la perte qu'il peut y avoir ailleurs, mais * all in all +, comme on dit, il n'y a pas de perte dans l'ensemble, s'ils rejoignent le même nombre de téléspectateurs avec plusieurs plates‑formes et puis que les revenus se maintiennent avec plusieurs plates‑formes.

1225 Il n'y a pas de raison pour que les coûts de production aillent en diminuant année après année puis que leur licence d'acquisition des droits aille en diminuant année après année.

1226 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Donc, si on veut procéder dans l'ordre et le bon gouvernement, est‑ce qu'on ne devrait pas commencer d'abord par avoir ce cadre de négociation où des balises seraient établies avant de penser de créer un fonds pour subventionner la production en vue d'une exploitation sur les nouvelles plateformes?

1227 MME SAMSON : Bien, je pense que ces choses‑là devront se faire parallèlement, Monsieur Morin. Je pense que s'il y avait un fonds, probablement qu'il y aurait moins de réticence de leur part parce qu'ils ne seraient pas seuls à assumer le coût et les droits.

1228 Quand il y a des fonds, habituellement... si on prend le modèle du Fonds canadien de télévision, quand même, le Fonds canadien de télévision contribue un bon montant à la production d'une émission de télévision. Donc, s'il y avait un fonds pour les nouveaux médias, peut‑être qu'il y aurait moins de réticence de leur part aussi et qu'ils considéreraient que le frais qu'ils doivent assumer est en partie financé par ce fonds‑là. Donc, ça diminuerait certainement leur responsabilité du côté financier.

1229 Mais je pense que les deux... les aspects vont de pair. C'est ce que ma collègue disait tantôt. Je pense que ça va prendre une réglementation, un financement adéquat et un cadre réglementaire ajusté à cette nouvelle réalité‑là des médias.

1230 CONSEILLER MORIN : Merci. C'est tout, Monsieur le Président.

1231 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1232 Steven, last question?

1233 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much.

1234 Good afternoon.

1235 MS SAMSON: Good afternoon.

1236 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: First question. Do you know off the top of your head what percentage of the existing New Media Fund has been accessed and used perhaps in the last year by Quebec or francophone producers?

1237 MS SAMSON: You mean the New Media Fund that is managed by Telefilm Canada?

1238 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Oui. Yes.

1239 MS SAMSON: I would not know.

1240 MS DOUCET: Me neither.

1241 MS SAMSON: I would not know.

1242 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Do you have any percentage idea of how much the Canadian Television Fund is being accessed by Quebec or francophone producers?

1243 MS SAMSON: We're a week too early. We have a board meeting next week. I will probably know then but at this point, no, and I'm not allowed to ask questions to staff as a board member.

1244 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I'm just trying to ‑‑

1245 MS SAMSON: No, I don't know.

1246 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I'm trying to gauge how important the production community, the francophone production community is placing on these funds.

1247 MS SAMSON: Well, I guess, as far as the CTF goes, whatever the absolute amount of money ‑‑ it's probably one‑third, two‑thirds ‑‑ I'm sure it's probably been accessed in its full amount but I would not be ‑‑ I'm not certain but I'm sure that they've had projects from Quebec producers and that they spent the money.

1248 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M'hmm. I think I understood you to say that the broadcaster will continue to be a purchaser or a customer of the product of your members in the future even though they may not ‑‑ now, I may be putting words in your mouth. But, for example, earlier we were hearing that some groups believe that conventional broadcasting in the near future will cease to exist and distribution will be over the Internet, but still the broadcaster will be the customer of the content. Is that your view?

1249 MS SAMSON: Yes.

1250 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Does your organization then see that there is going to be the need for two types of production in the future? If broadcasters are the consumer of your product, is it because there will be two types of products required to be produced in the future, one for broadcasting in the short term and the other for Internet?

1251 I'm trying to determine why you believe there is a need for two funds as opposed to one fund that spends an increasingly larger percentage of its spending in new media as new media becomes more dominant.

1252 MS SAMSON: I think there will be two types ‑‑ at least two types of productions, if not more, the traditional TV program that our members do deliver and still deliver and then there will be accessory content, either complementary to the original production or original in some cases.

1253 Broadcasters may want, for example, in a series or a variety show to have a performer. If you go on the Internet, you'll see a second performance by the guest or whatever. That is all additional production.

1254 Or at one point you could go on the website of a broadcaster if you want to access all the times that Céline Dion has been performing on that network for the past 15 years. You would be able to have this retrospective of an artist or a comedian or whatever.

1255 So there will be all kinds of new demands certainly that would have to meet different markets. The conventional television will certainly continue to evolve. I don't think it will disappear. And then the new media content will continue to evolve. We may see shorter drama series. We may see different scenarios being adapted to the different platforms.

1256 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M'hmm.

1257 MS SAMSON: So actually it's an opportunity for Canadian consumers to have access to more content, different content. And the Canadian consumer is demanding. He will want more different stuff than just the same thing. What we see right now is principally the television programming that you can access on the Internet. Eventually people will want more and the demand will be there for a program plus, if you will.

1258 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: My last question, very briefly, Mr. Chair.

1259 Does your organization or is it your belief from talking to your members that the Internet poses a threat or an opportunity to expand the consumption of francophone content in the world?

1260 MS SAMSON: It certainly represents an opportunity.

1261 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

1262 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Madame Samson.

1263 MME SAMSON : Merci.

1264 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that's all.

1265 On va prendre une pause de 10 minutes. Merci.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1452 / Suspension à 1452

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1503 / Reprise à 1503

1266 LA SECRÉTAIRE : À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît. Order, please.

1267 LE PRÉSIDENT : Allons‑y.

1268 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

1269 J'inviterais maintenant l'Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada à faire sa présentation. Monsieur Chatel, vous pouvez introduire votre collègue et débuter votre présentation.

PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION

1270 M. CHATEL : Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs du Conseil, bonjour.

1271 Mon nom est Mark Chatel, président de l'Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada.

1272 À ma droite se trouve Annabelle Cloutier qui assume la direction générale de notre association.

1273 Nous vous remercions de nous permettre de comparaître devant vous au sujet de la radiodiffusion canadienne par les nouveaux médias.

1274 L'APFC tenait à se faire entendre et à faire entendre le point de vue des producteurs indépendants en milieu minoritaire et tient à souligner qu'avec TFO, elle est le seul organisme pouvant donner ici une voix aux francophones hors Québec.

1275 Les producteurs indépendants membres de l'APFC ont un rôle de premier rang dans la création d'un contenu qui donne le reflet des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire à l'ensemble de la population canadienne.

1276 Notre industrie est en plein essor, stimule une économie locale, emploie une main‑d'oeuvre qualifiée, contribue à notre tissu social, mais surtout, je vous dirais, donne un sentiment de grande fierté et d'appartenance aux francophones partout au pays.

1277 Comme tous les autres producteurs indépendants canadiens, nos membres souhaitent investir davantage les nouveaux médias et y proposer du contenu original, en plus de celui déjà développé pour la télédiffusion, et pouvant se visionner en ligne. Cette nouvelle sphère exige un niveau d'investissement et de créativité supplémentaire à l'actuelle production conçue pour la télévision.

1278 Nous souhaitons, aujourd'hui, mettre l'emphase sur certaines de nos recommandations et souligner notre appui à certaines propositions avancées par d'autres intervenants.

1279 Tout d'abord, l'APFC recommande que le CRTC fasse une étude pour approfondir les enjeux et la place des francophones en milieu minoritaire dans les nouveaux médias. Nous constatons que les études qui ont été faites à la demande du CRTC jusqu'à présent n'ont pas présenté les particularités et les besoins de ce groupe. Ces données pourraient permettre au Conseil de mieux évaluer les mesures à prendre pour favoriser l'épanouissement de nos communautés à travers les plateformes néomédiatiques.

1280 L'APFTQ qu'on vient de voir, notre vis‑à‑vis au Québec, recommande d'ailleurs que le CRTC crée un Observatoire sur les nouveaux médias. Nous croyons que cette idée mérite votre attention et pourrait permettre d'étudier vaillamment l'évolution des nouveaux médias. Elle donnerait au Conseil les moyens d'agir en connaissance de cause dans ce monde qui change de plus en plus rapidement. En fait, cet observatoire pourrait être un des legs de ce vaste processus de consultation au cours des prochains jours.

1281 Bien entendu, nous souhaitons qu'à l'issu de ces audiences, le Conseil décidera de mettre fin aux ordonnances d'exemption adoptées en 1999 et en 2007 et établira des balises encadrant la radiodiffusion pour les nouveaux médias.

1282 À notre avis, et de l'avis de plusieurs intervenants qui comparaissent devant vous, c'est le moment de former un cadre politique et réglementaire face aux lois du marché, qui, à l'heure actuelle, portent l'ensemble des nouveaux médias à distribuer du contenu à très forte prédominance de langue anglaise et étrangère, où le contenu canadien est dilué et va en décroissant.

1283 D'ailleurs, l'étude principale commandée par le CRTC, * Des canaux en évolution : la distribution parallèle de contenu télévisuel +, de Two Solitudes Consulting, confirme la place très mince du français dans les plateformes néomédiatiques. Or, si la langue française n'occupe qu'une mince partie de cet espace, imaginez l'infime place des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire.

1284 Mais surtout, les jeunes francophones de nos communautés, grands utilisateurs des nouveaux médias, ne sont‑ils pas davantage exposés à l'assimilation, si peu de contenu de qualité en français leur est offert? L'assimilation de ces jeunes est notre enjeu principal. Tous les moyens doivent être mis en place pour leur offrir un espace francophone sur Internet et sur les plateformes mobiles.

1285 Nous recommandons donc que le CRTC exige des fournisseurs de services Internet, des radiodiffuseurs et des services sans fil qu'ils distribuent de façon maximale un contenu audio, visuel et alphanumérique de langue française accessible sur les plateformes mobiles ou Internet, en ayant le souci d'assurer une meilleure place du contenu en provenance de nos communautés.

1286 Nous avons ici l'opportunité, avec votre appui, bien sûr, d'aller au‑delà des médias traditionnels qui ne favorisent pas toujours les contenus francophones en région minoritaire, et ainsi devenir plus visibles et plus connus auprès des tous les francophones et Canadiens.

1287 Le CRTC doit, au meilleur de ses capacités, assurer une meilleure offre de contenu professionnel en français dans les nouveaux médias afin que cette langue s'y confirme comme une langue d'usage quotidien et de culture contemporaine.

1288 En somme, le Conseil doit favoriser la présence de contenu canadien en ligne. Et pour nous qui sommes issus des minorités linguistiques, nous croyons que le CRTC doit s'assurer que parmi ce contenu canadien se trouve une part de contenu provenant de nos communautés. Nos producteurs sont prêts à développer davantage de contenu original pour les plateformes médiatiques pourvu qu'ils bénéficient de mesures positives.

1289 Comme d'autres groupes l'ont mentionné dans leurs mémoires et le répèteront devant vous au cours de ces audiences, il faut une part d'investissement public. Les modèles d'affaires sont évolutifs et sans un apport du gouvernement pour assurer que les Canadiens, en particulier les francophones en milieu minoritaire, se retrouvent sur Internet, notre culture et notre épanouissement comme peuple seront fragilisés.

1290 Nous sommes tout à fait d'accord avec les intervenants qui recommandent que le CRTC prenne des mesures positives pour encourager la production indépendante de contenu médiatique, à l'aide de redevances versées par les fournisseurs de services Internet et de services sans fil. Cette mesure serait le meilleur moyen d'assurer la production indépendante de contenu néomédiatique.

1291 Et, à l'image du Fonds canadien de télévision, nous croyons qu'une portion de ces investissements devrait être consacrée à la production indépendante de contenu original francophone hors Québec.

1292 Bien que des fonds existent actuellement pour appuyer la création de contenu pour les nouveaux médias, ils ne réunissent pas les sommes nécessaires à la création en masse de contenu multiplateforme. De plus, les projets admissibles sont actuellement liés à des licences de diffusion linéaire.

1293 Du côté de nos producteurs, très peu ont pu bénéficier de ces fonds, malgré les demandes déposées, et les sommes qui ont été accordées étaient minimes. La création d'un fonds qui stimulerait la création de contenu original par les producteurs indépendants serait un excellent moyen d'augmenter un contenu canadien de qualité sur les plateformes mobiles et sur Internet. Nous souhaitons que le CRTC aille de l'avant avec cette recommandation avancée par plusieurs intervenants.

1294 Pour conclure, nous tenons à rappeler que nous sommes ici la voix du million de francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire, qui représentent 15 pour cent des gens ayant le français comme langue maternelle au Canada. En vertu de la Loi sur les langues officielles et de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, nous croyons fermement que le CRTC doit réglementer la radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias et s'assurer que le contenu néomédiatique par et pour les minorités linguistiques y bénéficiera de mesures positives.

1295 Nous vous remercions, mesdames et messieurs les conseillers, pour l'attention que vous portez à nos observations et nous sommes maintenant prêts à répondre à vos questions.

1296 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci pour votre présentation.

1297 Vous vous rappelez, il y a quatre semaines, nous avons eu des audiences ici sur la position des langues officielles en milieu minoritaire, et là, j'ai posé des questions sur les nouveaux médias, si ce n'est pas une grande opportunité pour les personnes de langues officielles minoritaires de s'organiser et de créer des communautés virtuelles pour maintenir, encourager, pour montrer leur héritage, et caetera.

1298 Et à ce moment‑là, la réponse que j'ai reçue de la majorité des gens était : Non, non, concentrez‑vous sur la télévision traditionnelle. Réservez des spectres pour nous qui voulons avoir des stations. Mettez l'emphase sur les radios ou les télévisions communautaires. L'Internet et les nouveaux médias, c'est pour demain. On doit avoir accès par larges bandes. Nos milieux minoritaires n'ont pas ça, et c'est vraiment un rêve pour le futur. Pour le moment, concentrez‑vous sur les radiodiffusions traditionnelles.

1299 Maintenant, ici, vous dites :

* L'assimilation de ces jeunes est notre enjeu principal. Tous les moyens doivent être mis en place pour leur offrir un espace francophone sur Internet et sur les plateformes mobiles. +

1300 Comment réconciliez‑vous ces deux positions, présentées ici dans cette salle dans un mois, complètement différentes, selon ce que je comprends?

1301 M. CHATEL : Si vous permettez, Monsieur le Président, ce que nous avons dit, il y a quatre semaines, ici même, c'était que nous pensions que c'était important que la production francophone en milieu minoritaire se retrouve sur toutes les plateformes, et que dans les médias traditionnels comme la télévision, c'était très important que nous occupions une place de choix et que nous ne soyons pas relégués à des heures en journée, par exemple, ou la fin de semaine ou carrément exclus de la grille de diffusion.

1302 Ceci dit, nous pensons que nous devons également être sur les nouvelles plateformes et, notamment, pour les jeunes qui consomment beaucoup ce genre de produits néomédiatiques. Et donc, nous devons être de toutes les plateformes, incluant les médias traditionnels, comme nous l'avons dit, il y a un mois, et incluant les nouvelles plateformes pour lesquelles il faudrait voir plus de contenu nouveau genre, nouveau média en vogue.

1303 LE PRÉSIDENT : Comme nous parlons des jeunes ici, est‑ce que ce n'est pas qu'on devrait se concentrer sur les nouveaux médias? Parce que, évidemment, les jeunes, soit des minorités linguistiques minoritaires ou majoritaires, aiment les nouveaux médias, aiment l'Internet. C'est leur monde, et si on veut qu'ils puissent avoir des programmes dans leur langue, on doit se concentrer sur ça.

1304 M. CHATEL : Mais ce qu'on disait aussi, c'est que pour qu'un Canada existe, puis un Canada, notamment, francophone, d'un océan à l'autre, il faut que les Québécois voient la réalité des francophones hors Québec. Donc, il faut qu'ils la voient aussi dans les médias traditionnels. Il ne faut pas être relégué seulement aux nouveaux médias.

1305 Ce n'est pas que c'est juste de demain, c'est d'aujourd'hui les nouveaux médias, mais dans les médias traditionnels, il faut que, comme on disait, en heures de grande écoute, on puisse voir la réalité du million de francophones qui vivent à l'extérieur du Québec. Donc, ça, ça fait partie de cette programmation‑là dans les médias traditionnels.

1306 Et dans les nouveaux médias, il faut également trouver une place de choix pour créer ces ponts entre les francophones du Québec et les francophones à l'extérieur du Québec. Sinon, il n'y a tout simplement pas de dialogue et de réalité commune qui est partagé.

1307 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K. Merci.

1308 Michel, tu as des questions?

1309 CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. Bonjour.

1310 Dans votre mémoire écrit, dans le deuxième paragraphe, vous faites allusions aux * Têtes à claques +, qui est peut‑être un des grands succès des nouveaux médias au Canada. Et ce matin, on a entendu des gens qui ont travaillé avec les * Têtes à claques. + On leur a posé la question * Est‑ce que vous avez été subventionné d'une quelconque façon pour développer des produits aussi attirants qui se retrouvent aujourd'hui à peu près partout à travers le monde? +

1311 Et dans votre mémoire d'aujourd'hui, dans votre présentation orale, il est très clair que pour vous, tout doit passer par un investissement public.

1312 Or, Têtes à claques a justement démontré que sans subvention, sans investissement public, parce que ces gens‑là étaient *originals, ils ont, dans un sous‑sol de l'Est de Montréal, mis en place un développement sur une nouvelle plate‑forme qui, aujourd'hui est signalée comme étant l'exemple à suivre.

1313 Qu'est‑ce qui vous empêche, dans l'Est ontarien, à Embrun, à Casselman, dans l'ensemble du comté de Prescott‑Russell d'avoir de ces exemples‑là? Pourquoi ça devrait passer par l'investissement public? Est‑ce qu'il n'y a pas autre chose qui expliquerait que peut‑être que Têtes à claques est un exemple québécois, mais qu'il n'y a pas de contrepartie chez vous, dans les minorités francophones?

1314 M. CHATEL: Bien, le cas de Têtes à claques est quand même unique, puis je pense que depuis cet exemple‑là, il n'y a pas eu vraiment d'autres exemples qui ont vraiment bien fonctionné. Puis Têtes à claques, est‑ce que c'est terminé comme phénomène? Est‑ce que c'était feu de paille, aussi? Il faut se poser la question.

1315 Puis c'est un contenu très commercial qui, ceci dit, a tout à fait sa raison d'être. Mais je pense qu'il y a des contenus qui sont développés par les producteurs, notamment à l'extérieur du Québec, qui n'ont pas nécessairement cette vocation commerciale au départ.

1316 Et si je peux donner un exemple d'un site Internet que nous, on a produit, personnellement, qui accompagnait une série télévisuelle qui s'appelait * Mon premier emploi +, pour les jeunes et qui porte donc sur la réalité de Franco‑Ontariens qui travaillent, qui sont à leur première expérience de travail; l'été, les * Summer jobs +, les jobs d'été.

1317 Un site qui est tout à fait superbe, qui a été d'ailleurs... qui a obtenu une licence très généreuse de TFO. Et j'aimerais mentionner le fait que TFO est très très généreux comme diffuseur, au niveau des nouveaux médias. Ils peuvent investir de 30 000 $ à 50 000 $ juste pour les nouveaux médias, ce que ne font, à toutes fins pratiques, pas les autres diffuseurs au Québec. C'est très rare.

1318 Et donc, on a développé toute cette plate‑forme‑là avec l'aide du fonds Bell, avec des crédits d'impôt. On ne peut pas imaginer qu'on aurait pu me placarder ce site‑là de commanditaires de voitures ou d'autres qui ont, par exemple financé en partie, je pense, les Têtes à claques.

1319 Et le but ultime de ce site‑là, c'était de montrer aux Franco‑Ontariens qu'il y avait une possibilité de travailler un jour dans leur langue, ce que beaucoup d'enfants ne savent même pas, en Ontario. Ils pensent qu'ils vont devoir parler en anglais et travailler en anglais.

1320 Donc, il y avait un objectif quelque part, de politique publique tout à fait louable, mais qu'il n'y avait pas des objectifs commerciaux au départ. Et donc, c'est grâce à des fonds publics et privés qu'on a réussi à financer ce genre d'initiative‑là, qui sont bonnes pour les jeunes, pour le Canada, du contenu canadien, et qui font avancer, finalement notre pays, je pense, dans le bon sens.

1321 CONSEILLER MORIN: Dans votre présentation écrite, en page 7, paragraphe 31, vous suggérez quatre recommandations.

1322 Il y en a une où vous dites que le CRTC exige des nouveaux médias canadiens de distribuer (évidemment, vous parlez de vos intérêts à vous)... de distribuer maximalement un contenu audiovisuel et alphanumérique de langue française.

1323 Alors, ma question, c'est comment, finalement, peut‑on distribuer maximalement un contenu audiovisuel et alphanumérique de langue française?

1324 Qu'est‑ce que ça veut dire * maximalement +?

1325 MME CLOUTIER: Cette recommandation‑là, bon, elle est restée générale, mais en particulier, on pensait en termes, par exemple, de nouvelles plates‑formes; téléphonie mobile, par exemple. Souvent, ce qu'on appelle * off‑deck + ce qui est offert est souvent en anglais, majoritairement.

1326 Et il n'y a pratiquement pas de règles, en ce moment, qui font qu'il faut qu'il y ait... Par exemple, on va retrouver Facebook, YouTube, mais il n'y a pas de chaîne ou de site francophone qu'on peut retrouver sur ces appareils‑là. Ou il n'y a pas de réglementation (à moins que je me trompe) qui les oblige.

1327 Et c'est ce genre de choses‑là, on voit, qu'il devrait y avoir davantage de contenu francophone disponible sur les plates‑formes mobiles. Sur Internet, maximalement, est‑ce qu'on veut parler en termes de pourcentage? C'est sûr qu'on en a parlé, c'est très vaste.

1328 On veut aller vers un accroissement. Je pense que le maximalement, c'est dans le sens de * au possible +, * au meilleur +. On veut qu'il y ait un accroissement du contenu francophone disponible.

1329 Je n'aurais pas de chiffres à vous donner cet après‑midi, mais c'était le sens du * maximalement +, un maximum ou autant que possible.

1330 CONSEILLER MORIN: Mais si cette production‑là est dédiée spécifiquement aux minorités francophones, est‑ce que ça veut dire que ça serait la totalité? La totalité de la production produite par les minorités francophones?

1331 MME CLOUTIER: Qu'elle soit disponible en ligne?

1332 CONSEILLER MORIN: Oui.

1333 MME CLOUTIER: C'est sûr que dans un idéal, on aimerait bien que toutes nos productions soient disponibles en ligne.

1334 Ceci dit, avec les diffuseurs et tout ça, il y a quand même des ententes à y avoir, mais éventuellement, on va vouloir suivre le courant. En somme, je pense que ça fait un peu référence à la question du président von Finckenstein au fait qu'on veut être à la télévision, sur les diffuseurs linéaires, mais on veut être en ligne aussi, de façon maximale, et que le contenu s'y trouve.

1335 Mais actuellement, les modèles d'affaires, un peu comme tout le monde le dit, nos producteurs, les producteurs indépendants hors Québec n'ont pas les moyens financiers, comme les producteurs du Québec. Et les membres du CFTP vous diront certainement la même chose la semaine prochaine, pour dire, bien, on se lance dans l'aventure sans qu'il y ait un investissement public.

1336 CONSEILLER MORIN: Mais jusqu'ici, en ce qui concerne vos productions, est‑ce que vous avez eu des problèmes de distribution au niveau de l'Internet?

1337 M. CHATEL: De distribution ou de financement, vous voulez dire?

1338 CONSEILLER MORIN: Non. Non, pas de... De production, comme telle. Est‑ce que vous vous êtes des producteurs?

1339 M. CHATEL: Bien on a de la difficulté à les produire parce qu'on n'a pas de financement.

1340 CONSEILLER MORIN: Mais au niveau de la distribution, il n'y a pas de cas que vous pourriez me citer où vous avez rencontré des barrières une fois que le contenu était produit?

1341 M. CHATEL: Bien, en fait, nous, les expériences qu'on a, surtout, et les membres de l'APFC, c'est surtout avec les télédiffuseurs. Puis je dirais qu'il n'y a pas nécessairement un réflexe naturel de la part des télédiffuseurs de discuter avec nous, de développer un volet interactif. C'est des fois des départements qui se parlent plus ou moins entre eux à l'interne, chez ces télédiffuseurs‑là.

1342 Alors même si nous, on aimerait faire un volet interactif, ça trouve difficilement, des fois, son chemin à l'interne, chez les télédiffuseurs. Donc, ultimement, il n'y a pas ou très peu... Moi, je dirais qu'il y a peut‑être 20 pour‑cent des fois où on réussit à faire un produit nouveau média, qui découle d'une émission de télévision, peut‑être moins; pas plus.

1343 Donc, ce n'est pas automatique, c'est difficile. Puis une des difficultés qu'on a beaucoup, au niveau du financement, je vous dirais, c'est qu'il y a très peu de fonds; il y a trois fonds, peut‑être, actuellement, au Canada, dont deux fonds privés. Et le fait que nous produisions... notamment pour TFO et donc des diffuseurs à l'extérieur du Québec, il y a des règles un peu non‑écrites qui nous considèrent comme un peu de seconde classe, parce qu'on n'a pas le gros télédiffuseur attaché à notre production.

1344 Si je peux être plus clair, là... C'est parce que si on n'a pas, mettons, Radio‑Canada ou TVA qui sont associées à un projet, quand on dépose une demande de produit interactif à certains des fonds du Québec, parce qu'on est associé, par exemple, à TFO, on a beaucoup de difficulté à même franchir, et à se faire approuver le financement.

1345 CONSEILLER MORIN: Est‑ce à dire que si vous étiez associé à un diffuseur québécois vous auriez plus de chances?

1346 M. CHATEL: Oui, on aurait beaucoup plus de chances. Puis on se l'est fait dire, même. C'est des règles un peu non‑écrites, donc...

1347 Mais si vous allez voir dans l'historique de certains fonds, s'ils ont déjà financé par exemple, une production qui venait de TFO, je peux vous dire qu'il y a certainement un des fonds qu'il n'y a jamais eu d'argent qui est sorti de là...

1348 Donc, c'est la réalité à laquelle on fait face et c'est la raison pour laquelle c'est très difficile de financer ces volets interactifs.

1349 CONSEILLER MORIN: Donc, ce n'est pas une question de fonds, dans le fond.

1350 Si vous aviez un accès à plus de fonds, ce n'est pas inscrit que vous auriez cet accès au marché québécois.

1351 MME CLOUTIER: Mais à ce sujet‑là, par contre, s'il y avait des règles, si les politiques étaient claires sur... par exemple, qu'il y ait...

1352 Parce qu'en ce moment, étant donné que les nouveaux médias ne sont pas réglementés, si on est... par exemple dans les licences, les radiodiffuseurs, si on leur disait : Bien, au niveau nouveau média, il faudrait que dans votre contenu nouveau média il y ait du contenu en français et à l'intérieur de ça, qu'il y ait un pourcentage de contenu francophone hors Québec.

1353 Ah! Bien, là, il y aurait un incitatif, déjà, qui serait réglementaire, qui ferait que bon, bien là, ils accorderaient certainement un peu plus... Ils approuveraient davantage, peut‑être, de projets qui viennent de nos communautés.

1354 M. CHATEL: Effectivement, je pense que si, au départ, il y avait... Si par exemple, on prenait... chaque télédiffuseur devait dépenser * X + montant d'argent dans l'année en production de contenu original pour les nouveaux médias, de là, on pourrait dire : Bien, tel pourcentage devrait être en français et tel pourcentage, en plus, devrait être en contenu original émanent des régions ou à l'extérieur du Québec.

1355 Bien là, on s'assurerait d'avoir un dialogue ouvert. On aurait au moins la licence de départ qu'il nous faut d'un télédiffuseur, et ensuite, on pourrait obtenir du financement, peut‑être, via justement, de nouvelles initiatives, de nouveaux fonds qui existeraient. Et là, on pourrait vraiment boucler le budget d'une production nouveau média.

1356 CONSEILLER MORIN: Merci beaucoup.

1357 C'est tout, Monsieur le Président.

1358 LE PRÉSIDENT: Louise?

1359 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Les producteurs qui sont membres de votre association se retrouvent sur les nouveaux médias surtout par l'intermédiaire de TFO, des radiodiffuseurs privés ou est‑ce que vous avez votre propre vitrine sur les nouveaux médias pour présenter vos productions?

1360 M. CHATEL: Non. C'est exclusivement via les sites Internet des télédiffuseurs avec qui on travaille. Et c'est principalement TFO... je sais qu'il y a un producteur qui fait affaires avec TVA avec une émission Via TVA, viaTVAenligne, qui est une belle vitrine pour la francophonie, quand même, canadienne. Et à ce que je sache, il n'y a aucune initiative avec Radio‑Canada en cours.

1361 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et votre association n'a pas de vitrine pour les produits qui sont produits chez vous?

1362 Est‑ce que vous considérez que les diffuseurs publics comme TFO puis SRC ont un rôle particulier à jouer pour mettre, entre autres, du contenu des minorités francophones sur leur site Internet et dans les nouveaux médias, donc?

1363 M. CHATEL: Absolument. Au même titre qu'ils ont des obligations au niveau du contenu à la télévision. Je pense que c'est essentiel qu'elle vienne renflouer et alimenter le contenu, justement, émanent des régions sur Internet.

1364 D'ailleurs, la section du site Radio‑Canada.ca qui touche aux régions est une section qui est apparemment très populaire et très consultée par...

1365 Et on ne parle que de nouvelles, là, qui sont accessibles et que les gens des régions à travers le Canada consultent beaucoup, en premier lorsqu'ils arrivent sur le site de Radio‑Canada.ca. Donc, c'est un endroit où on pourrait très bien imaginer des contenus faits spécialement pour les nouveaux médias, mais du contenu audiovisuel, qui porterait sur la réalité des régions à travers le pays et qu'on pourrait accéder via un site comme Radio‑Canada.ca.

1366 Encore faut‑il qu'il y ait des licences, qu'ils investissent dans ce genre de contenu‑là, ce qui n'est pas vraiment le cas actuellement. Puis TFO, au même titre... Mais TFO fait quand même beaucoup, déjà, sur Internet et ils ont beaucoup de contenu pour les jeunes. Et donc, les jeunes Franco‑Ontariens, donc, à ce niveau‑là, je pense qu'ils remplissent très bien leur mandat.

1367 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Juste pour ma gouverne, est‑ce que ça se négocie au cas par cas ou l'association, chez vous, est directement impliquée dans les négociations, pour vous retrouver sur les nouveaux médias, que ce soit Radio‑Canada ou TFO?

1368 MME CLOUTIER: Chaque producteur a la responsabilité de négocier, en ce moment. L'APFC n'a pas ce mandat‑là comme organisation. Donc, c'est du cas pas cas.

1369 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Est‑ce que l'ensemble des producteurs, à ce moment‑là est‑ce que vous êtes au courant s'ils obtiennent des revenus supplémentaires, par le fait qu'ils sont aussi vus sur les nouveaux médias ou il n'y a pas de valeur ajoutée dans leurs ententes?

1370 M. CHATEL: Pour être moi‑même un producteur, puis ayant vécu l'expérience à quelques reprises, je peux vous dire que... Bien, c'est quelque chose qui ne se partage pas beaucoup entre les producteurs, nécessairement. Ce qu'ils ont obtenu comme licence télé et puis comme licence, finalement... ultimement pour les nouveaux médias, mais on l'entend... c'est très rare qu'on puisse obtenir que...

1371 Comme je vous dis, TFO, exceptionnellement, met des fois 30 000 $ pour un volet interactif qui coûte en tout, peut‑être 300 000 $, 400 000 $ à produire. Donc, à peu près 10 pour cent, je dirais, qu'ils peuvent investir dans une licence, ce qui est quand même très bien.

1372 Radio‑Canada, jusqu'à dernières nouvelles, mettait très peu d'argent, aussi peu, des fois, que 5 000 $ pour faire une production jeunesse. Peut‑être qu'ils ont révisé à la hausse, mais en tout cas, il n'y a pas eu d'expérience concluante avec des producteurs hors Québec.

1373 Donc, les diffuseurs n'ont pas un réflexe de vraiment bonifier... ce qu'ils nous font... Même TV5, par exemple, ce qu'ils vont faire souvent, c'est qu'ils vont nous dire : Bien, écoute, pour 300 $ de plus, est‑ce qu'on peut avoir quand même les droits Internet?

1374 Bon. Mais quand vient le temps de... tu sais, de négocier...

1375 Puis là, il faut absolument que la production aille de l'avant, au niveau télévisuel. On ne s'obstine pas trop longtemps parce qu'il faut faire rouler l'entreprise, donc on va dire...

1376 On n'a pas grand pouvoir de négociation, actuellement, par rapport à ça. C'est du cas par cas, et puis il y a peut‑être des producteurs qui sont plus chanceux que d'autres. Mais de ce que j'entends, c'est que ce n'est vraiment pas un réflexe de venir bonifier de façon significative les licences télé.

1377 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et ma dernière question, Monsieur le Président, à la page 3 du document d'aujourd'hui, votre deuxième paragraphe, vous dites à la fin de ce paragraphe‑là que vous souhaitez, bien sûr, que le CRTC, avec les radiodiffuseurs, les fournisseurs et les services Internet et sans fil, on trouve une meilleure façon d'assurer une meilleure place au contenu provenant de vos communautés.

1378 Comment on pourrait faire ça? Est‑ce que vous avez réfléchi? Vous pouvez aller plus loin là‑dessus pour nous dire comment ça pourrait se faire? Parce que dans la vraie vie, ce n'est pas évident. Premièrement, votre type de contenu n'est même pas identifié comme tel, alors comment on pourrait faire pour lui donner plus de place?

1379 MME CLOUTIER: Tout à l'heure, je revérifiais, par exemple. Puis, je ne sais pas jusqu'où, si le CRTC décide de lever son ordonnance d'exemption puis de réglementer... Je pensais à un site... je suis allée voir le site de iTunes Canada, qui n'offre que des émissions en anglais, actuellement. Il n'y a même pas un (encore tout à l'heure), il n'y a pas une émission en français qui est offerte là.

1380 Et si un jour on venait qu'à réglementer, bien, on verrait certainement qu'il y a un pourcentage d'émissions... parmi les émissions francophones, de s'assurer qu'il y a un minimum d'émissions qui viennent des minorités linguistiques.

1381 Quand on parle des sites des radiodiffuseurs qui... Si on pense au public, là, l'internaute, où est‑ce qu'il va? Il y a une liste, on peut facilement retrouver 10, 15 sites qui sont les plus populaires. On sait que Radio‑Canada.ca est un site très populaire, canoe.ca...

1382 Tous ces sites‑là sont souvent les portails, les voies d'entrée, quand on va sur Internet et qu'on navigue. S'ils offrent du contenu et qu'ils sont des sites vraiment qui attirent un grand nombre d'internautes, on verrait bien qu'il y a un pourcentage de ce qui se voit...

1383 Alors, qu'on s'assure qu'il y ait des productions qui viennent des minorités linguistiques qui soient disponibles, qui soient là. Éventuellement, c'est un idéal vers lequel je pense qu'on doit tendre et que le CRTC doit garder dans sa mire. Je pense que c'est le message qu'on veut apporter aujourd'hui. C'est que s'il y a une réglementation, s'il y a des balises qui sont données, qu'on s'assure que les minorités linguistiques y soient. Il y a des mesures positives qui doivent être prises en vertu de la Loi sur les langues officielles et qu'il ne faut pas les oublier.

1384 Je pense que c'est vraiment le message qu'on veut que les conseillers retiennent aujourd'hui.

1385 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Merci beaucoup.

1386 C'est tout, Monsieur le Président.

1387 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci.

1388 Michel, tu une dernière question?

1389 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Merci, Monsieur le Président

1390 Si j'ai bien compris d'audiences antérieures, vos membres ne sont pas membres ni de l'APFTQ, ni du CFPTA. Donc, vous êtes une association de producteurs au même titre que les deux autres. Est‑ce que vous avez des négociations avec les diffuseurs, au niveau de ce qu'on appelle les * terms of trade +?

1391 Je reprends un peu la discussion que j'ai eue tantôt avec madame Samson. Et vous et vos membres transigez avec quand même les principaux diffuseurs de langue française publics et privés.

1392 M. CHATEL: En fait, on avait fait la demande au CRTC, puis on nous a répondu que justement, les négociations étaient en cours puis ça serait plutôt les deux principales organisations qui assureraient ce genre de négociations avec les télédiffuseurs.

1393 Donc, malheureusement, on n'a pas une place à cette table dans les discussions en cours.

1394 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Avez‑vous cherché à en avoir une?

1395 M. CHATEL: Bien, oui. C'est certain que... Bien, comme je vous dis, on a fait une demande.

1396 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Bien, au CRTC. Ce n'est pas le CRTC qui négocie. Le CRTC a invité les parties à discuter entre elles. Et on a entendu madame Samson, disant que du côté des radiodiffuseurs francophones, c'était limité qu'à Radio‑Canada. Mais c'est des discussions entre l'APFTQ et Radio‑Canada, comme c'est des diffusions entre le CFPTA et CTV, Global et qui que ce soit d'autre de langue anglaise.

1397 Donc, vous n'êtes pas... Ce que vous me dites, c'est que vous êtes à la remorque des ententes qui pourraient se faire ailleurs, que finalement, vous vous retrouveriez à être obligé de... On vous imposerait des conditions qui ont été acceptées par d'autres?

1398 M. CHATEL: Essentiellement, oui. Puis en même temps, on a des discussions... on va avoir des discussions avec l'APFTQ à ce sujet‑là.

1399 Puis on a aussi confiance dans le processus qu'ils mènent, parce qu'évidemment, ils ont les moyens aussi, puis l'équipe légale et tout, pour mener ce genre de discussion‑là. Mais on en parle aussi dans des rencontres avec... quand on rencontre Radio‑Canada, il est question, à l'occasion, de ces choses‑là.

1400 Et puis, on espère qu'ils nous entendent, mais c'est sûr qu'on n'a pas le même pouvoir de négociation que l'APFTQ.

1401 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Je comprends. Vous n'avez pas les mêmes types de levier?

1402 M. CHATEL: Non.

1403 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Maintenant, j'ai eu aussi, avec l'APFTQ, un échange concernant la traçabilité, le marquage des oeuvres audiovisuelles. On sait que le CFPTA a mis en place un programme qui est le programme ISAN. Est‑ce que chez les producteurs indépendants, membres de l'Alliance, est‑ce qu'il y en a qui inscrivent leurs oeuvres, à votre connaissance, du moins, qui font du marquage...?

1404 MME CLOUTIER: Sauf erreur, non. On n'a pas encore... Je vous dirais que c'est ça. On ne sait pas... On n'est pas dans des mécanismes, encore, pour vraiment suivre les nouveaux médias et nos productions avec du marquage, comme les autres le font, mais je vous dirais quand même que je vais m'informer, pour être certaine qu'il n'y en a pas qui le font. Mais à 99 pour‑cent, je suis certaine que non.

1405 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Écoutez, si jamais vous appreniez que certains d'entre vous le faisaient, ça serait peut‑être bon de nous le confirmer, parce qu'on a compris, quand même, qu'à l'APFTQ, il n'y en avait pas non plus qui le faisaient. Alors, on a hâte d'entendre le CFPTA qui lui, est le parrain de ça, voir si au moins, ses membres...

1406 Parce que... En tout cas, à sa face, ça nous apparaît comme peut‑être le moyen le plus sécure et le plus efficace pour aller mesurer, éventuellement, la performance et la présence d'oeuvres canadiennes sur les multi plates‑formes.

1407 C'est tout, Monsieur le Président. Merci.

1408 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.K. Merci.

1409 Merci pour votre présentation.

1410 Je crois que c'est tout pour aujourd'hui. On va recommencer demain matin à 9 h 00. Merci.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajounée à 1537 pour reprendre le

mercredi 18 février 2009 à 0900 / Whereupon the

hearing adjourned at 1537 to resume on Wednesday,

February 18, 2009 at 0900

REPORTERS / STÉNOGRAPHES

____________________ ____________________

Johanne Morin Monique Mahoney

____________________ ____________________

Fiona Potvin Madeleine Matte